This template is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of theAviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists ofopen tasks andtask forces. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
This template is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
The Bushranger Could you please explain why you reinstated original research inthis edit? While some sources do state that the the C-36may have been the YAL-1, I have yet to see one make a definitive claim that it was, and I've also yet to see any which state that "there is literally no other candidate for the description than the YAL-1." such a statement is purely original research and speculation. For all we know, it could have been a precursor, competitor, or maybe even an entirely unrelated classified project. As of yet, the evidence that the YAL-1 and C-36 are the same is circumstantial, and no reliable sources claim that they are. -ZLEAT\C02:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see howWP:COMMONSENSE orWP:BLUE apply in this case, especially since there are a number of other plausible explanations for the YFC-36 designation. No reliable sources state that the YFC-36 and YAL-1are the same, soWP:BLUE is out the window. I've tagged the "C-36" designation as unconfirmed, but the link remains for now. -ZLEAT\C13:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
