User talk:BilCat/archive11

December 2008

777

I've nominated the Boeing 777 for FA. They want me to notify the main contributors so I'm letting you know. I didn't know this was required. Ok to submit FAC with you? Chergles (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I mainly do copy editing on that article anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Canadian aeroengine companies

Hi Bill, Good question! Those two are the most important. There are a few producers of experimental engines like the Firewall Forward who build the CAM100 and Crossflow Aero Corp who build the Crossflow CF4-20 and CF6-33 series engines. - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Past Airlines

Hi Bill! Regarding the past airlines section on Norman Manley International Airport, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Should_former_airlines_and_destinations_be_included_in_airport_articles.3F. Per consensus, we should not list them in articles unless they are complete and sourced. As this fails both criterias, it should not be listed. If you have anything against this, please bring it up at WP:AIRPORTS. Cheers! Cashier freak (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Have a great week! Cashier freak (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:NWA.Rep

He doesn't bother me as long as he doesn't try to screw up articles or cause contention. I don't care what he says to me, although I fly Northwest all the time, and it's sad to think that an NWA Representative would have such an inherently negative attitude. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe that's partly why he won't be an NWA rep for long! Hopefully Delta has a better screening process. Unless he's a union rep, in which case he'll get promoted by his union for proper union-thug behavior! Perhaps Don Fehr now has someone to fear? :) - BillCJ (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe he'll fly away, as he keeps promising to do. If he doesn't, he's liable to get permanently grounded. In any case, one of these mornings, NWA will be no more, and it will be a Delta dawn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither of us can bypass an obvious punning situation. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In my case, even if it doesn't make much sense! But I thought you'd appreciate the attempt anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lead us into attemptation..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the NWA.Rep name has absolutely nothing to do with Northwest Airlines. I think it has to do with the hip hop musical group, NWA. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.W.A. Chergles (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

HAL Tejas

Bill, I dont know who to go to but as I have noticed in the past couple of weeks that you are quite involved with the HAL Tejsa article. I have some suggestions - the article requires removing a good chunk of the material. There is so much unnecissary info that it would put off some potential readers. No other fighter article has so much excess info. I'm not saying its your fault, the least I know you have hardly done any edits. The thing is the article is becoming too long and I would like your help to shorten and make it bold and to the point.

With the SU-30MKI article I would like to change the name to HAL Sukhoi SU-30MKI as both sukhoi and HAL developed it and the MKI is more similar to SU-35 rather than the normal SU-30. I also gave the same advice but it seems nobody has relied for a very long time so I decided to come to you. Enthusiast10 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Generally the best thing to do in both cases is to post on the article's talk page. I have brought up the issue of the Tejas article being far too long before, but most of the other editors seemed to disagree at that time. As to the Su-30MKI, I don't really know how much involvement HAL has had in the development, but "Sukhoi/HAL Su-30MKI" is probably the better title, given that it's based on a Sukhoi design. As you probably know, any articles about India, Pakistan, and even China are subject to great feelings of national pride and controversy. This is especially true in the Tejas and JF-17 pages, and any changes are seemingly treated as assualts against the nation's character and pride! Go ahead and bring it up on the talk page, and I will support you. . - BillCJ (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Russia and former Soviet nations to some extent as well it seems. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

757-222

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 and other terrorism articles are sometimes very controversial. I changed the info box on this article from 757-200 to 757-222 as this is more specific. I don't anticipate controversy but if you would give your opinion as to 757-222 being a valid change, please let me know (possible below/here). Chergles (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've generally changed those the other way to prevent confusion. Someone might think that -222 is different from a -200. The 22 is just a Boeing customer code for UA. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so I changed it to prevent confusion. It's now "Boeing 757-222 (757-200)" Chergles (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

German engines

Hi Bill, I have done some more in the BMW/Daimler-Benz articles, I notice that DB aircraft engines does not have a category. It is possible that an RLM engine designation navbox would be useful, similar to Template:RLM aircraft designations. I have the codes but it is basically 1 and 8, BMW, 2, Junkers, 3, Bramo, 4, Argus, 5, Hirth, 6, Daimler-Benz and 7, Bucker and Klockner-Humboldt-Deutz. Looking through the categories and my references I don't think that there are many missing. Have not looked at pre-WWII closely yet. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that a 'moving off-element' is a torque converter, 'interesting' article! I've just done another navbox, Template:Argus aeroengines which has some coverage. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It was just a guess but I think I was close, off to bed, 'engined' out! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

British aeroengines renaming

Now there's a thankless task! Thanks for taking it on and making things just that little bit more rational and organised. 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good job. Expanding AS and DH to their full names was a good move as well. There is a minor problem in the Napier template, the Deltic is a train and ship engine, possibly why the template was originally called just Napier engines and not aeroengines. I saw that a while ago. The options could be to remove it from the template or maybe a 'see also' line at the bottom. Not sure what I'm going to work on tonight, maybe more German engines. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Slightly OT, back to the 'Moving-off' element, I think that section could be a copyvio of this [1], the wording is very similar, would have to look closer. I was curious what EDA was, in the German version of the same press release there is 'ElektroDynamischen Anfahrelement' (EDA) which to me literally translates as 'Electro dynamic beginning to travel (moving off) element. Sounds technical to me but still some kind of electric torque converter! I can sleep better now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

EDA is a clutch and a replacement for a fluid flywheel (think old Daimlers) but arguably not a torque converter as there's only limited torque multiplication. It's particular mcguffin is that it integrates the whole bunch of engine-coupled electrical systems into one, so it can replace both clutch, starter, alternator and braking retarder all in one package - thus lighter and potentially cheaper. It's also capable (like current BMWs) of doing short-cycle stop-start of the engine at traffic lights. AFAIK it isn't a hybrid (in the Prius pattern) though, as it doesn't have the power to do that for the weight class of vehicle it's aimed at, nor are those vehicles doing quite as much stop-start as the taxi market. They'd make nice urban delivery vans though, but only up to 3 or 5 tons. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. The templates were named before we really settled on a pattern of how we wanted to name the engine templates, and I've been wanting to rename them for awhile. But now with so many others being created, it needed doing. On the Napier template, it's probably best to remove the Deltic if it's the only non-aeroengine on the page. Btw, the article is pretty confusing, but train and sub engines are not my forte at all. I'll see if I can find someone who could tackle the job, and if not, I'll post a message at WPSHIPS or at the Trains project. I also remove the whole EDA section on the MAN AG page, as it is uncited, and really too specific for an article on such a large company. Cheers! - BillCJ (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support including the Deltics (see the Template talk:Napier aeroengines) as they're arguably Napier's best-known engines. I'd also like to expand the article (and I have access to quite a few good sources for Napier), but I'm rather short on time at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Down on the Deltic

I'm fair specialist in USN subs of WW2, but mostly ignorant of Brits. I can send word to TSW, but you might go direct to Bluegoblin7, since he's (more/less) the honcho there, as I understand it (or at least the guy who recruited me at PSW...). I messaged him about it, with an XT link to here, where some train use is discussed, if it's any help. What I'll also do is goto Deltic & post the same link FYI anybody better qualified & more inclined to it. Live long & prosper, Orson. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, BilCat. You have new messages at Bluegoblin7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Engine project page

Ready to roll! Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic RL, thanks very much. I thought you had forgotten but you are obviously very busy with something at the moment. Rest assured it will be a very useful addition and will relieve the main talk page of engine 'chatter'. Better get typing something now! Thanks again. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cessna Skymaster

Thanks for your intervention on this deletion problem, I appreciate your keeping an eye on this stuff. The article could certainly use some work, but not like that! I left him a note, too. - Ahunt (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. If we don't watch each other's backs, we'll go crazy fighting the crazies! . -BillCJ (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

SH-60J/K

Bill, do you think this new section for the SH-60J/K in SH-60 Seahawk is alright? No too much coverage? I think the SH-60K is supposed to be a lengthened version. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same question myself. I think it's fine now whwere it is, but it should probably not grow much more. - BillCJ (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ju 52

Bill, I've just revisited the Ju52 page and removed what I thought was my own typo on the USAAF designation C-79. When I looked at history I realised you'd been tidying up. Actually I'm not convinced that it is a variant, but I know little about it so put it back if you think it should be there. What do you think about the CASA variants? I've raised this in Discussion.TSRL (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree the C-79 is not a "variant" as such, but that is the section where we normally list designations assigned by other users, esp. the US military, which seemingly has a designation for everything! I removed the C-79, along with a few other items, from the Operators list, as there is a separate article for detailed operator info. In a smaller article, it would have been perfectly fine there. As to the Spanish versions, I don't know anything about them. Sorry. - BillCJ (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that: your note against C-79 makes things very clear. I didn't know that was the practice; there might be a few more designations from elsewhere to add, at the risk of joining the compulsive list makers!TSRL (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

C-23 Sherpa Bombardier reference

Hey there. I noticed you undid my edit mentionning Bombardier on the C-23 Sherpa page. I'm not contesting that, because you seem to have much more experience in the aviation field as well as on Wikipedia, but I added the Bombardier reference per Short 360, which mentions Bombardier in the intro. Go ahead and remove it there too if you deem it not relevant. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Replaced the company info with some info on the 360. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"The"

Hi Bill. I noticed your recent grammar fix to USS Nimitz; or is it "the" USS Nimitz :-)... I don't disagree with you, but it's standard practice in the US Navy to omit the "the" before ship's names, as well as the "USS" from subsequent uses. Here's an excerpt from the Navy style guide:

"ship names - For first reference always include USS, the ship's name and the hull number: USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). Exceptions: Do not use "USS" for ships before 1909; or if she is not yet in commission; or she has been decommissioned and you are referring to the ship in her present state. There is no hyphen in the hull number. In All Hands text, the ship name is in italics. On second reference, use only the ship's name. Do not use "the" in front of a ship's name: "USS San Jose," not "the USS San Jose."" (emphasis mine).

Full guide is here: http://www.navy.mil/tools/view_styleguide_all.asp Anyway, I've been pretty active in striking the "the" in my edits for Navy squadrons. Cheers and Merry Christmas. E2a2j (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Melbourne Airport A-class

Hello, I was wondering if you could take a quick look at this review. Even the smallest suggestion/comment is much appreciated. Thank You -Marcusmax(speak) 18:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

SR-71

There used to be info on the heliochronometer used for navigation, but I don't see it anymore. Is there a reason it is no longer mentioned?

I don't even know what that is! The only thing I can tell you is to check the history page. Look at a page from each month until you find one with the section you want, then try to find the diff where it was removed. Hopefully the editor left a reason for why they remove it in there edit sumary, If they did not, we can assume it was vandalism, and restore it, as long as it has a reliable source. I can do that for you if you aren't sure how, but it might not be tonight, as I have some offline responsibilites to take care of. - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much. It would be nice if you could put it back in. I am not sure how to restore stuff.

V-1650

Hi Bill, I am done for the moment in the V-1650, it's still quite 'rough round the edges' but the bones are there. The specs will be wrong. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the Gazelle thing

Sorry if I scared you away regarding my alleging you harassing me, but I really don't see anything wrong with the reference I have provided (which you may access via transclusion) which leaves me to believe this is a personal preference regarding formating. However, this undermines my ability to properly reference and build articles here at Wikipedia. Hence the warning. I trust we will figure a way to work this out! Please read the template/transclusion for more information. --CyclePat (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. There are several existing ways to cite sources, including some templates for specific sources. But to my knowledge, no one is allowed to link to userspace from the main article space for any reason. I've let a fair-minded admin know about this, but I think he's already logged off for the night. I'll try to get an answer about it tomorrow from him or another admin. Btw, we have articles on the Scout and Wasp already, so I don't think Scout/Wasp will be allowed to remain. (Even the article on the Continental crash in Denver is [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Airlines Flight 1404|up for deletion, so don't take that personally.) Wikisouce hosts Public domain info, so it would probably be the best place to reproduce the cards, but I have no experiance using Wikisource at all. There is nothing wrong with putting such info on your userspace in the meantime so you can edit and perfect it until it finds a permanent home. Hope that helps explain my reasonings. - BillCJ (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill, took a look at this as requested, and responded on the Project talk page. BTW...did you see the vids on Flightglobal.com ? Much fun! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

USAF portal

Hey, ERcheck and I noticed that the USAF portal hasn't been maintained in a while. Since you are so prolific in aviation-related editing, I was wondering if you (or any other editors you may know) are interest in taking on the regular monthly updates? See Portal talk:United States Air Force#2009 Portal maintenance and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force#USAF portal. bahamut0013♠♣ 18:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Stanisław Skarżyński

Hi Bill...care to weigh in on the discussion here? Hope you and yours have a great Christmas! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

P-61

I've been doing some work on the P-61 article, and I've come to the conclusion that the F-15 Reporter should really have it's own page. Do you concure? - Ken keisel (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea! In all seriousness, may I ask your reasons for this conclusion? Is it just the differences between the F-15 and the standard P-61s? Or do you feel there is enough info to warrant a separate page now, either existing or what you are planning to add? Also, RF-61C Reporter might be a better name to avoid confusion with the other F-15, the Eagle! They served in Korea under the RF-61C designation, so most material related to their service in that war will be under RF-61C anyway. Just some thoughts. PS, I've got the Bell 47J Ranger page online now. Most of the test is on the UH-13J, but everything else is just about done. Could you have a look and see what you can do? Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The 47J Ranger page is off to a great start!! I'll be looking at it more closely after the Holidays, and see if I can come up with any additions. I'm pretty sure I have the s/n for the second UH-47J on display in Dayton. With regards to the F-15 Reporter, the aircraft is both significantly different in design from the P-61, as well as having an important military history of its own that has nothing in common with the P-61's military career. I've got enough reference material to do a pretty good sized article on the plane, then it will just need a photograph or two. According to Gary Pape the plane was called the F-15 Reporter during its entire service life (1947-1948), and wasn't called the RF-61C until after it was retired from service. In articles, I've always seen it first and foremost referred to as the F-15 Reporter, so that is the title I would want to use. I'll be very surprised if anyone confuses it with the F-15 Eagle once they see some photos and start reading the article, and that title might accidentally expose a few Eagle fans to the first Air Force F-15, a plane they might otherwise never have heard of. I love it when folks stumble on something, and learn about a subject they might have never seen before. I will need you to unlink the title "F-15 Reporter" away from the P-61 article so that I can get started. Thanks. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ken, where do you get that the F-15 Reporter was retired in 1948? According the P-61 article, the last ones serving until May 1950 under the designation RF-61C. Granted that info is not cited, one major reason I am such a stickler for proper citations! I had misread that the F-15 served in the Korean War, so I have no problem with it going in under the F-15 instead of RF-61C. As to unlinking the F-15 Reporter, all you have to do is open the edit screen, and replace the redirect tag with the new text; anyone can do it. However, I LOVE splitting pages, so I'd be happy to start it for you, putting in all the necessary bells and whistles. Regards. - BillCJ (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gary Pape's books on the P-61 are the best sources for F-15 Reporter information. He has the aircraft using the designation F-15A-1 and F-15A-5 during their entire service life. Most of the magazine articles I have on the plane make no reference to the name RF-61C at all, though they do mention that it was an evolution of the XP-61E. The aircraft served no role in the Korean War aside from the aerial photographs it took of the Korean Peninsula in 1947-48, which were vital during the summer and fall of 1950. It was in 1947-48 that the planes were based in Itzake, Japan, and doing a lot of flying. I tried to find the redirect tag in the edit screen, but I must be looking in the wrong place. Could I trouble you to remove the redirect tag from the title "F-15 Reporter" and I'll get started on the article? After it's done we can add a redirect tag for the title "RF-61C", so anyone looking under that name will fine the F-15 Reporter article. Thanks a bunch. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think it turned out pretty well. I knew I had a lot of information on this bird, but I didn't think it would end up as large as it did. All in all, I'm rather satisfied. The move also shortend the P-61 article, which was getting a bit long. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PT6T

Apology I have just edited your in use Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6T I presumed you were still in bed but I just noticed you have started editing again!!. MilborneOne (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries! I'm still up because of tummy trouble, but I've been working on the main PT6 page. I should be headed to bed in a few, but I won't work on the PT6T until after I get up (assuming I sleep!) Thanks for being thoughtful anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, when you're finished, go ahead and change the tag to {{uc}}. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

UH-1N Twin Huey

Bill: I see you removed a whole bunch of photos from this article with the edit summary :"Moved galleries to Commons, which is what Commons is for - this was getting a bit too long, esp the captions". The problem is that in checking Commons I see you moved the gallery formatting there, but not the pictures. Most of those photos aren't available on Commons as they are posted on en.wikipedia right now, so that page is a mess of broken links. Were you planning to finish the job and move the actual pictures to Commons? - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that, I hadn't checked to see that they displayed properly. I'll undo the gallery deletion, and then see what photos, if any, can be moved to commons. However, the Gallery that is on the UH-1N page does need to be trimmed, especially the captions. I'll try to work on that too. Again, sorry for the mess! - BillCJ (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I agree that either gallery needs trimming or a separate CH-135 article needs to be split off and those photos used to illustrate it. Those are all my pictures - do you want me to move them all to Commons? - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

When you have the time, moving themn to Commons would be good. The last image in the original gallery was moved to Commons by a bot, and it's in the Survivors section of the article too, so I've removed it. As to a separate article, that might be good, assuming we have enough material to fill out the text. The CH-135 is one of the rare cases of a CF aircraft being ordered by the US forces. Although it was a US aircraft, it did have a Canadian engine. I'm putting together some info for the new [[]] page on the silliness of the US Congress wanting the T400 to be assembled in the US because they didn't want to use a "Canadian" engine. So PW-US assembled them in West Virginia (apparantly from Canadian-built parts!), hence the oddly-designated T400-WV-402. If you have any material on this, I'd be happy to use it. - BillCJ (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's probably a tag you can add so a bot will move them to Commons for you, Adam. I looked on Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons, but CommonsHelper looks like the closest to that I can find so far. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

RB162

Hi Bill, I've been watching what has been going on and I agree entirely, it might be easier to roll back to the last 'clean' version by me. One reference was changed to 'Flight 1971' to support a thrust increase change, I found the Trident 3 article from the Flight archive but there is no mention of thrust increase percentages. The original dates and figures are from a book that I have (hence the page numbers in the original ref!). I put the Trident on my watchlist and the same is happening there. Obviously a Trident fan and a newbie too, a tactful note on his talk page perhaps. Cheers 11:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I rolled it back to hopefully a balanced article, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

