Talk:Flypast

Article scope

Horribly UK focused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.182.223 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much UK focus. It might intrest people to know that the UK isn't the only place that flyovers/flypasts happen.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.69.103 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Dear RJASE1, I am the creator of the Flypast article and wonder if you would consider rewording your second sentence, "It might interest people to know that the UK isn't the only place where flypasts happen".

I will concede that your first sentence was fine ("too much UK focus") but I found the second to be unnecessarily sarcastic and somewhat distorting. distortion.

I do not object in principle to your placing this on the military history project - I'm no military person, myself - but I do find that sentence somewhat caustic and reductive, given that there is a whole section on international flypasts and I ran pictures and descriptions of flypasts in several countries.

I spent about three months researching that article and gathering all the references I could find and went to great lengths to include as much as was within my power and resources.

Please reword the second sentence of your proposal to more accurately reflect the article. I will be interested to see the improvements to the article.

I will post a copy of this to Talk:Flypast and would ask you to reply there. Thanks. -- FClef (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I also agree - nothing wrong with this piece at all. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is very UK focused. The whole intro is basically about the UK. This is foreseeable because I had no idea that flyovers were popular anywhere outside my own country (USA). But the fact is that flyovers happen all the time in the US. The United States has flyovers and air shows because military has always been an important part of the American identify. Also, the word "flypast" isn't used in the US so I don't think it should be used in the sections talking about US flyovers. Extermino (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Military History Project Assessment Scale Rating

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)

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)

See Looper has re-assessed the rating Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I just took another look at the article. While it is a great start and well referenced I have some concerns about the content/layout of the article so I would not feel it appropriate to give it a "B" rating at this time. First, there is far to much emphasis on the U.K. I would argue that flypasts occur in almost every country that has an air force. While all of the examples are well referenced, most are given undue weight by either being to long or having their own section. Might be more appropriate to lose all of the subsection of the U.K., create one section, shorten it to include only the ones that really belong to a sentence or two. Or you may consider renaming the article Flypasts (United Kingdom). Every flypast that ever occured does not have to be mentioned. I am also not a big fan ofthe image gallery in the middle of the page. Might be better to move that to the bottom or incorporate the photos into the article individually. Anyway, just some initial thoughts. I am actually in the middle of something so I will be able to add a bit more later. --Looper5920 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

FCLEF, Thanks for responding. I'll list my responses according to the questions/issues you left on my talk page. I have no issues with a U.K. bias where it is appropriate however this article is not a good example. You will notice that in my original response to your queries about this article I never mentioned a lack of U.S. inclusion. That was not my intention when I wrote that nor is it now. What I said is that you have an article on Flypasts that is almost entirely devoted to events that have occured in the U.K. and in the grand scheme of things it is unduly weighted to the U.K. Almost every nation in the world with an Air Force conducts flypasts so I think it would not be correct to highlight an article that emphasizes one Air Force over all of the others. I am not doubting your references or your want to see this article become the best it can be. Please look at the content and weight and re-evaluate where appropriate.--Looper5920 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing man formation applicability

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)

Peceived bias of article

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)

• How about this for a response. You are an arrogant wanker. My objections to this articles being B-class have nothing to do with it being a UK-led article. There are many such articles on Wikipedia and the fact that they are UK based has nothing to do with their rating. Bottom line is that the article you have created had some large holes in it and it does not deserver the "B" rating. --Looper5920 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong but with reference to both your second sentence in the foregoing and the subject line of the edit, I thought we were meant to avoid personal attacks? (I believe that your own talk page bears this out as well.) Just wanted you to know that I spent 12 happy years studying and teaching on both coasts of the US. The original correspondence yesterday suggested re-titling, re-weighing and many other things. Now that you mention "large holes" I will be grateful to know what omissions you had in mind. -- FClef (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm down chaps - it's only an article! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 09:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note...2 weeks after the fact. This is long since done--Looper5920 09:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

Peer Review

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)

(I replied here, if anyone is curious.) Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Concentrate on your exams first! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

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)

Proposed flyby merge

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for your help with this! (Sdsds - Talk) 23:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Top Gun

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)

Flyby = military?

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),"[1] which oddly sounds exactly as the article describes flypast. --Born2flie (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Cleaning up

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)

College Football

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

UK Centric

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• ConcordeBG.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)