Welcome!

Hello, Semi-Lobster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Kukini 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from one Paradoxian to another. The Land 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another. Nice looking article on the Chinese SMG.GordyB 23:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also another. Good work with the Chinese Military articles, and for the Il-76 entry in the Free Libyan Air Force Article. See you in Sinodefenceforum! Greetings. Cloudaoc (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Qcw05 2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

On 13 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Type 77 pistol, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Rudget (logs) 10:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, the thing is that I always thought that J-11B was basically a copy of the russian jet. See the Chengdu J-7 is a copy of the MiG-21 and I thought the whole J-11 business was very similar. Correct me if i'm wrong.

another thing i would not really call my edit war petty and i think I did put it in alphabetic order the second time around. Next time my petty edits will always incorporate the alphabetic order rule. Hahahahah!

My silly jokes, do reply and tell me if I'm right about the whole J-11 business because what i can gather the J-11A is an exact copy but the J-11B is a bit enhanced and has more, made in China components and an AESA which is chinese though I seriously doubt that. I dont think they do use their own AESA. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one tooooooooooooo. Enthusiast10 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, sorry about the whole 'petty' thing, it wasn't really directed at you, recently there has been a lot of JF-17 back and forth and its a real headache~ :p. You're right about the J-11A, its a Chinese built Su-27K, simple as that. The J-11B is a different bird though. Basically, everything is different, the engine has been replaced with the the Chinese WS-10A, multi-role Type 1474 multifunctional pulse-Doppler fire-control radar and databus (the old J-11A had... minimal air to surface capabilities), digitized solid-state avionics, glass cockpit, indigenous weapons layout (such as the PL-12 active radar-homing ‘beyond-visual-range’ medium-range air-to-air missile), composite material construction (therefore reducing the weight by 700kg), Redesigned air inlets, etc. etc.. In the end 70%+ of the entire aircraft is Chinese components. As fro the J-7. The J-7 and J-7II is indeed based on the MiG-21, particularly the MiG-21F-13. The J-7III(C) is a direct copy of the MiG-21MF. The difference is the J-7E/G series which features a double delta wing configuration which drastically increased the performance (overall aerodynamic performance increase of 43%, 0.9 thrust/weight ratio) and range of the little J-7. A more powerful WS-13F engine was also installed, new radar, HUD, RWR, computer etc. etc. it is also technically BVR capable like the Indian Bison butthats up to the operator. Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. So I guess you are quite interested in Chinese Aiforce. They have a good airforce but a lot of their planes are quite old compared to Uncle Sam and Russia. Another comment, the Indians better work hard, we only have 2 superior fighters but the chinsese have 3 as u include the J-11. Our HAL should pull up thier socks and better work some late nights if they want to have any chance agianst the chinese. Or some good help from the US and Russia like free technology or free planes(like how US gave to Saudis,Pakis etc.) then India and China might be then on the same playing on the same level field.

Asian defence forces in general are an interest of mine. I wrote a couple of articles on WWII Japanese tanks for example. I am also ineterested in the Indian Air Force, the HAL Tejas is a wonderful plane, developing your own indigenous design and eventually engine and radar system are no small task, cost over runs are more or less a normal part of developing a nascent aerospace industry. The problem with HAL is their hands are often tied by the byzantine Indian civilian administration who in my opinion, are far too in bed with Russian defence firms and would rather Indian continue importing Russian fighters than developign their own. Russia is a very helpful ally but you need to be hard on some allies as well. Russia has been a fair-weather partner, especially with the Admiral Gorshkov, talking about if India does not pay up the rest of the skyrocketing costs, they will simply requisite the Gorshkov themselves. As for the PLAAF, the J-6 (MiG-19) has bee completely retired as of 2006 except for limited training roles. J-7 (MiG-21) production ended in 2007 of which, out of the 500+ aircraft, 311 are the more advanced newly built J-7E/G variant. Large retirements are already under way and it is expected that they will all be retired in the next 5 to 6 years and been replaced by the J-10 or [i]possibly[/i] the JF-17/FC-1. There are only 50ish J-8IEs currently fielded and over 300 (more likely around 350-400) J-8IIB/D/H/Fs. The older J-8Bs will most likely be retired in 5 years. The J-8Ds are beign upgraded to J-8H standards. The J-8H/F are the newest, highest J-8 variant. They have full BVR MRAAM, look down/shoot up, multi-role capabilities and enhanced air to ground capabilities, new enigne, electronics, avionics etc. making them the equivalent of early 4th generation jet fighters. The number of improvements is rather long, so I'm not going to list everything :p Production of the J-8H has ended and limited production of the J-8F continues for the next couple of years. The J-10 and J-11 now are the real stars of the show. Most estimates put the current number of J-10s at 160-200 right now while there are 96 or so J-11As (production of the J-11A has ended and now only the J-11B is being produced) and about 25-50 J-11Bs up to around a total production run of 200. And thats only the Chinese made flankers, there are 76 Su-27SK/UBKs and 100 Su-30MKK/MK2s as well. Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

