Talk:Piper Flitfire/Archive 1

Unreliable source
I've tagged the "American Warplanes of WWII" source as of dubious reliablity as it appears to be copied from Wikipedia articles - see here and the Wikipedia article on the "book's" publisher PediaPress.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also came to this same conclusion. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Images
I have removed all the images apart from one as either copyright violations, unknown provenance and non-free images. All are under discussion or have been tagged at commons. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://eaavintage.org/the-flitfire-cub/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 06:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Nigel Ish (talk)


 * I see that the article creator has CONTINUED to reinsert the copyvio text. This really needs administration action to stop this (and possibly revdeletion to remove the copyvio from the page history).Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.als-cannonfield.com/Flitfire.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(Not sure if this was the same as before?) &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the lede from scratch while retaining the refs in what should be a more normal Wikipedia-style lede wording. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

COI
See. The Banner talk 18:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think owning an aircraft isn't a COI, not like owning the company that builds the aircraft. It analogous to someone who uses Firefox or Chrome working on those articles. That said, the article does need a good copy edit for language and excessive detail. I should be able to go over it in the next day or two. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

=List of each aircraft== I am really wondering if we need a list of each Flitfire aircraft in this article. This seems to fall afoul of WikiProject Aviation/Registrations and mostly WP:TRIVIA. I can see this would belong on a plane-spotting or fan web site, but I don't think it belongs in a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that it is needed it doesnt add much value and does not even tell use the name of the aircraft which is the notable bit. Suggest just stick to the ones that still exist and are either on display or airworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean, like an "Aircraft on display" section, like we have on aircraft type articles. Now that does make sense.
 * I have tagged the whole section for a lack of refs. One editor did add refs of a sort, but they were all photographs and self-made and uploaded documents, none of which meet WP:RS. In a way the lack of real refs shows that this list is not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the editor has restored the long list of non-refs and external links to the article. These are all non-acceptable as refs. Many are photographs, which canot be used as refs, many are self-made documents and there are many, many external links to FAA registrations, which show that these are Piper Cubs, but do not establish that these were the Flitfires. I think we should just remove the whole list as discussed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now the whole list of aircraft has been converted to an enormous table, with no refs. So far our consensus here is to remove all of this and replace it with an "Aircraft on display" section with refs, but I'll let this discussion run a while to collect any other thoughts from editors. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have asked for wider editor input on this issue at WikiProject Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bet I'm not wider than you. ;) Seriously, we do not list every machine, despite the periodic enthusiast who thinks we should. We only list particularly significant examples, such as those on public display, and even then we do not use tables full of extraneous detail but take a more informal approach to listing. I have reverted to something resembling a normal list, but anything not on public display or otherwise of outstanding significance still needs cleaning out so that the section can be re-named. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact the relevant content is already present in the preceding paragraph, so I blanked the entire section. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The new editor has not been communicative, because I presume they don't believe anybody here likes them, nor appreciates their work. An easy misinterpretation to make, we were all beginners once. And the 'pedia has gotten harsher and harsher over the years. Please try and help me, help them.

On the substantive points, the correct standard for article-content is WP:NOTEWORTHY, right? So each aircraft of the 49 or 50 or whatever, can be listed, if there is at least *one* WP:RS which mentions it specifically. Need not be an in-depth mention, but does need to be in some kind of WP:RS. Cubgirl4444 has mentioned that she's thought of making an external website, with her specialized knowledge; I believe that we should encourage that, and add it to the EL section, for the complete listing of all aircraft. On the other hand, I think it is a good possibility that plenty of these machines *will* have what it takes to pass WP:NOTEWORTHY, since they are newsworthy collector's items, from the day they were built, more or less. I expect there are newspaper articles from the mid-1900s about the proud new owners-slash-philanthropists, for instance, offline if not necessarily online. Anyways, if the list becomes "too long" for this article to comfortably contain, then Draft:List of Flitfires seems to be available, and last I checked, per WP:NOTPAPER.

Anyways, please continue to keep cool, and to attempt to convince this new editor of the wisdom of the wiki-ways; they have sought dispute resolution, but were turned down on procedural grounds. I hope User:Cubgirl4444] will comment here as well -- click the little blue 'edit' button next to the section-title then type out a comment then click 'save' -- should be easy to get everything worked out to the satisfaction of all, and the overall benefit of the 'pedia, methinks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have invited her to participate on this talk page many, many times, but she always prefers to edit-war instead of discuss the article. There is a big WP:OWN issue there. You can note she is back to edit-warring again, reverting consensus changes decided above and not discussing as usual. - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * She is now down to personal attacks in edit summaries once again. I have left her a warning on her talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, but she's new, so please cut her some slack temporarily. She's here now, maybe we can work something out.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahunt, if you don't mind following the garden path with me here, can you please explain (preferably avoiding wiki-jargon when possible) some answers to Cubgirl's questions and assumptions? First of all, there are rules against WP:CANVASSING and against WP:MEATPUPPET, and Cubgirl believes that you might have violated those rules, when you notified wikiproject military aircraft.  Can you please explain the distinction between article-stewardship, and article-ownership, and that wikiproject notifications are an exception to the rules?  Thanks for your patience.  Or I can do it if you'd rather, whatever works.  We'll cover the edit-summaries in a moment.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. This article is part of WikiProject Aircraft, a large grup of editors from around the world who work to improve aircraft articles. They are not "my friends", they are people I have never met. As I indicated above I let them know (with links) that this discussion was underway to get wider input on the items being discussed, to form the broadest consensus as to what should be included in this article. As I have noted to User:Cubgirl4444 on several occasions the articles look the way they do because of consensus arrived at on the talk page. The more knowledgeable editors we have contributing the better the article will turn out, but it does require negotiation and discussion, not personal attacks, incivil language and attempts to take everything to dispute resolution constantly only to have it turned down. Basically you have to make your case here and convince everyone else. - Ahunt (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that all sounds correct. But she was turned down at dispute resolution, simply for filing at the wrong location (they demand more talkpage discussion before they'll take up a case formally), so it was a procedural decline.  There is clearly a dispute ongoing!  And although there are places which don't demand any notice such as AN/I and other such drama-boards, I figured informal talkpage stuff was less painful for all concerned.  Disputes are a waste of everybody's time, when we could all be improving articles.  Anyways, cubgirl, does this explanation make sense?  You are correct, that calling in your wiki-buddies to gang up on a new editor is very much against the wiki-laws here.  But you are misinterpreting what happened:  Ahunt was just trying to get some other people to help with the article, in a way that is perfectly allowed and justified, because Ahunt is also not happy with how things are going here.  You feel like you are getting attacked, Cubgirl, because Ahunt keeps deleting your work.  But, simultaneously, Ahunt feels like you are attacking them because you keep misinterpreting their motives!  Ahunt does not have bad motives here, and neither do you, cubgirl.  This is mostly just a big misunderstanding.
 * Which brings us to, the next point: Ahunt, are you attacking cubgirl, WP:HOUNDING is not allowed, right, and you are deleting her stuff, so she might misinterpret that deletion as being done maliciously... question, down the garden path a bit further, is this about deletion with intent to make the other person angry, or is this deletion with intent to keep the article within wiki-policies?  (Hint:  cubgirl, sometimes deletion is done in anger, but 99% of the time on wikipedia, deletion is done for keeping wikipedia's standards high.)  Ahunt, please give us the overview of the stewardship-versus-ownership thing, if you will.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Articles on Wikipedia are written in the manner of encyclopedia articles, which uses a formal tone, proper referencing and avoids trivia and things that might be appropriate on a blog or plane-spotting website, but not here. WikiProject Aircraft oversees tens of thousands of articles about aircraft subjects. It is an academic peer-reviewed environment where everyone who writes new articles posts them for peer review, because that approach makes for a better quality encyclopedia. This article was nominated for deletion early on because it was not well referenced and was not written in a style that made it seem like the sort of subject for an encyclopedia. I was one of a number of people who worked to improve it and argued that it should be kept, and not deleted as it had been improved enough and was better referenced, even during the period of the deletion debate. These are all examples of stewardship of articles by editors of WikiProject Aircraft. I have personally started over 1800 new articles, mostly on aviation subjects, including three today while was all this was going on here. These get listed and peer-reviewed and hopefully improved by other editors. Without collaboration and the peer review process most aviation articles would not be as good as they are. If you review every last change I have made to this article you will see in my changes and edit summaries that each one was to improve the article. I am not attacking anyone, I have never passed WP:3RR or edit-warred, I don't lash out at people in edit summaries or act incivily, because that hurts building the encyclopedia. Hounding would be following someone over many articles, but this seems to be the only article this editor has worked on. As I have noted, my purpose in working on this article is to improve it and bring it up to Wikipedia's standards for encyclopedia articles. - Ahunt (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so that's probably enough to get the ball rolling -- Cubgirl, if you have any other questions or concerns, just ask Ahunt nicely, they won't bite your head off. Maybe -- JUST MAYBE! -- there is a good reasonable explanation for what Ahunt is doing, and maybe they'll convince you, during the friendly discussion.  Or maybe, they made a mistake!  Everybody is human, even the human known on the 'pedia as User:Ahunt.  When you work on thousands of articles like Ahunt, you are bound to screw up sooner or later.  ;-)      No offense intended Ahunt.  Point being, if Cubgirl has a good idea, and Ahunt doesn't think so at first, after some discussion it might end up that Cubgirl's idea convinces Ahunt, rather than that Ahunt's wiki-experience convinces Cubgirl.  I guess the only thing that needs to be made clear is intent:  Ahunt, do you swear up and down, solemnly on a stack of aeronautics textbooks and flitfire owner's manuals, that you promise to do your wiki-best to follow the five pillars, to be as WP:NICE to Cubgirl as you can, to eliminate copyvio and share encyclopedic information with everyone, to keep your prose neutral as a non-negotiable goal, and to build and maintain the encyclopedia, even if improving it means ignoring all the dern wiki-rules, to get 'er done?  :-)       75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you check all my edits you will see that is why I am here. - Ahunt (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Checking... checking... che... WARNING approaching maximum capacity... HALT... canno' take it anymore......  ^(#&(#--%#***NOCARRIER.   Uh, whoa.  If it's all the same to you, rather than go through your edits, I'll just let bygones be bygones.  :-)      Cubgirl, if you should reconsider and decide to return, please note that Ahunt has staked their wiki-honour that they will be as WP:NICE to you as they can, and work out with you the best way to improve wikipedia.  But it's a two-way street, you in turn must be WP:NICE right back to Ahunt, and you in turn must work with Ahunt, and figure out together the best way, through calm discussion.  It's easy if you try.  And here I'm seeing Ahunt is perfectly willing to try.  I'm happy to help, too, despite knowing bupkis about the aircraft questions, I make up for it in my charming ability to rapidly fill the talkpage.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahunt, I asked you to refrain from edit warring until Wiki contacted us. I asked for help and you kept going. Now I put in a dispute resolution. I didn't know where this page was and had to look it up. You would not stop and wait for Wiki help. You're supposed to be seasoned. This article is about the Flitfire Brigade and yes, it is capitalized because it's a proper noun. now i'll sign off and read these comments. I want wiki to know you pulled your friends into help you because i saw you can only revert so many times. nice going ahunt

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)cubgirl
 * Hello cubgirl, informal dispute resolution is here. The way wikipedia works, is that you have to chat with the other interested editors on the talkpages.  If there is a disagreement about how to best write the article (such as whether ot have a long list of aircraft) then you have to work it out.  It takes two people to tango, and editwarring is not something that can happen, unless more than one person is involved.  Anyways, before trying to FORCE the article to be what you want, you're gonna have to chat it over with myself and with Ahunt and with Steelpillow.  They don't get to force it to be what they want either, okay?  But don't accuse them of being in the wrong, those in glass houses should not throw stones, insert other wise sayings here.  Cool down and have a calm discussion here, please, on the merits and using logic.  It will all work out in the end methinks.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Cubgirl4444: you can also note that you are expected to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and not lash out at other people as you have done from the start with this article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and the article only looks close to an encyclopedia article because of all the people here who have been working on it to make it so. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is correct, everyone must be WP:NICE to each other. It's not just a good idea, it's the WP:5 wiki-law, as the old saying goes.  Cubgirl, because I've seen a lot of wikipedia pages, I know that Ahunt is not trying to be your adversary.  They are just trying, in good faith, to improve the article as best they can.  Disagreements happen, but everyone has to treat everybody else nicely, even when it is hard.  This is a pure-text-only environment, and it is VERY easy to misunderstand each other.  So please give Ahunt and Steelpillow the benefit of the doubt, whilst we get this squared away.  If you decide that they need to get taken to the wiki-admins, I can show you how to do that, but I'm pretty sure it won't be necessary for anybody to go running to them, we can likely get this fixed up in short order.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

discussion of basics of wikipedia
thank you to whomever said it was OK to list these 49 vintage historical aircraft. i got the idea by looking at the wiki spitfire page. they list a ton of them and those references were very spotty. but the idea was worthy.

as far as references: i am in discussions with Clyde Smith and Roger Peperell to get the flitfire list on their letterhead. Clyde Smith emailed me the list but Ahunt deleted it because it was not on letterhead, i guess. (Ahunt deletes a lot of my work.)  i also listed a link to the FAA site so people can see the data first hand. i saw that was allowed in the external link section, i think it was WP:EL.

for the record, I did not know where the talk page was anymore because I was out of pocket for almost a month and forgot and had to look it up. but you're right wiki person, these guys DON'T like me at all. they don't like my writing style and they think i'm self promoting. i do like flitfire and want to share the history with people. my mechanic is 90 years old and was in utah beach in WWII. he knows a lot of history and still works as an airplane mechanic and inspector. however, he didn't know this history until i sent him a link to the article. he told me about "wings for destiny" promotion and i might write an article about that too.

this article is about a historic event, the brigade, and what led to the building and donating of the 49 aircraft that made a little piece of history. i am not promoting anything or anyone.

also, wiki person, i was wondering why no one responded to my first request for help yesterday. i choose that method to ask for help because i was hoping to resolve this in a friendly manner. it's very difficult to work for hours creating content to log on a few hours later and it was wiped off by someone who has decided without discussion. but when things kept getting ugly, i put in the dispute resolution.

one more comment: i like an encyclopedia whose content is not dry, with lots of links (internal and external) to let me explore what the article is discussing in more depth. i saw you all allow external links at the end of an article but initially the section of this article had internal links, not external. i deleted them and notified Ahunt they were not external links. again he undid my work, as usual.

i don't like the edit warring thing but i don't like working for hours and then it gets deleted with one keystroke. let me be clear here: if anyone else did significant work, or even just a little bit, on this article and i logged on and saw it, i would never just delete it without contacting them. that would be so very rude. first, i would be very grateful that someone else with interest and knowledge in flitfires would take their time to contribute to the article. if a fact was wrong or mis-stated, i'd discuss it. unfortunately, no editor has contributed any facts or references. all that's been done here is limited to deleting my work to a preconceived notion of what the article should be about and look like. i think it's bogus to do that when the other editors have not contributed a single fact or a single citation.. and from the comments listed here, it looks like they've not really read the article or citations. i've read every citation listed, several times.

Anyway, wiki person, thank you for chiming in here. it feels good that someone is using common sense and has an open mind. thank you again...

