User talk:A75

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello A75! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --Nishkid64 00:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] WikiProject: Aircraft

Hey, A75. I see you editing a lot of pages on Wikipedia that are a lot of the same pages I am working on. I was wondering if you were aware of the WikiProject Aircraft and the basic standards they have for aircraft articles and layouts. I remember that you said you are a fan of Aviation (on my "Talk" page) and would like to see you become a part of this team. It may also help you avoid conflicts with other editors on Wikipedia. (Born2flie 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

A75, I apologize for any disagreement I had with you. Like the Pirate Code in Pirates of the Carribean the WP:Air guidelines aren't really guidelines but rather ideas on how it "could" be if you have no ideas of your own. You have ideas, so those guidelines aren't really applicable to you. Again, I apologize for discouraging you. (Born2flie 15:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
Thanks, hey dont worry about it. I appreciate the thought though, wiki is quite a wild place. A75 16:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of military aircraft of the United States

Hello A75. I was the person who made some changes, including those about the T-48 to -50, to that article under anonymous IP 213.61.105.154. My primary source for these (and other) U.S. military designations are official nomenclature records of the US Department of Defense. My website is http://www.designation-systems.net/ (which has been listed for some time as an external source for the Wiki article) has some pages about new or "unknown" designations. Andreas Parsch 09:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X-35 page

Good work on starting the X-35 page. I also have a version on Talk:Lockheed Martin X-35 that I have been working on, and I merged a few section together. The text on the talk page is wholesale from the F-35 page, but I included most of the development of the X-35 and JSF program from the F-35, with theintent of taking those parts out of the F-35 article, to allow it to concentrate on the fight itself. Feel free to chnage anyhting on the regular X-35 back to the way you had it. I adjusted the pics, but until we add more text, the placemant won't be right.

I am going to try to ubdate the specs to the aero-specs template. I need to know your source for your specs so I can include it in the template. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I only noticed the prior discussions about forking afterword- I see great wiki-minds think alike! I look forward to seeing new content onto the (currently) basic X-35 content. I think your additions are great- as for the specs, they are from a older (wiki) F-35 article so you might want to just start over. A75 20:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese

Per all the JSDF links in Japanese you posted on the F-2, do you read Japanese? - BillCJ 04:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T2V SeaStar

Just curious as to why you moved the page to T-1 SeaStar. GIven tha the aircraft left front-line carrier service in 1960, isn't it more appropriate to cover in under that designation? The fact that the Jayhawk is also a T-1 also agues in favor of using the unique designation. You can discuss on the Talk:T-1 Seastar if you'd like, but I thought I'd try a personal message first. Not trying to be argumentative here, just interested in your reasons, as they my be better thatn mine! - BillCJ 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Based it on total career time. A75 23:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I should add, either name (for the page) is fine with me. A75 12:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Century Series

Your change [1] to the opening paragraph seems to be saying that "Century Series" is a generic term for any series of similar U.S. combat aircraft, not just specifically the F-100 to 106. In particular, the phrasing "stems from" indicates that the original meaning gave way to a different current meaning.

Is this so? I've never heard the term applied to anything but the original. If Century Series has been applied to other group, are there any examples? Otherwise, I think the original introduction is more concise and clearer. -- Paul Richter 07:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helicopter template