India has a long way to go. But the grt. thing about Asian Airforces is that 3 of them,(Russia, China and India) are in the top 5 airforces in the world. Not the same if you look at the army and specially with the navy. India is cathcing up with China and Russia, maybe we can be as good as them in lets say 15-20 years when we have the PAK FA, FGFA, MCA, LCH and OLH. And idnia has already taken a huge step forward with teh Tejas. At the end of the day its only the 3rd indeginous plane of India. HAl Dhruv has been exported to many countries and Soon BrahMos will be exported. Times look bright for India. Especially in the navy area, china hasn't done much in the past 5 Years and after ATV, BARAK 2, BrahMos 2 and Nirbhay we might just be ahead. But the pakistanis have done really well too, at the end of the day the Babur Cruise long range missile sent warning signals in India and Isreal. US didnt even know about it nor did India untill the day it was tested. But they helped India in a way as the Nirhay was sped up and it is to be tested in March so the asian scene is hottin up. Enthusiast10 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to consider Russia an Asian country, they are a post-colonial transcontinental state with interests in Europe, Caucasus, Black Sea, Central Asia, Pacific and Arctic Oceans etc. The BraMos is inded impressive, I certainly hope India can find an export market. In terms of naval advances China is in a state of investment after a state of perpetual neglect (The navy was always considered the most junior service in the PLA) where money is being put into research, design etc. and within the next few year. India indeed has a large depth in naval technology and building a carrier from scratch will certainly be one of the most impressive feats yet (although the Vikrant is still a LONG way from being completed). I believe the Indian Air Force though needs to focus inward on development, its important to be on good terms with countries such as Russia for joint projects especially in fields were there is much to learn, I personally can't wait to see the PAK FA prototype next year, but the Indian aerospace industry like HAL needs help to push it from a national aerospace company to one like Chengdu in China or Dassault in France or Saab in Sweden that can locally develop aircraft, test them, arm them, gain a contract for them and then export large amount of them to domestic and international markets. For example, the recent purchase of 80 Mil Mi-17V-5 helicopters. It was really completely out of the blue, there was no existing tender or competition for a new helicopter, there was no attempt to look into developing a medium-to-heavy load helicopter in the future themselves and no attempt to import them as knock-down kits so the very least HAL can assemble them. It wasn't even part of a long term deal of some sort. They just said would buy them, straight from Russia without any warning. I know that this deal is part of a larger deal relating to the Admiral Gorshkov and uranium but it seemed so... abrupt. Semi-Lobster (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True with the Russia thing, but India feels obliged to buy from them at the end of the day most of our nuclear and space programs were funded and aided by them in the 1970s and 1980s. The BrahMos is really good but now we lab tested the BrahMos 1B which is hypersonic- http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/miss_muni/20080513_hypersonic_version.html. Russia cant aid India with a long range one without disobeying the so called MCRT. It has though broken the law and made nulcear reactors but I dont think India wants to make Uncle Sam really angry. Already US doesn't like deals between India and Russia. I was South Block, a government office in India. My friend was there and he had just gone to the US foriegn office he told me that they confronted India and told us that they knew that Nirbhay and ATV had some Russian "connections". I dont seriously doubt that, eventually many say AAD has israeli missile booster technology and so does Agni-3. All I know all this might be true but surely there is something do with Russia especially with Indian navy- Nirbhay and ATV. But most probably this might just stop now that the navy is so angry about the carrier and the Akula lease deal. I still consider Russia as Asia but I wanted to ask you one thing how do u rank the airforces-my rankings- 1.USA; 2. Rus; 3.China; 4. India 5. France!! Chao Enthusiast10 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking is a bit diffcult, its not just about size or technology but about the air force's role for that country in addition to logistics, structure, training etc. , its not all about size IMO at all so an arbitrary ranking system would be pointless really. At the top obviously is the US, 2nd is Russia but after that things tend to get murky, there are so many things to consider and take account of such as power projection capability, the state of its aerospace manufacturing capacity, aircraft role, spare aircraft parts inventory, air lift capacity, training, surveillance and electronic warfare capabilities, national fuel reserve etc. Its a toss up of between China, France, Japan, India and even Sweden. There are far too many variables to pick and choose minutiae between 3rd, 4th or 5th. It may not be a satisfactory answer but I believe its 'too close to call'.

p.s. its Italian, its 'ciao' ;) Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Semi-Lobster and thanks for the good job on this write-up.

I'm a little concerned, however, about the sources used – only the GlobalSecurity reference appears to qualify as a Reliable Source. Do you know of any other sources of information that can be used to verify the claims that can't be supported from GS? If not, the article might need to be trimmed back a bit to just what can be reliably supported. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, ok I admit Global Security was a bit of padding, it was getting late and I wanted to go to bed so I put it in there until I could find something a little more concrete. I'll see what I can do for today or tommorow. Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the other way around - Global Security is fine; it's the other sites that are the problem. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The global security references is only like, 4 sentences, whats wrong with the other sites? One of them is in English, from one of the most respected Chinese defence websites and other is from one of the biggest Aersopace website/magazine in China? I know only three sources is a bit light but I've been a little busy to try to find more at the moment Semi-Lobster (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both china-defense.com and afwing.com are Self-published sources; in other words, they are private websites where there is no indication of professional editorial review. As such, they do not qualify as reliable for Wikipedia's purposes.

