Talk:Flypast

message: Horribly UK focused.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.182.223 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't made the comment (70.250.69.103 did), I only added the project banner. I added an 'unsigned' template to his/her comment above - I agree it was obnoxious. I enjoyed the article and added it to the Military History project to give it more visibility - nice work! - RJASE1 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree - nothing wrong with this piece at all. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope 

message: As the creator of the article, might I suggest a Class B Rating?  RJASE1?  Looper?  Any views out there? I agree possibly a table or Infobox summarizing the dates might jazz it up....  Any offers, o ye who are technically more proficient than I?  Come on, chaps!   --FClef  (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assessed the article against B-class criteria and it's definitely there - actually I think it's more than ready for GA-class and I'm nominating it today. - RJASE1 02:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Looper has re-assessed the rating Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I reassessed the article for a few reasons.  1)  This article is very UK specific in spite of the fact that every country in the world with an air force conducts flypasts,  2) Also, the author has cited every recent flypast in UK history regardless of whether or not they deserve mention.  Some flypasts are not notable, not every one in the last 5 years needs to be mentioned.--Looper5920 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to think of a way to resolve this - maybe a new title (Aerial salute?) which includes Flypast (UK), Flyover (US), and possibly missing man formation, as well as the other international aspects cited here. It could concentrate on the ceremonial aspects of the practice as opposed to the aerial demonstration aspect (Airshow). Thoughts? - RJASE1 18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military History Project Assessment Scale Rating

message: Looper5920 - you archived your talk page very quickly but can I mention, with regard to missing man formation, that the flypast article does deal with funerary flypasts.  Surely these fit right in?  And they do expand the article's base and go some way to fitting your criterion on re-weighting.  -- FClef  (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Missing man formation]] applicability

message: With all due respect, I have to disagree with you, Looper.  Having looked at your formidable list of contributions, for which I have the utmost respect, I notice a very strong US interest.  Quite clearly you are a specialist in US military history and matters, among others.  
I can therefore quite understand the standpoint from which you view flypast.  However I would contend that the UK possibly leads the world in flypasts and the weight of the article reflects this.
If you truly feel that you cannot tolerate a UK-led article, then I feel that Wikipedia is a much more narrow-minded and prejudicial place than I had originally supposed.  And that grieves me. -- FClef  (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down chaps - it's only an article! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 09:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note...2 weeks after the fact.  This is long since done--Looper5920 09:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * The ongoing peer review contains a number of issues that need to be adressed, for what it's worth. Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peceived bias of article

message: I am copying my post to Kirill Lokshin below:
Dear Kyrill Lokshin - thank you and your colleagues for measured response to my article.  I had difficulties with one of your colleagues as you will have noted from the article talk page, and have suffered one or two wounding posts. 
However, the critiques on the Peer Review page are very helpful.  I can get on with some of the prose style, visual  and organisational points you raise.
However, some of the deeply mechanical or historical stuff is beyond my expertise and there you may need extra input.  I felt that you asked for rather alot on this side but Nick Dowling seemed to think that how they are organised would suffice.
I don't have recourse to all the materials to deal with those questions but will have a go as far as I can. 
Thanks to all for positive feedback and I will do my best. -- FClef  (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I replied here, if anyone is curious.) Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify my comments, I think that the article needs to be restructured so that its a more 'generic' discussion of flypasts. The current content should be used to illustrate the different types of flypasts. --Nick Dowling 09:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, and will do a restructuring in line with your suggestion, Nick.  Hopefully this should be accomplished over the coming weeks (alas, I have exams on 31st January and 28th February!). --FClef  (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concentrate on your exams first! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: I failed this for Good Article status, primarily because it is absurdly UK-centric. I know for a fact that they occur quite frequently in the US (at most Super Bowls, for example), which is only mentioned once in the lead section. It gives brief mention to other countries later in the article, but it seems almost an afterthought.
The article is certainly well-written, and well-sourced (too rare on Wikipedia), but I feel it needs more breadth to qualify as a Good Article. --JerryOrr 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA nomination