ENJJPT

Bill, the jets at ENJJPT are indeed owned by various member countries but the flights are not restricted to nationality (the Germans don't just fly on the German planes), but operations/maintenance costs are generally shared based on participation rates. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you Bill for your clear and concise comment on the carrier talk page about the "invention" issue WRT angled flight decks. I have been in danger of losing my cool with Jacob - you should have seen my last post before I edited and then posted it! Anyway, I appreciate your input. Nick Thorne ^talk 11:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. BUt now I have to deal with this rant! Sheesh! - BillCJ (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with sorting that out, I had a quick look but I could not understand what he was on about. I might have another when I've got the time to sit down and think about it. Nick Thorne ^talk 20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason oil tankers are mentioned in the lead of Supercarrier? It says larger warship and a tanker is not that. Maybe it's better to leave than have folks add it back all the time. Ah nevermind. No biggie... -Fnlayson (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you do not mind

Hi BillCJ. Happy new year. I hope you do not mind that I borrowed the tool templates from your user page. I have not seen so many potentially useful tools laid out so concisely in one location so I could not resist. I generally have found it difficult to find tools (as I am relatively new, and predominantly try to focus on adding verifiable content and supporting citations above all else). If this is an issue for you please let me know and I will revert. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I borrowed them all from others anyway! I do need to consolidate and update the two Toolbox templates, and possiblely add in the inline templates too. There are some templates missing that I use on occasion that I need to add too. I don't know when I'll get around to doing htat though! - BillCJ (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am much obliged. If you need my help to review something at some time, or anything else, please let me know. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Italian Army

• I explained my reasons to revert the summary deletions of User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso on his talkpage: see here
• I will explain it to you too: to delete the entire OrBat of an Army which is the most essential part about an article about any active army and declaring an active component registry by corpses (2) as its equivalent is a) wrong b) annoying for those who work on military topics and c) in my eye vandalism, as it destroys a good article
• every single article about currently active military forces contains the units OrBat - thanks to the work of the entire Military History Taskforce
• your messages are on my talkpage are threatening and insulting: next time before "welcoming" someone to wikipedia like you did maybe you want to have a look at his userpage! because maybe he is one of the most active members of the Military History Taskforce and has done a ton of work over the last years
• User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso behaviour is in my eyes vandalism a) cruising for the first time into a military article he deletes half the article because to him it seems "long compared to the rest of the article" (yes indeed because we have begun to move all the history to their own articles and expand it there) b) saying "it's already in a separate article" which is wrong - an OrBat and a Active component registry by corpses are something totally different - which we at milhis know, but User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso doesn't and he has not bothered to compare the two (if he would have done it he would have seen that the two are fundamentally different in their structure and the information they give) and c) to mask his massive deletion as a "sharply shortened section" - all together is for me an act of vandalism by being careless and uniformed
• also your threat: "Further actions by you such as this will be taken up with an admin" maybe before you throw around threats you might assume some good faith yourself! --noclador (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be roeporting you to an admin later today. Have fun! - BillCJ (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Noclador#Your email. I'm not sure that the difference between a list of regiments ordered administratively eg Royal Artillery#Regular Army, and a chain-of-command based 'Order of Battle,' (eg Structure of the United States Armed Forces) is fully clear. Does that comparison make it clear why Noclador was claiming you were removing value from the encyclopaedia? In any case, both listings are of value. Buckshot06(prof) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the removal was not vandalism in the first place, and I was trying to encourage him to discuss rather than continue to revert. I thank you and Roger for your attempts to mediate,and I hope a solution can be found. - BillCJ (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

First landing on a moving carrier

Hi Bill, you removed a reference to this event from the carrier page. In fact the entry was correct, what happened in 1912 was the first launch of an aircraft from a moving ship. The first landing on a moving ship was indeed in 1917. I didn't want to just go and revert your edit without discussing it first, so here I am! Nick Thorne ^talk 06:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Go ahead abd fix it. - BillCJ (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ARH Round 2

Boeing unveiled the AH-6S "Phoenix", an AH-6 variant with a 15-inch plug and MD530/MD600 style nose for avionics. The 15-inch plug is to provide room in the back to allow self-recovery of a downed ARH crew. Their other option they refer to as "Apache Light". I might have to retire for that one. I'm not sure if I can look myself in the mirror if I catch myself flying the Apache Light.[2] --Born2flie (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Eurocopter and AgustaWestland are to offer helos too.[3] I had thought with the EC 145/UH-72 being a good bit heavier than OH-58D, would too heavy. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I've heard the H-72 mentioned as a posibility for the ARH before. Born practically salivated all over the screen at the thought of two engines and a modern cockpit and systems when I mentioned this to him a couple of years ago! ;) Eurocopter has done very well with the UH-72 so far, with over 50 delivered now. They must feel pretty good about their chances to be offering the H-72, especialy if the Army decides to go with twin-engined saftey and room for weight growth/hot-high performance. It will definetely be an interesting competion, especially with the new administration. The Dem-controlled Congress has been pretty strong in buy-American, so we will have to see what side of that fence the new prez will stake out. Whatever side he does take, I'm sure it will involve a move "from fear to hope", and possibly a new set of vapid platitudes! - BillCJ (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Garrett AiResearch history

I've located a copy of the Garrett AiResearch first 50 years history. I purchased it and it should be in the mail by now. From quotations I've seen from it from time to time I expect it to be quite informative.--Mack2 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I received the book. Added a bit of detail to TFE731 article. The book also discusses the TPE731 but I don't know yet if there's enough to start an article on it. If you have some info, then I may be able to embellish when I have some time.--Mack2 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've checked my printed sources, and looked a bit online, but I can't find any info for the TPE731 on Honeywell's site. Some of the online sites list it, but the applications seem the same as the TFE731. Odd. Also, I can start a page of Cliff Garret with the info in the Garrett AIResearch page, if you are ready to fill that out. What title would be best? - BillCJ (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's hold off a bit on Cliff Garrett bio page; there's a fair bit in this book but I don't have time to put things together yet, and there are only a couple of other odd sources that I've ever seen (and they relied in part on this book). At some point I will be able to write a couple of paras at least. The book risks being a bit hagiographic just because it's a "company history" but it does go into the major transitions from start to early 1980s. On the TPE731, I'll try to ask my dad when I see him next month -- going out to west coast for his 94th birthday in early February. Of course I can call him. But what I want to do if there's time is to sit with him and read the Garrett AiResearch article and ask him some questions about it. I did learn a bit about foil bearings from him since it was his team that basically invented them in late 1950's and then developed and tested them before they were first installed in the APU's of the DC 10.--Mack2 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Treasure Beach

Places may have generally have de facto notability, but "the corner of 36th Street and Market Street" doesn't, unless it posses some unique quality of notability. Same with this beach: there's nothing particularly notable about it, and its use of certain references seems to be veiled advertising. Unless the village its in has notability of its own, then the best we can hope for is a mention of the village within the municipality in which it lies, with a mention of the beach. I am going out of town for a few days, but I intend to pursue this further: either establish some measure of notability, or work to merge it into something more notable. If you message me before the end of the work say, I'm likely to be able to respond; otherwise, Friday is the best time I can think of to reply back. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Verification needed; sources preferable!

Hi Bill, thanks for thinking of me on this issue! I have found a ref and edited the text (severely). See what you think - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is interesting that it was the same IP address. That edit from May 2008 was clear vandalism, but then again maybe it wasn't the same person, it could be a dynamic IP! Regardless, glad I could help out on the Carson issue! - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Can you please comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Randy_Oler_Memorial_Operation_Toy_Drop -Signaleer (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good candidate for someone to take to Deletion Review. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan. I was thinking the same thing, but hadn't been able to look it up as yet. Seems to be the consensus to delete was very thin. - BillCJ (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

H-13 Sioux

I had an edit conflict with you, so I'll hold up until you're done putting the information back in from the Bell 47 article. --Born2flie (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm done for now! - BillCJ (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Checking in

Hi Bill, seems we have all been busy! Just checking in to say hello. I've been a bit short of creative powers for new articles lately, have produced some navboxes. Engine company categories is my next goal, mimimal edit warring there! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stefanomencarelli

Hi Bill,

Sorry, your note to me got buried, I meant to get back to you on this, but forgot. Anyway, I couldn't find anything specifically about a review by Arbcom after the 1 year ban. I've reviewed his contribs since coming back, and they seem innocuous so far, but I'll definitely keep an eye on things. I consider someone coming off such a long ban to be on a very short leash, so let me know if you see anything untoward. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles Kaman

Actually, there was a deleted stub article underneath the redirect (deleted as "cruft, cruft, cruft"), which I've resurrected :) --Rlandmann (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Old infobox

It wouldn't be a big deal to turn it back on, but I'm a bit reluctant to do so since it would make it possible to start forking content (unintentionally or otherwise). If its non-functionality is causing you serious hassles though, let me know. If we turn it back on, we'll need to arrange to patrol its "what links here". --Rlandmann (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The "deprecated" message is a great idea! I'll put something in place and turn the box back on. :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cessna 172

Hi Bill: Essentially what was settled was the variants can be either in ";" format to avoid a long TOC or in "==" format to give one, depending on the length of the entries. If they are short then the former is probably best and if longer then the latter. There was never really any discussion of grouping them in any way, although I suppose that could be done if a sensible way could be found to do it in the particular case.