If you want to use content from these sites as a reference, you must be able to show that the content in question was written by someone who has published professionally in this field. In the case of an article about an aircraft, for example, if you can show that an author who has published something on a private website has also had articles printed in Air & Space or AW&ST or Flight International, then you should feel free to use their privately-published material as well. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, a lot of things are going on in my life righ now. Well I'll search around for some additional sources and shoot some e-mails to get confirmation (the name Jack Collins rings bell but I can't quite put my finger on it, I'm pretty sure he wrote something) but like I said earlier, time is not exactly on my side, BTW just out of curiosity what has John Pike written for? Thanks for your time! Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pike wrote for the Federation of American Scientists and created their website (fas.org) that his Globalsecurity site grew out of. Some of his many credentials are listed in his article right here. It's safe to say that he can be considered a subject matter expert in his field. That's the kind of credentials we need for a self-published source... --Rlandmann (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, was just curious, thanks for clarifying that, much appreciated! :) Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is Hj107, forgot the password so created a new user. You said I need to find a fair use image and put it up, but I'm not sure how. Would you mind if I paste some links of pictures here, with their sources, and then you go through them and add a suitable one to the page? Thanks. Hj108 (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr... I'm sort of busy, so I guess its up to you to find a Fair use image. A lot of Wikipedians get all riled up over fair use images and there are dozens of bots who scour wikipedia for non-fair use images so its much better time management to get it done right in the first place. 'Fair use' as the Wikipedia link goes on, is rather complicated (copyright laws of various countries), government websites (from cuontries who have fair use policies) are the best places to find fair use images, additionally, if you can find a picture taken of an FC-1/JF-17, you can contact that person and ask for his permission to use it. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I found a poster by China Electronics Technology Group Corp. about the KLJ-7 radar, taken at a Chinese exhibition according to a person who posted the link on a forum. It is hosted on image shack, but it has a water mark. Could you advise me on whether I can upload it to wikipedia? It would be a good source for the KLJ-7 article. Here is the link: http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7516/klj73xq.jpg Hj108 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response, I've been very busy. The poster may be from China Electronics Technology Group Corp. but the picture is from the qianlong.com military news website so the image belongs to them. You cant really use an imageshack image as a source, you need an actual source of that picture. You're best bet is to find the article the image is originally from and use that as the source. The KLJ-7 family is a very interesting series of light radar, with a very wide range of capabilities. For example the KLJ-7E is only WVR combat while the new KLJ-7F is BVR capable. The only difference is that the KLJ-7E has seen very widespread use while the KLJ-7F is so new that no aircraft is currently equipped with it. BTW thank you for keeping an eye on several aircraft articles, while I've been busy, some of the edits on aircraft such as the J-10 and JF-17 are becoming ridiculously out of hand, especially using EXTREMELY unreliable sources and even using forums as sources! (which is one of the worst things you can put as a 'source') Thanks for keeping thing in check Hj108! Semi-Lobster (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err to be honest I haven't done any edits to the J-10 article so I can't really take the credit for that lol! I do intend to help clean up and improve that article too though, once I am satisfied with the JF-17 article (and the PAF inducts J-10B!!). My activities have been restricted to the JF-17 article and even there, MilborneOne and one or two others have been undoing the vandalism before I can! There is this one guy who keeps changing FC-1's TWR to 7.8 (LMAO! WTF?!) and it's max speed to Mach 2.02 or something - with no proper source. Right now I'm in an edit war with people who think the AIDC FCK-1 (you know, the Taiwanese IDF - they should have made it FCK-1T lol) and the YF-17 and the F-20 Tigershark shouldn't be in the comparable aircraft list, despite the fact that IDF's empty weight is almost identical to JF-17's! Do you think F-18 hornet should be in that list? I think so, but not sure because it is much heavier than JF-17, but still only a little heavier than F-16. Early versions of F-18 are comparable just as early versions of F-16 are comparable IMO.

Also, what are your sources for KLJ-7 variants? How can you know all these things!!! I wish I could read Chinese.

Btw which aircraft use KLJ-7E? I would guess J-8, but surely the finback can fit a much larger radar in it's radome? If JF-17 is BVR capable then it must use KLJ-7F, but you say no aircraft is currently equipped with it? I guess you mean currently cleared for operational service. Do you think the reports that NRIET is working on an AESA for the JF-17 are credible?

Yah, forum posts can't really be classed as sources lol, even when certain posters have inside knowledge - that kind of stuff shouldn't really be talked about in public anyway.

Hj108 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that, I'm getting everything all muddled around recently, I'm exhausted :p As for the J-10B, in December there were rumours everywhere about a test flight of an improved J-10 but so far there only has been Chinese forum speculation and a couple of blogs, without a picture, nothing is really definitive although perhaps we will see something in the new year, but once again, thats speculation. Also I haven't read any convincing that the 'FC-20' is nothing more than Pakistani internet fanboyism, lead on by a few brief, vague statements from the PAF. The F-CK-1 is an agile but underpowered aircraft but is one of the few exmples of of a light twin engine fighter (most twin engine aircraft tend to be much heavier). The F-20 Tigershark is ESSENTIAL for the listed aircraft given the development of the F-CK-1 was because of the cancellation of the F-20, and if you have the YF-17 listed, than theres really no need to add the F/A-18.

