User talk:NiD.29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi NiD.29 and welcome to Wikipedia! It looks like you're interested in contributing to our coverage on aircraft, so you might want to take a look at WikiProject Aircraft, which co-ordinates this part of the encyclopedia.

Other than that, welcome again, and please feel free to leave me a note if I can be of any assistance while you settle in. Cheers! --Rlandmann (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiwings[edit]

Wikiwings2.png Wikiwings
For extensive work done on the Waco series of aircraft articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Weaver[edit]

No problem, you deserve the award, you have done lots of good work recently!

I made the switch of the pages. Pretty simple, actually. I just copied the text from the Weaver Aircraft Company of Ohio article and put in on the Waco Aircraft Company redirect page and then made a redirect of the old page location - viola! - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Flaps[edit]

My - I AM impressed. I was fairly "with it" down to the Junkers (double wing) flap - after that you lost me entirely. I must admit when I watch a modern airliner's wing "open out" for landing, or "close up" during the climb out I am largely mystified as to what is happening. I have had another go at the "pusher" definition by the way - working in a more eferences and basing everything on our discussion. please be kind - and don't blame me (or credit me) for anything anyone else adds to the lead - I have pasted my original text in the discussion! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is Requested[edit]

Nid if you got sometime I would like you to weigh in on this dicussion under the "Bahamas Fin Flash" Thanx Jetijonez (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I left a comment but I am not sure I helped your case much. NiD.29 (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you did good. I'm just looking to get the most accurate info for this issue, if I have missed something I'll be the first to admit it...Thanx for the second image Jetijonez (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC).

Model aircraft article[edit]

Thanks for being bolder than I and removing the buying advice. I'd earlier removed the vendor links and had wondered whether to go further and do what you've just done. I'm glad that there's someone else keeping an eye out! -- Jmc (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

NP - I am surprised it was on there as long as it was as that usually gets removed fairly quickly (edits I made to the page earlier focussed on the static models so I didn't go that far). The whole page is in a desperate need of a rewrite though but finding sources to reference will be a problem.NiD.29 (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more about the "desperate need of a rewrite" - but it will be a mammoth job, and you're right about the difficulty of finding acceptable references. -- Jmc (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


More planes to be considered into WWII list[edit]

Hello, I would like to propose some more planes to be added to the WWII planes list (I understood you are involved in it). I don't want to write it myself as I'm affraid to ruin your great job, so I let it to your consideration.

Regulary used in the time of WWII (mostly as trainers or liasion aircraft):
Zlín_Z-XII
Beneš-Mráz_Be-50_Beta-Minor
Zmaj_Fizir_FN
Zmaj_Fizir_FP-2
DAR-9_Siniger (licensed Fw-44, not sure about later developement)
Arado_Ar_199 (only 2 build, but used as SAR)
Avia_F.39 (license build Fokker F-IX)
Caproni_Ca.111 (maybe too old to see some action)
Letov_Š-16 (maybe too old to see some action)
IMAM_Ro.41
Ambrosini_SAI.10_Grifone
Tupolev_MTB-1
Tupolev_ANT-9
Tupolev_TB-1
Polikarpov_I-5
Polikarpov_R-Z
Polikarpov_I-180
Beneš-Mráz_Be-555_Super_Bibi (Be-555s were build during WWII, so most probably they were used by military force)
Kamov A-7-3 autogyro (mentioned in the first part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov , surely used at least few times in the front opperations)
Mráz Zobor I - slovak trainer, small series of 9 build, used by slovak AF also by LW (the only reference I could find on the net: http://slovakaf.kpmzilina.sk/lietadla/zobor/zobor.sk.htm )
Some czechoslovak prototypes, evaluated also by LW: Letov_Š-50
Praga_E-210
Praga_E-51 (no page in english Wiki, sorry)
Avia_B.35 (later developed in B.135, whis is included in the list)

62.168.27.50 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(I reformatted above for clarity) Thanks - I have added all of those list except the I-180, whose development had been abandoned a year before the Soviets were involved in the war so it doesn't get included. If you notice any others feel free to post them as well - or you can add them as it isn't hard (just match the syntax of the other examples in the same category). cheersNiD.29 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I have some more types to add, but these are more controversial, mostly because they were obsolete at the time of WWII. But, specially in the chaos of the summer of the 1941, some of the soviet planes may had been envolved in some action (even if retired). Similar situation is with some italian types served in Africa. I hope you don't mind, if I let the final judgement on you.
CANSA_C.6 Falchetto (italian trainer prototype)
Caproni_Ca.101
Caproni_Ca.100
DAR_6
Udet_U_12 (some of the hungarian airplanes may have been still in service, one was used in the german movie "Quax, der Bruchpilot" in 1941 (List_of_German_films_1933–1945 1941))
Savoia-Marchetti_SM.62 (in Italy they were retired, but some had served in Romania and also were licence-build in the USSR)
Heinkel_He_55 (most probably at 1941 even the soviet licence-build planes were retired)
Chetverikov_MDR-3
Tupolev_ANT-3
Tupolev_ANT-7
Tupolev_I-14
Tupolev_DB-1
Tupolev_ANT-37 (served in the time of WWII, but oficially as "civilian")
Tupolev_ANT-20#ANT-20bis (ANT-20bis served in the time of WWII, but oficially as "civilian")
Tupolev_ANT-14 (probably grounded before June 22 of 1941)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.27.50 (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: A lot of planes that should be included in the list are also mentioned here: List_of_aircraft_of_the_Royal_Air_Force#Civil_Aircraft_Impressed_Into_RAF_Service_1939.E2.80.9345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.27.50 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, inclusion on the WW2 list doesn't mean the aircraft had to see combat - only that it was being operated by a military organization that was at war (ie civil aircraft being flown by civilians in support of a military operation wouldn't count (so Aeroflot is ignored), but if the aircraft was flown by uniformed military personnel (think CAP) then it is military, even if leased or loaned. There are grey areas - BOAC and Pan-Am operated military aircraft in support of their respective military service but the crews were normally civilians. Most of their aircraft had versions that were also in military service so few arguments arise but it isn't as easy to clarify with the Russians and Hungarians as references for their activities are somewhat scarce in English, and often of dubious value.
Many of the older types are difficult to determine if they were used at all, never mind in support of military operations and it is better to leave them off until a text reference can be found indicating their use - something that should be added to the relevant page when found. Many aircraft may be considered obsolete for their original role but new uses (particularly training) can often be found so I avoid the term and its associated claims - more often aircraft are retired because the cost to keep them flying has become excessive or they have been worn out from too many flight hours or more common then, too many structural repairs. NiD.29 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Those machine-readable folks[edit]

I got majorly scolded for using a break with a ";" in the references list, as apparently, the sight-impaired who read by machine do not see this as a break. Since MOS allows another variant, I have taken to use the "===" sub-title protocol to differentiate lists of notes, citations and bibliographic listings. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC).

  • OK - I'll keep an eye out for that on pages I am editting. Thanks!NiD.29 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Swiss target drone[edit]

Hi,

You have twice deleted information on a target drone from the List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force. I know this information should really go on the drone's own article page, but at present no page exists for it. Since the information is so short, I felt it OK to leave it on the list page for now. Deleting it seems a bit hard line to me, and I wonder why you feel it necessary?

P.S. Thanks for all the hard work on tidying up the list, I am not trying to pick a fight here!

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a glorified RC airplane that isn't even sufficiently noteworthy for its own page, and probably shouldn't be included anyway (serial number aside), details of its launching and recovery are trivia and bloat the list - I am trying to keep things lean and clean - easy to start adding trivia here and there, and then it gets out of control, especially when fanbois see the list. Trying to maintain focus on the what/when/where, not the how. Re-add it if you like, I'll leave it but perhaps you could put that info in a note instead of inline? Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I'll try and remember later, must dash now. Thanks again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Grumman S-2 Tracker[edit]

Thanks for catching that, I missed that it was already listed! - Ahunt (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Flag on Page: CIM-10 Bomarc[edit]