Hi A75 - The template you've been altering is part of an group of templates that WikiProject Aircraft uses to provide navigation within designation sequences. The changes you are making are at odds with how these templates are organised. If you'd like to suggest some changes, you should first look here under "5.1 Designation Sequence Footers", and then take the matter up on the project's talk page. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will leave that project stuff up to you though- I can only comment on what know about the designation systems. I am sorry for the stir, I have left my reasons on the template page there. Thanks for the feedback though. A75 (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. No-one's going to have a problem with you correcting links; but the Army and Navy sequences and the tri-service sequence all have their own templates since they're distinct from the US(A)AF designations, so these need to be removed. There's also no need to separate the R- and H- sequences, any more than we separate the fighter P- and F- sequences. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok I had a look at those table, it is quite confusing mess there! I think what I am proposing is having 1 template for the three, or at least correcting the sequences. For instance the under the 1962 Tri-Service system, there not 6 designations, but rather the 1962 redesignations, plus dozens more! A75 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see what your getting at. Think about this though, not all of R series were redesignated with H, so it makes it easier to see which ones were. But it gets even more important for the 1962 Designations, because those follow a different designation format as well, and the USAF series ends at 43. So with this table, for something like the UH-1, then XH-40, HU-1, and UH-1 can all be blacked out and see at once on the same template. A75 (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There's simply no need to combine the three, since there's no limit to the number of templates that can be applied to the one article, allowing the reader to expand or collapse as many (or as few) as they're interested in. Point taken about the tri-service designations; but each template should only show a distinct numerical sequence. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, I will just work on each template then, so it has the correct sequence for its designation system. Thanks again. 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I sense that you are perhaps misunderstanding what the templates are intended to illustrate; which is the numerical sequence that the particular aircraft belongs in. They are not intended (demonstrably) to represent every designation issued under the system; they are intended to answer "if this is the FOO-4, then what were the FOO-3 and FOO-5??" Rather than altering templates so that they no longer match how the rest of our content is organised, a better solution would be for you to come up with better titles for the templates that you feel are problematic. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am actually pretty happy right now! I can see your point about the standards. For instance I agree the three templates allow more flexiblity, and the R/F thing I can live with. The only thing I would like to see is the USAF series end at 43, due that being the last USAF designation and because the 1962 series have a different format. Its not very well known, but the 1962 helicopters series are supposed to have the modified mission prefix! Either way, I want to say thanks for taking the time to explain your position and having a discussion about this. A75 (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also warning you that you are now in violation of the Three-revert rule and may be blocked. I am requesting that you restore the {{USAF helicopters}} template to the state it was in before you last edited it, or better still, restore the sequence to how it was, but add a more accurate title to the template. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to fix this! A75 (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - and no arguments here about the inclusion of the MM prefix. Perhaps {{US helicopters}} is better titled something like "Helicopters redesignated under the 1962 tri-service designation system"? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am a bit worried I will fix the wrong thing so here is what I will try to do. Right now, there is only 2 main changes- The "USAF template" goes up to 43, and the template "US helicopters" includes the Joint service designations past 43 plus the redesignation, plus new designations (such as [2] those helicopters). If I understand you right, you want the post 1962 designations to continue on the USAF 1941-1962 template, so people can see the numbers (past 42)(and then make the titles fit). Ok, I will see if I can manage this! Thanks again for helping me work this out. A75 (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep - that's about it! {{USAF helicopters}} should show (only) the sequence running from R-1 through to UH-72, and {{US helicopters}} (only) the sequence from AH-1/UH-1 through to OH-6; with whatever template titles and other explanatory notes you think will help. And it's no problem - thank you for your willingness to jump in and straighten out the MM- prefixes, and more, generally, improve these templates! --Rlandmann (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, unfortunately I think I only managed part of it. I don't know how to do the second one, because 1-6 were not the only redesignations (check out (http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/1962redesignations.html). See, if I just have 1-6 it is not all the Navy or Army redesignations, but it is also not a new sequence either. The later numbers such as 13, 21, etc. were also redesignations, but any new helos were added on the end of the sequence (e.g 71, 72,..). So it won't make sense as a counting sequence (e.g. foo-1 foo-2), and it won't be all the redesignations either! The only solution I have so far is to leave 1-6 redesignations on the first template, and all the 1962 redesignations plus 46 and up on the second. Either we have really weird title, and exclude a few redesignations or think of something else. A75 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better now! A few more nits on {{USAF helicopters}}:

  1. The closing note is superfluous: {{USN fighters}} doesn't point out that USAAC/USAAF/USAF fighters aren't included. The title you've supplied is quite explicit that these are only "air force" and tri-service designations; there really is no confusion here.
  2. The template still includes the AH-1/UH-1 through OH-6; so when you remove them, a better use of that closing note would be to revise it to say something like "those aircraft that received a redesignation in 1962 are not included". You can even link directly to the other template with [[:Template:US helicopters]] rather than just to the article on the designation system if you like. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think I'll just take out that extra note on the first one and I like that idea of linking to the other template. However, I have not figured out how to handle 1-6 yet (check out other reply). Cheers. A75 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I had the wrong link, [3] is the one I meant. In the meantime I tried out that template link (looks pretty good!) A75 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple: the AH-1/UH-1 through OH-6 designations were all-new designations created in 1962 to replace existing Army and Navy designations, as opposed to attaching a prefix to an existing Air Force designation. Actually, the more we talk about it, the more convinced I am that your approach is a better way to handle this. I'll modify the template a little - let me know what you think? --Rlandmann (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem there is that UH-1 to OH-6 were not the only all new designations either, the CH-46, CH-47, CH-48, CH-50 were also all-new redesignations (using new numbers as well as letters). A75 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Better? I'm not married to the wording, but I think it gets the idea across - feel free to improve. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are headed in the right direction;I will take another crack at it. I need to fix the matter of the CH-46,47,etc. also being all-new designations, but I don't want move them so I think I may try a different split up. Here goes nothing! Cheers A75 (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I gave up trying to find a way to isolate the 1-6 and put the break between the joint service system and the old usaf ones. It loses some continuity, but it allows all the new designations to fit. Im going to take a break from this for a bit. Thanks again and good luck. A75 (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have left a message on the template talk about modified mission prefixes and why I think it is confusing to the user. MilborneOne (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I have left a response there. 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)