The KLJ-7E from what I've read is simply a copy (probably legally liscenced, China and Israel have had very good relations during the 80s and 90s) of the Israeli Elta EL/M2001 and is equipped with the PLAAF J-7Gs and all recent F-7 exports (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Namibia, Sri Lanka etc.). While therefore we can assume the KLJ-7F is a vastly improved variant of the original Israeli radar. The J-8Ds are being all upgraded to J-8H standards which is equipped with the very capable Type 1471/KLJ-1 radar (multimode PD radar, full air, ground and sea capabilities, maximum 75km range for targets with 3 square meters RCS, simultaneous 10 target tracking, and 2 target simultaneous engagement etc.) and the in production J-8F, the most advanced J-8 variant is equipped with the power Type 1492 radar which so far, has had very little information revealed on it. The Radar of the JF-17 is still... rather vague, its the same debate as the one last year, if a Grifo or Chinese radar will be used. As for AESA, I highly doubt the JF-17 will ever be equipped with AESA, AESA isn't something you can develop at the drop of a hat, it is an extremely difficult system to develop, so much so that the US is refusing any foriegn sale of any American AESA system until the F-35 is ready. Also it goes against the profile of the JF-17, which is to make money. It is designed as a capable, light multirole fighter for export to 3rd and 2nd world countries who cannot afford the latest fighter aircraft (which are also getting increasingly expensive). Since J-7 production has now ceased, Chengdu hopes the JF-17 will fill the F-7's export niche. In that case, AESA is the last thing they would want to export, the technology is too sensitive to really export and an AESA radar would put the JF-17 out of their customer base's buying ability. I haven't heard any rumours of a JF-17 with AES personally though other than that horrible 'JF-17X' article which was just terrible, and which I don't believe for a second. Hope that helps! Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question regarding the HUD business on the J-10 and JF-17 articles. You know how they both say:

"When the Chinese Su-30MKK and Indian Su-30MKI were deployed in the humid subtropical and tropical zones, both experienced significant fogging problems with the Russian SILS-30 HUD. This was originally designed for the arid environment in arctic/subarctic zones, thus a great deal of effort was spent to solve this issue so that the holographic HUD of Chinese origin on JF-17 could be deployed in any environment like its western counterparts. Alternatively, western HUDs can be incorporated directly onto the aircraft with little effort due to the modular design and the adoption of the MIL-STD-1553B standard avionics. The HUD designed for the Chinese Chengdu J-10 multi-role fighter inherited the Russian/Soviet tradition of doubling as a radarscope, enabling the pilot to keep his eyes focused at infinity while working with his radar at the same time. This function, also available on JF-17, was originally reverse-engineered from MiG-23 fighters obtained from Egypt[citation needed] and was further expanded to include the projection of monochrome images from electro-optical pods carried by JF-17, though colour images still have to be displayed on the cockpit multi-function displays."

Do you think this information should be in the above two articles? Surely the Russian SILS-30 HUD has nothing to do with the aircraft's development or avionics/cockpit. Hj108 (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find proof (an article), then the paragraph works. Normally I'd look into it myself but like I said, I'm very busy this week. Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks for your thoughts on the JF-17's comparable aircraft list - I will keep it as it is for now. You are right that there is a lot of Pakistani fanboyism regarding FC-20, but I'm convinced there is truth to it - although I can't find it now, I saw a video on Youtube of the PAF Air Chief Marshal talking about how they had evaluated "F-10A" and found it to be a great platform, with lots of fuel capacity and a big radome that could take large radars, but a newer improved version designated "FC-20" by the PAF would be procured and he was expecting 36 of them within next couple of years (video was out last year). I'm trying to take it with a grain of salt, but insiders (ex-fighter pilots, defence journalists with contacts, etc. - they said U214 would be ordered by PN months before it was announced) have confirmed it and even stated 36 may arrive at the end of this year. Not sure about the TVC and ESA radar, but I think the Air Chief mentioned that in the video too. Hard to believe really, but China has funded development of a 3D TVC AL-31 variant hasn't it? ESA radar for FC-20 sounds pretty unlikely too, but then again there are AESA radars on Chinese AWACS, both the KJ-2000 and KJ-200 (and newer Type 054 ships right?). Do you think PAF's Y-8 based AWACS (designated ZDK-03 by PAF) radar is a rotodome or balance-beam (KJ-200) design?

As for the JF-17 radar business. It has already been confirmed by the PAF's Air Chief that the first batch of JF will use the KLJ-7, that's why I was confused about the variants you mentioned and the radar being used by J-7s. The information that PAF followers have is that KLJ-7 is just a smaller variant of J-10's KLJ-10 radar. AFAIK the PAF got two Chinese radars (from two different labs) and evaluated each, the KLJ-7 won. They were going to get the winner to compete against Grifo S7 and other European radars but they have decided to stick with the Chinese radar for now, test pilots say it is "a pretty good radar." That's my understanding of it. It has also been confirmed by the Air Chief that JF-17s will equipped with KLJ-7, at least for the first batch. From what you're saying, it sounds like JF-17s radar is a scaled up J-7 radar rather than scaled down J-10 radar? Also, the Air Chief has said they are looking at (European) AESA options for later PAF JF-17 batches. Yeah, that Stealth JF-17X article is just laughable. Whoever typed that crap needs their fingers removed. I think it was just a mischievous Indian trying to bait the PAF fanboys (such as myself) lol. It didn't work of course! Hj108 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan getting a J-10 variant is certainly viable but it very much depends on the Pakistani economy in the coming years and if it could afford it, but with the national debt Pakistan is carrying on its back, I can forsee delays in the future of any transfer, but once again, this is speculation. What sort of 'J-10' Pakistan will get on the otherhand is not even up to Chengdu but to the CCP, the SD-10s Pakistan was sold from the 'internet rumours' I've been hearing seem to be downgraded PL-12s rather than the same as the ones used by the PLAAF, in most cases th PAF would have the most contact with CAC rather than directly to Beijing. Once again, speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if Chengdu officials promised an improved J-10 to Pakistani military officials before any sort of actual clearance was given from Beijing, but a little prodding by Chengdu may be enough. Its not unwillingness in my opinion but simply the CCP being very careful, after all the first real public display of the J-10 was only last year, I very much doubt that we will be seeing an Pakistani J-10s this year though. From what I've read nobody is developing an AL-31F variant, not only do Liming or Liyang not have a contract to produce the AL-31F, but from what I've read, all engine development is going into improving the WS-10 engine and a smaller, medium sized turbofan engines that people on the internet are calling the 'WS-12'. ESA development is some of the most important and sensitive research around so speculating on it is rather moot, but from what most Chinese BBS sites are saying is that PESA radar like the Rafale, rather than AESA will be used on future J-10s.

I haven't really been following the JF-17 so I didn't hear about the KLJ-7 being chosen, in all likelyhood the specific KLJ-7 variant used for the JF-17 will be the improved KLJ-7F since obviously the KLJ-7E would not be able to engage anything over 30km away. The KLJ-7E isn't a new radar at all, its been used around the world in F/J-7s for years now, I thought it was well known that it was a copy of the Israeli Elta EL/M2001. The 'F' is just an improved version of the of the 'E'. The JF-17X article was originally from some online Malayasian defence website I've never heard of. Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source on the PAF J-10 thing. This is an extract from an interview (shown in a newspaper and televised) with the PAF Air Chief:

Q. What are the options available for PAF to enhance its fleet, and what new fighter types are expected to join PAF in the next five years?

Ans. As I have mentioned earlier, we are keeping all available options open and want a well balanced multirole jet fighter aircraft. We will be inducting 18 new F-16C/Ds and most probably will use our option of 18 more after the first squadron will be operational. We will also be inducting 26 MLU F-16A/B as well as our existing fleet of 34 aircraft will also undergo the MLU upgrades. 150 JF-17 Thunders and 36 F-10A aircraft will also be joining PAF, and more F-10s can be expected. Most probably we will also purchase FC-20 fighter aircraft from China.

That's all he mentions regarding the J-10 in this interview. I could have sworn he mentioned 36 FC-20 would be procured in another video interview - I guess they are indeed playing games with us as you suggested lol! You're probably right that more J-10 after the initial 36 will depend on economic conditions - hopefully they don't get too much worse. Hj108 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that info, do you have a link though? It sounds pretty interesting, I'd like to see it myself. Semi-Lobster (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/19930-paf-shouldve-invested-more-j-10s-3.html

It's not the original source, but I can verify that this is definitely the actual transcript of the interview. Hj108 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err... woops, I guess this happebed because I posted so early in the morning. I was actually thinking of the KLJ-[b]6[/b] series, not the KLJ-7. The KLJ-6 is not related to the KLJ-7.... err... sorry about that. I usually edit very early in the morning before work so sometimes I may not be as... careful as I should, I'm really sorry about that. Semi-Lobster (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no problem mate - we all make mistakes, it happens to the best of us! So is it safe to assume KLJ-7 may indeed be a smaller KLJ-10 (which I believe is fitted to J-10A)?

Also, I found a source talking about FC-20 http://www.daily.pk/local/other-local/8227-pakistan-to-introduce-36-china-made-fighter-planes.html What do you make of the "Russian TVC engines" part?

