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)


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


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)


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):
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)
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 , 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: )
Some czechoslovak prototypes, evaluated also by LW: Letov_Š-50
Praga_E-51 (no page in english Wiki, sorry)
Avia_B.35 (later developed in B.135, whis is included in the list) (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)
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)
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 (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 (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]


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)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of aircraft of World War II may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |[[Waco UC-72]] (and other [[Waco Aircraft Company|Waco]] variants||1930s||{{US}}||U.S., Australia, Brazil, New
  • |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:36, 19 March 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)