Talk:Standard J

J Pic

Hi there, as requested - the b/w pic represents the aircraft in its time and readers can refer to the colour pics below together with associated text. As Bilcat already noted there is no reason to lose the high-res colour pic of the restored aircraft from the page. Take it from there...80.229.34.113 (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the B&W pic because it represents an atypical example. Also because IMO a color pic of a typical example is available. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There are pics of three restored modern examples and not a single photo of one in actual period use. If it is colour, great, but I suspect you won't find many that are.NiD.29 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against including it, just not the lead pic. The lead now is the best of them, color, & "in its natural environment", unlike the museum item. If the B&W pic replaced Waldo Pepper's... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good choice to me. NiD.29 (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Keep the B/W pic in the article (but without the JN-4 comparison in the caption), but use a color pic in the Lead. The current one looks to be the best available. - BilCat (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Some radical transformation has taken place since my edit - I like the colour pics of the restored examples (the outdoor ones best), but agree with NiD a pic of the aircraft in its time is better as the lead pic, this is also chronologically accurate. I don't go much on the new musuem pic hanging from the ceiling. Colour pics of the restored examples alongside the related text also makes sense. One question came to mind - was Lindbergh particularly associated with the J as the b/w pic might suggest?80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The ceiling pic was chosen because it was the only one that clearly showed the sweepback - not much point in referring to something in a caption if it isn't all that obvious, and the shot that was there didn't show the sweep all that well. It would be much better if there was a period shot of one flying however wikimedia is a tad shy on J-1 photos, especially period ones that are usable.

Lindbergh sold or allowed the use of his name to many different organizations, but wasn't at all involved, though he probably did fly the occasional Standard while working as a mailplane pilot. NiD.29 (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

An overall improvement! I hope I was right in stating Lindbergh flew that particular barnstormer, that is the impression? On reflection too much of an advert for Lindbergh to use as the lead pic and not the right balance, although it looks quite striking. There are some more period J pics about that might be good for the lead pic including this coloured one, though I am not certain of the date:

• [1]
  
• [2]
  
• [3]
  
• [4]
  
• [5]
  
• [6]
  
• [7]
  
• [8]

The Venice Aero Police pic is my favourite as I prefer some human interest aside from a purely technical side or 3/4 shot.

There are a few good colour shots of restored examples about, but with inherent copyright issues. Hope that is helpful?80.229.34.113 (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the SDASM Archives images they are not copyright free, and can't be used. I just migrated the SDASM images, although one is too small and another an atypical Hisso powered modification.NiD.29 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You guys are going crazy with edits - call the cops80.229.34.113 (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Some pics re Ryan Flying Co. and the airline80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• [9]

• [10]

• [11]

Captions

When you say cited - the pic descriptions are cited by the San Diego Air and Space Musuem! Trivial is a matter of opinion, it tells us something about the photograph and the aircraft. I am concerned that some of you are denying readers information they are entitled to see?80.229.34.113 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's in the pic description, I'm happy. (I didn't bother to look.) I still think mentioning the destination is trivial & should be removed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it tell us that the aircraft was on its way to LA and Ryan flew to LA using the J - that info might lead to someone else drawing some other conclusion we are not yet aware of. Who are we to say its trivial?80.229.34.113 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you're the one drawing the conclusions. If you've got a source saying Ryan flew to L.A. in that J, cite it. Otherwise, it's trivia. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Who are we to say its trivial?" We're editors: It's part of our responsibility to determine what.should or should not.be included, per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. - BilCat (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like dogma to me, I am sure the Museum will advise you - here's just one page for your unlimited knowlege: http://vintageairphotos.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/first-airline-in-america.html 80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If you can't understand or follow simple guidelines, then WP is probably not the place for you. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Now who is drawing the conclusions bully boy?80.229.34.113 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I was simply making a suggestion. You might want to start by following this guideline, or you will find it just won't be a suggestion. - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A revert with the excuse the previous edit by someone else "seems to be in error" when there was no error, and it was already removed twice for very good (and stated) reasons is just rude.

The destination or location, unless it is a location that has some significance to the aircraft in question, such as it being a major base of operations of where it was built is of no concern to this page and remains irrelevant and unencyclopedic trivia, even if there was a reference to support the claim. Remember, this is an encyclopedia - not a blog, not a book, not a magazine article - an encyclopedia.

There is a bigger problem however - the image of the Venice Police aircraft is misidentified and I am not sure what it is - it doesn't seem to be a Martin TT, it isn't a Curtiss JN, and I don't have enough shots of other period types to conclusively identify it (although I do have two other shots of the same type in my unidentified folder). In the meantime I have had to swap back in the contentious image, and I will rename it once correctly identified.NiD.29 (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel the need to behave like this NiD - 25 edits ago.80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny that, I thought this was an encyclopedia [12]

I called the Venice Aero Police (VAP), they expressed some concern about the use of 'joyriders' for the caption in relation to a Police vehicle, 'passenger' they thought was more in line with Law enforcement.

The VAP image is not so much of a problem, the museum should be right, it might be a J-1 heavily modified for the VAP, a JR-1 perhaps, but no pics on google to compare, otherwise it is so heavily modified to be an entirely different aircraft - my money is on the Martin TT. The wings are equal span, the lower is sweaped, the top seems to be straight. The bracing is different to a J and the tail of 'No.3' might be the same type. Right to swap it out for the time being.80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

My behaviour is not in question, yours is, and you shouldn't insert your comments in the middle of someone else's comments as it breaks the attribution and I am sure you won't find many irrelevant side stories in Encyclopaedia Britannica either. Welcome to the 21st Century - where it makes more sense for that sort of thing to be online.

It is beyond doubt that this is NOT a J-1 or JR-1 (I have pics) or a Martin - the differences are not minor, and many archive captions are incorrect, as this one definitely is (I have identified many images, both there and at other archives). I found this shot on eBay of the same aircraft - note the lack of overhang or kingposts and the odd rudder shape, inversely tapered ailerons, 6 leg undercarriage, and four seats with dual side by side controls in the rear cockpit, which the others lack.

Whether it was carrying joyriders is of no concern to the VAP - indeed the temporary sign hanging off the fuselage that says "For Hire - Three Passengers" says it was, but passengers is just as good. I guess they lack records of the aircraft? Unfortunately no news story correctly identifies the type of aircraft. I have found that several aircraft manufacturers operated from Ince airfield, including Catron & Fisk, Waterman and Crawford as well as others and it may be a previously undocumented aircraft from one of them - my money would be on Catron & Fisk. ps - enclose your links with square brackets and follow the link within the brackets with a word to use as the link - that will provide a link without the full url being visble. NiD.29 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sure your behaviour is not beyond reproach NiD and glad to see you know the difference between Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia.

Good job on the pics and a great find on ebay, true archive captions can be wrong and that one clearly is. Thanks for tip. Not so long ago this talk page was empty by the way.80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We all cross the line eventually, the trick is getting back :). I have gone through every page on aerofiles and no luck - which is too bad as it would seem to be noteworthy for being the first police airplane. I have one other avenue to try though...NiD.29 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)