Talk:Flight suit

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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Recent edits[edit]

I've added in a link to fire retardant clothing per the recent anon editor's changes. However, as said editor can see, the second image simply doesn't fit on the page, and attempts to use forced whitespace to wedge the image in don't really help the content of the page any. -Harmil 02:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno why I said you were anon, there. Sorry Michael Reiter. My bad. -Harmil 02:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harmil admitted error-[edit]

Harmil said my editing was anonymous, than caught self in error... Has admitted so. Page reverted. Michael 15:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think that my thinking you were anonymous had anything to do with the situation. I specifically called out some problems with the page. However, two things that I did not note previously were:

The second image (Image:Plfts.jpg) is a terrible quality image, and even scaled down it detracts from the page, and
Neither image has source attribution. The claim that they are "fair use" really does require a source attribution so that others can evaluate the defensibility of the claim (for the health of Wikipedia as a whole).

As such, I think it makes rather a lot of sense to leave the page as an imageless stub or expand it through research. In fact, if the article were expanded sufficiently, there would even be room and potentially justification for more than one image (presuming that we found one of sufficient qualuity). -Harmil 17:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've found that just about any time someone puts my (or anyone else's) name into a talk page section heading, it's a bad sign. Generally it's becuase they've taken something personally (or are attempting to get me to do so), and we all have too few seconds that make up our lives to bother taking Wikipedia edits personally. -Harmil 17:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Could we get a different main picture for this article? The SR-71 pressure suit is not exactly indicative of a standard flight suit (which don't have pressure helmets, etc.) --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it. --Craigboy (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight suit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917062425/http://adastron.com/lockheed/electra/sidcotton.htm to http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/electra/sidcotton.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]