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)cubgirl


 * Hi Cubgirl, you can call me 75.108 which is kinda like my wiki-zipcode. I don't have the username thing, but it's annoying to type out the whole 75.108.95.227 stuff.  You can also call me wiki-person, since I am a person, and I do use wikipedia, but please be aware that I'm not some kind of super-powerful-wikipedian.  I'm just a normal editor like you.  I saw you talking to User:The_Banner, when I went to their page to leave a message, and then visited your talkpage, and then visited this article-talkpage.  Since I figured I might be of some help, here I am.  But I know zip about airplanes, so you'll have to help me there.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * thank you to whomever said it was OK to list these 49 vintage historical aircraft.
 * It is okay by me, but to list them ALL we need to dig up WP:SOURCES that mention EACH OF the aircraft. That is tough, but in this case probably not impossible.  Until the sources are listed, keeping or removing the list is done based on talkpage-consensus.  The FAA links prove that the aircraft exist, but don't count as WP:SOURCES for this usage, because they are WP:NOTDIR type listings.  Sources means wiki-reliable sources like newspapers, books (not "PediaPress" ones which are wikipedia-republications), television newscasts, that sort of thing.  Unpublished personal letters, facebook, blogs, youtube, and that sort of thing, are not wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES, and thus not good enough for WP:NOTEWORTHY which is the normal list-criteria inside an article-section.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * i got the idea [for a long list] by looking at the wiki spitfire page. they list a ton of them and those references were very spotty.  but the idea was worthy.
 * Well, unfortunately, looking at other wikipedia articles can give you the wrong idea. Probably the spitfire page is a mess, because of the 4.9 million wikipedia articles, there are only about 100k people actively editing, and most of those cluster in small niches (articles about television/movies/music/politics/religion/etc ... aka not serious articles about history/war/aeronautics ... let alone academic subjects like physics/biology/math/literature/etc).  In other words, just because WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, does not mean it is okay to mimic what they do.  I think the list is probably okay HERE in the flitfire article, because I believe it is likely that every one of the 49 has had some press-coverage at some point.  I don't believe the same about the spitfires, there were too many, they were a production-vehicle not a fundraising-vehicle.  Make sense?  More answers to specific points forthcoming.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is probably worth noting that even though you accuse me above of deleting your Flitfire list on Commons I did not delete it. It was deleted by an admin on commons as noted here. You uploaded a number of documents that you indicated were made by you, like this one. These cannot be used as references, not due to the presence or absence of letterhead, but because they are original research. On Wikipedia all text has to be referenced to reliable sources and that does not allow self-published sources. Sources also have to be verifiable which means things like private letters cannot be used as sources. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the references thing will need to be hashed out, wiki-reliability is a subtle concept. There is room for WP:ABOUTSELF, and for WP:PRIMARY, but they must be used with care.  Stuff that is not wiki-reliable is still useful, for instance could be hosted on an external wordpress.com site that got put into EL by consensus, or maybe because part of WP:WikiSource (the 1941 list of Piper distributors seems like a candidate for that).  But we have to get to the walking stage before we can delve into the mysteries of what differentiates wiki-reliable from true-but-not-counted-as-wiki-reliable.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * as far as references: i am in discussions with Clyde Smith and Roger Peperell to get the flitfire list on their letterhead.  Clyde Smith emailed me the list but Ahunt deleted it because it was not on letterhead, i guess.
 * partially covered above, but the problem is not letterhead, the problem is the WP:RS and the WP:SOURCES stuff, which is difficult to explain in a nutshell. Being true and accurate is not enough, though.  More on this later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (Ahunt deletes a lot of my work.)
 * Also being covered above, see the 'steward' bit in the conversation. Sometimes deletion is done for spite, but people who do that get blocked by admins, and it is very rare.  Usually deletion is an invitation to start a conversation on the Talk:Flitfire Brigade article-talkpage, just like the one we are having now.  See WP:BRD for the details.  Deletion isn't an insult, it's the normal process around here.  Feels harsh, if you misunderstand the motives, but believe me, if you are doing any kind of WP:BOLD work, you will get deleted from time to time.  Luckily, undeleting is just one click, much like deleting; nothing is permanently lost on wikipedia, which is why 'deleting' stuff is considered a normal way to work.  In normal computers, when you delete stuff it is LOST, but on wikipedia it's just a click away in the 'view history' button at the top of the page.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * i also listed a link to the FAA site so people can see the data first hand. i saw that was allowed in the external link section, i think it was WP:EL.
 * Yes, the FAA is often considered wiki-reliable, and is proper in the references section and/or the external links section. It is not proper, for stylistic reasons (wikipedia has a lot of style-rules like any big newspaper or big textbook... wikipedia is kinda both of them simultaneously).  Thus, if the table of aircraft gains WP:CONSENSUS, the FAA links will be formatted differently, and in some ways less cleanly, but consistency across articles is important, and I've learned not to argue stylistic-issues with people who care about them.  Life is too short.  All that matters is that the linkages are there, in my view.  p.s.  Use brackets around the wiki-policy pages, instead of saying WP:EL which is just black plaintext, say WP:EL which can be clicked.  Also, give a skim to WP:ELNO, please, which is the rules about what things should not go into the external links section.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * for the record, I did not know where the talk page was anymore
 * Yes, I guessed this. :-)        There is a lot of wiki-jargon, and a lot of people say 'use the talkpage' without realizing that not everybody knows what the heck that even is.  You can always ask questions of anybody, though, just look at their wikipedia usernames, there is a little '(talk)' button in their signature.  If you forget something, you can click 'talk' in the signature of a person -- most people will be helpful per WP:NICE -- and then click 'new section', type out your note or question or whatever, and click 'save'.  You can also use the "official" page for questions, WP:Q which has plenty of pointers.  I personally like WP:TEAHOUSE which often gives instant gratification, and if you are old-school, there is a live-help-chat that can be found at WP:Q as well.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * but you're right wiki person, these guys DON'T like me at all.
 * This is incorrect; they are not disliking you, in reality. But what I did notice, is that you believe they dislike you.  I'm here to fix things up, by correcting your belief.  :-)      Easiest way to do that, is to introduce you to the real Ahunt, and the real Steelpillow.  They aren't monsters, and they don't dislike you.  They are unhappy that you are calling them names, and they are unhappy that you -- they incorrectly believed -- refused to joing the talkpage-discussion with them.  So part of my job here is to also correct their incorrect beliefs, and to introduce the real Cubgirl to them.  I expect you'll get on swimmingly together, once you understand each other.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * they don't like my writing style
 * This could be true, if your writing style is based on doing things that are outside wiki-policies, such as using unpublished sources. But it's not personal, all wikipedia articles have to follow the WP:SOURCES rules, it's part of what makes wikipedia articles high-quality.  See pillar two, which is about neutrality.  If we just let anything be put in the pages, that would make wikipedia non-neutral REAL quick, and it would no longer be encyclopedic.  More on this later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * they think i'm self promoting.
 * They actually don't. See the section about COI, where my wiki-friend User:The_Banner incorrectly believed you were self-promoting, and Ahunt explained that you were not in fact doing anything wrong.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. First, I'd like to say that I do very much appreciate your care for this article and the work you put in. But Wikipedia is a real big and busy place and it is easy to lose sight that we are all just people doing our best, like you are. We get a lot of grief from people who want to push this encyclopedia for their own ends, so we have developed a rich and complex set of rules, guidelines and stuff that we try to live by. If you don't know all that stuff yet, it can be bruising to a new editor when work that breaks some guideline or other gets undone. These talk pages are a core part of building friendships and a spirit of cooperation, and your early difficulty in finding our efforts to talk did not help any of us. I must thank 75.108 for helping out here. For my part I must apologise for not making more effort to talk, but I was real tired and about to go to bed. So I dropped you a message on your own personal user talk page, which is a standard thing to do, and quit. Right now, I just woke up in the middle of the night so I thought I'd check in to see how things are with this article.
 * So - turning to the list of Flitfires. Wikipedia does not usually list individual aircraft. If a machine is talked about enough in reliable sources, we will - and some famous ones even have their own article. It quite often happens that somebody new will list their favorite airplanes and we have to catch that and explain. I have not checked out the Spitfire pages in a long while, but maybe it's time I did! Still, right now I am here and trying to make you feel a tiny bit better that I have undone your hard work.
 * A lot of anger happens where people do not take time out to talk straight. There is a game called WP:WIKILAWYERING where everybody throws links to policy pages at each other's heads instead. I hope we can avoid that.But some links might be useful to help you understand why we have seemed so grumpy. I'm real sleepy again now, but if you would like to ask any special questions, tomorrow I will post those links for you (Unless or our IP friend or someone beats me to it).
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said Ahunt deleted my stuff on wiki commons. i said he deleted my stuff on this article.

