Talk:List of Air Ministry specifications

message: I took the liberty of arranging the list by year and by spec number within each year. The alternating light gray/dark gray lines are nice but PITA to move around with each addition so IMHO they'd be best left out until we complete the list. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: To keep edits manageable is it time to split the list into the various categories F for Fighter, B for bomber, E for experimental etc?GraemeLeggett 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I think the merged list gives a better picture of the progression going on in designs - you can see that the Blenheim and Spitfire were requested/approved in the same year, for example. Separating it out loses some of that perspective, and it's not like we're editing it a lot lately. ericg ✈ 23:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid point, would an (artificial) break at years be effective? My concern is that long table is less "interesting" a break into sections would also mean that links foorm articles could get to within a few lines of the specific entry rather than the top of the page ; the e "List of....#1944" coding. GraemeLeggett 09:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Year could work, or perhaps decade. ericg ✈ 14:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried it by decade, but I'd like to know how to keep the table column widths consistent. GraemeLeggett 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation of list 

message: Just thinking that the page length is now getting pretty long - 40KB when I last looked, which translates to 29 pages in Firefox - time for a move to separate pages perhaps?
If so then I would suggest that we do it by period, e.g., 1920 to 1929, 1930-1939, etc. - any thoughts?  Ian Dunster 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its below the nominal 75 kb for the moment, and you'd expect a list to take up a lot of room, so I wouldn't worry too much yet.GraemeLeggett 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page length

message: ... well, there seem to be a lot fewer red links than there were a few years ago, so someone else must be interested. Ian Dunster (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting there

message: Following this move I suppose we should at least comment on wether we agree with it.
Whats the name of the document issued is it "Air Ministry Specification XX/XX" or is it just XX/XX, a specification, issued by the Air Ministry? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere in the article (besides one book title where everything is capped anyway) is "specifications" capitalized. They are always referred to as "specifications". I followed the article. E.g. the lead sentence: "This is a partial list of the British Air Ministry (AM) specifications for aircraft. " Fram (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalization 

message: I always get confused when editing this article as I expect the specs to be in numerical order! I keep thinking specs are missing when they have just been placed in alphabetical rather than numerical. For example I expected to find M.1/30 as the first one in 1930 above 3/30 but it listed further down. Might just be me but is confuses me every time. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That confuses me too. To be fair, the article does state "Specifications within the tables are listed by year of issue and in numerical and alphabetical order. Specifications lacking a letter-prefix or where one is not currently known are listed first at the beginning of each year's entries before those with a letter-prefix", but it seems more sensible to give the numerical order precedence, i.e. to sort on alphabetical order within numerical order within year. Be bold! --TraceyR (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no objections, I have started to order the specs numerically, but cannot complete the task all at once. If anyone else feels like helping out, please do: the next year to be processed is 1935. When this has been finished, the aforementioned text will also need to be changed. --TraceyR (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, if I get a chance I will try and do some (or at least add it to my long to do list!) MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I would be grateful if others could check the result. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the hard work. quick look it appears OK, I have some more to add but it was getting confusing the other way round. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally organised the tables the way they were to simplify the finding of Specifications, the two differing formats making it awkward, as many of the Specs. are without an alphabetic character. It seemed easier to find them if the ones without a letter-prefix were lumped together at the start of each year, as the tables were originally organised by order of introduction. Also there are some duplicates where one has no letter-prefix and another has, so the other way seemed simpler for distinguishing between them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.80.74 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of us found the alphabetical order to be counter-intuitive; it didn't simplify things for us. Since the numbers were allocated in ascending order within each year, I, for one, find it easier to locate them in the same order. The new order also makes it easier to see when there were two specs with the same number, e.g. one without a prefix and another with.  The text explains how to find things. --TraceyR (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the new way works for you then that's OK by me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.36 (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: Re-directs are now in place for all the Specifications listed. To use in articles, specs without Mission prefixes should be Written thus;Specification 21/26, and those with prefixes thus;B.1/35Petebutt (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not needed far easier just to link directly to this article as the redirects are unlikely ever to be articles (particularly as any article would be named Air Ministry specification 99/99 rather than Specification 99/99. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-directs

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Air Ministry specifications. 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/20121024123107/http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/start.htm to http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/start.htm
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) 01:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified