Talk:List of Air Ministry Specifications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] List

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

[edit] Organisation of list

To keep edits manageable is it time to split the list into the various categories F for Fighter, B for bomber, E for experimental etc?GraemeLeggett 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Page length

Just thinking that the page length is now getting pretty long - 40KB when I last looked, which translates to 29 pages in Firefox - time for a move to separate pages perhaps?

If so then I would suggest that we do it by period, e.g., 1920 to 1929, 1930-1939, etc. - any thoughts? Ian Dunster 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Its below the nominal 75 kb for the moment, and you'd expect a list to take up a lot of room, so I wouldn't worry too much yet.GraemeLeggett 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting there

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