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)cubgirl

this is NOT part of the wiki project for aircraft. i joined that group, then when i realized what their goals were (technical) i asked to be deleted. THIS IS NOT A WIKI AIRCRAFT PROJECT ARTICLE. I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOUR PREMISE. I DO NOT LIKE YOUR FOCUS ON TECHNICAL. THIS IS A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT.

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC) cubgirl

my big mistake was telling the guy, a member of the wiki aircraft project thing, that i was restoring his article (he kept deleting my work on the J3 flitfire) and telling him i was starting a separate wiki page on the flitifre. BIG MISTAKE. within an hour, my fledging article was nominated for deletion. that's how i started. you see, i've begun to hate wiki. i've seen so many articles without references and that warning that was over 2 years old. ha. my mistake was notifying anyone on that project.

i don't know what to tell you guys. i've asked for the FLITFIRE list from the Piper historians. i just hate it here and detest all the frigging work it takes to write a really good article and then have to fight with people who don't read the article and don't care about anything other than hassling me. good bye. i'll delete anything that is not technical then you can all take a flying leap.

06:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)cubgirl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubgirl4444 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it is fair to disagree with the premise... calmly and reasonably, not SHOUTING and petty. Of course, you also have the power to delete a bunch of stuff from the article.  It is one click to delete, an one click to undelete.  What ahunt deletes, I can restore in a moment.  What cubgirl deletes, I can restore in a flash.  What steelpillow deletes, is permanent.  Whoa, wait a minute.  Correction:  what steelpillow deletes, is easy to fix.
 * Point being, yeah, it takes a ton of work to write up the good article. And it takes a ton of work to maintain it.  Fundamentally, the hardest part is getting all the people involved -- cubgirl, 75.108, ahunt, steelpillow, theBanner, graemeL., nigel, and a few others who I probably haven't met yet -- to agree on what it MEANS to be 'good' and what the definition of 'improve' actually is.  These are profound questions, and take some time to get worked out.  In the meantime, deleting things because you are angry, frustrated, peeved, and so on, it pretty silly.  But also pretty common, hence there is even a special wiki-jargon for it, the WP:EDITWAR.  This one is mostly about whether to have a list with 49 entries, or whether to delete the list and have nothing.  Pretty lame, but not WP:LAME enough to make wiki-history.
 * Anyways, Cubgirl, new articles cannot be kept 'secret' simply by telling nobody. Everything on wikipedia is tracked, in hundreds of different ways.  New articles are reviewed, assigned to wikiprojects, new photo-uploads are checked for copyvio, articles with few references always get nominationed for nuking (sorry 'discussed' for 'redlinking'), and generally speaking everybody is too busybusy to pay attention to WP:NORUSH and to WP:NICE.  Which is a crying shame, methinks, wikipedia could be so much better.  Anyways, point here is that your big mistake is letting wikipedia's weird wiki-culture, and the strange behavior of people here (to the uninitiated wiki-eyes at least), get you down.  Wikipedia *is* just a website.  It's important, as websites go, but it's not like there is anything tangible here.  That said, there *are* some real things hidden behind the usernames, real humans.  You feel you've been treated shabbily, and I agree that the wiki-culture is poisonous to beginners; sadly, one of the reasons everybody is too busy to be nice, is *because* all the beginners get driven to the brink of madness!
 * So you're not alone. But I swear, doesn't have to be thataway, and for the most part, this is just a misunderstanding on your part:  nobody is out to get you, they're just too busy to help you, and are expecting you to learn to help yourself.  I'm here to help you learn to help yourself, if you want me to.  But you'll have to *let* me help you.  Your WP:CHOICE entirely, wikipedia is voluntary not WP:MANDATORY.  It can be enjoyable, if you keep your perspective (just a website), and keep your cool (be WP:NICE without fail), and stick to what the WP:SOURCES say.  An expert like you, with the sources at her fingertips, will always be able to 'win' the discussion on the talkpages, when working with some amateur that thinks a flitfire is probably some kind of camping-tool related to kindling, like myself.  (True story.  ;-)      But that's only if she stays calm, and doesn't go about doing rash things out of anger.  Because wikipedia is about calm discussion, not about 'winning' -- if you want that facebook is the place.  WP:NORUSH to get this article figured out, methinks.  There's plenty of time left in 2015, and if it takes all of 2016, that is also okay.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

RAFBF
The money raised went to the "American Branch" of the RAFBF but it doesnt appear to get any mentions, did they use the money for war work in the United States or sent it to blighty. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Good question! - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What is "blightly"? That's not an american term. Please read the article. The money was sent to the RAFBF to support RAF pilots. It's very clearly stated in many places with citations.

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)cubgirl
 * I don't know what blighty is either, but wikipedia is the encyclopedia WP:ANYONE can edit, so we can always look it up. According to the blighty article, the term is "commonly used as a term of endearment by the expatriate British community or those on holiday to refer to home."  So it means, was the money sent to the UK, or to the USA.  And the answer is, used in the UK, to support RAF pilots.  Here is the article-sentence:


 * Not sure if those sources mention where specifically the funds went. Cubgirl, can you tell me whether the 'American branch' of the RAFBF was located in the UK, i.e. was composed of USA-citizens in the British territory, or whether instead the 'American branch' was located on United States territorial soil (and if so were the members brits or yanks or both).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * some contemporary American newspapers refer to fundraising - though not re the Flitfires - for the "R.A.F. Benevolent Fund of the USA" (optionally with an "Inc" added). GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From doing a little reading, it seems there was an initial donation of the NC1776 straight from the manufacturer for a raffle, and either April 29th 1941 or June 14th 1941 (not sure which) the raffle and/or the mass-landing-fundraiser happened, followed by additional fundraising in the lower 48 done by the local Piper distributors. The mass-landing-at-La-Guardia raised in the neighborhood of $12k, which NYT of 1941 abstract says was for families of KIA and support of disabled-pilots from the Battle of Britain.  There were some hints (not in WP:SOURCES that I saw) about additional planes, for the then-territories of Alaska and Hawaii, but I'm not sure about whether that actually happened or not -- if there was a Flitfire Hawaii methinks it wouldn't have the fuel-tank-range to make it to North America, and thus may have been absent from the NYC mass-landing, even if it existed at the time.
 * So, in the early phases of the aircraft's lifetime, the NC1776 was raffled into private hands, but went on to be used for further fundraising, at unspecified locations for several years, plus as a trainer in Pennsylvania under the War Dept. The other 48 planes were christened at the ceremony in New York with/at La Guardia (the person and the airport both), and were then returned to the 48 states from whence they came, to participated in unspecified additional local fundraising activities.  As I understand it, the initial $12k was specifically earmarked for the RAFBF, and was used to support fliers killed-or-disabled in the Battle of Britain plus their families, over in the UK.  Not sure what the additional post-June-1941 fundraising work was used for, i.e. general war-related-fundraising, or specifically additional RAFBF work, or maybe even specifically Battle-of-Britain fundraising.  At least the NC1776 was also used in pilot-training for the military, e.g. in 1944.  It was flown for fundraising in 1943 by Orville.
 * At first anyways, bottom line, the answer is that the flitfire-brigade-money was intended to be sent to blighty aka the UK, for wounded fliers from action in late 1940. At the time of the mid-1941 flitfire fundraising work, the USA had not yet entered the war; e.g. the story about the summer-1941-fundraiser in Life Magazine is shortly after a story about the battle in the Atlantic, and whether or not merchant-shipping bound for the UK would be defended by the American crews, should they get into a shooting-match with German boats and/or subs.  So I don't really know what the post-December-1941 fundraising by flitfires was used for.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