I noticed you recently changed the current Maple leaf flag with the Red ensign (replaced in 1965). The missile was used from 1955 to 1972. What is Wikipedia's policy on flags used when they change over the course of time? Do we use the old one or the current? Kndimov (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I could not find any policy beyond using the appropriate flag for the period - in this case technically either is appropriate, however I felt the earlier flag was more appropriate, even though it may not be as recognizable. In this case the missile was being phased out when the new flag came in and most of its career was under the old flag.NiD.29 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If it was in service both before an after the flag change, what about using both flags? That would be most accurate, wouldn't it? - BilCat (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
true - I have just never seen that done. (not that many countries change flags, while keeping the same aircraft, and country name)NiD.29 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Using redirects in navboxes[edit]

This is probably as much of a preference issue as anything, but using the direct piped links in the navbox is much more helpful to me as an editor. Otherwise, I would actually have to open a new page to see the targets while editing the list. While I understand there may be good reasons to favor using redirects, it's not very useful in designation navboxes. Would you please re-add the piped links? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes it easier in the future to split an article off the parent article for Canadian use or to rename it (changing a single redirect rather than hunting down every misbegotten redirected link spread through lots of articles), and it makes the list MUCH shorter, and on long lists, this can significantly affect loading times - I wouldn't expect any forthcoming major changes to the navbox so reading it shouldn't be a factor, and other lists are unlikely to use such cryptic names.NiD.29 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I won't make an issue of it now, but I'd still prefer use the piped links. However, if you're going to this on many more aircraft navboxes, it might be better to seek more opinions first. Another issue to consider is that redirect pages are often changed with no discussion to point to other articles, and unless a redirect is on someone's watchlist, it might go missed. One particular ueer made a hobby of doing this! Also, have you personally checked every one of the links to be sure that they point to the correct articles now? - BilCat (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The redirects are on my watchlist so I'll catch them, and I checked them first - hence two CO-119s - both the Cessna L-19 and 182 received that designation and it was already forwarded to the L-19, and it is also why I didn't change the two redlinks - I wasn't about to make a redirect to a redlinked page. I don't usually edit nav boxes, I mainly do lists, but sometimes I see something missing. Just did a major redo of List of aircraft of Canada's air forces and saw it needed some tweaks.NiD.29 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good for now. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your changes to my edits in "List of seaplanes and amphibious aircraft"[edit]

Hi NiD.29, I received notice that you reverted some good faith changes I made recently to "List of seaplanes and amphibious aircraft", apparently to the entries for Gotha WD.13, Gotha WD.15, Hansa-Brandenburg CC, and Hansa-Brandenburg KDW. I'm not sure exactly what was wrong in those entries, however I disagree that existing wikiarticles can't be used as sources in other articles (including lists); after all, Wikipedia needs to be consistent. So if there is something materially wrong in the info on those wikiarticles, please feel free to edit and amend them, adding citations to verifiable sources. I'd also appreciate if you can please cite in your recent edits the source you mentioned (Grey & Thetford's, German Aircraft of the First World War) as that might prevent confusion in the future (different sources sometimes contradict each other). Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is Wiki policy that wiki pages cannot EVER be used as a reference, because of the frequency of errors and omissions on those pages (see WP:CIRCULAR), and no - consistency is not a requirement as that leads to errors and omissions - verifiability however is. If the original wiki page is properly referenced, then the same references can be reused to support the same statement elsewhere (although statements should not normally be copied directly), however beware that references may not always support the text they claim to support so care must be taken to double check the reference given before reusing it. Furthermore, when a reference is provided, and that reference checks out, it can only be removed if another reference of greater repute flat out contradicts it, AND there is good reason to believe the latter reference is more correct, such as due to obviously incorrect information having been widely disseminated previously. When there is an obvious conflict, then usually both references and the conflict should be mentioned.
As for Grey & Thetford, - they are both reputable authors with large bodies of work on the subject, and any errors are more likely to be in the manner of omissions - missing types unknown at the time, or missing data, or missing usage - not the number of engines an aircraft has.
AFAIK I only changed the WD.13 entry to reflect the date given in the Thetford book, along with the correct number of engines. That entire page is largely unreferenced, likely as the only claim for inclusion is a fairly easy one to determine, without doing a lot of reading. The numbers built and the details should be, but I am not about to add all thousand and some refs right now but here are some that might be of interest...
  • Gotha WD.1 - reconnaissance floatplane<ref>Gray, 1970, p.397</ref>
  • Gotha WD.2/5/9/12/13/15 - reconnaissance floatplanes<ref>Gray, 1970, p.398-399, 402 & 404-406</ref>
  • Gotha WD.3 - pusher reconnaissance floatplane<ref>Gray, 1970, p.398</ref>
  • Gotha WD.7 - twin-engined seaplane trainer/reconnaissance biplane<ref>Gray, 1970, p.400</ref>
  • Gotha WD.8 - single-engined seaplane trainer/reconnaissance biplane<ref>Gray, 1970, p.401</ref>
  • Gotha WD.11 - torpedo bomber floatplane<ref>Gray, 1970, p.403</ref>
  • Gotha WD.14/20/22 - torpedo bomber floatplanes<ref>Gray, 1970, pp.133-135 & 407-408</ref>
  • Gotha WD.27 - large patrol floatplane<ref>Gray, 1970, p.409</ref>
  • Hansa-Brandenburg CC - flying boat fighter for Austrian Navy<ref>Gray, 1970, pp.310-312</ref>
  • Hansa-Brandenburg GDW - torpedo bomber floatplane<ref>Gray, 1970, p.310</ref>
  • Hansa-Brandenburg GNW - reconnaissance floatplane <ref>Gray, 1970, p.307</ref>
  • Hansa-Brandenburg GW - torpedo bomber floatplane<ref>Gray, 1970, p.309</ref>
  • Hansa-Brandenburg KW - reconnaissance floatplane<ref>Gray, 1970, p.308</ref>
  • Hansa-Brandenburg KDW - floatplane fighter<ref>Gray, 1970, pp.64-67</ref>
Source is:
  • Gray, Peter & Thetford, Owen. German Aircraft of the First World War. London, Putnam. (2nd Ed.) 1970. ISBN 0-370-00103-6. pages.
The revert I made was on the Torpedo Bombers list, and all of the entries you removed had been referenced - click on the [#] next to each line and it will tell you the author, the year and the page number, and looking at the bottom under bibliography will provide the rest of the information.NiD.29 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, thanks a lot for this extensive information. I especially appreciate the reference to WP:CIRCULAR of which I was not aware, as I was following what's established under WP:COPYWITHIN, which I may misunderstood. Please feel free to fix any reversion I recently made, as were in good faith, adding any relevant references for the reverted entries.
I left a commentary in the "List of torpedo bombers" Talk Page related to what should / should not be in scope; please consider whether it is acceptable. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG So you can have a well deserved rest after our discussion related to recent edits to "List of torpedo bombers"; thanks a lot for your cooperation. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sopwith Baby[edit]

Hi NiD. You restore the Sopwith Baby to the List of aircraft of the Royal Flying Corps citing the references in List of World War I Entente aircraft but I wonder if you are sure about this.

  • It would be extremely surprising to find that the RFC operated this type of aircraft.
  • The article on the aircraft does not show it as operated by the RFC.
  • User:Nigel Ish has apparently checked two of the three references and they don't support the claim.

I'm going to remove it again because I have serious doubts. But if you are certain and can demonstrate that the RFC did indeed use it then please restore it - I'll leave it alone after that. Bagunceiro (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

THE book on the RFC (Bruce, J.M. (1982). The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps (Military Wing). London: Putnam. ISBN 0-370-30084-X.) lists them as having operated Sopwith Babies (on page 89). The other two refs were for the British in general and may not be applicable. OTOH, the Windsock Datafile makes no mention, and it could be RAF usage it was referring to - I don't have the book as I borrowed it to do the Entente page. I would not be surprised at all if one or two was transferred for trials though, and just because it isn't listed on the wiki page for the Baby is meaningless as a lot of the operators lists are incomplete.NiD.29 (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be a lot of RNAS and RAF aeroplanes included in the list... looks like a substantial redo is in order.NiD.29 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent changes to my edits in "List of aircraft of the Argentine Air Force"[edit]

