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)

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)

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)


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)


Please see User_talk:Donjonwiki#Dornier Rs.IV. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Lockheed Hudson in the IAF[edit]

hi, i noticed you added the hudson bomber to the article List of historical aircraft of the Indian Air Force, i am pretty that neither the IAF nor the RIAF operated the hudson during WW2 or later. It is possible that RAF coastal command would have operated the hudsons in india but that would not really fall under the category of historical aircraft of the iaf. would you mind sharing your source ?

thanks and regards. Pvpoodle (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Could be - it is from: here. I deleted it pending further info - it is from a period that is not well documented so 3 airframes could have been loaned by the RAF. NiD.29 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

i remembered hearing about coastal defence flights carried out by the RIAFVR (Volunteer reserve) from a air force veteran of the time (and close family member), so i did a bit of digging but was not able to find any references to the use of the hudson. As you mention the period is not well documented, i could ask my "source" if he recalls the hudson in service and if so i will go ahead and re add it into the list (i will reference the link provided so it does not constitute original research). Additionally I am happy to report that my digging around was not an exercise in futility, i was able to unearth some more aircraft types which were in use by the coastal defence flights of the RIAFVR :)
and thank you for your efforts in cleaning up that article. It is much appreciated. regards, Pvpoodle (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
i was so impressed with myself for finding out about the Armstrong Withworth Atlanta and the Dragon Rapide in use by the coastal defence flights, i did not notice that you had included them in the list already.. anyway i am still glad i learn t something i did not know before. regards, Pvpoodle (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I was unaware of the RIAFVR, or that the Atalanta was used from coastal patrol so I am learning too. (thanks), BTW I would like to convert the page into a table with columns for type, origin, role, numbers used, service entry and withdrawal (as on the RCAF list).NiD.29 (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
glad to be of service. if you are interested, here is the book i found that out from The Indian Encyclopaedia: India (Central Provinces)-Indology page 3356 onwards. converting to a table sounds good. i am ok with it. let me know if you need any help, i am more than happy to pitch in. regards, Pvpoodle (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sopwith 1½ Strutter listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ''Sopwith'' 1½ Strutter. Since you had some involvement with the 'Sopwith 1½ Strutter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, seems to be working toward delete, not sure why this one even exists, though the format could be turned into a template similar to the ship name template if it was really needed.NiD.29 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Regia Aeronautica aircraft used in World War II[edit]

Hi, I stopped a while the revision of the list because I am checking each type of aircraft regarding the number built, the MM number and the factory where they where built. Until now I checked the number of aircraft reported in the article on Wiki in English and Italian and sometimes they were in discrepancy. Prototypes are reported in some Wiki list; in that period (between the two World War) Italy built numerous types only for evaluation from part of Regia Aeronautica but were not produced.Chesipiero (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours


Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear NiD.29,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

full refs instead of raw links are needed[edit]

please insert proper, full refs - not just raw links as you did on Dresden- they will rot. I flagged them.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi NiD29, There were just 48 (American - not British) Piper Flitfires built. Today, there are only 8 that are airworthy & registered. Out of those 8, only 5 have been restored to their original 1941 color scheme. I don't want us to keep undoing each other's edits. My thoughts are this: since these airplanes are so VERY RARE, posting pictures of the only 5 in existence that are restored doesn't seem like too much. Think about: there are only 5 of these in the entire world. People want to see them. I'm asking that you please do not delete my work or pictures. Thank you Cubgirl4444 (talk) 11:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Cubgirl (talk)

A 16.6% survival rate is NOT even close to being rare. Even among Cub variants it is not all that rare. Rare is when there is 1 remaining example of thousands or tens of thousands built. Rare is the 25 Lockheed P-38 Lightnings left from the 10,000 built, a 0.0025% survival rate.
If people want to see the rest they can look in Wikimedia:Piper J-3 Cub, where ALL of the photos are kept.
look for this link on the right - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >

One of these should be at the bottom of every aircraft article, leading to images of that aircraft. It contains all of your images (or should, if they were uploaded properly). Following it leads to literally thousands of images of Piper Cubs - not all of which should, or can be on the J-3 page.
1 image, maybe 2 if the second adds something to the first but 5 is beyond excessive - Wikipedia is NOT a book, it is an encyclopedia, and to have over half of a pages images devoted to 0.25% of the total production is undue weight to that one group. We strive for balance, and this is not balance. If the Flitfire is so important, you can always create a page just for the Flitfire but the J-3 page needs to cover all types as equally as is possible.NiD.29 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
BTW, this discussion should be on the J-3 page, not here. Your problem is not with me as I am not the only one who has reverted you. I have brought up this at the Aircraft project talk page and continuing to revert can result in being blocked or banned (ps removed your references as they do not belong here).NiD.29 (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as you post erroneously states "48 cubs that were donated to the British." They were never donated to the British. Few people understand the Flitfire Brigade, including yourself. Before your suggestion, I did start a Flitfire page. So good-bye... your post is back to how I found it. Cubgirl4444 (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Flooding the page with pictures does not clear up such misunderstandings - improving the text does. The biggest problem with your page is its wording - non-neutral and overly flowery language that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and it prevents the purpose from being made clear - am I to understand that the sole use was fundraising? If that is so, then it should have been stated clearly, rather than going into a lot of unnecessary detail about the actual fundraising (garter tosses aside). The text should be neutral (no loaded words or quotes), brief and clear but it is none of these, hence the arguments. When did the fundraising end? What happened once the fundraising was over? Were they sold off or any used by the US or UK military? Sources should be to books, websites or magazines, the more authoritative on the specific subject the better. (A book on the Piper J-3 would be ideal).
Also you do not need to delete an image to rename it - there is an option to rename images, and any time you upload an image, you should also categorize it - in this case I added your images to Commons:Category:Piper J-3 Flitfire - this is done by clicking the category option at the top of the images page - this automatically adds the image to any category you list there. Images should not be covered by copyright, which leaves images from public databases and those donated by the photographer being just about the only legal sources - screen captures and scans from publications and images from sources online that do not both own the image rights, and provide them under a free licence cannot be used and will be deleted. I suspect some of your images may fail on these grounds.
I hope you will continue to contribute - we all go through these misunderstandings when we first start - wikipedia has tons and tons of rules, and it is easy to get hung up on one or two. Look at aircraft articles that have been nominated as good articles (GA) for an idea of what newer articles should eventually look like. Check out the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation where the people in the project come to a consensus of what should and should not be included, and the format. The rules are not cast in stone but every variation needs to be discussed for it to be accepted, and what passes is not based on numbers, but on the strength of the arguments both in favour and opposed. In this case there are rules governing how many images should be included - and yes there are pages with an excessive number, but that is an on going battle mostly against fanbois and nationalists.NiD.29 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

tailless types[edit]

Hi, I moved the Japanese types from List of flying wings to the list of Tailless aircraft because technically that is more correct. The Argentinian ones were already in there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force‎‎[edit]

Hi, I hope it does not appear as if I am warring over the detailed formatting. Rather, I'm experimenting with it in the actual article so we can each see what the changes do. On my PC, your method squashes the Notes column even more absurdly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

not at all - just assumed it got mixed in when you tried to simplify the links. The real problem is there is still too much trivia in the notes.NiD.29 01:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Your signature[edit]

Hello. Could you please make sure that your signature links back here? Please see WP:SIGLINK for further info. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks NiD.29 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Morane parasol[edit]

Thanks for adding the pic NiD.29, if you have any more, I'd like to add them to loadsa articles. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

NP, On wikimedia commons I have a page listing the ones I have done so far. More are in planning.NiD.29 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Excellent! I fancy one of those Caudrons for Xmas. ;O)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"No." column in lists of military aircraft[edit]

Hi. You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#No.. The distinction between the column headings "In service" and "No." is proving unclear, as both are numbers, so I have restarted the discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons category[edit]

Interesting you mention that, because in my experience none of the empty links to Commons have been redlinked. I've been wishing there was a better way for them to be noted, actually, because as it stands now there's no indicator in the article that the corresponding category doesn't exist. Unless you're seeing something that I'm not? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Err - pretty sure I've seen redlinks on there, but I could be wrong on that - but you are changing ones that already link to pages - if there is no page at the location it generates a no page here page, if followed. The listing was created as a cross reference rather than to be used directly. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hrmm. I'll have to look further for redlinks. Thanks for the tip otherwise. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sopwith Camel[edit]

I'm currently planning a complete rewrite of both this article and the one on the "Strutter" - in fact I've already started on research/listing of "new" references etc. for both these articles, which are far too close in content and style to certain "good but dated" sources, and generally rather mangled by frequent haphazard edits, not all of which have been well done... Whether this turns out as drastic as my rewrite of the one on gun synchronisation remains to be seen - although that took four years...

BUT for once I have to say I like what you've done to the introduction! Remember when you're changing content (as opposed to improving style and clarity) the source needs to come first, rather than changing something willy-nilly on the grounds that you're sure "there is a source somewhere and you'll look for it". Even I am too young to have any genuine first hand knowledge of early aviation, so we have to rely on sources. If none of them seem to have caught up with our own personal viewpoint just yet then that is really just too bad. Even if you're not as plain wrong-headed as our friend at the Mustang article, it still won't wash. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Not personal viewpoint but based on actual measurements and even references (if I can find them) - the Sopwith Camel is not unusual with regard to its proportions and dimensions and I could find a half dozen types easily, none of which are described as being difficult to fly that are equally compact, yet this hoary old pulp magazine nonsense keeps getting repeated about its "compactness" being somehow linked with it being difficult to fly. The Nieuport 27 was equally as compact with similar weights and dimensions and was described by contemporaries as a delight to fly, and still very maneuverable. The reality is that many of the WW1 types written about repeat the same claims without thinking about how plausible the claim is. The fact that even contemporary sources mention it was tail heavy is a major clue as to why it would be unusual - tail heavy = c of g much too far aft, which in every aircraft it has ever been tried with, has resulted in handling problems, and have only been flyable by the best pilots, or with computers - the Gee Bee racers, the Ryan Spirit of St. Louis (the replicas often fly ok), etc - in modern aircraft it is called relaxed stability. Ironically, the Gee Bee R replica flew well but they had to deliberately change the design to move the c of g forward where it belongs to do it. There is an excellent article on this either in WW1 Aero or C&C or OTF, but I have to find it again. There is also one on the kill/loss ratio for the Camel that suggests that the Camel killed more British pilots than German based on a bunch of statistical analysis of loss rates for both British and Germans, and the elevated victory figures that British pilots claims relative to actual German losses. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (List of non-carrier aircraft flown from aircraft carriers) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating List of non-carrier aircraft flown from aircraft carriers, NiD.29!

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

I like your list. However, I noted that it is still "orphaned". Could you please install links to this page on one or two relevant pages? Would it be good to add one photograph per line?

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

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for May 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loire-Nieuport LN.401, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Invasion of France. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Operation Teardrop[edit]

Hi, I've just reverted about half of your change: I agree about the image sizing and avoiding the redirect to the TBF (though redirects aren't really a problem), but don't see the purpose in giving the names of the aircraft manufacturers given that this is primarily an article about naval combat. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It is precise because it is primarily about the naval combat that they are needed, since Navy people usually know little about aircraft, using a bare designation is almost meaningless, but using the full name is more likely to garner recognition, and there is no reason to do otherwise as we are not pressed for space. - NiD.29 (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that I disagree with you on both points. I doubt that many people know or care that Consolidated designed the Liberator or Grumman the Avenger - I don't, and I'm a military history nerd - and the shorter designation is better known. Regarding article length, why make it longer than it needs to be? By the way, changing redirects to direct links is considered unnecessary these days - please see WP:UNBROKEN. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
You don't care because you recognize what they are, but not everyone who visits the page does, and the manufacturer often does help with identifying the name - particularly so for navy aircraft when many people do not understand the designation system, but also for army aircraft, and none of the arguments presented in WP:UNBROKEN are applicable. - NiD.29 (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you use a better edit summary? "links" or "fixed links" isn't accurate, as you haven't changed the link except to remove the redirect; you've changed the article text. This had me confused until you explained it. Maybe something like "aircraft name". Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, will do - intention was originally only to change links, but some of the text desperately needed fixing. cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on production numbers in lists[edit]

There is an RfC discussion on numbers of aircraft built in lists. As a contributor to previous relevant discussion, you are invited to join in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, NiD.29. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]

US-O11 insignia.svg 6 Star.svg
Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Synchronization in Sopwith Camel article[edit]

Hi HiD.29, Use of the word disk to describe a propeller seems incorrect to me. A disc is a thin, flat, circular plate or object like a brake disc or a Compact disc. The article Synchronization gear describes an arc and that makes more sense to me. Thanks for your time. Samf4u (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Arc implies a start and stop position, while a disk does not, so unless the prop is being hand turned, disk is more correct as the mechanism only works when the prop is already spinning. - NiD.29 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I see your point and agree that arc is incorrect. Would you object to "fire forward through the spinning propeller blades"? Samf4u (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

New Foster mounting article[edit]

Just on the off chance you may be interested...

