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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
I don't understand why the advantage of the deal is that there will be more jobs in Germany. Is this badly writtern or is the MOD pandering to European nations to support their industries?
217.7.209.10811:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)reply
It does not make any sense....Airbus, partly British or Boeing, not British at all. Given the degree of integration that has been taking place within the European defence industry (Eurofighter, Meteor, MBDA, Stormshadow, A400M etc), the Airbus solution does seem more advantages. Also, more work would be in the UK with NEW aircraft because they will need new wings (UK built) and new Engines (UK built).
Matchrthom19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article - not for discussing the issue in general. However since the issue has been raised - What is the alternative? Is there an all-British, modern, large airliner in production that I haven't heard about?? Also a lot of the content of Airbus airliner is British, and a lot of the value is RR engines. The refuelling system is British too.
Mark8320:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)reply
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level.
BetacommandBot10:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)reply
That rude word
WP:NOTCENSORED suggests we should report the aircrew view uncensored - FSTA = Fucking shortage of tankers again. It seems there is another view, that the offensive word should be censored to F*cking, or some variant. Views?
Please be patient with new users! I'm all for free speach and all that but where do you draw the line? I didn't remove the quote just amended the word i think should not appear in an online encyclopaedia which children can easily access. Seems the consensus is that its OK to offend but not to censor, even for good reason.
There are other examples of this word being changed on this site (not just a band including “f*cking” in their name) so find the inconsistent application of a policy just as wrong as my ‘edit warring’ for which I now apologise and only plead ignorance as my defence. Bobbieball —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bobbieball (
talk •
contribs)
11:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Bobbieball: first, on a talkpage, please always end your post with ~~~~ .. this signs your posts. Don't do this in articles themselves though. Second, the consensus on Wikipedia is that it is
not censored. This doesn't mean we can swear left, right, and centre, but that where appropriate (such as quotes) it is permissable. I have given you a nice menu of links to other Wikipedia policies that you might find useful as a new editor - I hope they help. Feel free to ask for further help when needed. (
talk→BWilkins←track)
12:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Not a particularly reliable reference just repeating hearsay from another source. Reference or not it is not particularly notable as a nickname unless it can be proved to be in general acceptable use.
MilborneOne (
talk)
13:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm not making any evaluation of the source's quality, just pointing out that it's there. Similarly, I have no idea whether this information should be included, the article's editors will determine that. But if this does stay in, it should not be censored. pablohablo.13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)reply
A previous amendment to this section made by Mark83 on 18/03/2007 points out that the quote from AFM is censored. Therefore, if it’s to be reproduced (which I’ve never disputed) it should be as it appeared in that publication i.e. “censored”. Bobbieball 14:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC).
Personally, I'm happy sticking with
WP:COMMONNAME; when we start seeing lots of sources giving it a specific new name, we can switch to that name. In the meantime, it might be a bad idea to create a composite name.
bobrayner (
talk)
16:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Requested Move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose No need to rename this article. This article covers the UK tanker procurement programme, which was not affected by naming of the aircraft Voyager. -
Fnlayson (
talk)
20:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Page move: "AirTanker Ltd." ?
The article appears to be a bit of a stub now. I would recommend moving the page to something such as AirTanker Ltd. with a condensed version on this page in the company history/development section. Technically, AirTanker are an airline/aircraft operator now so a new page should be created in any case.
Bthebest (
talk)
20:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose any move, this is an article on the FSTA government procurement project nothing to do with the aircraft types or Air Tanker. dont have a problem with a separate and new article on the Air Tanker company.
MilborneOne (
talk)
21:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)reply
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the
request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the
blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the
request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
http://www.airbusmilitary.com/A330MRTT.aspx
Triggered by \bairbusmilitary\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact
User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
This article title doesn't feel right to me anymore. The previous rename debate took place in 2011. Now the article doesn't cover a "Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft", but an operational aircraft. Surely something like
Airbus A330 MRTT (RAF) would be more logical, covering the FSTA procurement and the operational RAF (and leased) aircraft?
Mark83 (
talk)
20:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reply. With respect I really don't understand everyone's reverence to the title of the programme that delivered the aircraft - the important thing is the aircraft itself. There is little mention of CVF anymore, Wikipedia has replaced that with term with Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier. CVF, like FSTA, was simply what the article was called before it was properly named.
Also given that the RAF is the most expeditionary of all the A330 MRTT owning air forces, the article will soon become too RAF-heavy and will require a split (to this article as the operational history as well as procurement history)?
Mark83 (
talk)
11:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on
Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.