I have also just read that it is confirmed PAF's ZDK-03 is the KJ-200 - I guess you already knew that though, it was on Tphuang's blog. Hj108 (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I assume you have seen this already but this is why many think of KLJ-7 as a smaller KLJ-10: http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jav/jav_b154.html Of course, it is a Janes Defence article and I understand their articles on the Chinese military are not reliable. Hj108 (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the Russian TVC engine. We would have heard about it or information would have been leaked by now by Rosoboronexport since they like to publicise EVERYTHING for the most part. Unless Pakistan specified it (which I doubt since they don't operate any Russian aircraft and Russian engines are notoriously finnicky with a low lifespan) I doubt there would be a Russian engine beyond the RD-93 as China tries to corner the market on Pakistan. Semi-Lobster (talk)

Jane's is a bit of a cold war relic when it comes to their sources and focus so its safe to take their news on non-NATO and non-Russian equipment with a grain of salt but this information is VERY specific, it sounds like its from an official press release so I think the information is likely correct. Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight. I'm with you on the Russian TVC engine, I really don't see why J-10 needs TVC anyways. Hj108 (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the T-50 article. It is filling in nicely. Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fnlayson, I just hope to keep things tidy, I think the T-50 is one of those aircraft with a lot of potential but is generally overlooked so a little attention goes a long way I guess. As more information is released on the F/A-50 in the coming years, I believe that to avoid cluttering the T-50 page, eventually a seperate F/A-50 page should be made, but that won't be for a very long time. Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for placing the lack of citation tag on the "J-10B" section of the Chengdu J-10. I have added a suitable citation to ensure that the information is verifiable. Cheers. Cheese1125 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Flight Global citation only says that the J-10 will be exported as the FC-10, it doesn't say anything about an advanced J-10 variant at all, there is no mention in the entire article about any aircraft called the FC-20 or J-10B. Semi-Lobster (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently re-wrote this with new subheadings and a bit more content. I added a section on the Flight Control System using information from the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex website (http://www.pac.org.pk/amfsite-final/jf17specifications.html - the website is down at the time of writing this), but I'm not sure if it is accurate. This is what the section says so far:

===Flight Control System===

JF-17 has a composite flight control system (FCS), comprising of conventional controls with stability augmentation in the yaw and roll axis and a digital fly by wire (FBW) system in the pitch axis, although this is planned to be upgraded into a full digital quadruplex fly by wire system.

To improve aircraft maneuverability, JF-17 is designed to be statically unstable. Relaxed static stability (RSS) means that the aircraft cannot fly in a straight line, it would continuously wander (oscillate) off the intended flight path. Relaxed static stability is induced by moving the centre of lift in front of the centre of gravity. Leading edge extensions increase forward lift as well, making the aircraft more unstable. The fly by wire computers keep the aircraft in control by using sensors to monitor the aircraft's attitude and continuously moving the control surfaces to keep the aircraft in controlled smooth flight. The computers also respond to the pilot's instructions via the centre stick to make the aircraft fly in the desired direction.

The leading edge slats/flaps and trailing edge flaps are adjusted by the flight control system automatically during maneuvering to increase turning performance, especially at high angle of attack.

Problem is the PAC website talks about FBW in pitch axis, stability augmentation in the others, computer-controlled slats/flaps and so on (the first and last paragraph shown above), but it doesn't mention whether the jet actually has relaxed static stability. I always thought it did because it has FBW and big LERX and I read a debate on sinodefenceforum where Crobato confirmed it is almost certainly unstable, at least in pitch. But after reading this interview: http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/jf17interview.html the interviewer is told that "a unique feature of JF-17 aircraft is that it can fly like a conventional aircraft even when all its flight control computers fail. This arrangement is an added safety feature, which provides an additional advantage to the aircraft without any adverse effects."

I'm not sure what to do, I'm considering taking the middle paragraph out of the article since I can't find a source that confirms it. I would appreciate your opinion! (sorry for the really long explanation, I know you're busy!) Hj108 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the late response, I am pretty sick right now, but I'll try my best to respond. Crobato is a very talented and knowledgeable person but in the end 'he's just a guy on the internet'. In the end it may turn out he is right but, I read the discussion but its not like we can use him as a source or anything. We should only rely on verifiable information with sources including the interview. BTW I'm getting a bit dizzy so I'll be going to bed soon but it seems an anonymous user has messed around with the fourth generation page. Maybe we should have it semi-protected so at least we can deal with them because this is getting out of hand. Semi-Lobster (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, get well soon!

I will re-write the FCS section and incorporate information from the interview on the FC-1 article. I have removed the paragraph referring to negative stability from the article.

