User talk:GraemeLeggett/Archive 8

Light fighter article
Graeme, I've appreciated all your time and edits to the article, which has made the article much stronger both directly and by influencing me to seek out more detail and references.

Do you think it is still too essay like and not encyclopedic enough? Or, have the many expert references quoted convinced you that it is accurate?

Where do you think it should go from here? Should we invite some of the other military aviation editors to review it?

In my opinion this article is going far more into depth on the strategy of fighter aircraft than any other Wiki aircraft article. It has been a mystery to me that Wiki aircraft articles discuss very little of the capability, historical impact, and strategic importance of the particular plane. Instead much more text is devoted to dry detail on how many, who operates, etc, and no discussion of the big picture. For example, I was shot down repeatedly on even discussing the effectiveness of the F-5 in its article. It's there now, but a lot of the editors just had no concept of practical performance. One told me I was deluded to think the F-5 could remotely compare in effectiveness to the F-14 with a Phoenix missile ("The F-14 will just keep shooting Phoenix missiles till one connects!"), though the Phoenix has never shot down an enemy plane (missed every time) and that whole idea of super BVR has been dropped since.

Thus I've been thinking of duplicating some of the pertinent information in this article out to some of the particular aircraft pages like the F-5, F-16, F-14, F-15, F-86, and P-51. It may cause some editing wars, but those articles are lacking this effectiveness and budget information. There is a lot of "this is a cool airplane", and not much of "this is why this is a good weapons system".

Regards, Farron, PhaseAcer (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've had a think, and the best thing is to invite comments and views from the wider aviation editing "community" on Wikipedia. That's the proper way to get good answers to the sort of questions you're asking. From editors with better access than me to references. You could put a note at the WP:Aviation talk page but personally I'd start with a note at the WP:Aircraft sub-project (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft).
 * Editors change with time - in attitude and approach - so views on what constitutes material appropriate for other articles may also have changed. But put your ideas forward first and see what happens. What you are thinking of may touch upon this for instance Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft though that editor is currently overhauling the Vickers Valiant. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I'm thinking in terms of over the next few months to try getting some of this information out to the specific fighter plane pages.


 * I just got a new source I had ordered, the "The Pentagon Paradox", which is written by a career military aviation editor who for years was editor of the TopGun newspaper and knew everybody in U.S. tactical aviation. Personal acquaintance of every every hitter I have been quoting (this book also refers to the P-51 as basically  a light fighter).  Anyway, his book page 41 has the final summary graph (kill ratios vs. ratio of Blue to Red fighters) of key data from ACEVAL 77 that really shows the ability of the F-5 to win over the big new fighters.  Under those artificially high radar missile Pk's  (it seems they are ALWAYS greatly overestimated) and not allowing radar warning receivers, the big fighters win at 2:1 to 3:1 (over a set of tactical circumstances) if each side has an equal number of total aircraft.  But, if the ratio of F-5's to F-14's and F-15's is two to one (which can be done with much smaller budget), then the kill ratios approach 1:1. The F-5 force could attrit the big fighter force down to zero and still have half their planes left.  And of course, it would be more dominant than that if it was real war with the poor radar Pk's of the era.


 * So far I am not finding any references that can refute these sources on the bottom line superiority of light fighters from a strategic perspective. There are plenty of "I beat the F-5 with my F-14 when I was at TopGun" fighter pilot stories, and grand statements like "The F-15 is the very definition of the air superiority fighter."  But, when you put them in statistically significant trials, the little guys with similar airframe performance tend to win plane for plane (F-16 vs. F-15 trials back when they allowed that), or with numbers with a lower powered non-radar fighter like the F-5. This holds right back to WWII, where the Me 262 only achieved a 1.3:1 kill ratio over allied fighters, even though half their Me 262 pilots were aces.  The more sophisticated fighters just get attritted down to zero if strongly outnumbered by a competent opponent.  I'm an engineer who appreciates high tech, but the history of air combat is saying that the latest stealth incarnation probably faces the same issue.  It will dominate over incompetent opponents in small conflicts that are really police actions.  But, put it up against a large opponent determined to win or die trying in a real war, with pretty good equipment and well trained pilots, and it will be in trouble.  This concept of enemy kills per unit budget sounds simple, but its powerful, and seems to be totally unappreciated by most of the decision makers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhaseAcer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As I say, flag your ideas up at the WP Aviation talk. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Graeme, I believe we have arrived at what is probably the most informative military aviation article in Wikipedia. Presenting strategic information to this degree is probably what makes it seem "essay like", but all that information and the conclusions are very well referenced against the lifetime work of brilliant professionals and the actual combat record.

But, there is one thing missing that may bias the article. The frustration of light fighter proponents has led to extensive publishing that seems completely sound based on the historical record and the current status of technology. Because the data shows they have been so right to date, light fighter proponents have come to disdain the heavy fighter concept.

