Talk:North American F-86 Sabre

message: :Please explain why you have removed the 1963 source, and why you wish to add info for a different, later model there. Thank you. Simon Adler (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  No source has been removed. I do not wish to add such information, I have reverted the removal of such information on the basis of the incorrect notion that the article is not about said information. I note that everyone is scrambling to justify the reversion as correct, and refusing to address the original matter. 92.39.207.50 (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I have removed the later model info, normal practice is to use the spec for one variant, in this case the F-86F, and if other figures are deemed to be noteworthy they are mentioned in the variants section. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I.P, but you are not yourself making very clear. This section is referring to a specific marque, the F model. The source is discussing the F, and this is the info from it. As has been said above, any other performance parameters for other marques can be mentioned in 'variants'. Simon Adler (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  What the section discusses is mutable, and if the correct home for the information is apparent, why does it keep getting reverted? 92.39.197.89 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-86F performance section 

message: Can somebody with the reference please put the max speed in thereference in--Petebutt (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm missing something, the article states max speed as 678 mph/ Mach 1.02. Shouldn't that be 778 mph? 2603:6081:4840:D200:8DFD:BF:8DCA:FC3C (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  spec s max speed 

message: I'd like to change the role tag in the infobox from just "fighter aircraft" to something more specific like "air superiority fighter" or even "interceptor."  Does anyone have any objections? If you do state why. GansMans (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked people to state 'why' they would object, but you haven't stated why you want to make a change. So... why?Additionally, you seem to want to change it just for the sake of changing it. You should suggest a specific designation, and support it with reliable sourcing. - wolf 23:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I disagree, both that anyone was being rude or that any old aircraft can be designated a fighter. To paraphrase Robert Shaw (Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering), these days anyone who flies a military aircraft likes to think of it as a fighter, whether they strap on a helicopter or a garbage scow. However, in terms of air combat, a fighter is a craft whose sole purpose is shooting down other aircraft. For the fighter/bombers, as long as they're carrying a payload, they're bombers; not fighters. Only when they drop their load can they call themselves fighters. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role 

message: This reads like a very well-written and assembled article. One important detail seems missing, though. I recall reading in a book somewhere that the F-86 was the first fighter aircraft to incorporate hydraulics in the controls, which greatly helped in improving the agility of the craft. It was only the second aircraft to do so, the first being a passenger airliner. I can't remember where I read that, but I will dig around and see if I can find it. Perhaps someone here already has sources and could add it to the article? Zaereth (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydraulic controls 

message: I just recently watchlisted this article, and I notice a slow edit war is going on over grammar. Since grammar is my wheelhouse, I thought I would start a discussion place here, and perhaps I can help clear up some of the IP's confusion. The disputed sentence is: "By the end of hostilities, F-86 pilots were credited with shooting down 792 MiGs for a loss of only 78 Sabres in air-to-air combat, a victory ratio of 10:1." and the contention seems to be that "shooting" should be changed to "having shot", because "shot" is the past-tense form of the word. 
The problem here is two-fold. First, "having shot" is a future-perfect tense combination, because the verb "having" is future tense while the adverb that describes it, "shot", is past tense. The second and bigger issue is that "shooting" is not a verb in this sentence. The verb in this sentence is the past-tense "were", which is followed by the past-tense participle "credited"; a participle being a verb that is being used as an adverb. "Shooting", on the other hand, is a future-tense verb being used as a noun, also known as a gerund. So, to the IP, you're really just replacing one gerund (shooting) with another (having), which makes it awkward to read, because it 1.) adds more words than is necessary, and 2.) adverb-gerund combinations are rarely used to form a noun (the act rather than the action). I hope that helps. 
One correction needs to be made, however. The last clause is an incomplete sentence, tacked onto the end of the complete sentence, so the comma should be changed to a semicolon. Zaereth (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My sense for grammar is mostly intuitive and usually correct, though I'm not always able to express the grammatical reasons for it. This is possibly also an ENGVAR issue, but my education includes enough Commonwealth schooling that I sometimes can't remember which is which! (And I'm totally useless on the distinction between that and which in certain uses, and which is correct in which country's grammar!) Finally, this is a blocked user editing violation of their various blocks, so I'm reverting optional grammar choices on that basis and per WP:DENY and WP:RETAIN. BilCat (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. It's a wee bit more advanced than "third-grade English", so I hope it made sense. The biggest thing is that we're talking about a noun, and nouns don't have tenses. Perhaps the IP will take note and some pause for thought. Zaereth (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: This page ("Notable pilots") claims that M. M. Alam shot down " five Indian Air Force fighters within one minute". Alam's own page M. M. Alam mentions three planes shot down in one minute near the top, and later reports five in a day including four in one minute. I have absolutely no idea what the right number is, but I would hope that we could either (a) have some consistency or (b) note that the exact number appears to be unclear. STeamTraen (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  M. M. Alam