Talk:Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion/Archive 1

First Flight
Picture of the first flight of the RH-53D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.132.225 (talk • contribs)

Iranian RH-53
weren't 7 RH-53 sold to the Iranian Navy pre the revolution ??? 160.5.247.213 16:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Tomcat200 29 May 2006

Misleading summary statements
Summary statements should be a precice listing of what you changed in an article. '(Pic captions clarified) by User:Arpingstone is completely misleading,  and  are not clarifications. They are questions that, had time had been taken to look the items up, could have been answered without rhetoric in the article mainspace. Comments asking questions are innappropriate in the article space and should instead be asked here on the article's talk page. Just my 2ċ worth. Nashville Monkey 00:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Navy CH-53
The Navy only uses the three engine version of the 53, which is in a different section. I believe it should be removed from here since they don't operate a CH-53D. --ProdigySportsman 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you mean the section in the text which states: The CH-53 continues to be serviced by the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, then you may be right. We would need confirmation that the US Navy does not still have some two-engined Stallions in service. However, the Navy did operate them in the past, specifically the RH-53A/D mine counter-measures versions, so it should remain in the AIrcraft Infobox as a user. - BillCJ 04:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The U.S. Navy Fact File page says that the Marine Corps are the only ones that still operate them. Should be proof enough.--Looper5920 04:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Navy did use them, and that's enough for it to be considered a primary user. It's not like we remove Luftwaffe from Messerschmitt Bf 109 because they don't use it anymore. ericg &#9992; 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sizing pics
Born2flie: You all (BillCJ, Signaleer, etc.) need to come to a happy medium (consensus) about what you are going to do with pic sizes. I'm perfectly happy with no hard coded pic sizes according to the MOS. I don't think it is right to say no pic sizing on one article, removing an editor's sizing input and then size a pic on another article without describing browser, screen size and the impact it has on the article's display. I also don't think it is right if you size pics and then unsize a pic when an editor who has removed all your sizing chooses to size a pic. I mean, you could, but it is childish without discussing it. So, discuss. --07:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We have always had a problem with this particular pic being too large, and I have tried to regulate it since it was first added several months ago, as the edit history will show. If I remember correctly, it was originally added at 350px or 400px; now that was really big! For the record, on Windows XP Home Edition SP2 using IE6/7 at 800x600 on a 15 in monitor on a 849 MHz PC clone with 512 MB RAM, the image has always take up over a third of the pargaraph width at 250px. I won't change this again. - BillCJ 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie: Bill, you have a good reason for resizing, but you and Signaleer seem to have no communication regarding this on the pages where I've seen you both edit pics back and forth. I think Signaleer has taken it as personal. --03:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to communicate on several occasions, as the edit histories and talk pages, including his, will show. His response is usually limited some version of "I'm going to keep changing it". This time, I explained my edit, and did not revert it at all after his revert. I'm not going to check every page's edit history in order to avoid editing something he might not like. His taking it personal might have something to do with the fact that I got him blocked last week for edit warring, but the admin blocked me too. - BillCJ 03:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie: Okay, I caught most of that. If you have made the effort, then my apologies. I didn't realize it was even more involved than I had witnessed over the last couple of weeks. As an unsized thumb, it isn't that big on my browser, pretty small, actually, even if it is a bit tall compared to most. I did, however, just adjust my preferences to 250px and notice that it starts to be a bit ungainly for the article. I'd agree to a 200px size for it. --04:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's not some personal thing - Bill is taking the same interpretation of the MoS that I do, and Signaleer has reverted us both multiple times in violation of 3RR. Nothing personal - in fact, in my opinion the 'no size' setting is the opposite of personal. ericg &#9992; 05:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Opps. I realized I reverted on the wrong entry, and put the sizing back in on the bid pic. Of course, it's not there now. Sigh. - BillCJ 23:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But of course it is now, Signaleer has replaced it, when does this stop? Nashville Monkey 23:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie: I'm all studied up on the conflict now. I guess I forgot that I recently added this to my watchlist so it seemed like it was spilling over from other articles I had seen it happen on. My bad. --02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)