Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 5

message: SlimVirgin, it's important to understand that East Germany and West Germany both didn't become unified until 1990. The bombing happened in 1988, so you may want to check the German towns you added to see which Germany it was in then. -- SNIyer12(talk)20:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany

message: Surely the July 2005 London bombings investigation has surpassed it? Cdyson37 22:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest police inquiry 

message: http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005
e.g. 
"The decision of a former Scottish police chief to back this claim could add enormous weight to what has previously been dismissed as a wild conspiracy theory. It has long been rumoured the fragment was planted to implicate Libya for political reasons. "
should be in article?John Z 21:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fabricated evidence statement 

message: Simple: these articles are about the same subject; therefore...we might as well combine them. -- SoothingR 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged the article. Lockerbie disaster redirects to Pan Am Flight 103. SNIyer12 17:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging with [[Lockerbie Disaster]] 

message: I've split this animated GIF into 3 separate frames (as someone suggested previously on talk); I think this is less distracting and easier to read, also, it can be printed now. Keithlard 12:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''How the aircraft broke up'' graphic

message: Yesterday saw a flurry of edits—mostly unhelpful—which might reflect the kids' breaking up from school for the Christmas holidays or, more likely, the 17th anniversary of Pan Am Flight 103.Phase1 21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seventeenth anniversary 

message: Someone changed the main photo again to another with bad sourcing.  I know the pic that I put there now :Image:PA103cockpit4.png has some quality issues but it's a free image, it's something we can use without dispute.  Putting other images that are most assuredly not free when we have a free image is not good.  Now I know the replacement was tagged as "crown copyright" but I couldn't find that photo anywhere in the report or I would have used it.  I have a lot of other photos to go through on this page because there are copyvios all over it but for now I'm content with the main photo being free.
--Wgfinley 18:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This image isn't "so called" free, it is, check the image which is precisely sourced.  Your "better" replacement image comes from a Geocities site with no remarks whatsoever about where it comes from.  It's stuff we can't use reliably.  Like I said, I know the quality of the image is not superb but it's free and that's better than a good photo that's a copyright violation or unsourced.  --Wgfinley 20:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Original uploader has now provided required source info and tags have been removed from the relevant articles.Phase1 13:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I think we would like to start an article about the motives to the bombing, since I feel that the article size should be reduced. I'm very concerned about the article going back to being too long. -- SNIyer12 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2006(UTC)
:As I recall, you were very concerned about the former Pan Am Flight 103 article – at over 100 kilobytes – being too long. So at your behest I, along with several other editors, laboriously split much of that parent article into three subarticles:
*Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
*Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial and
*Alternative theories into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
:Now, if I understand you correctly, you are very concerned that the current article size (52 kilobytes) needs to be reduced once again by starting an article about the Motives to the bombing. Section 9, which is the Motives section, cannot be more than a kilobyte or so in length. So what is the rationale behind your concern over the current Pan Am Flight 103 page length, and why do you think a new Motives article is needed, if thereby the main article is merely reduced to 51 kilobytes?Phase1 22:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In final analysis, I don't think that there should be a new article about the motives. I'm satisfied with 51KB. -- SNIyer12 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New article