message: It had been suggested at Flyby that the aircraft portion of that article be merged into Flypast. My counter-suggestion is that Flyby should become a disambiguation page. In the US, a flyby can be ceremonial like a UK flypast, but it can also be an observation pass or, as in the case of spacecraft, used to carry out a course change. (Oh, and then there's that pesky IRC use of the term.) Sdsds 04:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: Flyby is effectively a disambiguation page already and should conform to WP:DAB, which it does not currently do.  The easiest way to move the information about flight from the DAB page would be to include it here.  Not sure what should be done with the explanation about the IRC use of the term. Theflyer 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment, I made the changes to flyby so it conforms to WP:DAB.  The ceremonial link now links to this article.  I made a new stub entry in Wiktionary for the IRC definition of flyby (see: wiktionary:Flyby) and ensured that the disambiguation page links to that wiktionary entry. Theflyer 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help with this! (Sdsds - Talk) 23:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. It was the right thing to do.  However, this article is non-neutral and needs a lot of work.  Since the authors have done significant work documenting flypasts in the UK, a solution might be to generalize this article into a more succinct entry on Flypasts/flyovers/flybys and then create a new article called History of flypasts in the UK. Then you could easily keep the existing work but make the current article more neutral.  I've placed the Globalize template on the page to emphasize that the current article does not represent a world-view of the topic.  Theflyer 15:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed flyby merge 

message: I'm still getting used to the idea of this article being called "flypast" because as an American, I hadn't heard it until I found this page. But that's neither here nor there. Shouldn't there be something about flybys in popular culture? The movie Top Gun for example made it a common word here in the US and I assume elsewhere. --Stargat (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Gun

message: The article asserts, "Flyby mostly refers to military situations," and then fails to distinguish how the term flyby refers mostly to military situations. It also fails to establish this statement as a fact with a reference. It has the appearance of trying to minimize the occurrence of the amount of references to flybys by suggesting they are only applicable to military situations (as well as to suggest the U.S. equivalent to flypast is flyover instead), versus an editor's assertion that flypasts are more prevalent in the UK. Yet, the article also states, "These spectacular and daring displays of military - and occasionally passenger - aircraft, are described in broadcast and print media as historic." (internal quotes removed) I mean, seriously, by trying to disqualify the term flyby and with it the amount of U.S. military aircraft involvement in the practice, as the practice is described for the UK, is disingenuous. 
Merriam-Webster defines flyby primarily as, "a prearranged usually low-altitude flight by one or more airplanes over a public gathering (as an air show)," which oddly sounds exactly as the article describes flypast. --Born2flie (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a good one--for British purposes. IMO it should be entirely British-oriented, unless some other country can lay claim to the term. I'd vote the article FA if that were the case. To include the US within is disingenuous, however. I have been part of or associated with the USAF since my birth, which coincides with the birth of USAF, and the term has never been used to identify any USAF aerial ceremony, any military ceremony I've ever attended (Army, Navy, or Marine Corps) or been familiar with, nor any civilian function. In America they are flyovers, sometimes flybys. The term is hardly sacrosanct. In all my 60+ years the only such demonstrations that USAF treats with such solemn dignity are missing man formations. The remainder are treated with professionalism (usually) but as an operational flight, no more, no less. You run a normal brief, calculate a TOT, execute as briefed, and RTB. Any manuevering in the objective area becomes an aerial demonstration or air show. I like this article, but US interests have no part in it. Perhaps a generic article with a generic name, but not in "flypast". Btw, it's been amusing seeing all the fussing and offended takes throughout this talk page. Normally the shoe's on the other foot, complaining (and some Yank being offended thereby) about American monopolism of point of view!.--65.185.109.182 (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flyby = military? 

message: This article needs a good cleanup; I'm not sure where to begin, but how about removing all the details of specific flypasts (including both one-offs an annual events), perhaps to a separate "list of..." article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: They also happen sometimes at college football games in the US. The article only mentions professional. Bugefun (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  College Football 

message: This article is biased towards the United Kingdom and hardly envelopes the true scope of the issue as it pertains to the rest of the Anglo-sphere, not to mention the rest of the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.25.132 (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Centric 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flypast. 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/20061003095459/http://www.army.mod.uk/ceremonialandheritage/household/trooping.htm to http://www.army.mod.uk/ceremonialandheritage/household/trooping.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109014431/http://simscience.org/cracks/dambusters.html to http://simscience.org/cracks/dambusters.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) 01:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion