Talk:Arado Ar 234

Aircraft nomenclature
Denniss has reversed all my edits regarding spacing inbetween model and variants, claiming I am incorrect. Yet strangely, he/she has left many examples of model/variant with no spacing, as I did, so why is this? Why is it ok for Denniss to leave "mistakes" withing the article that he/she claims I vandalised? Why doesn't he/she edit the entire article to reflect the "correct" way, instead of just concentrating on my edits? How is that fair? Where is the consistency here? He/she apparently has no issues with other people doing what I did, apparently that is of no concern to him/her. Why is that? Why is it ok to have both nomenclature styles in the article, as long as I didn't do any of it? Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Tense
I've just done a quick perusal of Wikipedia articles for aircraft mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_II, and it seems that the spread between present tense (such-and-such is fighter) and past tense (such-and-such was a fighter) is about 50:50. The point about the Arado still being "in existence" is an interesting one. In the sense that the restored remains of Arados still remain in air museums, yes that seems correct. Although the actual statement in the article is that the Arado "is a jet-powered bomber", and clearly what is in those museums is no longer a jet-powered bomber. It is an historical artifact. I'm easy either way, but I'd thought I'd post this conundrum here, in case other editors have any thoughts. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Clarification to the above. It seems there is one re-assembled Arado on display at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.HistoryEditor3 (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)