NC1776
Is the significance of "1776" that it matched the Lend-Lease bill number, or that it's the year of the United States Declaration of Independence? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could be both... how was the Lend-Lease bill number chosen? One might presume, since it was a UK/USA thing, that the number was purposefully picked to be the beginning of the war between the UK/USA?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there Cubgirl, you are correct I haven't read the article. I don't care about the aircraft, I'm just here to help you learn the ropes of wikipedia.
 * This was removed, ping but I'm putting it back temporarily.  It's not very WP:NICE, but it is a correct statement of how she is feeling under duress.
 * You are correct Cubgirl, wikipedia is pretty absurd at times. But if you don't settle down it will only get Kafkaesquely absurd.  I'm happy to help, but you gotta listen, and take a deep breath.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So here is what the article says now: "By special permission from the Civil Aeronautics Administration, registration number NC1776 was received for this aircraft, symbolizing the Benevolent Fund's aid to Britain in the same manner as the Lend Lease Act, which had Congressional number HR1776.[17]"  Thus, the NC1776 was named to symbolize the aid to the UK, and it was so named in the same manner as HR1776 aka the Lend Lease Act.  So the answer is, NC1776 was named after both the American Revolutionary War and also after HR1776 aka the Lend Lease Act.  Right?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct Cubgirl, wikipedia is pretty absurd at times. But if you don't settle down it will only get Kafkaesquely absurd.  I'm happy to help, but you gotta listen, and take a deep breath.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So here is what the article says now: "By special permission from the Civil Aeronautics Administration, registration number NC1776 was received for this aircraft, symbolizing the Benevolent Fund's aid to Britain in the same manner as the Lend Lease Act, which had Congressional number HR1776.[17]"  Thus, the NC1776 was named to symbolize the aid to the UK, and it was so named in the same manner as HR1776 aka the Lend Lease Act.  So the answer is, NC1776 was named after both the American Revolutionary War and also after HR1776 aka the Lend Lease Act.  Right?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've edited to make it clearer that the reference is to the year. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Cubgirl has called me onto the carpet. :-)     I did read the article, but didn't read citation#17.  Cubgirl, wikipedia is mostly written by amateurs, not by experts.  I'm an amateur, I've never heard of the flitfire until this week, and figured it was a misspelling of spitfire.  I've studied WWII, but as an amateur and a student, not as a professional.  I've studied aero/astro, but again, as an amateur, not a professional.  The tiny factoid, about the origin of the numeral, is pretty small potatoes.  WWII was not won, nor lost, because of the symbolism of that NC1776 numeral.  Flitfires are not popular, nor unpopular, because of that numeral.  It is at best a footnote in history.  Which of course, is exactly what wikipedia is about, at it's best:  documenting history, and getting the footnotes correct.  So let us see, whether some amateurs like myself, have a chance at getting the connotations of the symbolism correct.  Ping User:GraemeLeggett, my apologies, but apparently I've misled you about the symbolic-origin (or the origin of the symbolism) for the numeric portion of NC1776. I'll do a bit of research-legwork, and get some quotes from the sources, and then get back to you here on what I find. I've removed the challenged sentence from mainspace, whilst this gets figured out. After reading citation#17, and doing a bit of WP:GOOG, I shall return, hopefully with the goods firmly in hand. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so here is WP:BLOGS (methinks) discussing the matter.
 * http://eaavintage.org/the-flitfire-cub/, "serial number 6600, registered as NC1776. The registration number was chosen to reflect House Resolution 1776, which enacted the Lend Lease Act between the United States and its allies."
 * Thus according to T. S. "Max" Platts, NC1776 is solely from HR1776 (which might or might not have been from 1776AD, here is the dotgov). So the next question, does Platts-the-author and eaaVintage-the-publisher count as a wiki-reliable exception to the WP:BLOGS criteria?  Maybe... and if not in general, then what about on this particular factoid?  Although there are no inline citations, Platts mentions several WP:RS that they utilized to write that blogpost, which is a good sign:
 * Piper Aircraft, 2010, page 70, by Roger Peperell (Air Britain Historians). books.google.com only has 1987 and 1998 listed, no previews for them.  This is the publisher-or-author-website, with the 2006 edition, again with no preview though.
 * The Battle Of Britain: Then and Now, 1996 (Fifth Edition), page unspecified, by W. G. Ramsey. No online-preview again, 1989 edition only.
 * Shindig at N.Y. Airport Opens Fund Drive For R.A.F., 12th May 1941, pages 36-37, by Life Magazine, , makes no mention of '1776' that I noticed
 * Platts also mentions some not-necessarily-considered-wiki-reliable sources, which were mixed into the wiki-reliable stuff listed above:
 * http://www.als-cannonfield.com/Flitfire.htm, which definitely mentions NC 1776 as the highlight of the flitfires, but does not say where the numeral stems from, and is basically unchanged since 2010. "NC 1776 was won by New Yorker Jack Krindler on April 29, 1941. After an ownership change, NC 1776 served the War Department in the U.S. Civilian Pilot Training Program during WWII" (more WP:RS for these factoids below)
 * http;//www.wikipedia.com “Piper J-3 Cub” (which is a typo for the actual URL of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_J-3_Cub ... but when did they check the page? Sometime in Sept. 2014 or earlier, anyways, and probably in March or April.  Looking at the edit-history of that article, from April 2013 through late-May 2014 it was basically unchanged (cubgirl made the only upgrade, in Dec'13 methinks).  Wikipedia mentions the aircraft in question, but not the numeral 1776 -- we only refer to it as "on display at the North Carolina Aviation Museum... flown by Orville Wright...."  So I think we can discount worries about WP:CIRCULAR here.
 * At the end of the day, for this specific factoid, I assume that Platts got the info from offline-WP:RS-sources-by-Ramsey-or-Peperell, since I've ruled out the non-WP:RS by process of elimination. We already cite that Platts-blog in the Piper J-3 Cub article, so maybe it is considered WP:RS all by itself.  Anyways, since process-of-elimination isn't permitted by WP:SYNTH-aka-no-logic-allowed, digging further for WP:SOURCES, methinks Platts was correct, on this factoid.
 * Turns out the name of the raffle-winner wasn't permanently lost: wikipedia says it was Jack Krindler.  However, mainspace cites this source for that factoid:  "How to Fly a Piper Cub". AOPA Pilot Magazine (AOPA): 59. July 1, 1986.   Isn't that the same as the one google-books shows as saying "lost to history"?  Or maybe in the sidebar, or in a correction published at the bottom, they figure it out.  In any case, the factoid about Krindler *is* correct methinks, and is found in this 1994 source:
 * See also the website of Henderson Aviation, the company that restored NC1776 to silver trim in the 1990s. Additional stuff I ran across:
 * per a non-WP:RS user-submitted letter-to-the-editor, the NC1776 was specifically used during May 1944, at the Army Air Force College Training Detachment, Gettysburg Pennsylvania.
 * Turns out the name of the raffle-winner wasn't permanently lost: wikipedia says it was Jack Krindler.  However, mainspace cites this source for that factoid:  "How to Fly a Piper Cub". AOPA Pilot Magazine (AOPA): 59. July 1, 1986.   Isn't that the same as the one google-books shows as saying "lost to history"?  Or maybe in the sidebar, or in a correction published at the bottom, they figure it out.  In any case, the factoid about Krindler *is* correct methinks, and is found in this 1994 source:
 * See also the website of Henderson Aviation, the company that restored NC1776 to silver trim in the 1990s. Additional stuff I ran across:
 * per a non-WP:RS user-submitted letter-to-the-editor, the NC1776 was specifically used during May 1944, at the Army Air Force College Training Detachment, Gettysburg Pennsylvania.
 * per a non-WP:RS user-submitted letter-to-the-editor, the NC1776 was specifically used during May 1944, at the Army Air Force College Training Detachment, Gettysburg Pennsylvania.