Normally what I do when I find a long article with an offensive edit needing fixing is just copy a section of the edit (Ctrl+C) from the "diff" at the top of the page and then open the whole page for editing, search for the text I saved (Ctrl+F, Ctrl+V, return) and it is immediately under my cursor. I guess I have become used to that! - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCommons

While I understand that, the Commons page is missing at least half of the total images in the category. It would be appreciated, since you reverted my edit, to add every single image onto the Commons page (is there a quick way to do it?). Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of an easy way to do that. Nevertheless, the Category link os on the main page, and that usually suffices. While I don't think there is a policy or guideline either way, the main page is generally preferred. - BillCJ (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what article this is about but there's a commons template that links both page and category. Here's an example:

-Fnlayson (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the F-22, or maybe F-35. I didn't know we had a template for both links on Commons. I'd be fine with it, assuming the wonks haven't written a guideline against its use already! - BillCJ (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that dual template is fairly new. The extra link does not make the Commons box any bigger, so it should be fine. -Fnlayson (talk)

Reverted photo question

Per your comment when your reverted my photo swap of File:AH-64D Apache Longbow 2006-7-6.JPG. You asked "good faith, but why remove the only pic of the A in US Army for a so-so pic of a D?". Here's my reasoning (was at the time):

• The A-model photo is in a section that is exclusively talking about D-models.
• The A-model photo is on an empty tarmac while the D-model photo was an in-flight combat photo
• The A-model photo was oriented away from the text, the D-model photo was oriented towards the text

I've moved the A-model photo up in the section, where the prose addresses the use of the A-model, and I've re-inserted the D-model photo back where it was. That bumps out File:AH-64 Apache 060224.jpg, which is a large and sharper photo, but is a head-on view and does not show the more commonly seen perspective of the aircraft in flight. I have other photos of the Longbow in flight that are higher resolution, but I will not post for OPSEC reasons. Perhaps File:AH-64 Apache 060224.jpg could go back into the article under the "D-Model" section, as there are no US D-Model photos, but rather two foreign (Isreal and Singapore) models. I hope you agree to this reasoning and find my adjustments reasonable and logical. I hope to work on cleaning up the article in general in the coming weeks.

Also, I have a question. What would you think of using this file as an A-model photo? File:AH-64A at Fort Rucker Sep 1999.jpg. I know that the pilot (myself) figures prominently, but it is a great photo of an AH-64A, and those just don't grow on trees any more.

Thanks.  Ahodges7   ^talk 04:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Sandoxes ?

Hey Bill are working on your sandboxes? If so I could help with the AAH and A-4M ones. I don't know enough myself to set-up/arrange the latter though.

I have not done much with my sandboxes lately. I probably caused some of yours to be red links. I renamed a couple that I moved from your space and got the redirect pages deleted. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if want some help with them.. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I DB-user-ed most of the older sandboxes that have articles. THe AAH definitly is a good one for you to work on, as you've been improving the AAFCS and AAH aircraft articles. I'm not certain what to do with the A-4M page; it was origianlly going to be about the two-seat TA-4F/Js, but I changed it. I'm still not certain either is necessary. About the only other one I want to get done soon is the Ayres LM200 Loadmaster, as it was a unique aircraft program. There is an article on the German wiki, and I used some of that to start this one. I hope to get to it soon. I've found that I make new articles much more quickly if I just create them in the main space, as some of the sandboxes have been there nearly 2 years now! Again, whatever you feel like helping with isz your choice, and I'll try to do the rest as I can. Thanks as always. - BillCJ (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I'll do a little more on the YAH-64, AH-64 articles and your AAH one. You're right about new articles. I find sandboxes are good for rewriting/expanding parts of established articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: United States Armed Forces

It goes against the MOS but I've moved it anyway. Sorry about that.  GARDEN  20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! Thanks for the understanding.  GARDEN  20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Jmcc150 and glider, gliding

What's really happening here is that Jmcc150 is trying to define glider and gliding to be only a sports term that relates to sailplanes; and he's systematically going around to remove any other usages, and making wild accusations about anyone that tries to use reliable sources that aren't FAI (a sports organisation) or narrow usages that match that. IMHO that just doesn't fly in the wikipedia; it's a general reference work. I don't mind it being about that as well, but it just isn't the whole cigar. We need the whole cigar. What he is doing is nothing but harmful to the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The dispute is whether the technical meanings should override Wikipedia:Naming conventions of using the common name. The test is what people expect to see when the type in these words. To Wolfkeeper gliding is an article that should also include flying squirrels, and glider includes airliners with engine failure. He also believes that gliding includes hang gliding and paragliding, despite the classification used by the world governing body for air sports, the FAI. He is constructing a duplicate article called Gliding (flight) which I suspect ultimately he will try to use to replace Gliding.JMcC (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, thanks. If you don't mind, let's not continue the discussion here. Perhaps it's time seek some mediation, but I'm not it! Thanks. -BillCJ (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship {{cn}} tag

I will look into siting that when I get the chance. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Also, can you take a look at cite reference #9? it seems malformed, but I do not know how to fix it. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You did catch that a previous editor had removed the sustained speed claim completetly?I added the {{fact}} tag after I restored the deletion. As to ref #(, it looks like it has too many links in the ref itself, particularly the PDF link. There might be a field for PDFs that works with the Citebook template, or perhaps one of the other cite templates will work better. I'll check into it later if I can. - BillCJ (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Done some checking, it looks like this is going to end up as a range cite with a note at the end, because different sources are claiming different speeds. The official total seems to vary between 32 and 33 knots, the mathematical formula gives the speed at 34.9 knots, and the user requesting the cite has information stating 31 knots. I'm heading for the library tomorrow in hopes of finding some kind of info on what the USN considered the official speed to be, but if I fail I think that the section will need a reword to account for this discrepancy. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

J79

Do you need a hand Bill, I have an hour spare? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I got in over my head! Do you have any info on the J73? - BillCJ (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I might have, need to look for you. I think you have 'cut' rather than 'copied' which has left the J79 a bit empty! I will work on the J79 for a bit. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All fixed (I think!), links to new CJ805 article where needed, Gallery is missing? ;-) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I know what I did: I trimmed the J79 article by mistake, thinking I was in the CJ805 edit window! On the gallery in the J79, I think we could loose the F-4 pic. If we can spread out the other image in the article, we could get rid of the gallery. - BillCJ (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, sorry I stepped on you in the CJ805, carry on! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nearly bedtime in snowy England, some J73 stuff from Flight [4], I wonder what we would do without it?! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Still up! I think the gallery images should be sent back to Commons, the images that were in the original variants section had been carefully placed next to the variant. For some fun with images have a look at Rolls-Royce Limited. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On the J79 gallery pics, I was really just trying to see if I could work them all in, but I think it's a bit "busy" with all the pics. I have no problem going back to the previous layout. Thanks for the info on the J73; I've got the basics of the article done, and I think I've the others too! Btw, from everything I can find, Wright modified the Sapphire considerably for the J65. As such, I'm planning a variant article on the Wright J65. It ought to be at least as long as the J73, and hopefully longer. (Btw, be sure to read/review Gunston on Wright and its British licenses - it's a riot!) Also, Continental appears to have developed the J69 extensively, and had several variants, so I'll look into that one too. - BillCJ (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Be sure to add the Wright J65 to the new articles list. I was just reading about exploding starter motors! They used to do that on the RR Avon as well. I reverted back to the 1986 Gunston book in the Sapphire because the inline cite page numbers probably won't line up, guess I need to ask for the 2006 version for my birthday. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

File:CFMI Logo.jpg

I've restored the image, but also reset the "no rationale" timer, so it will need a rationale within 7 days or it will be deleted again! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Supercarrier

I noticed you reversed a lot of my changes to Supercarrier, could you clarify??

Why is the table unwelcome? Doesn't it make the information clearer?

USS Nimitz is not 100,000 tons unless you mean short tons, in which case HMS Ark Royal was more than 43,000 tons.

Many supercarriers are easily under 75,000 tons, like the Kitty Hawk class, unless you mean short ton again...

I suppose the CdG pic is a better comparison, no problem there, just didn't really want to get rid of the USS Harry S. Truman and three pics a bit too many...

The British ships are usually referred to as supercarriers in the press, although I'll agree there is some contention. Are you just saying that because they are only 65,000 tons? The CNO did say the British carriers will be in the same class as the Nimitz ships...

Mjb1981 (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tables are too complicated for such little information. I believe the he 75,000 figure is US tons at full load, but whether that is short tons, I don't know enough about it. The article was previoulsy written is US English, so we should stick to listing that first, and using US spelling (such as "labeled"). However, both metric and US customary units should be listed for all measurements. Do you know enough about conversions to do that? Once that is done, we can better figure out where the QEs fit. If we've been using a differnt measuring stick, that might explain some of the confusion. On the pics, I'm OK with the Truman replacing on of the pics, though we might be able to fit it in using the "upright" field in the image. I'll look into that later. I do apologize for being so quick to revert everything, and I'll try to be slower on that in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Short tons (2,000lb) are used in the US, but traditionally all US Navy ships have been quoted in long tons (2,240lb), the long ton is the customary measurement for ships worldwide (I think). Metric tonnes are some way between the two (2204.6226lb). I think the QEs are 65,000 long tons, which would be 73,000 short tons. I don't know what the full-load displacement is, but the general consensus in press reports is to call them supercarriers. The Royal Navy doesn't officially call them supercarriers, but as it isn't an official designation that is hardly surprising. I guess this will remain undetermined until the carriers have been completed, but don't think we should shy from the term as they are clearly bigger than most non-US carriers.

The formula for conversions is { { convert | n | long ton | short ton | abbr=on } } (without spaces of course), so if n was 65000, it would read: 65,000 long tons (73,000 short tons). But I think all warships still use long tons anyway so there shouldn't be any need for that. I have only really used such formulae for lengths (feet to metres etc). Using the above formula I see that USS Nimitz is 88,000 long tons (99,000 short tons), so it is easy to see where 100,000 tons comes from.

I'm fine with US spelling, didn't even realize I changed it so probably was a spell check as labeled flags up on my browser.