However, there are two obvious key factors in favor of the heavy fighter concept that are not well presented in the article, because I don't have exact referencing on them. These are:

1. Since combat results are so dominated by the top pilots, fewer but better aircraft in the hands of only the very best pilots could be a superior system. Light fighter proponents would correctly counter that argument by showing the data that heavy fighters are not actually better. However, the idea is sound if a more expensive aircraft really could be better and you can obtain superior pilots for them by better screening and not by the classic method of having a larger group of pilots among whom the cream rises to the top. The problem is that is so hard to measure fighting spirit in advance. It's importance is why I put in the several notes on how some physically disadvantaged pilots like Galland, Bader, and Epstein are among the best in history.

2. Since so far it has not proven possible to screen only the most capable of "hawks" into the cockpit, the concepts of air to air radar and BVR are clearly an attempt to partially automate air to air combat and reduce that dominating effect of pilot skill and fighting spirit. That is a militarily and fiscally sound concept. And since until recently those required heavy fighters, the automation concept which could improve total effectiveness by as much as about a factor of 2-5 has become confused with the concept of "heavy fighter".

My guess about why you don't see the arguments for heavy fighters stated that way is that it is too blunt to come right out with it. Fighter pilot trainees are selected from the top 5% of the population in terms of mental stability, intelligence, education, and fighting spirit. Only a fraction of them complete the training, and that is group of elite people, flying special forces officers. Telling them that most of them are still just cannon fodder for the top pilots does not go over well. Sprey is a devoted and honest genius level expert who entered college at 15 and had his masters degree and a lot of doctoral coursework by age 19, but he makes a lot of enemies by coming right out with things like that.

So, I think that whole tricky subject is somewhat avoided in published work. I think the generals who favor heavy fighters know it perfectly well, but are hesitant to clearly present it. If we could find some authoritative references to that effect, then the heavy fighter argument could be given its due also. In that sense the heavy fighter proponents were probably on the right track, it was just that the technology did not succeed within the service lives of the F-4, F-14, and F-15. That is probably also part of why you don't see generals writing articles about this. They could probably truthfully say the idea was sound, but would also have to admit that they got the timing drastically wrong and in consequence many billions of dollars were misspent and military capability was actually less.

In the long run, I believe automation will succeed and advancing technology will allow for small, relatively cost effective drone fighters that will dominate future air combat. The technology march to every software pilot being ace caliber is relentless. I used to be able to beat chess software in the 1980's. I have a chess program on my phone now that I have no chance against, and that recently won a tournament with chess masters.

Best, Farron PhaseAcer (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * as I said before, flag the issue up at WP:Aviation, and/or the article talkpage. If you're unsure how to phrase it, I can leave the most neutrally worded notice on your behalf. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll try later with discussing the issue with some of the other editors. No use hitting them up too much before the material is fully ready.

In the meantime, there is some information available on-line. For example, see this drone fighter article written by an expert serving Air Force captain: http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO8oYn4ItXx_MAntVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBzdmVvZmlwBGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxMAR2dGlkAwRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1468813480/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dtic.mil%2fcgi-bin%2fGetTRDoc%3fAD%3dADA602090/RK=0/RS=akfJplTeK9vsp7PiJLbs7jkaOwo- PhaseAcer (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And, here is another academic piece on current and future trends with manned fighters, by a former Air Force research strategist. He contends BVR has arrived, even if about 40 years after first counted on. But, with the powerful engines now available, that does not have to be heavy. http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT72F7YtX1AcAXbNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1468816901/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fcsbaonline.org%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2015%2f04%2fAir-to-Air-Report-.pdf/RK=0/RS=OUhEF2Iu6xHeZ9tlMotHcpGAnLE-

You seem to be saying this article has pretty much worn you out. You have put a lot of work on it. If you're letting go and satisfied with the article as seen by your edits over the next few days, I will go ahead and remove the "Essay" warning up top. PhaseAcer (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's still more the way it's written and laid out more than a lack of referencing. To that end, and because it lacks in coverage of the Asian angle, I'd like to ask the editing community for some help on those particular angles - there are a lot of knowledgeable and skilled editors in the project. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, but when you ask them in, please tell them that this is a much deeper subject than it appears on the surface. I've got 5 books on Boyd/Light fighter/E-M theory/OODA loop/resulting fighter policy. The Sprey report is basically another book and the best thing in print on fighter effectiveness, and the Stuart (F-5) and Wagner (P-51, F-86, F-5) design references are outstanding.  That's over 2000 on-target pages total.  I've had some background (former infantryman, engineer who worked in avionics, private pilot, and aviation enthusiast) that helps me get it, and have been reading about fighters all my life.  Still, much of this material was really new to me and it took me a lot of reading/thinking to grasp it and summarize it into this article.   It was new to the aircraft companies, strategists, senior leadership, and fighter community when it came out. It will be new to almost all the other editors, and even if they are sharp on aviation they will not immediately understand the deep implications of this material on aircraft and air force design, strategy, and budget. Some of the material is hard to believe at first, such as how poorly the senior leadership understood real fighter effectiveness issues, and how they so overestimated the real value of BVR, and as a consequence not only spent 2X to 4X what they should have but for decades actually made the fighters worse on a per plane basis. But when you review the theory, the trials, and the combat history you have to conclude that was the case.


