Talk:Fighter aircraft

message: A vague, oblique and otherwise encyclopedic reference to this man (look him up!) was inserted years ago and sat down at the bottom the the Word War I section without apparently coming to anyone's attention. Billing was indeed a "grand-standing member of parliament" - in fact he had all manner of other strange characteristics - being a peculiar mixture of genius and right prat (but mostly the latter) - driven, as, alas, are many lesser minds, by obsessive doctrinaire ideology and totally lacking in common sense or, indeed, a working grasp of reality. On the other hand he did not invent (or even exaggerate very much) the debacle of Bloody April. His grand standing was in any case centred around the Fokker Scourge period anyway. I honestly don't think he merits a mention in this article at all, but if he did it would need to be by name, and have (unlike one of his own rants) some basis at least in fact. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pemberton Billing founded Supermarine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.71 (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not particularly relevant as he had no personal involvement with any of the fighters Supermarine produced - and the one aircraft he designed that could have carried the title was a complete dog and was never armed. - NiD.29 (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Noel Pemberton Billing]] 

message: It is noted on front page that additional references are needed.  Thus, an expanded Bibliography has been added.  The “Light Fighter vs Heavy Fighter” section has also been updated to be in agreement with the latest “Light Fighter” Wiki article.  
A new suggested section on Fighter Weapons has also been added.  There are many Wiki articles on various air-to-air weapons, but there seems to be no unifying article or section that reviews the “big picture” of the effectiveness and importance of these weapons.  The entire purpose of the fighter is to deploy these weapons, so they have a very strong effect on fighter design and operational strategy.  It thus seems important to give them a summary reviewing how they have affected the subject.  Many of the references in the expanded bibliography were included to support this section and the light vs. heavy section, though those references have a lot of general applicability as well.    
This important article has been rated as only C-Class for some time.  Perhaps with some additional polishing, this new material can help with getting it promoted.  
PhaseAcer (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be better to move the new material to a new article Air-to-air weaponry as an overview where the different eras (hand-held weapons/guns/missiles) can be better expanded on to link to the different articles, it would just need a small intro  here. MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with having it in a separate article that this article and others could reference, which would probably improve the full set of Wikipedia fighter related articles.  However, in its current size it is about the same amount of text as is devoted to Gen 4/4.5 fighters, which also has a separate larger article. The original references were gathered and studied in support of the Light Fighter article, and I have a few hundred hours invested in studying that material.  Based on that foundation I was able to write this example section for a modest additional time investment, but a full article would be a different story.  I would need a few other editors willing to pitch in and help to get that done in a team effort.  PhaseAcer (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidate new fighter weapons section and bibliography

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fighter aircraft. 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/20131103092023/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2647/show to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2647/show
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As there was no support for including this material in the above discussion, I've removed it. It's not suitable for a summary style high level article aimed at a general audience. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick, in your opinion it is not suitable.  In the opinion of the many professional references quoted it is of foundational importance, and thus entirely suitable according to Wikipedia policy.  PhaseAcer (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia community is not bound by your interpretation of what the authors of references say, nor by your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. You have not garnered support for your ideas, it is time to drop the stick. - Nick Thorne talk 06:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick, I don't see a Wikipedia community consensus against this material being in the article.  I see you and Milborne arguing against it without any references, and myself arguing for it with a ton of high quality references. "Consensus" is by policy not just raw numbers like two to one, but also the quality of the argument made.  Furthermore, I am not "interpreting" these references, but honestly quoting their conclusions, which you would see if you reviewed them.  The references take the position that the military performance of fighter aircraft is the most important thing about them, which by policy would  then be THE most important thing for Wikipedia to summarize.  You, for some reason I do not understand, seem to be taking the position that your unreferenced opinion is of more weight than the strong majority view of the professional literature, and that the literature summary should thus receive no coverage.  Not just better written or limited coverage, but zero coverage.  I fail to understand how that can possibly be within the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy.  PhaseAcer (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: PhaseAcer, you have already made basically that same argument several times already.  Each time you have chosen to ignore that this is not the right article for the information you are trying to present.  It is not that the information is insufficiently or inadequately referenced or that it should not be covered in Wikipedia at all (a completely different question, not appropriate here) or even that it is not interesting.  This is a high level article intended for a general audience.  The discussion of highly technical points, most of which would seem like gobbledygook to an ordinary reader (remember the reader, the intended audience of our work here?), is completely counter productive in an article such as this.  Throwing in a whole lot of information of a highly technical nature here is not going to encourage the reader, rather scare them off as the subject will then appear too hard for the non aviation expert.  If you have enough information to warrant it, consider writing a separate article about the subject and then link to it here in the appropriate place.Finally, you are again straying into no personal attack territory with your comments about the "unreferenced opinion" of those who do not share your view about how this article might be improved.  We do not need a reference to back up our views about how this place operates.  I do not need reliabe sources for talk page comments.  Any reference you might have for your material does not trump the view expressed by experienced editors that the material itself is inappropriate here, no matter the quality or number of those references. - Nick Thorne talk 06:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was no Consensus expressed for adding the material. As the German phrase goes Keine Antwort ist Eine Antwort ("no reply is still a reply"). But if you want specific expressions of opposition, I will supply mine - it's over-detailed for the article. In a high-level article, if a topic is mentioned, then the briefest explanation and a link suffices. If more content required, then a summary and a "main" link. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick, Graeme:  I can put the material in a new article, though it may take quite a while to find the time.  In the meantime, would you support me writing a one paragraph short summary on fighter effectiveness that temporarily points to the light fighter article for more detail?  Then there would at least be notice to the readers that this information exists and is important to understanding the military performance of fighter aircraft. PhaseAcer (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: The article need a Urgent redo, lack of reference at the first half of the article. And SOAPBOX.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: * Oppose, Not relevant in an overview article.  Material is probably appropriate as part of a separate, detailed article about fighter design if sufficient additional material can be sourced.  - Nick Thorne talk 12:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Sigh.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fighter aircraft. 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/20090830143750/http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543/ to http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806082314/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/capabilities/air_power/5th-gen/index.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/capabilities/air_power/5th-gen/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified