User talk:Fnlayson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm Jeff and I spend my time on WP:Aviation, WP:Military history, some sports and a few sci-fi/music articles.

Notes: Discuss issues with an article on the article's talk page (most likely on my watchlist), not here in most cases. To keep conversations together, I will try to reply to posts where they start (here or on others' talk pages). Try to make your point without rambling for paragraphs. Personal attacks will be removed. Unfair and improper criticism will be ignored.

[edit] more 777

Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving. The 777 article was rejected for FA a while back. I have been fixing it over the past few weeks, also addressing the concerns. Would you have any objections to listing it for GA or FA? If not, I think FA is the way to go since the comments from before were FA comments. Chergles (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanksgiving was good. Hope yours was too. The 777 article did not have a chance at that FA review last year. I say go for Good Article first. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I put it for FA already. If ok with you, some changes have been made above. :) Chergles (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Alright. Most every paragraph has a reference. Let's try to get all them referenced. Most lists will probably need to get converted to paragraph text (not incident/accident entries though). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This FAC is getting hard than I thought. I don't think the changes really improve it but they are technicalities that have to be done. Chergles (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea. I'm staying off that FAC page until later when things are calmed down. I'll try to reference what I can at night when I can get to my books. Try explain why you're removing stuff better in your edit summaries. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep up the good work. You're been real busy addressing FAC concerns. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that the FAC process may have the unintended effect of shortening articles. One can avoid controversy by cutting out a sentence and then get the FAC passed. An example, might be a discussion about some minor part of the plane. Removing it doesn't make the article poorly written but it then passes the technical standards easier. (After passage, the part can be inserted without controversy and additional references would probably be found by then.) The really long articles have a harder time of FA passage, which is too bad. Chergles (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have not really noticed that, but don't doubt that could happen. Like playing some kind of shell game. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"The MD-11F is another comparable aircraft but with less range than the 777F." That's in the article. I wonder how much we should observe the no original research rule. Comparable? According to me? The range we can look up. But saying it's less than the 777; is it my own conclusion or just math? Luckily, most of us editing the article are nice to each other so we don't get into fights about things like that. However, if people start to complain, then I suppose it will be very difficult to find a magazine that says "the MD-11F is comparable" even though we all know that it is comparable in some ways and not in some ways. Just some random thoughts about original research. Chergles (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was probably the one that added that a couple years ago. The MD-11F and 777F have similar payload capabilities. There are plenty of comparisons to Airbus models also. Nobody has challenged those either. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope the 777 gets FA. So far, there's been several implied support votes but nobody has used that word in bold. There are some other articles that I want to work on but I want to get the 777 out of the way. The next few projects will not be FAC's. Too difficult to do one after another. Need some breathing space! Chergles (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is way better off now. Need to start getting some support votes. Hopefully overall this will go smoother than FAC Boeing 747 did a year ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked that FAC up. What going on (rather wtf)? That editor who submitted the FAC seems productive but he was banned for sockpuppetry? Yet none of the socks that I saw did anything except for blanking the page or similar, which was quickly fixed by that administrator who then blocked them. If there's punishment then a temporary loss of blocking and counseling might be in order but not banning. We need that kind of person to help us write/fix articles particularly since making an FA is hard (lots of fixing references and addressing minor things that people view as problems.) Either that or force the people who voted for a ban to help us fix the article. Those people, even if they lack aviation knowledge can fix references. Chergles (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New idea: form a reference fixing squad of volunteers! Chergles (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MD-90

I remember the hoopla about the MD-90T having a dual tandem landing gear. Upon researching it, I looked at photos of MD-90T and MD-90's. They have the same appearance. Upon researching it, I found a reference that says that they decided not to use the special landing gear for the two examples produced. On another topic, do you want to vote support for the 777 FAC?Chergles (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

On the MD-90, you might change the tandem wheel part to planned and say they decided to leave that off. Since I'm involved a lot with the 777 article I don't think I should vote for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ilyushin Il-86

Jeff, I could use a second opinion on the Ilyushin Il-86 specs table. It only covers one variant, and is also trying to function as main text. Should we just replace it with a standard specs template? Thanks. Btw, I did notice your new quote you added recently. Very good! - BillCJ (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gee, too much text in that table. At least move the paragraphs from the table to a Design section or something. After that either a table or the spec template will work if there's only 1 variant/version. I'll watch that article and try to help some. I liked your edit summary in L-1011 when you removed the pop culture cruft to other day. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the design type paragraphs out of that table and into a new Design section. You might want to check the wording. I tried to add wording to make complete sentences out of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section formatting

Do you know how to shorten the line going across the screen, like 'Section formatting' above and also on this page where the line goes to the right-hand edge, and through the Ingredients box running down the right-hand edge of the page? Quebec99 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it a little by keeping that Twinkie image above the table. Don't know about the line thing. That table allows the text to go around it. A white background to the table might help. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it by setting the background-color of the box to white. page Quebec99 (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.152.43.225 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I don't know anything about that. Try asking at the SR-71 talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!

Christ is the reason for the season.

Merry Christmas! and Have a Happy New Year All!

Remember the reason for the season. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Would you e-mail me? Chergles (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A350

Hello Fnlayson, I apologise, but I think you are wrong, please take a look again:

"Many industry experts believe that the 787-9 will eventually prove the most popular variant of the Dreamliner. Airbus is designing the A350-800 as a direct competitor. First delivery of the Airbus jet, set to be the second version of the A350 to enter service, is currently scheduled for 2014, though that could well slip, too."

For me it says that the A350-800 (the second version of the A350 and the competitor of the 787-9) is scheduled for 2014. But it doesn't say that the A350-900 (the first version) is scheduled for 2014. As Airbus stated, the second version will follow the first version after 12 months, also the A350-900 is scheduled for 2013 (At least I don't read the opposite and I don't have read anything stating that yet). Cheers, Cirrocumulus (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not sure of the order of the A350 variants. The Seattle Times article only puts a date (2014) for the A350-800. The 2013 part really needs another reference then. I'll look for something over the holiday break. Surely Airbus has this in a press release.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)