 * Here's an example of just how out of touch much of the senior leadership was. The 70% to 80% or so of the leaders opposed to the F-16 thought they would shoot it down for procurement using the excuse of insufficient range.  They assumed it was short range based on general smallness and the lbs of fuel carried compared to the F-15 (or else their staffs did and they never looked deeply).  They apparently had no concept of the simple Breguet Range Equation that accurately calculates range based on lift to drag, engine efficiency, and fuel fraction. They were stunned to find out when they tried to torpedo the F-16 at the final decision point that their argument was not only completely wrong, but that the F-16 had longer range than the F-15 and every other USAF fighter.  It was P-51 vs. P-38 all over again.  If they don't know Aerodynamics 101, it comes as no surprise that they did not grasp the true nature of fighter effectiveness, which is much more subtle and nuanced.  It's a complex interplay of surprise, visibility over size and aspect, timing and the life and death importance of a few seconds, maneuverability, sensor and weapons envelopes, costing, reliability, statistics, etc.


 * The article is trying to not only present that theoretical background with respect to light fighters, but to also give a detailed history of light fighters and the technology and weaponry that go in them. It's trying to combine that material to explain why light fighters "work", the combined statistical and human natures of air combat and how light fighters support those to make the best force,  and how fighters are best defined to make best use of budget.  That is a totally different kind of military aviation article to that normally presented in Wikipedia, on a subject with a contentious history and recent new science and technology affecting it, and that's why it is organized differently.  It's not just specs/pictures/what/when, but also "how" and "why" (and there is no reason that cannot be in an encyclopedia when well referenced).


 * Its also on the long side for a Wiki article, but I believe it is better presented in one unified article than broken up over several (with the possible exception of a separate article on armament and sensors), though I may later add to the currently poor quality Wiki articles on Boyd, Sprey, EM theory, and OODA loop to provide better background. The organization might be better if there was tolerance for more space. Given normal Wiki lengths, I tried to "front load" it with key information on concept, weapons effectiveness, the complex subject of radar and BVR, and how those affect the light fighter.  Then, the E-M theory section reviewed the two jet examples most pertinent to the present.  The Intro, Concept, and E-M sections are serving as an Executive Summary.  The more interested reader can then proceed to the history sections for the full background and how we arrived at the present. But, for a moderately longer article I would instead have a dedicated weapons section and expand on that a little more, and move all the F-5 and F-16 materials from history to front end.


 * One possibility for making it shorter in the future would be to give just a summary on weapons and their high impact on fighter design, and move the detailed weapons discussion to a new further expanded article devoted to just fighter armament and sensors. There is enough material for a dedicated article, and there does not appear to be an article devoted to this.  The "Radar" article is general, "Airborne Radar" is about AWACs, and the closest of "Airborne Interception Radar" is just about British systems and nothing on integration with missiles. If we fill that gap, that would also have the advantage of being referenceable from the general "Fighter Aircraft" article (which needs some effectiveness work also), as well as from the articles on particular fighters.  Most of the fighter articles need expanding to discuss their effectiveness, but I have noted that the editors seem to have a feeling that judging the fighters (or referencing judgement from other sources) is somehow not quite proper (I don't know why, since that is a subject of prime interest to the readers.  They really want to know which fighters are the best, and why).  But, we would have to write that new weapons and sensors article before making that change, and it is going to be a lot of work despite the start we have here.


 * Regards, Farron PhaseAcer (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Graeme, I posted on Maury Markowitz's talk page about the light fighter article, as he was the originator of the heavy fighter article. I asked him to look it over, and that if he wanted to bring some of the effectiveness material over to the heavy fighter article I would be glad to help. His reply was that I was wrong and off-topic, and everything I wrote should be deleted. My answer to that was: 1. I am bringing impeccable data and the work of the giants of the field to the article, and if he has any data that says differently then let's show it. 2. Light fighters are weapons systems, so discussion of their effectiveness as weapons systems is not only on-topic, it IS the topic.

I'm an airplane guy myself and enjoy just writing about them like the other editors probably do also. But, these combat aircraft are for defeating the enemy with minimum use of resources to allow precious limited resources to also be used in other important applications. Also, so you don't lose the war with poorly designed weapons. The importance of both issues is apparently hard to accept. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC


 * .this is all stuff that belongs on article talk page, or Aviation project talk pages. It'll only be lost here on my talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Chindits - disputed tag scope
Can you please review Talk:Chindits, and let us know your original intentions (in 2009)? HLGallon (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Normandy Landings Juno Beach Defence page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=734899166 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F734899166%7CNormandy Landings Juno Beach Defence%5D%5D Ask for help])

Aircraft gun turrets
Hi, GraemeLegget, as you reverted my edits I launched a discussion here. Your opinion will be welcome. Kintaro (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Cassianto: incivility and rejecting community input at Talk:Noël Coward. Thank you. I'm notifying you because I linked to a diff of your objecting to Cassianto's behavior. FourViolas (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Light Fighter Article
Hi Graeme: I've avoided any editing while things settle down, but did note you are back to working on the article. I thought I could get back as well, but in the last few days some significant criticism has been coming from Maury. The article could again be on the verge of getting reverted. You might like to review the talk page and comment. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