You are right about the 4th gen page needing semi-protection, there is a lot of fanboyism, especially from the anonymous users. Some people ignore certain facts while highlighting others to come up with biased conclusions. Recently the JF-17 page was semi-protected, it has expired now but I have asked the moderator to put it back on, he hasn't yet. During that period there was no vandalism whatsoever! Hj108 (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lobster, just wanted to ask if there is really such thing as the J-4? It is right at the top of the combat aircraft list, but the first line of the article states designations normally start at 5 by convention. Can you clarify? Also, at sinodefence I noticed that not only is there no article on the "J-4," but no article on the J-6 either. Have they not created a J-6 article or have they removed it? Just because it is no longer in service, doesn't mean the article should be removed. It is an important aircraft in the history of not only the PLAAF but other air forces too. Hj108 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a J-4, Chinese MiG-15s were just called '米格-15' which means MiG-15. There is an article on the J-6 on sinodefence http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j6.asp Semi-Lobster (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info! I will edit the Chinese Aircraft page.Hj108 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on QY-1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:QCW05.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Shizhao (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shenyang J-11. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ThePointblank (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments about this article. If you're interested in helping, note that I've moved the draft table to User:Snottywong/List of fighter aircraft. Feel free to volunteer for a section on the talk page. If not, that's ok too. If you have any thoughts about how to make the table better (particularly before we put a lot of work into it), please don't hesitate to start a discussion. Thanks! SnottyWong ^gab 16:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Type77.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Type77.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the discussion regarding File:Type77.jpg, I am letting you know that the discussion has been moved from FFD to PUF. Considering that there was no consensus on the earlier discussion and it came down to free/non-free, it seemed most suitable to switch the venue and open a new discussion specifically about the image's questioned license status. The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 11#File:Type77.jpg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Fiat M16/43, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansaldo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Perekop monitor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Khasan monitor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 3 pounder gun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vickers Medium Tank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Third-generation jet fighter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Corporation]] || '''[[Atlas Cheetah|Cheetah]]''' || 1986 || || [[File:Atlas Cheetah 3 (DanieVDM) )crop.jpg|150px]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Second-generation jet fighter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''[[Folland Gnat|Gnat F.1]]''' || 1958 || || Retired<br>1979 || [[File:Folland Gnat YU.jpg|150px]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how are you. I noticed you were interested in a new picture for the J-13 article. However, since the item never came into production, and also that there are several J-13s, which are overlapping designations by various, but discrete projects. Dark Liberty (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Click here. Click here. http://world.newssc.org/system/2008/10/13/011181322.shtml the only ones I found that was of significant interest. However, we have to ask permission from the artist for the first picture. The second picture isn't my taste, and the third is a link for reference for the second picture and there a 3rd picture there. Dark Liberty (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about the slow response, I've been a bit tied up recently. I think the best way to find a better picture (or most likely, a 3D model) would be from a Chinese government website which are generally covered under Fair Use laws. As you already mentioned there are many overlapping projects that were part of the J-13 program but the one I found years ago was that tiny red one that is pretty small and not a good representation of further J-13 development. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of active separatist movements in Europe may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
** '''Political party:''' www.die-friesen.eu (EFA member)<ref>{{cite web ** '''Political party:''' [[Lusatian Alliance]] (EFA member)<ref>{{cite web ** '''Political party:''' [[South Schleswig Voter Federation]] (EFA member)<ref>{{cite web

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of active separatist movements in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carinthia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Semi-Lobster,

Many thanks for the edits and supplements you have made to the section on various articles. I also tried to start removing the explicit wording of "equivalent to" in those comparisons. However, it seems now very tidy and much better with the alphabetic sequence. Might you also have a look on that similar subject? Since User:Rcbutcher is unwilling to fulfill my request after he started this section and widespread it numerous. Please tell me what you think of it. Thank you for your consideration. Regards Bouquey (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I could, its always bit subjective to juggle around vague terms like 'equivalency'. I guess I could do something similar for some other tanks, as objectively as possible in the near future. Semi-Lobster (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prince-Bishopric of Chur, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Italian and Romansh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to La Motte-Picquet-class cruiser. I'm not familiar with ship articles, but is it common for ships that were designed but never produced to have their own articles? Is it notable on its own? If the design was later revived for Duguay-Trouin-class cruiser, couldn't the information been put into the design and developed section of that article since that was a ship that was built and used? WikiVirusC (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WikiVirusC, yes it is common for ship that were not built to have their own articles for example:

• Normandie-class battleship
• Design B-65 cruiser
• Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship
• G3 battlecruiser
• P-class cruiser

There's even a whole category for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_ships As for the Duguay-Trouin, the design was originally based on the La Motte-Picquet-class, the design was completely changed (no armour belt, weapons completely changed, machinery changed, redesigned to accommodate a hangar for a seaplane etc. Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the message you left on my talk page. My primary concern with these edits was to remove tonal marks from the title and prose. As to the choice of romanisation, my view is that these historic warships would have had officially documented romanised names used in English sources, and in many cases the vast majority of English-language sources are contemporaneous, so it seems anachronistic to use the pinyin romanisation. My edits yesterday were prompted by the article on Hai Chi, for which English language sources are weighed heavily in favour of Hai Chi rather than Haiqi (which would be the correct pinyin) or Hai Qi. Of course, because of its international tour the Hai Chi had a higher international profile than some other ships, but given that these ships served in an operationally bilingual navy, I think it is to some extent true for all of the Qing navy ships that the contemporaneous names should be respected. This is similar to the way we deal with well-known Anglicisations of historical subjects that are different from contemporary standard Anglicisations, e.g. Russian battleship Potemkin not Potyomkin.