Hi again, I've noticed that you've removed from the wikilinks the "#Operators" part, that I've been adding earlier today with some effort. The rationale for formatting the wikilinks in that way is to send the reader directly to where the relevant information about whether the Air Force (or its predecessor) operated the aircraft in question, rather than sending him/her to the beginning of the wikiarticle. What's wrong with my approach? What policy or guideline was breached by formatting the wikilinks in that way? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Several problems with that - first the entire page is relevant not just the users section, second, if anyone changes the name of the section, it messes up the link and there is no way of knowing at the time without a lot of work to track that down. Generally the only time you should use the #... is if the page covers several types and you want it to go to the specific type, and even then it is problematic.NiD.29 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, from that point of view. Is this a guideline endorsed by the Aviation Project, Wikipedia in general, or just your "best practice"? And in the acceptable case, it might be a good idea to use a "redirect" from the type name to the page with the "#" describing it. BTW, thanks for your additions to the article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Someone else told me something similar - and experience in trying to fix things afterwards when pages get split. The redirect page suggests using an anchor ({{anchor|anchor_name}}) to target the redirect as it is less likely that someone will change something as minor as capitalization or punctuation, breaking the link, however in the case of it being a link for the aircraft type, just the page is fine. If someone is clicking the link, it isn't going to be the operators section they are looking for as they already know that information, so there isn't much point in linking to the least likely part of the page that they will be looking for. Operational history might be more logical, however so many pages don't have anything at all on many of the operators, so for consistency just to top of the page is the best place to link to. The policy guidline is WP:R#PLA. NiD.29 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG So you can have a rest after your editing blitz contributing to expanding "List of aircraft of the Argentine Air Force". DPdH (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

G.59 used as a fighter... in which Civil War?[edit]

Hi, can you please comment further on the use of the G.59 as a fighter? There has been NO "civil war" in Argentina during the XX century... so please take the source cautiously. Besides that, the list should include each aircraft only once, in their "main role"; which for the G.59 is "advanced trainer". Otherwise the list would grow to be unmanageable... Happy to further discuss. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Terms may differ - certainly governments like to put their own spin on things, downplay events, that sort of thing. I used the term civil war because it involved members of the armed forces as primary players on both sides, and shots were fired and bombs dropped, ymmv.
"Latin American Air Wars and Aircraft 1912-1969" by Dan Hagedorn, refers to as the "Argentine Military and Naval Rebellion, 1951", although wikipedia makes only passing references to it.
List of coups d'état and coup attempts#1951 has it as a coup attempt against Peron, however it doesn't give details.

In September 1951 units of Fuerza Aeronaval N° 1 at BAN Punta Indio, Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Ataque with North American AT-6 Texan and Escuadrilla Aeronaval de Bombardeo with Beech AT-11 Kansan, participated in a rebellion against President Juan Perón. This uprise was however easily suppressed by troops loyal to the regime. Twelve Gloster Meteor of Escuadrón I / Grupo 2 de Caza Interceptora were deployed to the airport of Ezeiza, to prevent attacks on Buenos Aires. Later they were joint by a similar number of aircraft from Escuadrón II. Some Avro Lincoln of Grupo 1 de Bombardeo were also based at Ezeiza until December 1951 and they made the only bomb attack, at BAN Punta Indio, of government forces during the rebellion. This composite unit was called "Comando de Represión". The single largest unit to join the rebel forces were 24 Fiat G.55A/B of Grupo 1 de Caza, which were flown to BAN Punta Indio, to be refuelled and armed to attack government positions. But all pilots were detained after landing.

