Talk:Caverned airfield

Please do not redirect
It is better to improve than to redirect. Thanks and best regards Head of State (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1 The redirection does not cover the content of this article.
 * 2 This article is from the "Military wiki". So it is therefore suitable for the "general /Every subject" wikipedia.

After a second redirection, again to a page who does not cover the content of this article... from the same person. If this person will do this again without a 3rd opinion discussed on this talkpage..He will be accused of vandalism.Head of State (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * At no point have I said that this article is the same as the other, but the subject is the same. You should direct your energies towards expanding the other article rather than fighting to keep two articles on the same subject against Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, please state why you believe the other article is about a different subject. An article being from a "military wiki" is not a reason to have two articles. YSSYguy (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well done. You violated the 3 times revert rule. Be careful. The barrel is now pointing on your forehead.

You should READ and UNDERSTAND first both articles. It is not the same content: A superficial (functional) description of underground hangars. List of different states that have or have used underground hangar's. Differences in the different buildings are not explained. Take-off took place on conventional runways. Detailed description with all the functions of a specific project. Defined types of aircraft, defined state/country and only that state. Take-off run was provided in the protected facility.
 * Underground hangar
 * Caverned airfield

You make the redirection with the assertion that both have the same subject. So you let it, with the redirection, disappear. But on the same time delete the only sentence, in Underground hangar, that mentioned this project. Some might think it's evil intention of you..... Head of State (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing the underground hangar article into this? The redirect is to the aircraft cavern article, which is about the same subject, has been in existence for years and has more information than your version. Go ahead, pull the trigger of the gun pointed at my head. YSSYguy (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I ran across this page via the recent changes feed and I must say I agree with YSSYguy. The article Aircraft cavern (not underground hangar) is also about the Swiss project. You should edit that page rather than creating a new article on the same topic. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Howicus.

Well but if I edit that page rather than creating a new article. It would be give a suspicious picture if YSSYguy drop~in there and starts to delete some of the text....Head of State (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for YSSYguy, but I know that if you went over to aircraft cavern and started adding material, citing reliable, independent sources to support it, I would have no objection. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)