Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) at 06:27, 18 January 2025 (→A goat for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I'll probably add it to my watchlist, but if I miss something, feel free to leave a talkback. If you leave a message for me: I will most likely respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. Note: I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to take further action through permissable means. (See this policy.) If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks. If you're here to troll, harass, or vandalise, I might not be able to stop you, but you will be reverted...and beware the giant dice.

This editor is a Grand High Togneme Vicarus and is entitled to write the Book of All Knowledge: 2nd Edition.

Archives

as Aerobird - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 1.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Could you take a look at my sandbox?

I've created what I believe to be an improved version of the list used in List of aircraft of the United States during World War II. It's currently in my sandbox, could you take a look at it and make suggestions? I tried to make it in the style of List of active United States military aircraft, and I'm not sure whether breakdowns of information are better as footnotes or longer notes in the table itself. Currently this is just the Coast Guard section, but I wanted to flesh out the format before expanding it to the rest of the article.Tylermack999 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

My sandbox Tylermack999 (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far. I'd say that the longer notes should probably not be included at all - the list should be a very basic overview, with the details in the articles themselves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, makes sense to me. Another thing I wasn't sure about was the number produced - for the Coast Guard they often used a small amount of aircraft out of the total number produced. Should I go by the total number of the types in service produced, or the number in service with the particular branch? If you go by number produced, there is a difference between number built of the specific types in USCG service and the total-total (example: 9,525 BT-13 built, but only 7,532 of the SVN-1, SVN-2, and BT-13B were built.) Tylermack999 (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If you're breaking them down by service, I'd put "number used by that service" in each table. I'm not sure data will be available for all types like that but hopefully it is! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with that, I'll go by number in use by each service as best as I can. Thanks! Tylermack999 (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Complete Coast Guard list published to mainspace. The Coast Guard website has a great variety of historical information, including many pages on aircraft that gave clear enough numbers to determine how many served. USCG Catalina Page Tylermack999 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Canadair CL-415

Could you take a look at Canadair CL-415? A user keeps removing "Super Scooper" from the article, in spite of sources. Thanks. (Now I remember why I retired from Misplaced Pages last year!) BilCat (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify your reference quote in the edit summary and dropped them a uw-delete welcome. Just when you think you're out they pull you back in! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you for taking care of IntrepidContributor. I ended up needing to help my neighbor for much of the afternoon and didn't get to look at ANI. And thank you to Objective3000 and other folks for being patient. I'm a firm believer in WP:ROPE and if you can give a user that last chance then no one can complain.

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)