History of the Great War
Put it in for a B review.Keith-264 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Chambers
Hi, I wanted to talk with you about the edits you are making to the citations on the Elizabeth Chambers (pilot) page. I appreciate the intention to contribute to the page but this is the second time you have reverted edits that I made to the page for the reasons below. I want to undo these changes, again for the reasons below, but I am pretty sure that would result in you doing a 3R, which is not a good thing. So I wanted to talk with you about this here. I am concerned because as a librarian I specialize in citations, especially from archival sources like this. I have been very careful to reflect the original sources meticulously because this article is AfD. Also: I was working with an archivist at the National Archives on this entry and she had looked it over at my request and had not found inaccuracies. I also worked directly with a Texas Woman's University archivist who had looked over the page and had not found inaccuracies. So my citations are both cleanly and accurately formatted based on my training and experience as a librarian using archival principles, and most importantly, have been vetted by both professionals who are actually working with the original materials, and are experts on this material and subject matter. So the changes you made twice now are actually adding inaccuracies to the page, and are not reflecting the information in the original source. The article obviously needs additional content; however, these edits are not additional content. These edits are adding inaccuracies to the page, and are weakening the connection to the original material. Would you be willing to work with me here and stop changing the existing citations? I would really appreciate it. I am fighting so hard to even get this page on Wikipedia, this is adding a huge stressor to the whole experience. -- BrillLyle (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's take this to the article talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Normandy break out
Template:Campaignbox Normandy break out has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Norwich War Memorial
Hi. Thanks for your edits there. Do you have a source for your addition? (Yes, I know the real answer is "get on a train to Norwich and see for yourself", but try telling that to FAC reviewers). It's still a work in progress and I have a queue of war memorial articles working their way through the review processes but I'm hoping to take it to FAC at some point and sourcing has to be unimpeachable to get through there. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  13:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's in the source used for the following sentence - the Norwich War Memorials Trust. But I've just put the two sentences together. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Input on article
I'd be interested in your thoughts on the entry for George C. Weir. It seems notable enough to me, but it's been nominated for deletion and I would welcome your input. Thanks.--YHoshua (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * and to you, from the rather-mild-and-dry-for-the-time-of-year UK. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the History of the United Kingdom page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=762115570 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F762115570%7CHistory of the United Kingdom%5D%5D Ask for help])

Foster mounting
Just in case you are interested...

I have a rewrite of the article on the Foster mounting nearing completion in my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soundofmusicals/sandbox which may or may not be of interest. In common with other articles I have worked on from (more or less) scratch like this I am basically writing the text first and will be adding the verifiability/links etc. later - appreciate if you could add any comments you might have, including any possible outright errors you might notice, either to my talk page or the one to my sandbox. Most welcome help of all would be usable references, anything you think I should read etc.

Thanks (and Hi!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at the current article, the topic is crying out for sourcing but at the moment I have little access to sources nor any off the top of me head to suggest. I'll probably not have a real opportunity to look over your work around lunchtime. But we'll see how it goes. 06:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have a number of sources "poised" (including the Harry Woodman book "Early Aircraft Armament") - I plan to do the references in one king hit, using the same setup as I used for the Gun Synchronization and Fokker Scare articles. Everything's starting to fall into place at last. Thanks for your interest. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2017(UTC)


 * Re your latest suggestions "flyers" was for "elegant variation" really - suppose it is a bit Germanic. "Pilots" may be a bit over specific. "Aircrew", the precise mot juste is anachronistic. "Airmen" may fit the bill best? Earlier in the section - we do need the specificity of "over" the propeller (the whole point really) - "outside the arc" bit is actually covered earlier in the sentence. At this stage I have left a lot of terms that will be linked in the finished article - this, as I mentioned in an edit summary, this is a deliberate ploy to avoid fiddling in the final stages before I "unleash" the finished result. Thanks for the interest! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * All my comments are strictly "sale or return" - for you to do with as you wish or discard. I thought of outside the arc because the alternative approach is guns on the outer wings - which had its own problems in WWI and doesn't work properly until really rigid wings appear on monoplanes along with reliable guns - but which some readers would recognize in the Spitfire etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries - just that I'd like the suggestions to continue (even when I "return" them they at least make me think) and I didn't want you to feel I was being ungrateful or rejecting suggestions without at least considering them. On the other hand someone (me?) has to "stay in charge" as it were. The background section here is really hard - one could so very easily drift into something that wandered far from the very specific topic (after all, the Foster mounting itself) - and yet something is required to "set the scene" as it were. Getting the balance right is going to be important. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Re setting the scene. How about mentioning the first use of guns in aircraft and the obstacle that the propeller produced (which gives the Gunbus style pusher solution) and the metal-plates-on-the-prop (can't recall the name). GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I actually thought of that (and more) - snag is that we'd have a great article, but it would no longer be only about the Foster mounting itself... we may want an article on the arming of aeroplanes with machine guns but this isn't that article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