This accords with other sources I have read. I should also mention that as a result of the Navy's disloyalty and the general loyalty of the Air Force, a number of Navy aircraft and other assets were transferred to the Air Force.
Back to the Hagedorn book, on page 132, he mentions that a rebel leader, Major Jorge Rojas Silveyra, in command of the squadron of G.55 fighters, was flying G.59 coded C-46. Keep in mind that the G.59 came in both single seat and two seat versions, and the example used by Argentina was a single seater. Also note that the C indicates it was a fighter while the trainers, including the G.46s, Fw44s, IAe 22DLs and others all had Ea prefixes to their codes at that time, indicating that they were trainers (perhaps Escuela or Entrenador?), while the Lincolns had B prefixes. Perhaps C is for Caza? You would be in a better position as far as references to find out - this information should be included on the page as the coding system seems to have been in use for a while, although the Tucanos seem to be only using an E prefix instead of Ea. Finally the G.59 was operated by a fighter squadron by its CO, who hardly would have taken a trainer when the rest of the squadron was flying fighters. NiD.29 (talk) 05:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Grumman Albtross' were coded BS-
Bristol Freighter was T- & TC-#
Beech C-45 Expeditor was T-#, but the AT-11 was not.
Cessnas are PG-# except for the 310 which is T-
DHC Twin Otter is T-
DHC Beaver was P-
Calquin and Huanquero were both A-
Gloster Meteor F.4 was C-
Guarani was T-
Junkers Ju 52 T-153
Douglas C-47 was T- although one used in the Antartic was TA-
BTW Catálogo Ilustrado de Aeronaves de la Fuerza Aérea Argentina lists the 59 as a fighter...NiD.29 (talk)
Thanks for the detailed description. Hagedorn is a well-known source, however both the 1951 and the 1955 revolts against Peron are nor referred to as "civil war" in Argentina. I agree that "C" is the prefix for "Caza" (i.e.: fighter) though the G.59 is described in reputable sources as "advanced trainer" (e.g.: Jane's) and being derived from the G.55 it makes sense that it served together with those fighters. It's a similar case as with the Canberra T.64 which served alongside the B.62 bombers. I'll search for other sources to support my proposal to move the G.59 from the "Fighters" to the "Trainers" section; however I'd include a footnote with a summary of the information you've provided.
As for the list in "Gaceta Aeronautica" I've also noted that fact, and I've contacted the webmaster (Carlos Ay) to find out why is classified as "Caza".
Finally, your proposal related to the serial prefixes makes sense to me, and I've been researching sources which can support the prefixes descriptions (which are quite obvious to most of us!).
Now I realize... I should have started this topic in the article's talk page and not yours! Sorry for the cluttering. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Jane's is not infallible, and would have been referring to it in a general manner rather than the specific use that the Argentine AF was putting the aircraft to - Fiat no doubt intended it as an advanced trainer, especially the two seat version, however I think we have to let the actual operator be the final arbiter on this, and they decided it as a fighter.NiD.29 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Curtiss Thrush) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Curtiss Thrush, NiD.29!

Wikipedia editor McDoobAU93 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Very impressive article!

To reply, leave a comment on McDoobAU93's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Your opinion about citations...[edit]

Hi again! I'm adding to the List of aircraft of the Argentine Air Force based on another verifiable source I located (article in an official online magazine of the argentine Air Force flying school), and in most cases the number of aircraft from the source you used matched with these and the "Catalogo..." (Carlos Ay) also cited in that article; and I made a few amendments where needed, citing the sources.
However, when all sources concur... should I also add the citations to the "new" sources (that confirm the value) together with the one already provided? IMHO that wouldn't harm, but not sure if it's acceptable under Wikipedia policies/guidelines. What do you think? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean - if the citation already there shows a different number then a note might be appropriate (leaning towards Argentine AF sources as they are probably more reliable), otherwise you can have as many sources as you want for each entry (the more the better)NiD.29 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You've provided exactly the response I was after! Thanks again, DPdH (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Riesenflugzeug[edit]

Do you think a table of the aircraft with "name", wingspan, number/type of engines, first flight, and notes would work as a good presentation? I'd flesh the idea out on the talk page for more comments before actually putting it to the test. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. I noticed too that there is no corresponding Grossflugzeuge article...NiD.29 (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't really look at the page before, but it would be a major improvement on the current layout.NiD.29 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Got bored at work so I converted it into a table. Am thinking an additional column for numbers built might be in order, and the whole page badly needs references.NiD.29 (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)