User talk:Letdorf/Archive 2

RAF fast jet figures
Best not to use Daily Telegraph figures, their source of information is unknown and various online new sites give all sorts of guessed numbers.

http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/ByDate/20100317/writtenanswers/part005.html

Hansard figures for Jan 2010.

The whole Harrier fleet cannot consist of just 45 harriers. After all there are 5 active squadrons of Harriers. 4 front-line squadrons with 9 aircraft in each (36 harriers) and 1 training squadron with 6-8 harriers. Thats a total of at-least 42 Harriers in active squadrons ready to fly (with a few extra harriers on standby in case of losses or failure etc). Now as-well as the Harriers available in the active squadrons, there are more Harriers in service (being repaired, upgraded etc) and more harriers in storage which are often rotated around into the active fleet.

I.e. when the harriers currently in the active squadrons need to be serviced harriers from storage will re-join active squadrons and the cycle continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.167.177 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 20(R) Squadron disbanded in March 2010 with OCU duties being transferred to 4(R) Squadron . The Naval Strike Wing also reverted to the identity of 800 NAS in April 2010 . So I make that three nominal Harrier squadrons now: 1 Squadron, 4(R) Squadron (OCU) and 800 NAS. At the same time all remaining GR7s were retired . I know newspaper sources should be treated with caution, but 45 sounds reasonable given those recent events. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Audi
make it seem as if WW owns all of Audi (i.e. removing 99.55%) which seems hard to believe if it is a listed company?--Alcea setosa (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the latest list of holdings gives Volkswagen AG's ownership of Audi AG as 99.55%. I was attempting to simplify the paragraph and thought this was close enough to "wholly owned" to omit this level of detail. However, if you think this is misleading, I can put it back in. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

'dem RAF Phantoms
According to "Farewell to the Phantom", the Royal Air Force Yearbook 1992, No. 56 Squadron retained their Phantom FGR2s at RAF Wattisham until 1 July 1992, while No. 74 Squadron kept their FGR2s until 1 January 1993, No. 111 Squadron kept their FG1s while transitioning to the Tornado, sending on the Phantoms on 31 January 1990, while the Phantom Training Flight kept FGR2s until 1 January 1991 (flying them only for 12 months). FWiW, Note the RAF has removed the "dot", thereby no FG.1.Bzuk (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC).


 * This is true (although I think 74 actually disbanded in October 1992), but all these squadrons were air defence fighter squadrons. IMHO, it's more germane to the TSR-2 article to talk about the Phantom in RAF service in the tactical strike/reconnaissance role, a role which had been relinquished to the Jaguar by 1976. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Right you are, 74 was only due to disbanded earlier, and actually operated the Training Flight, concentrating on air combat training, whatever the heck that entails. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

AFVG GA Review: Info request
Hello Letdorf. I have come in search of information to help a page you recently created, it has been requested that a direct citation to Wood's "Project Cancelled: The Disaster of Britain's Abandoned Aircraft Projects", however I do not own this book (a pity, as it sounds like a fascinating read), I thought I should contact you to shed light on the page number from which the specifications were derived from. If you do know, just reply back with the number or insert it into the relevant space on the article (I've tagged it, and got the rest of the cite ready), and then it can be passed presumably. Thanks, 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Audi vehicles timeline (Europe)‎
I really like what you did to the Audi timeline. I was going to do something similar myself but was to engrossed in the Toyota Tercel (and my wife's birthday). I am glad that we seem to be removing ourself from the often arbitrary B2/B3/B4 etceteras to the actual modelcodes. Best regards and full support should anyone wish to change things for the worse.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bristol cars
I posted on the Bristol Cars talk page about BMW. I don't feel the need to name that section "stolen BMW tech.", but "BMW origins" doesn't really do justice to the manner in which Bristol obtained the know-how to make cars. Fleetham (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments on the talk page. Letdorf (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC).