alliances - inaccurate and misleading - inaccurate and misleading
Hi GraemeLeggett, I have statted a talk page on the WW1 page on why the use of the terms alliances in the context of ww1 is both inaccurate and misleading. Please contribute so we can improve the ww1 page.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Reintroduction of diagram to Zeppelin article
Hi, I see you reintroduced the SVG diagram of the Zeppelin to the Zeppelin article, with the summary "picture ok shows a layout." While I don't disagree with the "shows a layout" portion, I am afraid I disagree with the "picture ok" part: if you look at the image, you will quickly realize that you cannot tell which way the object is supposed to be pointing/ flying. Added to this are the difficulties trying to sort out 2-dimensional shapes (squares, rectangles), some of them tiny, on what looks like is supposed to be a 3-dimensional overall image. Manual of Style/Images discourages the use of poor-quality images, implying that so long as the article has at least one image (which this one has), any additional images should either be of adequate quality or not included. I have asked the author of this image to try to fix the orientation/ direction problem, but to no avail. I am not sure that including it with all of its confusion does anything to actually improve the article, and that maybe we are better off not having it here at all. I can see you disagree with me on this, and am wondering if we should open up an RfC to get some feedback on the matter. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "North American P-51 Mustang"
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the article North American P-51 Mustang with the reason "inappropriate use of consumer inflation rate template". I am puzzled—why do you think the use of the template was inappropriate? IMHO it adds useful information. —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The template itself says it defaults to "calculating the inflation of Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers' rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). " The P-51 is a large military item built under a war economy which puts it out of that league though not necessarily into that of huge government projects where inflation related to GDP (etc) works. I've found https://www.measuringworth.com/explaining_measures_of_worth.php (and the rest of the website) useful in understanding the limitations of calculating equivalent value across large timescales. If it had been the cost of a M1 Carbine, a tyre on the Mustang, or the cost of building the factory (using appropriate dataset) I can see some utility to using the template but not for a single 'plane. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Pardon me—I'm contemplating what you've written and hope to get back to you with a more thoughtful response than this. —DocWatson42 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Fix template at Semi-submersible naval vessel?
Hi Graeme Leggett, I notice that you provided a more complicated link to a Russian vessel with the following template: Keta (torpedo boat), which renders as " Keta (torpedo boat)". Since the Russian article exists, was it your intent to have it render as a red link? If not, do you know how to fix it? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As it was presented before, it appears as a straight link with no clue to the average reader that if you click on it, you get a wall of Cyrillic text. This way, it gives a link that shows there is no English language article but that there is a Russian one -should the reader be interested- to look at. The template also works such that once there is an article on this wiki, then only it and not the Russian one is shown. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi
Hey, I appreciate your help with List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy, and I don't mean to sound like a WikiKing, but I left an instance of Template:In use and you ignored it. Admittedly, the only thing to tell you that I might have been editing the page was the template itself, but I did write in that template, "please refrain from editing until this template is removed to avoid edit conflicts." The good news is that I've been burned by edit conflicts before, and you're an active and constructive editor, so I checked the page history just in case, so I still have my (and your) work. Not for self, but for Wikipedia, – Vami _IV✠  13:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ground cam for low-level attack
Hi, this is an interesting and highly relevant statement, but it appears unsourced? Please do the hons. Thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Caen RfC

 * Editorial POV-pushing, despite attempts by to persuade an editor to acknowledge the difference between an article conforming to the title and a Montgomery-bashing exercise.

Courtesy notification.Keith-264 (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's making a pleasant change to have people scrutinising edits as the appear, rather than having to put them in for a B class review. ;o)) Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Dilution and homeopathy
Your opinion is invited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy#.22and_its_remedies_have_been_found_to_be_no_more_effective_than_placebo.22 -- leuce (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sikorski crash
Hi Graeme, I trust the current wording is better. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Fokker Scourge article
I am having a few problems with an enthusiastic but at times very dogmatic editorial colleague on the Fokker Scourge article. In fact, things have reached a pass where some second opinions might be useful. The specific question he is hammering at the moment is that we shouldn't ever say "No. 1 Squadron RAF" (in spite of that being the usual way of putting it) but "1 Squadron" (on the grounds that the "No." is redundant). I wouldn't object to an occasional omission of the "No.", if only for elegant variation, but he has been going right through the article wiping every instance and claiming that "Wikipedia is not a source" (which is true enough, but nothing to do with the case). The gentleman concerned has been making dozens of other (mostly very pettifogging) changes to the article - a few have been genuine improvements, and most at least acceptable alternatives but some of have made clear text obscure, even meaningless. I have let everything he has done that is at all acceptable stand, but the really bad ones I've had to change - usually with a new version rather than a provocative revert.

