Talk:High Speed Flight RAF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 Air sports task force

	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): British military history task force

A fact from High Speed Flight RAF appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 27 April 2008.

[edit] Team lists

What's the best format for the team lists, and the image captions? Best choice of format, then consistency, would be a useful cleanup.

• Obviously there needs to be a team list. If so, then I think we don't need to repeat the list in the mage caption. The list should thus match the photo, and be captioned as such.

• I think shortened ranks, with wls, are better than full ranks.

• I think that wl'ing the names where possibly (i.e. in each team list at least) is better than forcing readers to look upwards through the page to find the one wl'ed instance.

Any others? Lets try and get some agreement before we do one single cleanup across them all - this stuff's too tedious to go in circles with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

the MoS says only wikilink once - this is a short article so the names are not so far apart that repetitionof links is necessary.

the MoS, and common usage, is to spell out the first instance of an abbreviation then give the abbreviation eg in brackets, and thereafter just use the abbreviation.

the picture and the associated text could be separated over time, eg by using the picture at the top of the page rather than further down, so the caption should remain in the picture frame rather than rely upon the text.

For laying out the team list, a simple unbordered wikitable will do the job, spacing is consistent that way.

My thoughts, GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What the MoS actually says about linking:

"Excessive" is more than once for the same term, in a line or a paragraph,

However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate

Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection.

Now I'm all for limiting the wls on names to first use, except in the team lists. For those lists, where a user is likely to read in a non-linear manner and go straight to the lists first of all, that seems to be an appropriate use of a wl. (if such already exists, I'm not advocating creating new redlinks)

Stuff wikiconventions, think about usability for the reader. For ranks, table formatting, etc. though, I just can't be bothered either way. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As to the names on the photo, then they're already on the commons page anyway. I don't think it's worth repeating them in a thumbnail caption, because that looks ugly and the images are too small for it to be useful. Anyone who cares will click through, then see the list from the commons description. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

I believe the copyright phrasing that had been incorporated along the way has been removed.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Some sentences are still identical. Plus this article would count as a derivitive work. See also my comments here. Garion96 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I saw you made a temp article. I'll have a look. Garion96 (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the temp article up. I hope you caught them all - I saw that the structure of the article was identical to the old one, which is often unwise - it's very easy for some pieces of copyrighted text to slip in. But let's try. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)