Beetlemania
I've never seen anything official before now using Beetle. I don't disagree, exactly, but I'd be happier calling it "official" if they were compnay internal documents & not just sales material. I won't rv, tho.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the best way to put it is that it was marketed as the Beetle - the brochures are both necessary and sufficient evidence for this, IMHO. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Your edit to 64-bit
Thanks for cleaning up the rest of the mess. Good summary too. Jeh (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

MG 6
I think that sales of four cars could very well be described as "disastrous" - but I guess I agree with you that this is evident from the numbers alone... It's hard to believe. Cheers,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Austin A40 Farina
Hi, you've removed "peacock words", I understand your thinking (I think) but I write to point out they need replacements. When I put them in I expected a bit of dissension but yours is the first. Perhaps you need to know that this design made a car with a flat back trendy and fashionable when it should have been treated as if it were a butcher's van. That was the brilliant and elegant bit. Then all the external details could have won modern design prizes on their own which added more elegance. If you need to learn for yourself what a change it led you'd have to look at a lot of late 50s designs and note how they changed around 1960. What a pity Farina was not permitted to do similar with the rest of the Austin/Morris range. The effect was lasting, maybe chop and channel a little a 1958 A40 Farina, lower its headlights and you have a 1974 Golf (I'm not thinking of just its back) or, well OK, a Polo. Eddaido (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know the A40 Farina was a innovative and influential design, but to claim things like that in a WP article (per the WP:PEACOCK guidelines) really needs a reliable source to back up such assertions. If you have any references to hand that you could cite to do this, that would be great. By the way, wasn't the BMC ADO16 styled by Farina too? Regards, Letdorf (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC).


 * OK, we need to quote the temperate (was cool) words of a dispassionate observer of the later 1950s, I may be gone some time. About ADO16 I really do not know though WP tells me that was so and there is certainly a better family resemblance than in the embarrassingly ugly bigger cars but the 1100s arrived to a world already filling with trimmer tauter A40 copies (I don't mean just hatchbacks) which is really my point. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of names for the Volkswagen Type 1 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of names for the Volkswagen Type 1 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of names for the Volkswagen Type 1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Biker Biker (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Golf VII
The articles should have a common structure in my opinion. I'm not sure if also mentioning the generation of the car in roman numerals is more important than mentioning the Typ numbers. I did the revert mainly based on the consistency policy, however I'm not an authority in this regard. If you prefer to get a consensus on this subject you could start a topic about it on the WikiProject Automobiles talk page. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * VW Group Typ numbers are fairly esoteric, and not of huge interest to most readers, IMHO. On the other hand, to quote MOS:LEADALT, When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Only 3 out of the 7 articles about the different generations of Golf currently mention the typ number in the lead, and I'm not sure if trying to maintain consistency across articles down to this level of detail is a Wikipedia priority. Letdorf (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

 * Hi, to explain my actions a bit more, I changed the photo to another one I found on Wikimedia Commons that I thought was more compliant with the WP:CARS guidelines on infobox photos (see CARS/Conventions). In particular, I thought the angle, lighting and (as I mentioned) background of the photo of XON249T weren't ideal for an infobox photo, per the guidelines. But that's not to say I don't like photos of old cars in front of old pubs! Regards, Letdorf (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rostyle wheel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MGB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Windows 4.x listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Windows 4.x. Since you had some involvement with the Windows 4.x redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 02:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SUBST


The article SUBST has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a manual and this article is written exactly like a man page. No objection against moving to a sister project or external wiki.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of SUBST for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SUBST is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/SUBST until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Small Multitasking System 2


The article Small Multitasking System 2 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CAR magazine UK September 2002.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CAR magazine UK September 2002.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Audi A3
You and are the top to editors to this article, which has volumes of text and has virtually no references for that text. Can you please cleanup the article by adding references or deleting text that can't be referenced? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I don't do nearly as much Wiki editing as I used to and I haven't actually made any non-trivial edits to this article for nearly 7 years now, so, sadly, I don't think I'm the best person to take on this job. Letdorf (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC).

Nomination of ZX8302 for deletion
A discussion is taking place to determine if the article ZX8302 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ZX8302 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Swordman97 talk to me  05:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Audi Q1 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Audi Q1 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Audi Q1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A7V2 (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Orbis Publishing


The article Orbis Publishing has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable company; fails WP:NCORP. I searched Google, WP:LIBRARY, and newspapers.com and located no significant coverage. The 1971 Guardian article about partworks is the best available source, and it does not satisfy NCORP requirements."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jfire (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)