I was wondering, if you have a moment, if you'd like to have a little look at the Fokker Scourge talk page (go straight to the bottom if you like) and tell me, either here, on my talk page, or even on the talk page of the article if you want to actually buy into the discussion, if I'm being totally unreasonable and should just give up. This is (for a WWI aviation article) quite a high traffic one - and I'd like to leave it in reasonable shape. At least readable, and plain in meaning (two things I value far above brevity for its own sake). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Duchess of Kent listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Duchess of Kent. Since you had some involvement with the The Duchess of Kent redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Spähpanzer Ru 251
I've put this redirect up for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Avro Lancaster and WP:AIRPOP
Greetings Graeme,

I see you reverted my edit to the Avro Lancaster. While I appreciate that the Dam Busters is definitely a large part of the legend of the Lancaster, WP:AIRPOP is pretty clear about fictional accounts: "Appearances in non-fiction, such as documentaries, may be included in aircraft type articles, but to avoid cluttering up aircraft type articles with lists of fictional appearances these have been moved to Aircraft in fiction instead."

While the film does reference a historical event, it is a dramatization and not a documentary, just like Tora! Tora! Tora! or Pearl Harbor. As such it belongs )in my opinion) on Aircraft in fiction. The body of the article already mentions the film; I personally don't see a reason to keep it in the Notable appearances section given that there's now a link to a main article about it.

Incidentally, the note you restored contained the text "If your item has been removed, please discuss it on the talk page FIRST." I would be happy to discuss the merits of keeping this in the article, but to date there has been no such discussion. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Dieppe Raid
Greetings, I see that you removed the addition of a picture gallery I made on the Dieppe Raid page.

I scanned these photographs a few years ago, shortly after my uncle, Major Peter Harrington passed them to me. He acquired these though his work in WWII with Army Intelligence. When he gave them to me, he suggested that if the opportunity ever came along to make them available to the public that he would appreciate that. To that end, in honor of those who fought and died on August 19, 1942 in Dieppe, in a raid gone wrong that was orchestrated by Ian Fleming.

Today, as I would hope you agree, is an appropriate day, at least, to enable the world to see the horrors our fathers experienced that day on the beach at Dieppe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkinsr (talk • contribs) 23:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've set out my objections with reference to Wikipedia policies on the talk page of the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Great Yarmouth and Nelson
Re this edit, not only was Nelson awarded Freedom of the Borough, Great Yarmouth also has a Nelson's Column in his honour. How about self-reverting, or do I need to take it to talk? 17:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a Norfolk man and also glory in being so. But you are overflowing the link compared to those that lived and worked in Yarmouth. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

6"/47 caliber Mark 16 gun
Thanks for the fixes, I was up against the clock and didn't have time for a final, final proofread. I want to rename the article to "6"/47 caliber gun" to match other articles, but needed to put the "Mark 17" info in first. I'll be adding more soon.Pennsy22 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

BAC/Dassault AFVG
Hey, I've never heard of that exception to the WP:AIR/NC guidelines. Can you show me where it is? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * the guidelines do say "In some cases, the type may not have a designation or name, or its inclusion would not make sense to meet the common name criteria" perhaps the Operational Requirement F.155, Advanced Medium STOL Transport or Joint Replacement Aircraft cover projects more than aircraft and don't count as examples but BAC and Dassault did not get started on actually building AFVG and if the Anglo-French project had gone ahead the AFVG might have ended up like SEPECAT or a Panavia consortium rather than a overlapping manufacture by two firms like with Westland Lynx and Aerospatiale Gazelle. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand your reasoning. To me, the difference with the program articles is that they were about multiple/competing designs, whereas the AFVG is primarily about one specific design. However, we have plenty of articles about aircraft that were never built that follow the guidelines. I'll leave it there for now, but will probably do a move discussion. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: wikipedia article: Cromwell tank
Hi, I'm CharizardX19, just wanted to ask you why my edit was not good. In fact, I was researching about this tank and I saw that word. What is A30? It didn't say. So I had to scan all the way up to find it. I realised it wasted a lot of time so I decided to make the edit.Sorry, but I really wish to see what's up with the edit that made it bad. It would really help if you could explain why? CharizardX19 (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking back on it (April so forgive me if I'm not working from direct memory, the A30 Challenger is first mentioned in the Design splits section. "Design also commenced on a 17-pounder armed version under specification A30 leading to parallel development of the A30 Challenger." while your edit added the Challenger name after A30 it omitted the Capital C. Expectation is that a reader would reach the second mention only having already read about it higher up and the second mention also links to the full article. So it was a toss up between correcting the capitalizion or returning to previous version. I went with latter. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I suppose it's because I didn't read the entire article, thanks! CharizardX19 (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Armoured Corps magazine extract

 * Hi Graeme. I am trying to get the full transcript of the original interview from an Israel WP colleague. I understand that it was published on a forum, but the content looks authentic and relevant. Translation issues I would hope we could resolve when we have the original. The article is in one of the 2001 issues of the Israeli Armoured Corps official magazine. Regards, Irondome (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please
Join the Talk of WW II for Italian military as i did.Don't revert references.Kingofwoods (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The concept of "mere " can be used only after El Alamein battle.Use the Talk of the page Italian military during WW II ,please).Kingofwoods (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Good job)

Kingofwoods (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC) 

Puzzled
Hi,

I'm very puzzled by the recent turn of events with my articles. It seems that every other article is being edited or deleted by you. I've been editing at Wikipedia a few months, and your reversion of my edit 2 or 3 days ago was a first. It was only a wiki anchor edit! It has become apparent to me that l've upset you somewhere along the way with an edit or edits of mine.