I would still prefer a table to show those different carrier classes, perhaps because I spent the time doing it. I think it shows the different tonnage of the classes quite well, although only if we make sure we use consistent units.

Mjb1981 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Application of Military Airlift Aircraft

Bill: LOL; it IS too long! ThanksASIMOV51 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Garrett TPF351

Hi Bill. By chance as I was talking to my dad about Garrett I ran across a Garrett engine that's not mentioned in the general listing of Garrett engines, nor in the general glossary of aircraft engines.

Since you are writing up this kind of thing, I'm just going to provide a link that I found and I hope you will write it up. This was developed after my dad retired. It's referred to in another document I have found (will post link) as a "free turbine" turboprop. My dad sayd this means the turbine is not connected to the compressor. They refer to it as a Garrett powerplant: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/911011--Mack2 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I started looking for this because I noticed that the Embraer/FMA CBA 123 Vector (an aborted project) used this engine. I imagine other Embraer and other mfg'ers also use the engine, but I haven't looked.--Mack2 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what more I can find out. Ther engine info on the page you linked to is dated 1991. This is well before the Honeywell era, whixh began in 1999. It does give the name "Garrett Engine Div., Allied-Signal Aerospace Co.", which is consistent with the info I have seen. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct about the timing. I was correcting that as you were adding your comment. Another mention here: www.forecastinternational.com/archive/dc/dc1874.doc

This document (in Portuguese) says the intended configuration was dual-engine configured in "pusher" mode: http://mundodasmarcas.blogspot.com/2006/07/embraer-tecnologia-de-ponta.html--Mack2 (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The .pdf attached to this also mentions the configuration on another aircraft: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1993/1993%20-%200899.html

Here's a copyrighted picture of the plane with the pusher configuration: http://gustavoadolfo.flogbrasil.terra.com.br/foto14999910.html

Also here: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/305481/L/a

And here at bottom: http://www.jrlucariny.com/Site2008/cba123/cba123.html--Mack2 (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

F-16 Pages

BillCJ, I don't want to read too much into the situation, but you are familiar with the recent back-and-forth on the F-16 pages. I was hoping you might be able to ask Fnlayson on my behalf:

What am I supposed to think, when my edit is reverted, only to be redone by Fnlayson? These actions seem very "territorial" to me. 70.251.243.16 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff (Fnlayson) is a very good editor. He and I work together on much of the same articles, and we even revert each other a fair amount. He's cleaned up many of my messes, such as botched edits, misspellings, or hasty reverts.Jeff is also a good person to have on one's side, and we both watch each other's back. With Jeff, I've found talking to him helps a lot; if one has a good point, he will usually concede. But he does have some good points himself, and I do my fair share of conceding! As to the "See also" link, I wouldn't worry about too much about it; personally, it's probably not necessary there, but it's not worth arguing about either. Part of keeping one's sanity on WP is learning what battles to fight, and what to let go. "Don't sweat the small stuff" is a pretty good motto, though I admit I have trouble following that one myself sometimes. That might not have been what you were looking for, but I hope it helps. - BillCJ (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. I didn't want to ask him about it because the end result has been what I wanted anyway. It is "small stuff", but the same situation happened for "big stuff", and the only real progress has occurred when a third-party (you) got involved.

I ask you to please not apply a double-standard because you know Jeff. Please consider: if it's "small stuff" for you and I, why did it merit a revert to Jeff? I went out of my way to explain my rationale. I'm sure you aren't saying that I need to do this all the time, just to avoid a revert on a whim? 70.251.243.16 (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I did say "personally", meaning it's small to me. But that doesn't mean it's small to the other person. And I was taking your request seriously. It's just that I've been quite busy today on other wiki and real life matters, but I'll check the page tomorrow and see how things stands. - BillCJ (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not agree that Lockheed Martin had to be an operator to be listed in the See also section of List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. Thought it was too strict of an interpretation of what the See also section is for. The next day after thinking about it and adding a link to the main F-16 article, I removed the LM link as not being needed. Readers would probably want to go to the aircraft article first, then maybe the manufacturer, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Embraer/FMA CBA 123 Vector

FYI I've found some more information about the Embraer/FMA CBA 123 Vector, only some of which I've added to the article. There's probably more technical information and spex that someone like you or another specialist could add to improve this article. For example, take a look at the special condition report issued by the FAA in its certification of the aircraft in 1991: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSC.nsf/0/2716665111BEC58886256FA90065DD8F?OpenDocument . (There'a also a linked .pdf at some point in that document as well.)--Mack2 (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There are more pictures, including one of the instrument panel here: http://www.x-plane.org/home/lemonade/cba123_br.html#start

Another hi-res pic here: http://www.aviationcorner.net/show_photo.asp?id=67799

"outline" drawing at bottom here: http://avia-museum.narod.ru/brazil/embraer_cba-123.html

A patent application (with two drawings) related to propellor controls on the TFP351: http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/5331559.html

Details on initial testing of the TPF351 are revealed here (scan down to "GARRETT ENGINE FOR EMBRAER CBA-123 BEGINS TESTS" in this source: http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/twr/twr31v4.htm

• Extraneous: My dad had a very nice pic of the Convair YB-60 on his wall. I think he worked on the power-generating turbines for the plane (actually was brought in late to Fort Worth to figure out what was going wrong with firing up the Garrett power units). Too bad the YB60 practically crashed during flight tests. Almost all of Convair's 40 thousand employees, and the Mayor of Forth Worth, showed up for the final test flight (this project would "save" Convair in Forth Worth) -- this plane (and Convair) was in competition with Boeing, which at the time was designing the B-52. Because the plane landed after ca. 30 minutes of flight with the wings separated from the fuselage (the separation was large enough to put a fist through, according to my source), the plane was grounded and the project abandoned.

The YB-60 was to be a tanker, but the plane was behind schedule, even if it did barely beat Boeing into the air. And there was a race to see whether Convair or Boeing would have first dibs on the new Pratt & Whitney J57 engines. In the end, it was the B-52.

The second prototype of the plane was used for target practice.--Mack2 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info, especially on the Garrett TPF351, which I had not heard of before now. I have started a page on my userspace at User:BillCJ/Sandbox/Garrett TPF351, to give myself some time to get this ready. I have some books coming by next week that should give mo some more info ta add, particularly with dates and history data. I found some excerpts on Google Books from The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines. The chapter on Garrett, and especially the part on the TPF352, seems very good, but not all the pages were visible through Google Books. The book is quite large, and relativley expensive, but since I'm now doing alot of work on aeroengine article, it is time to get it. - BillCJ (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is now at Garrett TPF351. Btw, have you run across any specific dates for the cancellation of the CBA 123? The article does not say, and the closest date I've been able to find is sometime around 1994. - BillCJ (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick development of this entry. I will look again to see about the cancelation date. I think 1993-1994 is about right, but will look further for something specific. May have to use my "proto-Portuguese" or "proto-Spanish" as this was a joint project with Argentina.--Mack2 (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I may help with spanish text, as that's my mother tongue. Not too much portuguese, however... Please let me know hoe can I be helpful with regards to this article/s. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

Hey Bill, that is a great addition to the aircraft content page - it will make my job easier! Thanks for the template link! - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I had assumed they were already there, but when I checked today, I saw they were not. That template was created some time ago, but I have not used it in a while, because it is posted on most of the pages I frequent that have cruft problems. - BillCJ (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Little things add up. Mentioning the no-cruft template there should help more users find it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully so. - BillCJ (talk)

Marquardt Aviation and Ramjets

Added later: Eureka, I found "The Marquardt Story" on a blog. I will at some point use it to update the Marquardt artice, but can you change the title of that article to the company/corporation name? I don't know how to change article names. Then I'd like to be able to write a short bio placeholder for Roy Marquardt, perhaps initially on that article, and later it might be turned into a separate one. The problem right now is that the blog that I found isn't considered "authoritative" by WP (right now there is only one source listed for the current article, and I doubt it covers what's written there), but I will use the blog constructively and try to validate with other sources based on more pointed inquiries.--Mack2 (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bill. When we first moved out to California from Florida in 1948, my dad worked for Marquardt Aviation (til he moved to Garrett in ca. 1950-1951), which had a major focus on ramjets (my dad, as you know, was an engineer; he got his degree from UConn in 1936). The current Marquardt article is sketchy and largely undocumented. Also, IMO it's also misnamed. This should be Marquardt Aviation Company or Marquardt Corporation; and there should also be a bio of Roy Marquardt. (BTW/ I haven't (yet) found any filial relationship between Roy Marquardt and the Marquardt who flew one of the B-29's that went on the Hiroshima bombing mission.)

I believe I saw a long book-length essay on a blog a few years ago and I'm going searching for it. I remember sending it to my dad but I don't have it bookmarked.

Marquardt was a pioneer in America in development of ramjets and scramjets. WP article on ramjets and scramjets don't mention him or Marquardt Aviation. I do not have the technical knowhow to write much on this subject but I can dig for sources. There is a major omission especially in the ramjet article in mentioning only non-US developers.--Mack2 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Timeline discovered. I'll start moving this elsewhere, so that I can modify the Marquardt article in due course; still a lot of research to do. But if you're interested in ramjet and scramjet engines, I'm going to defer 100% to you on anything like that. (Timeline from here.)

1944 - Roy E. Marquardt founds the company, specializing in ramjet engines.

1958 - The company embarks on a diversification plan.

1962 - Marquardt scientists claim a breakthrough in desalting seawater seawater

1964 - Magic Mountain remote rocket test facility dedicated.

