Talk:Aero Commander 500 family

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Aero Commander 500 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100217014625/http://www.baha.be:80/Webpages/Navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/post_ww2/aerocommander_560f.htm to http://www.baha.be/Webpages/Navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/post_ww2/aerocommander_560f.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aero Commander 500 family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818002029/http://www.marchfield.org/u9.htm to http://www.marchfield.org/u9.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The discussion has been stalled here for several weeks. The best proposal I see is the following by Milb1:
*Aero Commander 500 family leave this article to cover the Type Certificate 6A1 series 500 aircraft
*Rockwell Commander 600 family split out for the 2A4 aircraft, then consider a further split as
*Gulfstream Jetprop for the later Jetprop aircraft.
Can we move forward on these splits, bearing in mind that consensus isn't unanimity? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am okay with proceeding that way, including incorporating Rockwell 685 into the larger article for the type. It needs a bunch of work anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Any consensus?

message: In the "Single engine safety" subsection, I put the "100,000 hours"  numbers in words ("hundred-thousand hours"), rather than numerals, so those plentiful digits (which would otherwise have been repeated throughout the section) did not distract from the numbers for which they provided context (the various crash rates).  Normally I'd use numerals, but in this case they would have undermined the clarity and readability of the essential data, undermining the whole point of the paragraph (see: "But adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats" in WP:NUMNOTES). 
~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single engine safety numbers - words vs numerals 

message: I took some time to curate an illustrative gallery at :Commons:Aero Commander 500 family. The current main picture is OK but points away from the text and is a little bland, here are three possible alternates:
File:Aerodata International Surveys Rockwell 690A Turbo Commander.jpg|current 690A
File:N45AZ (7896589986).jpg|690B, points towards the text
File:Jetprop 1000.jpg|Jetprop 1000 air-to-air
File:NOAA Aircraft N45RF KDLH (cropped).jpg|NOAA N45RF inflight 
I think the Jetprop 1000 picture is interesting, a little from above, it better depict the aircraft configuration, but it points away from the text. Any other thoughts?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I never get too worried about the lede photo pointing away from the text. I think the Jetprop 1000 photo is the best, much better lighting shows the shape best. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your input, I also found a nice air-to-air picture of NOAA's 695B, but perhaps the background is too busy.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the background is a bit too distracting, makes the aircraft hard to see clearly. - Ahunt (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  main picture