Perhaps l should try to explain my general approach to editing at Wikipedia. First of all, l like to pursue one subject matter at a time. Currently, the subject l'm pursuing is armoured fighting vehicles. I'm not a military guy, nor do I have an engineering background, so I started this project in almost total ignorance. I almost never directly edit the main data in the articles themselves, except for maybe doing minor stuff like fixing typos or adding links. I leave the article details to the experts. Where I try to be of help is with metadata, such as categories and redirects.

I think that you'll agree that the categorizing of Wikipedia articles is not perfect. There may be a variety of reasons why. Maybe the more appropriate category didn't exist at the time of article creation, maybe the author didn't see a better subcategory, etc.. Since l'm not much help on the creation end of things, my idea is to help with little things like fixing and updating categories. I also firmly believe that "major" variants should be in the category system as redirects, which is why I create wiki anchors for them.

So it doesn't help when you or anyone else comes along and alters or deletes the anchors for mysterious reasons. I bear no personal animus against you. I'm certainly not going to start an edit war or take any retaliatory measures. All l can do is to appeal to your good nature to think about what you're doing and to openly address whatever issues that you may have with me.

Going mobile (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * my apologies if my editing has come across as confrontational. My edit summaries can not have been clear enough, and I know I've been too brief with those in the past. I've reduced the anchors which seem to me to be excessive due to being multiplicity of same phrase. Eg including both "FV [number]" and "FV [number] [tank name]" in same anchor. Or if the anchor seemed improbable. In another case, on Centurion tank I reviewed the addition by following a Dutch designation through to its source and saw that the original did not use it as a formal name, hence I changed the anchor capitalisation. I also took exception to a couple of redirects which I though were ill-chosen so I flagged them for review - one was removed out of the three I flagged. I will be clearer in my edit summaries or just flag what I think the issue is with template:clarify.     GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Amusement arcades
Good eye on the poster! The image seems like a more useful illustration for the 1970s section ("video arcades themselves started appearing outside their traditional bowling-alley and bar locales") than the 2000s section about games bars and "hybrid movie theaters", though. Seems a mistake that we can get as far through the article as the 1990s without having seen a picture of traditional arcade building at all. --Gapfall (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did go looking for a period shot on Commons - which I suspect, apart from the modern road surface, would look much the same but no luck.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too, but no dice. It'd be okay to use a 2011 shot of an old arcade to illustrate the section about the rise of the amusement arcades in the 1970s, though, I'd have thought? Could mention that it's a recent photo in the caption. --Gapfall (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, GraemeLeggett!


Happy New Year! GraemeLeggett, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Rump Parliament
I don't have access to the reference, but should the year in this change be 1649 and not 1949? Ttwaring (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2 (oleo undercarriage).
The oleo strut of the F.E.2's undercarriage is of course well known - and well referenced. Just two sources that come to mind are: I have nonetheless run into a bit of conflict with someone with interests from "a later war" who disputes this - perhaps on the authority of works documenting more modern "oleo struts". I wonder if you could apply an impartial eye on this one? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hare, Paul R. The Royal Aircraft Factory. London: Putnam, 1990. ISBN 0-85177-843-7, pp.208-209.
 * Cheesman, E.F., ed. Fighter Aircraft of the 1914–1918 War. Letchworth, UK: Harleyford, 1960. pp. 44-45.
 * Away from a useful device for researching and editing at moment. But I'll have a think.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just tried my usual flightglobal search. Not easy on tiny screen but found possible jumping off point for later which I'll leave here. https://www.oleo.co.uk/about/story GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Split "German resistance to Nazism" into articles titled "German opposition to Nazism" and "German resistance to Hitler"?
It has been suggested that German resistance to Nazism be split into articles titled German opposition to Nazism and German resistance to Hitler. You can join the discussion at Talk:German resistance to Nazism. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Long and short citations
When you made this edit to a source in the Reference section, it introduced an author and so it broke the links in the short citation to that source using editors.