I have a rewrite of the articlee on the Foster mounting nearing completion in my sandbox - which may or may not be of interest. In common with other articles I have worked on from (more or less) scratch like this I am basically writing the text first and will be adding the verifiability/links etc. later - appreciate if you could add any comments you might have, including any possible outright errors you might notice, either to my talk page or the one to my sandbox. Most welcome help of all would be usable references, anything you think I should read etc.

Thanks (and Hi!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good and nothing jumps out as needing an edit, although more mention could be made of the preceding French mounts that inspired it. - NiD.29 (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest - I do, to be fair, have more on the French mounting than in the old article - you will notice that I now say Sergeant Foster of No. 11 Squadron RFC improved the French hinged mounting for the upper wing Lewis gun on a Nieuport 11 or 16 by replacing the hinge with a quadrant shaped sliding rail instead of In early 1916 Sergeant Foster of No. 11 Squadron RFC devised a sliding rail mounting for the upper wing Lewis gun on a Nieuport 11 or 16. I expected you to be quite chuffed at this, actually. Note that the new article is the one in my sandbox - I am going to "unleash" it when I have the text completed, and have finished a more or less complete set of references. Any specific things you like me to mention about other overwing mountings (French, British, and of course Austrian?) I have gone easy on them and planned to add little or nothing to what's in the sandbox. Just to keep the article focused on its actual subject, but I'm certainly open to arguments about all this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks good - if it was RFC then it was a 16 as they had no 11s, while the RNAS only had 11s - the concept of overwing guns is unlikely to have an article of its own so a little more wouldn't hurt, especially with it being such a common workaround for weapons that lacked synchronizers or couldn't be synchronized. The Russians and Austro-Hungarians both had interesting installations with the Russians mounting Vickers guns to fire through the wing, and the Austrians mounting guns in faired wooden boxes, or the British with diagonally mounted Lewis guns in Bristol Scouts. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft camouflage[edit]

Hi, since you have been involved in editing this article recently, I'd draw your attention to recent edits on the article and my new discussion on the talk page. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent reversion in NA.16 article[edit]

Hi, please note the book I added in "Further reading" is not the one already listed in "Bibliography". Just restored that information. Regards, DPdH (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Assessment reverts[edit]

Hey, I saw your reverts on five pages that I recently assessed and I read your comments and then read WP:STUB as per directed, and I have found your reverts to be unjustified. As WP:STUB says:

A stub is an article that, although providing some useful information, is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and that is capable of expansion. Non-article pages, such as disambiguation pages, lists, categories, templates, talk pages, and redirects, are not regarded as stubs.

With your blessing we can talk this out, but until then I will reassess these articles and leave constructive criticism for all five of them of their respective talk pages. –Vami_IV✠ 10:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

None of these pages are so short as to fit that definition in any way - they need to be tagged for references, and some for possible copyright vios and some reorganizing is in order, but stubs they are not. Aircraft that remained as prototypes are unlikely to have very long pages simply because there isn't much to write - some background on why they were developed, a physical description, who ordered it, some specs and that is about it. All of these pages had far more than that. - NiD.29 (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I assess stubs according, primarily, to their referencing and citation and, secondary, by their length. The important thing is that all these articles have little or no citation whatsoever and until they do (my personal standard is five or more but I have previously let this slip if the in-line citation is good enough), they shall be stubs. Some of them don't even have pictures or even an infobox. –Vami_IV✠ 22:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
In other words it doesn't matter what the standards are, you've decided they must be stubs. Thanks. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Chinese Air Force Roundel 1920-1921[edit]

“nope” in your edit summary explains nothing - Would appreciated if you’d clarify the source for the image in question, because all I see is a link to building a website. – cheers FOX 52 (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a reference in the image file, and I added it behind the link, but you just blindly deleted it.

see here and here or here and a model in colour - NiD.29 (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I saw the source attached to the file but it kept taking me to a Yahoo website builder, thanks for the info - FOX 52 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

WW2 Jets list[edit]

I did that as part of the start of my intent to bring that list to FL. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Does FL somehow require it to be split up? The info presented makes more sense as a single table. - NiD.29 (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC) two areas where some improvement can be done - we do get people periodically trying to add rockets (like the J8M), and the colour coding could be replaced with an extra column, however it should get too complicated - something along the lines of "WW2 service", "Post-WW2 service only" and "no service". - NiD.29 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I can foresee easily that lumping production and non-production types in the same table would get Mightily Frowned At. I'll bash at it in a sandbox for awhile and see what I can come up with. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, NiD.29. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting[edit]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)