| Revision as of 14:55, 2 September 2023 editBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,714 edits Undid revision 1173434823 by JzG (talk) better discussed on the relevant talk pageTag: Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:49, 4 September 2023 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,373,472 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:BilCat/archive25. (BOT)Next edit → | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| }} | |||
| == Dassault Mirage G == | |||
| May I ask why you restored the ] link to the See also section at ]? It is already linked in the main text so, per ], should not be linked from there as well. — Cheers, ] (]) 08:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Related and similar fields are exempt from that guideline. ] (]) 16:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. Could you be a bit more explicit? The MoS states that "{{tq|As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body}}," with a note emphasising that "{{tq|The community has rejected past proposals to do away with this guidance. See, for example, ].}}" This has been challenged locally, for example ], but I see no established consensus to transgress the formal RfC lined in the guideline note. — Cheers, ] (]) 17:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was going to point you to ], but you already found it. That is the most recent discussion on that talk page about the issue, though there may have been some at WT:AIR since then. I'll say it has been a contentious issue, but since the MOS is a guideline, not policy, it can be ignored if warranted, that RFC notwithstanding. | |||
| :::Of the several fields in the aircontent template, I do enforce the guideline for the actual "See also" parameter, and usually the lists parameter also. The related and similar/comparable parameters have always included links used elsewhere in the article, dating back to when the aircontent template was not placed in the See also section but below the navboxes. There are ''thousands'' of aircraft and aircraft engine articles that continue to repeat links used in articles in this manner, not just the Mirage G article. WP:AIR has talked about alternative places in articles to place these links, but, as that discussion showed, there were no good solutions at that time. | |||
| :::I'd suggest you raise the issue at either the template talk page or WT:AIR, with a note at the other talk page, if you want to pursue the issue, and see if there are other alternatives than the See also section for these types of links. There may be some solutions that didn't exist then, so I think it's a discussion worth having again. ] (]) 18:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks again. I don't want to be a killjoy for the sake of it, so I'd like to think about whether such useful lists might go better elsewhere, before I dive in any deeper. — Cheers, ] (]) 18:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No worries. It's possible we could get rid of ] completely, as it's an artifact of a time when projects had much more leeway in how they did things. That would be a major undertaking, whether we replace it with something else or not. ] (]) 18:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy First Edit Day!== | |||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| {{ombox | |||
| | name = First Edit Day | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | imageright = ] | |||
| | style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: repeating-linear-gradient(300deg, MistyRose, AntiqueWhite, Ivory, Honeydew, Azure, GhostWhite, MistyRose 50%); | |||
| | textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center; | |||
| | plainlinks = yes | |||
| | text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi BilCat! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! ] :) <sub><nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 16:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| }} | }} | ||
Revision as of 18:49, 4 September 2023
 | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
 | Before posting, please read and follow the notes below.
|
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Cessna Citation II deletion
Hello and good day. You reverted my addition for May 3, 2007 incident that seemed to fit the criteria for WP:Aircrash. It was sourced as well with Aviation Safety Network. Could have used the NTSB report as well as more reliable. Seemed like a credible addition to me. Have a good day.Theairportman33531 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- I doubt the NTSB report would make a difference, per the WP:AIRCRASH. Perhaps someone else could explain it better? BilCat (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the addition:
May 3, 2007: a Cessna Citation 550, N22HP crashed on approach to Dillon Airport because of inflight loss of control for undetermined reasons. Both occupants were killed.
It was a non-notable accident and should have been removed, especially as it was "cause: undetermined", as there were no lessons learned there. Basically there have been many, many Citation II crashes, we don't list them all. As per WP:AIRCRASH we only add them if a notable person was killed (ie one with an existing bio on Misplaced Pages) or unless there is some lasting effect, like a fleet grounding, mandatory modifications, an airworthiness directive or something similar, as a result of the crash. Occasionally we will keep an accident that doesn't make that criteria, just because it was unusual, like the 2022 Baltic Sea Cessna Citation crash which is still in the article and has its own stand-alone article, as well. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the addition:
WP:Thumbsize
Want to let you know I am now studying this item. Thanks! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Re: Sukhoi Su-57 edit
The cited source says that the codename has not been confirmed by NATO. Regardless of reliability guidelines re: the website it was published on, how does an unconfirmed rumor support information presented authoritatively on Misplaced Pages? Perhaps removing it was overkill, but other options are to present it as a rumored codename or to cite a different source. It was not done in bad faith; I just investigated the cited source since the claim interested me and was surprised to find that it was not as authoritative as the article suggested. 84.251.71.133 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)