 * So at the end of the day, NC1776 was picked to match HR1776 of the Lend Lease Act, said NC1776 number was sought specifically by Strohmeier to commemorate HR1776, and the CAA gave special permission to allow this numeric-assignment. I'll stick this into the article, unless anybody objects.  (Also, will flesh out our cite for Krinkler.)  p.s.  Still couldn't locate a copy of this source, which is #17 in mainspace at the moment:  "Flitfire Brigade Starts Nation Wide Tour For R.A.F. Fund". The Cub Flier (Piper Aircraft Corp.) V (2). 1941.  Anybody know where this is available?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've found references to the numbering of the Bill "formally introduced in the House as HR 1776, with obvious symbolism, .... " (Stathis, Landmark Debates in Congress: p338) and "numbering the bill HR 1776 gave it a patriotic aura" (The Oxford Companion to American Military History - entry on Lend-lease) So a link to American in 1776 seems sure. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suspect that HR1776 was not picked out of a hat. But although the 'obvious' symbolism of the choice of numeral 1,776 for use within HR1776 almost certainly refers to the beginning of the usa/uk war, the sources are pretty clear that the specific reason special permission was sought for NC1776 was to commemorate HR1776... and no further symbolism is mentioned, that I found.  (I don't have access to offline sources and haven't read all the online ones so I could be wrong.)  Anyways, my point is, I think that Flitfire_Brigade ought to specify that NC1776 was sought to commemorate HR1776, and that special permission to do so was granted by the CAA.  We can wikilink HR1776 to the Lend Lease Act article, and in *that* article explain the origin of the HR1776-symbolism, per the sources you dug up about that topic.  Make sense?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

list
After the section was tagged as needing sources, Cubgirl added this info. I've moved it here, since this is the place to discuss sourcing.

Originally, there were some drafts which had the FAA documentation linked from each of the aircraft. Although the FAA is a wiki-reliable source, in some cases government agencies have functions where they are like the yellow pages, and list EVERY instance of some group. For example, corporations have to be registered with the state (exception for doing business as operations which need not be legal entities separate from the person that runs them). I'm assuming that all aircraft have to be FAA registered, and that is what was being linked unto? Do we have any newspaper articles, offline newspapers or online newspapers, that mention these individual aircraft? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The main problem with the FAA registration is not its reliability. It is an official source and it is a directory, which is fine. I have cited many country's aircraft registries to show various things. The problem with citing them is that the FAA does not indicate that these aircraft are the original Flitfires - they could be any random Cubs based on the FAA records. We still don't have a reliable and verifiable source that lists the original Flitfire aircraft registrations or serial numbers that could be correlated with the registrations to produce a verifiable list. Now all that said, the consensus emerging above is that it is not appropriate to have this complete list in the article as it falls afoul of WP:TRIVIA and also WikiProject Aviation/Registrations, but we are still having that discussion above. - Ahunt (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, so there is the question of 'impersonation'. It sounds like Cubgirl is in contact with somebody at the manufacturer, which is what the letterhead-thing is about.  So, whilst I agree that a personal letter from somebody at Piper Cub to somebody that happens to own own of the FAA-registered aircraft, whether on letterhead or not, would not count as WP:RS... what about a posting of the Flitfire serial numbers -- or whatever the FAA and Piper use to track the individual aircraft -- by somebody at the corporation, onto some page of the corporate website?  That would be WP:ABOUTSELF data, which must be used with care, but would seem to solve the impersonation-question.  Or maybe I don't understand the details.  Actually, strike that, I for sure don't know what I'm talking about.  :-)      p.s.  Here is the page that inspired the Flitfire list -- List_of_surviving_Supermarine_Spitfires.  Although many of the aircraft there are in museums, at least as many are private collections; my memory of production wartime use wasn't wrong, there were 22k spitfire units, but it seems all that remain extant are at that article (plus a few defunct instances at the bottom).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Article title
"Brigade" - with a capital B - is not present in the citation given for the grouping of the Flitfires. Rather than move it to Flitfire brigade, which even then I think would be a stretch of reading the source, why not put it back at the old title. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * it is a proper noun "Flitfire Brigade" as listed in the citations. but you're right, you know and no one else does.  ok thanks whatever  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubgirl4444 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Cubgirl, I know this is the internet, and there are a lot of places on the internet where bickering and sarcasm and being snippy are okay. But wikipedia isn't one of them.  Stop the sarcasm, and just like in Missouri, show me.  Graeme checked one of the citations, I'm not sure which one since he doesn't say, and DID NOT FIND what you say is there.  You then come back with "nu-uhnhhh!"  ... and you don't say anything more.  Well, anything more that isn't sarcasm.  Be reasonable, be concrete, show me what you know, I'm your friend but you have to WP:PROVEIT.  The point of talkpages is to have a polite ... emphasis on polite ... discussion, about what the sources actually say.  Then, and only then, can a reasonable decision be made.


 * If you want to make the case for the new title, then you have to prove the case, calmly and cooly, by GIVING THE SOURCES that actually back up what you are saying. You've read the sources.  Graeme has read at least one of the sources.  I'm not gonna be reading the sources, my interest in the aircraft is too low.  Most of the people that visit the talkpage, are also not going to be reading the full bunch of sources.  See WP:PROVEIT.  See also WP:COMMONNAME.


 * Cubgirl, if you want this to be the new title, then please give me a nice list of citations, here on the talkpage (piece title / piece author / piece publisher / piece date / and when applicable page number). Then, for each citation, specific info about what the piece uses to refer to the aircraft:  does the author call it 'the brigade' for short, or do they call it 'the Brigade' for short?  When speaking of a small group of the aircraft, like five or ten of them, what is the term used, 'bridage members' or 'Brigade members'?  When speaking of the entire set of 48/49/50 aircraft, are they NORMALLY called 'the Flitfire Brigade' or rather 'the Flitfire brigade'?  Along the same lines, is the use of flitfire (by each of the sources) *universally* capitalized as a trademark, in their prose, always 'Flitfire' and never 'flitfire'?  What is the term each source MOST OFTEN uses to refer to a singular aircraft, 'flitfire' or 'Flitfire' or 'brigade member' or 'Brigade member' or something else such as NC1776?


 * In any kind of article-title question, there are three things that matter: 1) what the WP:SOURCES actually say, and how often.  2) whether they are WP:SOURCES aka wiki-reliable, books of aviation history (not ones published by reprinting wikipedia or by vanity presses) and peer-reviewed journal articles by university professors count for the most, local newspaper articles and local television newscasts count for the least, facebook pages do not count at all.  Finally, 3) when do the sources say, what they say?  There is sometimes a change in the WP:COMMONNAME, and in this instance, it may be the case that WWII-era newspapers/teevee/magazines/books/etc referred to the aircraft-as-a-set using one kind of name-and-capitalization, whereas post-1990-modern-era newspapers/teevee/magazines/books/etc refer to the *same* physical aircraft-as-a-set using completely different name-and-capitalization.  Anyways, getting angry will solve nothing, and will only make things worse.  Get calm, and make your WP:CHOICE -- do you want to mess with the legwork to WP:PROVEIT that the WP:COMMONNAME really is Flitfire Brigade, capital F capital B, or would you rather people here just do what you tell them to?  Which is to say, you don't have to mess with providing the details list of sources, and discussing which are blogs and which are wiki-reliable, and helping figure out which of them from which decade use which naming-and-capitalization conventions and how often.


 * Wikipedia is voluntary, not WP:MANDATORY, if showing what you know to be true, to a rank amateur like myself, would be a waste of your time, then by all means, you are free to state your opinion calmly, then stop. (Sarcasm is not considered calming.  ;-)     But at the moment, Graeme has read one of the sources, and thinks it best we switch back to Flitfire/flitfire as the title.  Graeme, can you give me the cite you are working from, por favor?  Cubgirl, if you want to convince me, I ask the same of you:  give me the cites you are basing your opinion upon.  I'm happy to skim them, if they are available for me to skim (don't upload them Cubgirl -- that would be copyright violation -- and thus a lot of work for no return since WP:COPYVIO is of course deleted on sight as you know).  Talkpage-discussions are based on what the sources say; they aren't based on who 'wins' because they are not about winning.  Sooner that gets straightened out, the better.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right, I should have given the ref to be more specific. It's which says "The Flitfire brigade was the outgrowth of an original donation of one Piper Cub by W.T. Piper... " GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite the endless sarcasm and personal attacks, let's get back to the question at hand. The cited ref uses a lower case "b" indicating that it is not a proper noun. The article is fundamentally about the aircraft, not the collective group of them so I think it should be moved back to Flitfire. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree about the pagemove-revert, User:Ahunt. Seems most of the sources we have are about The Event, aka the extended fundraising stuff of 1941, starting with NC1776, and then the outgrowth into the fleet of original-plus-48-imitators.  In particular, see this source at the time, which was the National Aeronautics Council ... not sure if that is the same as NACA/NASA?  "...We were interested spectators at the mass landing of the largest concentration of light aircraft ever seen over New York ... workers dubbed them Flitfires, paraphrasing the British Spitfire.  Full name of each ship is Flitfire Wisconsin or ..."  The simultaneous landing was a neat stunt, because it required coordination via radio -- none of the 49 Cubs had onboard electronics, the radios were transportables on loan from the Lear Jet folks (or the precursor thereof since no jets yet in 1941).  After the mass landing, mass christening, and initial fundraiser with the famous NYC guy personally on hand, the planes dispersed, and as far as I can tell, never again were all 49 of them in one place at one time.  So basically, this is a question of whether the article is about Flitfire the "product"-article, or instead about Flitfire_Brigade-or-Flitfire_brigade the "event"-article.  There is some evidence that the manufacturer referred specifically to Flitfire Brigade, per the title of the offline 1941 piece, "Flitfire Brigade Starts Nation Wide Tour For R.A.F. Fund".  I also note the quaint use of Nation Wide rather than nationwide as we might say nowadays.  At least one WP:RS followed the lead of Piper Aircraft Corp, and used the proper noun Flitfire Brigade without scarequotes:
 * We also have the source that Graeme found, which uses Flitfire bridage. *They* were all over the map, though:  fleet (used twice), Piper Cub Trainers (used twice with "Cub" in scarequotes once), Flitfires (italics and capitalization in original), The Flitfire bridage (italics and capitalization in original), ...one Flitfire ...from each state... "After the ceremonies, the planes left La Guardia Field to make fund-raising tours in the states for which they were named."  (As an aside, there is a photo on page 58, which has the caption "Fleet of 48..." but per WP:CALC only 47 aircraft are actually visible ... and from the text we know it was actually supposed to be 49 total, one from each of the lower 48, plus the NC1776... not sure where the missing plane-or-two might have been, maybe just out of the frame, or maybe late getting to the party?)
 * There are other sources, from 1941 and later, that use other terms. Most of the modern sources just speak of Flitfire(s) methinks, though I've not read them all.  But the fundamental question we must cogitate upon, is this:  are we writing an article about the Event Of 1941, and the aftermath thereof, including modern-day restorations?  Or are we writing an article about a trim-variant of the Piper J-3 Cub which was produced during a brief production-run during 1941, and of which 13 still remained as of 1994?  Maybe we are doing both.  But we should be clear in our minds, what the focus of this article is, so that we organize the prose properly.  Before we decide on a title, we need to figure out what the sources are mostly *about* ... and then we can figure out what terminology they utilize when *referring* to the article-topic (event vs mechanically-identical-trim-variant vs both-as-a-gestalt).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are other sources, from 1941 and later, that use other terms. Most of the modern sources just speak of Flitfire(s) methinks, though I've not read them all.  But the fundamental question we must cogitate upon, is this:  are we writing an article about the Event Of 1941, and the aftermath thereof, including modern-day restorations?  Or are we writing an article about a trim-variant of the Piper J-3 Cub which was produced during a brief production-run during 1941, and of which 13 still remained as of 1994?  Maybe we are doing both.  But we should be clear in our minds, what the focus of this article is, so that we organize the prose properly.  Before we decide on a title, we need to figure out what the sources are mostly *about* ... and then we can figure out what terminology they utilize when *referring* to the article-topic (event vs mechanically-identical-trim-variant vs both-as-a-gestalt).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the real question is the scope of the article. The story of the aircraft themselves runs from 1941 to present day, whereas the "Flitfire Brigade" was really just a single formation flying event that started on 27 April 1941 and ended two days later on 29 April 1941 when the aircraft arrived in NYC and the formation was split up. The article is clearly about the aircraft from inception to the present day and more than just the two days of formation flying, even though that was a highlight of their careers. - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As an aside there are some sources which mention June 14th 1941 rather than April 29th... not sure what the deal is? On the difficult question:


 * But yes, we certainly can write the article thataway:
 * That's the Honda_Accord way to write the article. But we could just as easily write about the Historical Event and the lasting impact thereof, which is similar in chronology but distinct in how we present the factoids:
 * That's the alternative way to write the article, something like the Project Mercury article on the space race: sure, there were some silver aerospace vehicles involved, but mostly it was geopolitics as expressed through technology, that was the motivation of the folks involved in the space race (and geopolitics was the motivation of the Flitfire Brigade one could also plausibly argue).
 * That's the alternative way to write the article, something like the Project Mercury article on the space race: sure, there were some silver aerospace vehicles involved, but mostly it was geopolitics as expressed through technology, that was the motivation of the folks involved in the space race (and geopolitics was the motivation of the Flitfire Brigade one could also plausibly argue).
 * That's the alternative way to write the article, something like the Project Mercury article on the space race: sure, there were some silver aerospace vehicles involved, but mostly it was geopolitics as expressed through technology, that was the motivation of the folks involved in the space race (and geopolitics was the motivation of the Flitfire Brigade one could also plausibly argue).


 * Anyways, although they are both the "same" article in some sense, the emphasis and the focus is considerably distinct. Since the 'main event' in their history, and the 'main motive' for their creation, are so tightly intertwined, I expect we'll end up with a hybrid product-and-politics-both article.  Compare the "product"-article we have on the USS_Saratoga_(CV-3) which is about the carrier, to the "event"-articles we have with passing mention of the role the Saratoga played in Clark Gable, Magic Carpet, Wake Island,Iwo Jima, and Nuclear Crossroads.  There is also a tech-article Belt_armor which mentions the Saratoga.
 * The distinction here, of course, is that the Flitfire Brigade (event) was THE major event that this trim-variant underwent; the event was in fact the politically-motivated *reason* that the 49 aircraft were built, furthermore. Thus, I'm not sure whether we are writing a mostly-political-event-article, or a mostly-mechanical-product-variant-article, but I suspect it is some hybrid.  You are correct, that the scope is a question, but I see Cubgirl's point that the article is basically about a political event and the aftermath thereof, rather than about the mechanical features of a silver-variant to the yellow-J-3 ... even the choice of silver paint, was politically motivated.  Does this make sense?  I'm not staking a position on the article-title yet, WP:COMMONNAME says we should follow what the sources say for that, but I do think this article is at least as much as politics and history, as it is about manufacturing and technology.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing a strong argument being made here either way, so I think that Flitfire ought to be the choice as it is more concise and likely better meets WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Flitfire covers it either way and is more flexible, while Brigade/brigade narrows it down. As to the choice of silver for the paint, while it gives a consistent look with circa 1920-1930 RAF aircraft, the sources I've read only touch on the red-white-blue insignia as making the link with the RAF. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the note on the paint is odd. No Spitfire ever wore silver paint or polished aluminium into battle that I am aware of. I wonder where the idea fort the silver paint scheme came from? It could be to resemble aircraft like the Hawker Hind of the 1930s. It is pretty clear that it wasn't painted that way to look like a Spitfire. - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * With the move back to Flitfire I think this matter can be closed as "decided". - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I don't have strong feelings about the article-title, my main concern is avoiding the Honda-Ascot outcome (I think the Flitfires are politically symbolic at least as much as they are technologically of interest). I too would like to know the backstory for the silver paint -- I seem to recall dun or khaki coloration, for Spitfire planes, but that's mostly from movies, not from history methinks.  WP:OR might suggest that the Piper folks were working from b&w photographs?  :-)      Another guess would be that silver was the *available* color besides yellow, at the factory in question, in sufficient quantity for the short production run... or perhaps, the yellow cubs are undercoated in silver-or-grey-primer-paint, before they are overpainted with yellow, and thus the use of silver was a cost-cutting measure -- they simply left off the yellow topcoat?  In any case, I'd be curious to know the true story of the paint-selection.  As for the larger issue, currently the article is written with some *facts* about the state of the war in Europe, but relatively few *political* facts about the state of things stateside.  The point of the Flitfire (and the Brigade) was not simply to raise money for the RAF, it was intended to help bring the USA into the war, or at the least, to help shift public sentiment in the USA towards sympathy for the plight and courage of the UK.  (Once again  o'course.)  Most of that is visible between the lines, and probably more visible at the linked articles, but I would prefer to see this article expanded -- a few more sentences in the background section explaining the factions and the weight of public sentiment here in the USA in 1940 and 1941 and 1942, whether the Flitfire had impact beyond the fundraising-work (and whether it was *intended* to or not by the originators and the sponsors like the NYC mayor), plus finally, the motivations of the restoration-work back to the quasi-symbolic silver coloration.  Which brings us back to, what did that silver mean?  ;-)      I may try to return, and flesh out these bits myself, but if I don't manage it, and somebody else would like to WP:SOFIXIT in my place, that would be appreciated.  p.s.  Can somebody set up talkpage-archiving here, for the somewhat-off-topic-sections?  Thanks,  75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

