Talk:Fokker V.17

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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

"Wikified"?

The list was not created by myself. I tracked down the admittedly obscure aircraft to fill in in a basic way the developmental history of Fokker aircraft during WW I.

That is ALL that is needed. A person following the several such sequences of "V" numbers will see a pattern in how Fokker developed aircraft.

Beyond that it is probably not necessary to do more.

No room for discussion?

Totally anal-retentive trip?

I dug up a simple explanation for the systematic difference between a series of one-or two-off experimental aircraft which Fokker used to develop it's next generation of production aircraft and this information is "useless" and should be 'discarded" simply because it does not fit in the "wikified" world?

Astounding.

Mindless as well.

Is crap correctly "wikified' if it is weighed and sorted as to brownness?

Or is if 'wikified" if it is classified as generally smelly and crap like?

AGREE - "Wikify" Cite is unnecessary

I agree with the above rant. I am removing the cite today. If somebody feels obligated to re-insert the citation, please have the courtesy of explaining your position, in a logical and unemotional manner. Thanks in advance. Raymondwinn (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]