I am not particularly concerned about systematic consistency, but I appreciate that you may be more concerned about it. If you feel that the titles should be made consistent, my preference is to standardise towards the contemperaneous romanisations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PalaceGuard008, thank you for your quick reply, I appreciate it. As I mentioned earlier, there are many changes that I agree with, such removing excessive diacritics and proper spacing. On the topic of choice of Romanization though, I understand your logic, especially relating to historical source documents as I wrote several of these articles originally. Most sources I found (particularly older ones) used the, then contemporary Wade-Giles. This does not mean that Wade-Giles is the 'norm' any longer many topics (people, such as Admiral Sa Zhenbing instead of Sah Cheng-ping, places, things like Jingyuan instead of King-Yuen etc.) are, and have been for a long time, in Pinyin. All of these people and things lived and existed before Pinyin was created and all then contemporary information on them would have likely been in Wade-Giles, but generally more and more articles on historical Chinese subjects are in Pinyin, which as you know is seen as standard in China, while fewer and fewer new sources are using Wade-Giles. A native Chinese speaker would look for Haiqi rather than Hai Chi initially which would be confusing for them. As I mentioned earlier, in my research on the source material for these articles I was bombarded with strange romanizations for proper Chinese names, the Wade-Giles for this, the Postal for that, plus the different Cantonese and Min phonetics, it was very confusing and it would be confusing for somebody looking for articles on Wikipedia too. Using standard Pinyin is at least one thing everybody can look for with some confidence, which is why many Chinese articles make use of redirects, which the user can search for terms in Wade-Giles which they may be more familiar with and still find the article. I think what would work best is bringing these articles in line with other historical Chinese ships and use Pinyin, but without diacritic marks? Semi-Lobster (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that pinyin is the standard and that it is common to use pinyin anachronistically for subject matters that existed before pinyin. However, I think this is only universally appropriate for the classical and medieval periods, i.e. before the modern era which in Chinese historiography begins with the Opium War in the mid-19th century. The reason for this is that, with the opening-up of China in this era, romanisations are no longer just exonyms, romanisations become less fluid, and to the extent there was an official standard or commonly used version, it has a different phonosemantic value to the kind of exonymic romanisation that would have been applied to pre-modern Chinese subject matters.

Wikipedia policy is based on different concepts but gets approximately to the same place. Wikipedia's naming policy is based on the principles of "own name" + "common names" - i.e. firstly, whether the subject matter had its own, official, romanised name, and secondly, how the names are spelled in English language sources. Applied to people, this generally means people who interacted more with the west are listed here under contemporaneous romanisations, and those who interacted less are listed here under pinyin. For example, compare Yung Wing, T. V. Soong and Yuen Ren Chao, vs Yuan Shikai and Tan Sitong.

When it comes to the modern Qing navy (i.e. post 1875 or so), I think it is important to bear in mind that it was operationally bilingual, so the romanised names were not just exonyms but had an official status. That is, the contemporaneous English names were true names, not just romanisations. To the extent that standardisation is appropritae, the ship articles should be standardised to their actual English names, not pinyinised names. The same goes for the pre-1949 ROC ship articles. For example, Chinese cruiser Yi Xian should I think be at Chinese cruiser Yi Hsien. It would be consistent with how we treat modern ROC ships, which is to use their official English names and not a pinyin name, e.g. ROCS Kee Lung (DDG-1801).

I don't think the question of how today's native Chinese speakers would spell it is relevant. This is the English wikipedia, and redirects are cheap. I am a native Chinese speaker and I would have no trouble finding the relevant article for the Hai Chi if it is redirected from Haiqi. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right of course, there are many Wiki articles on Chinese historical subjects in Wade-Giles and probably, will never change such as the ones you mentioned. The 'general' point between the common usage of Pinyin and Wade-Giles when it comes to existing Wikipedia articles on warships seems to be between the Qing and Republican Eras. From my perspective, like the ships of the Beiyang Fleet of the First Sino-Japanese War, the Hai Chi class should be seen as Qing ships, they were ordered, paid for and commissioned into the Qing Imperial Chinese Navy and the Tai Tien did not survive to see the 1911 Revolution. The Chao Ho class on the other hand is on the cusp of the end of the Qing. They were laid down and commissioned by the Manchus but entered service as Republic of China Navy ships. Perhaps the Hai Chi Ships should be in Pinyin and the Chao Ho ships in Wade-Giles? Semi-Lobster (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:La Galissonnière cruisers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Upper Rhenish Circle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tarentaise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Upper Rhenish Circle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barony (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you added several smaller, including Italian Imperial fiefs to the list of member states of the said circle. What is the source? As far as I know, those encircled territories of the HRE were obliged to pay Imperial taxes and because of that had representation (including voting rights) in the Imperial Diet, where they were grouped into benches and colleges. There is no source for claiming such status for Ceva, for example. Kowalmistrz (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kowalmistrz, my focus was primarily territories acquired by the Duchy of Savoy after the establishment of the Upper Rhenish Circle until 1806 but you are probably right, I think perhaps I went a little too far. The list should be territories that exercised reichsunmittelbar. While there are appendages that historically had imperial immediacy, some I added probably did not and should be removed (although some I added I believe should stay). I guess I just started adding a few missing obvious states to the list and sort of got obsessed with adding more and more states. I am very sorry about this, hopefully the list can be cleaned up. Semi-Lobster (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Semi-Lobster !!! I have proposed to merge Prince-Bishopric of Chur to Roman Catholic Diocese of Chur. So please join the discussion. Thank you !!! --Süd-Russisches (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Lelit, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LelitBrandLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Semi-Lobster. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lelit, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Welsh exonyms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Hockey League in Alberta has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 17:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1990s Canadian attack aircraft indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]