goodbye and good luck
your article is now technical and slightly historical. you know for the life of me i can't figure out why i could not delete the reference to the flitfire on commons because there is no flitfire on commons. but whatever. i am done. you all win and i hope you like the dry, technical flitfire article. i hate wiki and especially hate that aircraft or warcraft project that you guys are in. i edit another site that has MUCH MORE historical significance than this one and i have had absolutely NO TROUBLE there. but here is a nightmare. oh my big mistake was informing that wiki aircraft project of my intention.

you all are vindictive and i don't think i'll ever be back... ta ta

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)cubgirl

i'm going to make one more comment before i go just so i can sleep tonight. whoever added that 1776 number was given to the 1st flitfire because of the Declaration of independence. didn't read the article or any of the citations. there is absolutely NO validity to that data and it is not based on any fact, other than the editor "thinks" it's true. oh, but he can add this kind of BS data with no citation and it's OK... because my guess is he's in the wiki aircraft project.

i had 90 citations and got called to the carpet for every little thing. WIKI is sexist and there are definitely double standards here. you guys are hypocrites for not calling that guy out on the BS statement. oh wait, he is in the aircraft project so it must be ok.

this is bogus and not worth my time or energy.

but spreading misinformation is BS and i think your encyclopedia is totally bogus now for letting something stand that is totally unvalidated and is a figment of someone's imagination. i'll never refer to WIKI again because i now see how things really run here... if this BS "declaration of independence" thing can stand, when i specifically had several citations showing where the number came from, then WIKI is highly unreliable and based on the good ole boy network rather than FACTS. i'm also telling other folks about this club mentality and how you all don't care about facts, just control.

this is disgusting. how do you all look at yourselves in the mirror? yuck! i'm done. now i can sleep... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubgirl4444 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Cubgirl, sorry that wikipedia is a pain in the ass. It very much is one, but with good reason:  that's how wikipedia became a top-ten-website, because here, NOT just anything goes.  To the beginner with a passion, and with expertise, and with interest in sharing that expertise, it can come as a rude shock that wikipedia doesn't simply work like facebook, where anything goes.  Or like twitter, where anything goes.  Or like basically any other website out there.  Wikipedia is special, and wikipedia is a top-ten-in-the-universe website, because wikipedia has very high standards.  It's not sexist and it's not a good-old-boy club; those are just excuses.  You don't understand it, yet at least, but it is 100% your WP:CHOICE if you want to stay until I teach you the ropes, or if you want to leave angry.  Nobody is gonna force you to learn all the stupid wiki-rules (even when there is a reason for them there are still plenty that are stupid).  Nobody is gonna force you to understand, that the way wikipedia makes decisions, is by slow careful talkpage discussions ABOUT EVERY LITTLE THING... which includes copyrights on images, whether sources are published, if published whether they are wiki-reliable or not, if wiki-reliable are they independent or not, and for every single sentence in mainspace-articles, is it backed up aka WP:PROVEIT with the WP:SOURCES and if so does everbody including the amateur like me, AGREE that it is backed up?  To somebody with thirty years of studying this aircraft, you see things as being obvious.  And you don't wanna work with people that haven't spent thirty years studying it.  Which means, in practice, that you don't wanna work with *anybody* since you are probably the only person with that experience.  I've got one week of experience.  You are working well with me.  But I'm not a supergenius who can fix everything instantly, and watch every edit made by any person indefinitely.  You say that 1776 refers to something specific, and you say that the citations back it up, but you don't say what 1776 refers to, and you don't say which specific citations on which specific pages back it up.  That might work on facebook, that might work on twitter, but it doesn't work here.  If you are correct, show me, and WP:PROVEIT.  There is an ongoing never ending process of WP:BRD here, which you are failing to understand.  I'm happy to explain it to you, step by step, but you're not gonna be a wiki-genius in one year, the wiki-culture takes more time to fully soak up, and you should know from your own experience -- you didn't become a flitfire-genius in one year, right?  These things take time.  Like an aircraft that the mechanic is tinkering on whilst in mid-air over the ocean, wikipedia is a vast piece of complex machinery, with a big blue 'edit' button that allows WP:ANYONE to start overhauling the engine, repainting the fuselage, or rerouting the flightpath.  The only thing keeping wikipedia in the air, and preventing a fatal crash to the hard seafloor beneath the waves, is cooperative collaboration of the wiki-airplane-mechanics, who work together to decide on the best paint-job, how to overhaul the powerplant, and who the pilot is.  Wikipedia is filled with safety-switches, speed-controls, warning-cones, and all that bureaucratic-control-crap, sure.  Some of that stuff is necessary to keep the damn thing aloft.  But wikipedia is also dedicated to freedom, in the true sense:  liberty to do what is right and freedom to make things better.  Anyways, even though you have decided to Quit.For.Evah, and badmouth the horrors of wikipedia to anybody that will listen, I hope that when you have a bit of sleep, and a nice break to calmly reflect, you might reconsider.  Wikipedia is a harsh jungle for the beginner, and you have learned that in spades.  But it's not the law of the jungle, and it's not Lord of the Flies, it's more like, may the WP:SOURCE be with you.  Anyways, have a good sleep, take as long of a wiki-break as you need, WP:NORUSH, and if you wish, come back anytime, nobody will hold a grudge (partly because that wouldn't be nice but mostly because holding grudges is literally against the wiki-pillars engraved in wiki-stone).  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

State of the article
I think it is a testimony to the resilience of the Wikipedia process and the collaboration of the editors involved that, as of this morning, the article looks pretty good. Editors can note User:Cubgirl4444 seems to to Commons by having it deleted, but I have indicated on the two deletion pages that the image was legitimately donated and should be retained.

Otherwise, as I have indicated above, I think the article should be moved back to Flitfire as a better title. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had a chance to look at some of the other refs and the upper-case Brigade is used in some of them. But the article would still be better placed at Flitfire (or Piper Flitfire, if disambiguation were needed, which I don't think is required yet). "Brigade" refers to them en masse during the publicity and can't really be used once the article discusses current survivors. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not an official manufacturer's name so I think that "Piper Flitfire" would be wrong. I can see no justification for adding "brigade" in the title as this is not just about the group as a whole. That leaves a move back to Flitfire as my strong preference. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Flitfire_Brigade, where I argue that we might be writing an event-and-the-aftermath-article, rather than a mechanically-identical-trim-variant-article. Not sure which it is, at the moment, myself.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. I am in no doubt that we should be covering everything significant about the Flitfire - and that includes all of the trim variant, the event, the "brigade" and the aftermath. If there was something significant that was not part of the article focus, that would need another article, and that would not be sensible. So the focus needs to be as broad as the verifiable Flitfire story. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)