Talk:Chengdu J-7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Chinese military history task force

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

[edit] Work done

J-7 vairants list added, specs reformatted. Adeptitus 20:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections re-oredering

As an aircraft article, this page falls under the Wikipedia Aircraft Project. The project has guidlines for aircraft article at WP:AIR Page content Guidelines, which give a suggested format for aircraft articles. While these are just suggestions, following the guidleines does have an affect on whether or not the article can achieve a higher status. This is especially important as this page is currently rated as "Start Class", the second lowest class, just above a "Stub". In addition, these guidelines are an attempt to standardize presentation in the vairous aircraft ariticle, for the ease of both readers and editors.

While Wikipedia in general has guidelines for articles, projects are allowed to have their own guidilines which suit their particular needs. It is very disruptive to attempt to change an article solely because it does not follow the general guidelines, but while it is following those of the project. Please refrain from such disruptions in the future. If there is a particular reason that this page should depart from WP:AIR's guidelines, in whole or in part, please discuss them here, and build a consensus to have the article's format changed before attempting further changes. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I took great care not to revert the productive chages made atthe same time as the reformatting. ANy change beyond the re-ordering was inadvertant. - BillCJ 03:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about all of the work you had to do to "fix" that. That must be very stressful for you. I must admit, though, that I found the addition of the heading 'See also' for the footer amusing, as it is already has bold, centered headings and is enclosed by boxes. "Related content" violates our own style manual, and "Operators" and "Operational service" are the same subject and clutter the table of contents.--Gnfgb2 05:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The MOS is a guideline, and it's not mandatory for all projects. Have you even bothered to check the WP:AIR/PC guidelines? Whlie I don't necessarily like the layout of the "Operational service" section, there seem to be no other way to do it at this time. Oh, the usual title is "Operational history"; thanks for pointing ou the erro to me. Also, "taking great care" and "hard work" are not synonomous, nor was the process stressful. I was just trying to be courteous, as the other option was to revert your disruptive edits wholesale. Given your apparent sarcasm, it was obviously a waste of effort on you.

If you disagree with the layout I am using, please take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Please do not continue to disrupt this page until you have gained a consensus from the project to do so. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't, because the consensus of the project can be found at the "Manual of Style" page, and publications cannot have radically different styles for each of their entries. (See Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors for more information.) Canvassing is also against Wikipedia policy, by the way. Your initial edit summary is what really set the sarcastic tone for our discussion. Nevertheless, Rlandmann's version seems like an acceptable compromise.--Gnfgb2 07:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Asking a project to enforce its own guidelines is not canvassing, which is itself a guidline btw, not policy. We have had to deal with overzealous editors try to disrupt articles before, and I'm sure we will again. If you feel that WP:AIR's guidelines are against Wiki's MOS, then take up the issue with the project and Wikipedia, and stop trying to fight the battle here. And I stand by my initaial assertion that the article layout was not broke, and therefore does not need fixing, and that I was stating fact, not being sarcastic. Also, every project has different styles for many things such as infoboxes and templates. Are you going to try to get WP:AIR's templates changed too? - BillCJ 07:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've separated out the "Operators" section again, and limited the prose section to combat (only 2 items removed) as the "Combat history" section, as is sometimes done in combat aircraft articles. Again, I still don't like separate sub-headings for each country, but this seems the best way to do it for now. I do hope this compromise will work for you. - BillCJ 07:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, an alternative would be to remove the national sub-headings,a nd try to place them in chronological order. Much of that section is unsourced anyway, and it may be hard to determine the dates from what is in the text. It's definitely something that needs work. - BillCJ 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Changing the heading to 'Combat history' makes the article less informative. I don't see any reason to do it.--Gnfgb2 08:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't expect you would, but I had to try a compromise anyway. I'm going to leave this be for now, as no one in WP:AIR seems inclined to back me up on this. I guess it's not that big a deal to them. If you're satisfied with this being a start-class article, so be it. This format will confuse some of our regular aircraft page readers, but the general article readers should do just fine, maybe. - BillCJ 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • We can't say for sure who reads these types of articles. I've read other Wikipedia articles on MiGs, Sukhois, the F-14, etc., and was confused by the layout of this article. The table of contents was almost useless due to the three nearly identical sections: 'Operational history,' 'Variants,' and 'Operators.' For now, I've made some into subsections in order to unclutter the table of contents. The key factors for making this into a good article (according to Wikipedia‘s standards) will probably be polishing the prose and adding citations. This isn't personal. It's a matter of readability for me.--Gnfgb2 21:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Note Gnfgb2 (talk · contribs) is a sock of hard-banned user Primetime (talk · contribs). Any edits he makes to the project can and should be reverted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)