Talk:Transcript of the 'friendly fire' incident video (28 March 2003)

Information about this edition
Edition:	2003
Source:	"Transcript: U.S. 'friendly fire' video", CNN.com.
Contributor(s):	とある白い猫
Level of progress:	100%: complete.
Notes:
Proofreaders:	とある白い猫, Editor at Large, Lcarsdata

Small concerns

I am finding the coloring distracting. What do you think of following the key at the top of the page, where the narrower left hand column is colored and the wider right hand column has nuetral background?

Also I find the commentary problamatic. It needs to be mentioned in the notes or the key that there is additional commentary besides the straight transcription. I would really like to see it seperated out on a new line instead of just in italics so it is very clear what was being said. You might want to look at Wild Weasel mission 1 October 1967 and the other Wild Weasel mission transcriptions and compare the tone and display of editorial comments there.--BirgitteSB 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand you want the "Time and caller" column colored and the other non-colored. If thats the case, I am fine with it.

I'd like to not that this is the transcript of a video, not audio. What happens on the video is an important part of the transcript. Precisely when the A-10's dove is critically important. I do not mind another way to make commentaries stand out, but removing them completely compromises the completeness of the transcript.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is waht I meant.

Look at the other Weasel link more closely. I am not talking about the pilots report of what happend from the top, but notes actully in the transcriction. Like (a fuel measurement). There is no difference from that and (garbled). While "garbled" or "angry" can be considered part of the transcricption; "a fuel measurement" is a seperate kind of comment. On the Weasel transcript the line with the time notation is the actual transcricption and underneath that line on a new line with no time notation comments are given about slang or simply a more detailed explanation on the signifigance of what was said.--BirgitteSB 19:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh those.... How about footnotes? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is we need a consistant style for flight transcriptions. I am thinking if everyone likes this style to support it as featured we need to put the Wild Weasel into a table format like this one. However the Wild Weasel Transcript would be a mess if it were put in footnotes. There is just too much there. And maybe there could be more on this one as well if we had a actual fighter pilot contributing as we did with the other. One possibilty is to try and wikilink the comment to an appropriate article at WP and that way avoid editorial comments. But I don't know if that is possble for the fuel measurement one. --BirgitteSB 20:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think to wikipedia would be an excellent idea. People will obviously want to know more about the terminology if they already do not know what it is. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think using footnotes would be a better idea, as well. That way editorial information is still presented, but it's presented distinctly as meta-content, and it will be clear that that information is not an actual part of the work itself.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not featured

This work failed to achieved featured status in a recent discussion. Feel free to re-nominate it when the issues raised in that discussion have been addressed here. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 02:29:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Typo?

"Roger 3 4 ..." Is the pilot saying "three four" here, or is the space a typo? Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Pilot does say three four not thirty-four. These are radio codes where pilots read numbers individually to make sure they are heard well. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)