1965 - The company buys General Applied Science Laboratories of Westbury, N.Y.

1968 - Marquardt is bought out by CCI CCI Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie (France) CCI CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) Citation Index CCI Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Western Australia) Corp. of Tulsa, Okla.

1972 - Apollo 17, the last manned flight to the moon, blasts off. More than 300 Marquardt R-4D control engines were used in the Apollo program.

1982 - Roy Marquardt dies at age 64.

1983 - The company is bought by International Signal & Control Group, founded by James Guerin.

1987 - ISC (1) (Internet Systems Consortium, Redwood City, CA www.isc.org) An organization founded by Paul Vixie, Carl Malamud and Rick Adams in 1994 and later sponsored by UUNET and other Internet companies. merges with Ferranti PLC.

1988 - Following community opposition, Marquardt cancels plans to burn toxic wastes at 3,000 degrees.

1989 - $1 billion contract fraud uncovered at ISC.

1990 - Marquardt fined $19,000 for six violations of state hazardous waste Hazardous waste

1991 - Ferranti sells the Rockeye cluster bomb business to Marquardt Manufacturing and air propulsion businesses to Kaiser Aerospace & Electronics; begins closing down other Marquardt operations.

1992 - Guerin pleads guilty to arms smuggling, illegal transport across state or national boundaries of goods or persons liable to customs or to prohibition.

1993 - New owners of the Rockeye business stop production.

1993 - Scenes for ``In the Line of Fire shot at plant.

In the meantime, I came across this listing on Amazon for an expensive book that has a chapter on ramjets and mentions Marquardt: http://www.amazon.com/Hypersonic-Airbreathing-Propulsion-Book-Education/dp/1563470357/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234272128&sr=1-1 --Mack2 (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good old Google books, including a pic of a Lockheed F-80 with Marquardt ramjets--page 8 here: http://books.google.com/books?id=d1sQvT2_kMsC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=marquardt+aviation&source=web&ots=f4xgjn0Uaz&sig=EGvLCfnpOUJ82n5qNR1LvspRhLA&hl=en&ei=dYeRSfGuE5y6MtP_3IgM&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA6,M1

Here's a listing of a Marquardt RJ-43 ramjet being used on a Lockheed GTD - 21B drone: http://www.museumofaviation.org/aircraft_collection/Missles/lockheed_gtd-21b.htm

BTW/ there's sort of funny/sad story. About 6 or 7 years ago, my dad was named a recipient of one of those Cliff Garrett awards. They sent him a copy of the citation and invited him to give a talk at the SAE meeting in Detroit. At that time he'd already been retired for 20+ years, had no access to source materials, and would have had to do a lot of research to prepare a fresh talk. The folks at Honeywell would have helped for sure. (He still talks to some of them on occasion.) But his comment to me was that he wasn't interested in putting in that much time right now, and then risking falling on his ass on the ice in Detroit. When he spoke to a person at the SAE they expressed surprise that he hadn't been given more advance notice (his receipt of the certificate -- a copy of which I have -- was the first he heard of it). So he declined, and they gave the award to someone else. I think that was kind of cheap (but they wanted a speaker). They should have treated that 87 year old a little bit better than that, or been more realistic about it.--Mack2 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Drones

Bill, I'm not sure whether you're interested in drone aircraft but here's a link to one built by Lockheed that used a Marquardt ramjet engine: http://www.museumofaviation.org/aircraft_collection/Missles/lockheed_gtd-21b.htm --Mack2 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see that's covered already reasonably well.

Re the Embraer CBA 123: Upon further inquiry, it still appears that the Embraer CBA 123 was kind of hanging fire still in 1993, and/but the Israeli govt had by that time asked about using the 123's fuselage design. I am guessing that although the second prototype was launched in 1991, essentially nothing happened -- no orders, or not enough orders to go into production, despite rather ambitious hopes when the project began in 1985 and even when it was built in prototype; and so after 1991 the plane may have lingered for a couple more years, and that when Embraer was privatized in 1994 that was the final nail in the coffin. Meanwhile, the 145 was being developed (much larger and jet only, but drawing on some of the advanced technology) and launched in 1995/6.--Mack2 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW/ I found some more spex for the 123 put them on the "Discussion" page for that article, so that you might mine them if you think they're useful. Those come from the second prototype plane. I list the source there as well.--Mack2 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the vandalism thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.49.161 (talk • contribs)

Air Force One

The flag is indeed removed from the tail. [5]

The paragraph is still speculative, and until further info is received from reliable sources on why this was actually done, it really has now place in the article. Personally, I would not be surprised if the man who refused to wear a US flag lapel pin for so long had ordered it removed from AF1. But then I'm not surprised he's been breaking campaign promises either. - BillCJ (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least someone believes me. I'm sure this will hit the news once the plane is returned to the 89th AW and Obama flies on it.

Sikorsky

You seemed to have a problem with changes I made to Sikorsky's site

I was just changing the name of the company to it's proper name Sikorsky global Helicopter so I'm going to change it again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.1.32 (talk)

Uh, my problem isn't thaat fact that you changed the name, but that you changed it without providing proof from reliable sources of the name change. I've searched the SIkorsky website, and Googled the web, and the name shows up nowhere. As such, I concluded that your change was a hoax or otherwise in bad-faith, and thus you received a vandalism warning. If the name you changed it to is truly Sikorsky's full name, then you will have no problem submitting reliable sources to Talk:Sikorsky Aircraft, and waiting until others have checkd your sources first, and then they will make the changes. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hainan Island incident

Hi Bill. You may remember having a brief discussion on the talk page about improving this article last December. I've been doing some work on it and, as always, I would value your feedback. Hope you're well, --John (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you get the chance, could you fix up the formatting of the refs? I'm embarrassed to admit I don't know how. --John (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the changes, and they look good so far. What specific ref formatting are you referring to? I'm not sure what you have in mind. - BillCJ (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed a lot of that with the references. Dates should be listed where they apply. It's also good to list the authors. There are some reference format examples at WP:WikiProject_Aircraft/page content#References (Bzuk added the lower MLA ones, which I mostly use). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is looking good btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all your detailed and diligent work on the Continental Engines series of articles - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks much! - BillCJ (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem - much deserved! - Ahunt (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Carrier

Hi Bill, I've rewritten the Spanish section of future aircraft carrier in the aircraft carrier page. I see that you had been deleting it after insertion by an IP editor, but given that the article has entries for the Indian ship being re-built by the Russians and other ships under construction, I think it only fair to keep the Spanish section. I re-wrote the section however, as it was poorly written and factually incorrect. Of course, once Juan Carlos I is commissioned, then the section should be removed. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the changes you've just made. Fair enough. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Nick, that's fine. I did my own rewrite and stomped your edits! I'll try to reconcile them. Btw, do you have a source on the commisioning date? I've seen both 2009 and 2011, but neither has been cited. The reason I removed the SN section was because, if it's to be commisioned this year, I am trying to work it into a new section on in-service carriers that is currently hidden. We can leave it in teh future section if the date is 2011, however. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look around and see what I can find. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Have not found any reliabel source on the commissioning date as yet. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see we are still having trouble with our friendly IP editor and his insistence on inserting a Spanish language reference into the English Wikipedia. I would have thought that a non-English reference fails the verification test. What do you think? Also, how do you think we should proceed - can I help here?- Nick Thorne ^talk 01:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Up to know, I've not seen a specific link for the information. Non-English sources are allowed, but they have to be spcific enough to be verified. Otherwise we don't even know if the info is from a blog or forum, which of course aren't allowable in any language. As to how to handle it, we probably need to find a Spanish speaker who can try to establish direct dialogue with the IP user, someone who can try to explain our policies in hopes of getting a direct source, or else getting them to stop. After that, admin intervention would probably be necessary.

One of the more frustrating aspects of editing on English WP is probably a by-product of it being the largest wiki in the most widely-used language. I do not understand why people who are barely or not even literate in English insist on contributing info (almost always uncited) in poorly-written English, and then repeatedly insit on undoing any effort to improve, correct, or even remove the content. Even more oddly, interwikis often exist in their languages, yet when I check the respective article, no such info is present. It's an odd phenomenon, especially the insistance on retaing their poor submissions, while usually refusing to even attempt talk about it. I have done some editing on the French, German, Spanish, and Italian WPs, but I self-restrict my activities to minor format corrections, or adding images or interwiki links. I have never once tried to use Goolgle Translator to add material to one of these articles, even though I could probably do a better job in those languages then these people do in English. For the record, I regularly communicate with Spanish and Poruguese speakers in an unrelated website, and often use Google to translate. But I would not subject any WP to such translations. - BillCJ (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jor70 might be a good person to contact the IP, if he is active today/tonight. - BillCJ (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I understand your frustration; but that's one of the prices to pay for having a "wiki" (which after all is a collaborative effort) in a very widely-used language (the most? unsure of that fact). Moreover, allowing "anonymous" editing could be a contributing factor to the issues you've mentioned. Let's accept that this collaborative approach is quite recent and probably society (in general) needs to adapt to it. In the meanwhile, if I can help with spanish-language material pls let me know. Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

EDO Floats

Bill, I have some photos of a Beaver on EDO 4930 floats, will that do? thumb|right|Beaver floats FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC). Here's the rest of the photo: right|thumb|DHC-2 Beaver C-GPHI on floats, Enterlake Air Service Ltd. along with DHC-3 Otter C-GGSL, Selkirk Air, Selkirk MB, 2004 FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