BTW a reason for using  rather than  is because some editor who see it reformat the section into two although  both lists are footnotes. They are less likely to separate them if both templates have the name reflist in them. -- PBS (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

 * 2018 XMAS.pdf FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * good lord, is it that time of year again. Seasons greetings unto you and those you hold dear. And an enjoyable yule to all. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Nelson-class battleships
On rereading the sentence in question, I see that we differed in our interpretations. I think that mine is just as valid as yours, but won't object to the reversion. 71.235.184.247 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Thanks fur WW

SQORP (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC) 

Westland Welkin
Off topic for the list discussion, but Westland's test pilot Harald Penrose says in his autobiography that they were all flight-tested and delivered by air. 'Twas only the customer who never flew them. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see how the "75 + 2 prototypes" in the Westland Welkin article infobox would be covered by that. Where does that leave the "26 engine-less airframes"? Were they delivered by air and then de-engined? It's an interesting element of the story. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where indeed. Personally I'd leave them out of the main count and just add a note at the end. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Consensus for one set of specs
Discussion and new consensus?--Petebutt (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) - Quote: "Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided." If the author wants specs for the Dora, write a new article, it warrants one, due to the major changes in the airframe and engine.--Petebutt (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Gallery/Commons
About this edit: Special:Diff/907194918. Does it mean that the gallery of images is obsolete since people can go to Commons? I believe it is better to keep some interesting photographs for illustration rather than saying: "go there and try to find your images in this category".--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:GALLERY sets out the thinking. Essentially images belong next to the text that is relevant to them. The article already has several images so it wasn't a case of redistributing them across the text. The images were also largely similar so I didn't feel the gallery added anything. If you think an image needs to be kept in the article there's nothing against putting it in but it's best alongside relevant section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanations.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Images?
Why do you think a PDF that is clearly captioned as a book is an "image"? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What the reader sees is an image - a largely blank page. If a written work is useful to the reader then it belongs under Further reading/external links as appropiate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Westland Lysander slats and flaps.
Hi Graeme. I was reading the Haynes Workshop Manual for the Westland Lysander and was intrigued to read about the automatic slats and flaps fitted to the aircraft, and specifically how they were activated by an 'air damper... to govern the speed at which the slats operate'. While trying to find out more about how the damper functions, I read the article in Wikipedia which states that the Lysander is fitted with 'slots'. This is an error even if it was listed in Flight magazine in 1938. I am a beginner at editing Wikipedia and have not yet mastered references, and I hesitated about editing this error but thought that it was reasonable to do so. I also considered attaching a longer piece to detail how the slats and flaps worked on the Lysander and how they affect its low speed handling. To quote the Haynes manual, page 64 - 'Inboard and outboard slats are attached to the leading edges of each wing and flaps are fitted to the trailing edges inboard of the ailerons. The inboard slats are connected to the flaps and to an air damper in the port wing to govern the speed at which the slats operate. The outboard slats function independently and are each fitted with an air damper.' Some more detail follows. The book also has a section written by a pilot who flies the Lysander in the Shuttleworth Collection and he describes the operation of the slats and flaps on approach and how the pilot had to be aware of their automatic action if he were to fly the aircraft accurately and safely when landing. I find it a very interesting subject although the amount of detail required to describe it fully may not be appropriate to the Wikipedia article - not everyone is going to be excited to read that in a slow banking turn, the outboard slat on the lower wing will pop out and then pop back in when the angle of attack reduces as the aircraft rolls out of the turn! However, the automatic slats are one of the things which differentiates the design of the Lysander from the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch which was fitted with a fixed leading edge slat along the entire length of the wing. Regards Mr Grumby (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think part of it comes down to terminology, which may also have changed across the years. I see the "slot" as the gap and "slat" is the bit of the wing - which conveniently makes both definitions true but I haven't found backup for that yet. And the wikipedia articles on it are not very good. (I might raise the issue on the Aircraft Project page) There's no problem with adding a description of the operation of the combined operation of flaps and slats/slots because that does have a bearing on its low speed operation; the trick is keeping it detailed enough to explain without making it baffling. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Discriminating about Discrimination
[moved from my Userpage]GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Hi! I note your views on inclusion of a new entry in the list of firsts in aviation article. Have you considered, though, that once you open up the page to entries on the basis of racial discrimination alone, you open up a huge can of worms because, in order to observe NPOV, you will have to accept entries for each and every identifiable race and, to be perfectly fair about things, every other special group, e.g. people with only one thumb, or one leg or blind in one eye or holocaust survivor, etc., etc. It is highly discriminatory to single out one racial group, as you have. Thus there is only one safe way to manage these lists and that is to be entirely blind and undiscriminatory. Another powerful reason for this approach is brevity. If you start this, then you would have to include an entry for every aviation first for your preferred racial group, in effect, having to generate an entire parallel world list. Obviously, we can't go there either. So it's not an idea that works on any level. The notability of Bessie Coleman's achievement is beyond question and covered in her article, as are myriad aerial feats performed by countless Caucasians on their pages which are not quite "first" enough to figure on the page, either. So I urge you to reconsider and desist from making this new entry. sirlanz 08:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing but a pathetic strawman argument. No-one is claiming every minority needs an entry. Really.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If so, what groupings do need separate entries? Who decides?


 * The only subset of living humans I can think of which isn't a minority is the female subset. Should achievements by the minority group known as white men have its own section? On a global scale, there aren't all that many of us (although it's a wee bit tricky to argue that we're oppressed or discriminated against on the grounds that we're white men).


 * A devil's advocate might suggest that perhaps there should be recognition given to all firsts in aviation achieved by those outside the category of white men. Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)