Pratt & Whitney pages

FYI, the variant listings on engine pages are supposed to be ordered first by power output from least to greatest, followed by alphanumerical order, not the other way around... please keep these pages consistant with each other... thank you... Magus732 (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say that? It was never done that way before you started working on engine articles. Anyway, I am going to take up the issue at the Aeoroengine task force talk page, and we can see what the other editors of engine articles think. That will establish a consensus, which I will follw whatever way it goes. - BillCJ (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not to start an arguement here, but all the Wright engines pages are that way... and the Rolls-Royce Merlin... but, I agree; whichever format is decided upon, I'll stick to that... Magus732 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've stopped editing the engine pages until we get this nagging issue sorted out... again, sorry if I made your contributions more diffecult... Magus732 (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think we can work out a compromise for the time being, and not change the exiting variants format in engine articles until a concensus is reached. That way we can still do any needed work that we see is needed on pages as we come across them. Alos, I did not realize that the list by power format was already in some of these articles before you began to edit them, ans I had not run across any prior to your additions. I'll try to find out who used that format before you, and make sure their voice is also heard in the discussions. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Wikiwings

		Wikiwings
		For diligent work in creating the Enstrom 480 article out of a redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's was actually an easy split to do, as most of the info was already on the Enstrom F-28 page. I still have to do the 480's specs, and add a couple of references, both from print sources I have. - BillCJ (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem - you have been doing really good work here, you deserve some credit for it! - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pratt & Whitney disambiguation

Bill,

Sorry to post to your personal page, but I just wanted just your thoughts on this. When a Wikipedia search is done on "pratt & whitney" the P&W UTC page is the only one that shows up. Should there be a disambiguation page? It could list Pratt & Whitney UTC, Pratt & Whitney Canada and Pratt & Whitney Measurement Systems. Stellydn (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I can put a DAB header (hatnote) at the top of the page pointing to PWMS. I should have thought of that when I put the new page together, and that should be sufficient, as PWC is linked prominently on the P&W page. We could still make a DAB page at Pratt & Whitney (disambiguation) if necessary. Btw, any thoughts on the new PWMS page itself? Another user with a background in the topic helped out with a lot of the text and sourcing, and I just want to make sure everything is accurate from your point of view. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks great and is accurate from my point of view. I will watch for the DAB header. Thanks! Also, the PWMS website link is on the bottom of the PWUTC page.Stellydn (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Air Force One

Hi Bill, no problem in the reversion of the infobox. I made the change in the anticipation that it probably wasn't exactly what needed to be done. The original "look" of the article was what seemed to be wrong. I realize that it is essentially a type rather than individual aircraft. Any suggestions as to how to identify Air Force One in an infobox? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

I'm curious why the Air Force unit to which the Air Force one belongs was removed. How is 89th Airlift Wing misplaced or changed meaning?--124.184.92.15 (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yankee Stadium

I noticed you posted on the old YS's Talk page that you would like the Yankee Stadium title to point to the article on the new park. I certainly agree with you 100%. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Bill, thanks for your note. I concur! In the meantime "incomprehensible" is still "incomprehensible". - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A new formatting style

Although I can't take credit for devising this format, namely inserting: TOClimit|limit=2, it does make sense for two reasons. There are already numerous articles that have a massive contents note and compressing the format makes the contents list more manageable. The second and the "real" reason I am promoting this format variation is that it helps to bury the subs-sets of notes and bibliography under the Wiki term: "references". I have been involved in so many edit wars over the usage of a bibliography record that I have often simply given up because the other party simply quotes the manual of style that identifies "references" and "notes" but not "bibliography" sections. Sorry I didn't have time to explain myself more fully before. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

It's an option, yes, but I don't see it's need in most articles. In fact, it's harmful in long articles, as I use the TOC to find the sections I need, and to find heading errors and mistakes. If there was a toggle to expand to the full TOC list, then I could live with that, but as far as I know, there's not. Until then, it should probably be limited to articles with over-wide TOCs. As to edit wars over bibliographies, I just had quite a run-in on the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2)‎ article in the last few days over the "Further reading" section. An editor with less than 5% of the main-space edits as I have was trying to enforce a non-existant poilicy in order to remove a book from the list. After butting heads with this piece of arrgoance masquerading as an editor, a minor dispute with "mild-mannered librarian" is "refreshing"!  :)

One more thing: I don't quite understand your objection to using cite templates. They are very useful for any one who doesn't have the MLA/ALA/whatever cite styles memorized, and for new editors, as they encourage them to cite and give the full required information. (Seeing your ciote changed jsut after you addit can't be vbery encouraging to a new user.) The templates can be created to give any format/order you want to use, and a simple change to the template can adjust hundreds of cites at one time. Perhaps Rlandmann or another editor can create a cite template that presents the info the way your prefer for the WPAVIATION/WPAIR projects. - BillCJ (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The TOC limit template seems somewhat like adding thumb sizes on images. Useful in a few cases. I don't generally use the TOC myself (just hide them), but I'm sure some editors and readers use it. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to leave templates alone if the user has not made any errors. My "rule" is if there are two mistakes in formatting, spelling, omissions or other errors, than I correct them, usually discarding the "buggy" template. Unfortunately, I have a veeeery long tussle with the powers that be that created the original templates and they have point-blankly refused to change or alter the templates to accommodate multiple authors, use of anything other than the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide and numerous other problems inherent in the templates, which are entirely optional and were only intended to provide a convenience. When they accomplish nothing of the kind, then they tend to be rife with errors and provide poorly formatted information. Sorry for the rant... FWiW, I too find the TOC somewhat cumbersome and tend to go to the article more often, but the condensing of a long contents list should make the article easier to read. Bzuk (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

I believe BillCJ was suggesting a new cite template that for MLA style. Maybe the powers did or would not like that too.. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

They (the ubiquitous "they") did not. I was dispatched with a "haruumph!" FWiW, (LOL) just my usual irreverent and irrelevant commentary... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC).

I've asked at the TOCLimit template page about adding a toggle to expand to the full the TOC, but the only response so far has been from an editor who doens't know how to make the changes. SO we will see. In the mean time, BillZ, would you mind bring this issue up to the project for a consensus? In spite of several rants by a certain user accusing me of doing what I want, I will follow the consensus. One thing: THere is at least one page, A-10 Thunderbolt II, with the TOC Limit set to "2" that only shows one level of headings. I've scanned through the edit screen, but haven't found the error. I changed the limit to "3", and it now shows 2 levels of heading. If you could check for that type of thing when you add the TOC-Limits, it would be nice, as it appears you're going to keep adding them anyway. ;)

As to the citation templates, I'm sure the project could try to sponsor an MLA template. The busy-bodies might object, but there are ways around those losers :) - BillCJ (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See further discussion: [6] FWiW, I do agree with you on all your points (surprise, surprise..., quoting Gomer). Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

Adding the LCA under Similar Aircraft of the JF-17 article

Hi Bill, I noticed you made the above edit. If you check the JF-17 talk page, there was some discussion regarding whether it should be placed there recently on the talk page. johnxxx9 kept making ridiculous arguments that it does not belong there because "LCA manufacturer says it is 4.5 gen", even though a reliable source was provided - clearly a case of LCA fanboyism/nationalism. I threatened to take action against him but he was not phased by it, so I just let it be. Personally I think its a waste of time to oppose him because LCA is nothing more than an over-hyped bunch of prototypes. What are your thoughts? Will you stick to your guns? Hj108 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To my notion that third-rate fighters produced by third-rate nations are comparable? Yup! :) That, or I'll ask an admin to step in - again - and just remove the section - again. - BillCJ (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope that in the future they will impress you enough to change your mind and label them as second rate! lol Hj108 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If India can develop a modern fighter in less than 20 years - and have it work without needing a new production engine - that would impress me! ;) A few weeks ago, I saw some reports regarding Russia again raising the price of converting Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. The respsonse was, if the Russian carrier won't even be ready till 2014-15, then India could buy a carrier from the UK or France for tha money, and have it delivered by 2015. My thought was, The Gorshkov was offered for sale in 1994, India decided to try to purchase it in 1998, they signed the agreement around 2004, and authorized the first payments in Dec. 2008. ANd they think they can have another build them a carrier built by 2015? It will take India that long to decide that is what it wants! Granted the main problem here is the government, I realize that. It's just funny to watch! - BillCJ (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox problem

Hi BillCJ - I've been putting in a lot of after-hours work these last 2 weeks or so, so I've been neglecting Wikipedia a little. I see the bug you mean, and will attend to it shortly. Of course, your solution was the correct one: these two articles probably shouldn't have the "Type" infobox in them anyway! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Grumman

I did add two sources to the article that both showed his commonly known name. (In fact, they are now the only sources in the article at all.) This is not something that I think even needs discussion; can you explain your objection other than "no consensus"? The talk page of the article is devoid of talk (I checked beforehand). Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw the sources later. I don't think "Roy" is as common a name for him as you think, as most aviation sources I have seen refer to him as "Leroy". Whether you agree with my reasonings or not, the move is contested now, so you need to follow the formal move process. - BillCJ (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall we move Bill Clinton to William Jefferson Clinton since "most" historians refer to him by his more formal name, even though he is commonly known as "Bill" (and properly anchored there in this encyclopedia)? I would also like to point out that "no consensus to move" is really not a "reasoning" - it is an objection without any basis given. You're technically correct in that there is "no consensus" but on the other hand, there's no objection either...and therefore no consensus not to move.  Frank  |  talk  17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No objection? Really? Odd. - BillCJ (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I get it...that's sarcasm, right? :-) Seriously, I started a discussion on the subject; your input is solicited. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  18:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2)

Hi Bill, good to see you active again! Thanks for the help with the issue about "bibliography" in the referred article; as my time for Wikipedying is quite limited I may make mistakes based on my limited knowledge of policies & guidelines (although I always have a copy handy...). Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Revert Help

"Are you diplomatic enough to leave a good note on the user's talk page about moves and DABbing? I know I'm not!"

I am not an idiot, and I respect people who are not so blind to the fact that other users are not perfect. If you had contacted me atleast telling me that you were going to revert my edits, and that an administrator was looking into it, I would not be so mad. I am fine with somebody finally helping me out with these articles. It seems I am more of a diplomat then you, and I know not all people; like yourself, think that being a diplomat is proper, but I would expect atleast a note from somebody like yourself who is always in the right. For future reference, take note that negotiating with the person involved before going to a higher authority is a skill learned in Kindergarten. --gordonrox24 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

One, I did post on the Bombardier page concerning the undiscussed move you made. That is generally accepted around here. Two, I was not able to revert the move because of the speeling errors, so an admin had to do it - that was why I asked Milb1 for help. While I was there, I asked that he say something to you about it, since he knows all the pertinent guidelines to quote!. Three, you aren't the only person working on the Bombardier, as I have made numerous edits there in the past 8 weeks. In fact, I made two posts on the talk page, but I didn't see any of yours there, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Mr. Bombardier's page is a different srtory, but there are no posts at all on that talk page. Four, I actually agree that Bombardier is not the best title, but it does need to be discussed first. Five, I'm not always in the right, and I usually admit it. Choosing not to go to you was a preference - Sorry you disagree, but it is my choice, and I stand by it. Six, I skipped Kindgergarten, and went straight into first grade. Sorry! Finally, your post above is not diplomatic in any way. That's what happens when you write when you're angry - now you know why I chose not to post on your page! - BillCJ (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bill, is "Bombarier" (above, red link) a misspelling of "Bombardier", or something different? Cheers, DPdH (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bad typist - I look at the keyboard, not the screen, so I often miss my typos. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Same as me! No worries, will ammend that for you. 8)) cheers, DPdH (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I snapped at you, but for future reference I would appreciate a little more communication. Joseph's page has multiple posts on the talk page, all by me recently. Nobody else is watching that page. Any assistance is appreciated and hopefully some headway can be made.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misremebered on Joseph's page, but I had not been watching that one before this, though I was watching the main page. - BillCJ (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

F119

Bill, I'm not sure what reference you are asking for. The F119 is the Air Force designation for the engine. It was later redesignated to F135 (late in 2001 I think) by the DoD to conform with the change in name of the JSF to F-37. The P&W company model number for the engine is PW5000. I guess page 203 in Air Warfare by Walter Boyne, J. (available in GoogleBooks) would be a reference. It would have been a redirect I guess. These are kind of well known facts, I thought. You can see here [7] if you like. Cheers --124.184.92.15 (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The model number is only one issue, though it's rare enough (I've never seen it in print, and it's not used on P&W's website at all) to only warrant a mention, not be in the infobox. The other issue is that you are mixing up two engines. The F119 powers the F-22, and the derivitive JSF119, now F135, is for the F-35. That's the other reason you were reverted, and actually the more important one. Andreas Parsch does not list the model number for the F135, so I don't know if it's in the PW5000 series or not. - BillCJ (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Humber Hornet

Hi Bill, I was planning on writing a full article on the Humber Hornet, but the title is currently linked to a stub article within another article. Do you know how to seperate it so that I can use the title for a full article? Thanks - Ken keisel (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Done! There are no special procedures to perform, but it can be a bit confusing. I've moved the Humber Hornet material from the missile page to Humber Hornet, and added an {{underconstruction}} tag. That let's others know it's still being worked on, but they (and you) can still work on it too. Feel free to keep as little or as mich of the text I pasted in - it's just there to get somting started - all you have to do it edit it! - BillCJ (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!! Hope you like the article. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's looking good so far, and we've already had other edits pitch in. I had never heard of it, so it's a learning experience for me. - BillCJ (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WBC

I disagree with you on whether it is necessary to have the information from the one year's article or not. It duplicates quite a bit of it, but they are related articles. Do you think Boston Red Sox and 2004 Boston Red Sox season doesn't have repeated information? I didn't just copy and paste the WHOLE thing, and without it, World Baseball Classic is in desperate need of updating.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Leroy Grumman

Are you following the edits to Leroy Grumman? I am alarmed at how it is once again turning into an article mainly about the company, and that the article contains many snippets largely lifted from the sources. They are attributed but it's still inappropriate in my view. Before I go too far in fixing that, and knowing that you're interested in the article to start with, can you provide your opinion? Thanks.  Frank  |  talk  15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Skunkworks

Hey,Is there anything you can do with this page so that the DAB page can be eliminated? It's unnecessary. Sorry I did cut-and-paste.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. It's on the page for requested moves right? Don't worry I'll fix it up.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflist) Sorry, I had just posted the warning on your page when I saw this. You need to make a move proposal, and provide some evidence that Skunkworks is the primary topic for the album. The DAB bage needs to remain somewhere, even if it's at another title. The info you added to the Skunk Works page used to be there, but was moved as it was a legitimate term on its own, and detracted from the main aritcle. Whatever the consensus is on the location of the articles, an admin (I'm not one) will have to make the moves. - BillCJ (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a complicated process, and I'll help out with the details if I can to make sure everything is done, even though I won't be supporting the move. Feel free to ask me for any help if you get stuck somewhere. - BillCJ (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for you guidance and assistance on the Bombardier pages!--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. THe consensus was clearly for moving the pages, and I'm glad to have helped out. - BillCJ (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mirage 2000

I recently spent a lot of time editing the specifications section of the Mirage 2000 so that maxamimum flight speed could be defined along with other information that was originally ommited. Yet my contributions have been defined as 'uncited'.

I should make it clear that the specifications section already contained the max mach number in the template code - it was not displayed on the main page due to errors on the template. Infact, all of the information that was subsequently displayed after my edit was derived from the template. Therefore, I believe that the information I applied was just as valid as anything else contained in that section. After all, the whole specification section is not cited either. Why didn't you delete that as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.114.236 (talk)

I'm not trying to be mean, but specs templates are quite complicated, and most of what you did was not an improvement. First, you removed the "Mirage 2000C" from the Heading, which specified which 2000 variant the specs were for. B, you removed the "switch" tag on the template coding, which put the US/English units before the Metric. It's probably better to just switch the units than use that coding, as the "swtich" template may be an older version of the specs - I'm not certain though. Anywho, you should not be making changes to the templates until you have a better understanding of it. Three, "uncited" was not the only reason I gave, but you are correct that there are no other sources for the template. But what you added did not appear to be the best, so that was why I just reverted it. I will try to find some sources for the specs on a single variant (C or another one), and try to update the template to the latest fields, as some of what you were trying to add by manual coding has fields. I am quick to revert, especialy when someone doesn't appear to know what they are doing. It's a harsh and confrontational style, but I find it gets people's attention more quickly than other methods. It's what works for me, and I can live with a little hostility it might produce, as my first concern is the product, not coddling people's feelings. Other than that, you'll find I'm quite fair and nice, and I'm generally willing to help anyone who asks for help, but I'm impatient with those who don't, and continue to make errors despite being reverted or otherwise asked not to. Thanks for contacting, and I hope you understand a little of where I'm coming from on this. Wikipedia is a collaboration,a nd though sometimes it may seem like a madhouse, we usually do end up with a bette article after all the wrangling. Slow down a little, ask for help, take the time to learn about the templates we use, and I think you'll find the editing experience rewarding before too long. - BillCJ (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For whatever its worth the {{Aircraft specifications/switch}} is up to date with the main specification template as of about a month ago. I copied the code over there and switched the main and alt fields. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff, it's been over a month since I looked at it, so I'm glad to know that it is up to date. - BillCJ (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I appologise if I initially came across harshly - I found it frustrating that my attempts to positively contribute towards an article were binned; especially after I spent a large amount of time on the said article. I'll admit that I ommited to put the C in the title and that it was an error on my part.

In my oppinion, instead of using the switch tag, the metric unit could have been placed into the main. It may have taken a bit of work on somebody elses part; However, I have full confidence that the result would have been better than simply reverting to an older version wich had flaws in the template anyway (the mach number was defined, however it wasn't displayed). In my oppinion, it is fundamental that the specs define the top speed.

You state that my contributions were not the best - I agree that the low alt speed could have been omitted, however the mach number was accurate and it can also be verified from other sources.

• Not BillCJ, but seems like time to move on and cite the correct specs. Bring up issues at Talk:Dassault Mirage 2000. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

XP-55 Ascender

Would you please give me a hand with the references on the the XP-55 Ascender article? For some reason I can't seem to get the inline references to work. Thanks. - Ken keisel (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

You know, that is annoying... stupid English-to-nonEnglish grammar/syntax conversion...

Charles de Gaulle (R 91)/MI6

Hi, I got into this after your request but I feel like I'm fighting a battle by myself lately. Take another look at the issue if you get a chance. Thanks. Mark83 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching it, but this guy is stuck on one thing, and I doubt he's going to change his opinion any time soon. I've allowed you do to the reverts as you're an admin, and I try to default to you guys in these situations, esp if I ask for your help. I'd suggest further action of some kind is necessary. Also, if I'm reading the sources right, this is only a claim by the French authorities, not sopmething the British government has admitted to, correct? It needs to be made clear in the text that this is merely an accusation by the French, not an accepted fact. - BillCJ (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)