User talk:NiD.29

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)

Weaver
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)

Flaps
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)

Model aircraft article
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)

Those machine-readable folks
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)

Using redirects in navboxes
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)

Sopwith Baby
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. 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)

Riesenflugzeug
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)

Flitfire
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 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)

RfC on production numbers in lists
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. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Nieuport 28
Another editor has made fairly determined efforts to impose his/her will on this article with multiple references to a very old and sketchy source - and I have been up all night trying to get this article back in reasonable shape, leaning on more up-to-date ones. Just in case this one isn't on your watchlist, or you have missed these changes, I'd be grateful if you'd have a look at things, and (if you feel it is warranted) correct me if you think I've been too drastic. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

List of training aircraft moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, List of training aircraft, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, was just dumping the out of a page that itself had no refs, and really no need to exist as it would have been listing every aircraft ever built - I am changing that into a list of lists, which is what it should have been to start with. I am hoping others will help with some of the fixing that needs doing now that it is a stand alone page, but will be making changes to all three pages shortly.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Aircraft specs template
I notice that you've started to change specifications templates to the newer aircraft specs templates - thanks for that - there seems to be a lot of people who seem to be very keen to have the articles changed without being bothered to actually change any articles. I spotted a couple of points with your changes to Airco DH.9 - 1) you added values in both imperial and metric fields - there is no need to do that as the template does the conversions for you. 2) Don't use fraction characters like ⅝ or ½ because the convert function doesn't recognise them and gives error messages, use 2+5/8 to give 2$5/8$ in fields where the template auto-converts (in addition there are accessibility problems associated with fraction characters).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about the fractions - I only did those because that was how they were entered in the original and I didn't want to change supposedly sourced data - from what I have seen with real aircraft, the numbers are never that consistent between airframes. An inch here or a quarter inch there, and no two aircraft have ever been the same until they started making parts with CAD/CAM, and even then I would be skeptical. Perhaps a script to replace all fractions used on project pages should be in order? Also, since the numbers are being converted - now I would need to find and check the reference to see which set of numbers they offered, and which ones were manually converted - and then check which ones are the more accurate (British sources for French and German aircraft are notoriously inaccurate once converted into imperial, especially during WW1) Sigh - can't win for trying.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Foster Mounting on Nieuport 16
I am a little puzzled as to why you can't locate a N.16 with a Foster mounting - I found a couple in the first book I looked in with no trouble at all - in fact I am sure that ALL the pictures you have of N.16s in British service have Foster mountings - they certainly wouldn't have synchronized guns - nor did they have either type of French overwing Lewis mount - both of which are quite distinctive (among other things they are taller than the Foster). What may be confusing you is that the "Nieuport" Foster - which is quite different from the larger, more robust mounting fitted later to the S.E.5. Have a look at our Foster article - the picture there shows Billy Bishop demonstrating a Foster (on a later Nieuport - probably a 17 or 23, but the same mounting). Notice how small and unobtrusive the quadrant slide is is compared with the S.E. - in fact in most pictures of R.F.C. Nieuports the slide is hiding under the gun barrel. There are a couple of refs in the Foster article, anyway. A better one would be Harry Woodman. Anyway - if I don't hear from you I'll reinstate the information (not necessarily the text you deleted) and add a ref or two. --WWIReferences (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I suspect you are misidentifying either the Nieuports or the French mountings. Easy mistake to make. There isn't a single photo of a Nieuport 16 in the Early Aircraft Armament book or the Lewis datafile Woodman also wrote. There is a drawing with an unspecified Nieuport wing, and a photo of a 27 with a Foster in the first book. The Nieuport datafile special has a photo of an RFC N.16, 5172, however it has no track, short or otherwise, and it has a diagonal brace not seen in any of the drawings, or on any early Foster mounting.
 * The Foster has a (small) curved track that the gun slid back on - not a pivot, nor a leg that folds as was used on some of the French mounts. There were several types of French mounts (at least 3), some of which were tall, others not so much. There were also a variety of experimental one-off mountings. While I don't doubt that Foster installed such a mounting on his own aircraft (and probably had to do some experimenting to get it to work properly), it is a stretch to suggest that enough had been made while the 16 was in service to make it a standard 16 fitting. In addition, Foster was RFC, which never operated the 11, as the British 11s were exclusively operated by the RNAS, who would not have seen any Foster mountings until very much later. &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Bruce has the RFC's Nieuport 16 using the Foster mount in his The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps (Military Wing) Putnam, 1982 - page 327 states "In the RFC the Nieuport's Lewis gun was carried on the simple but highly effective Foster mounting." It also notes that a few of the RFC's Nie.16s were delivered with a fixed, synchronised Lewis using the French Alkan mechanism.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Drawings in the datafiles show the supposed mounting, and yet, of all the photos I can find only A125 even seems to have a Foster, and even that is hard to prove due to the angle and lack of clarity of the photo from Nieuports in RNAS, RFC and RAF service. I would suspect that the older references, which were not attuned to the different versions made an identification error between the 16 and 17, and it has simply been repeated. There does appear to be another type of mount on the RFC N.16s, however I am not sure if it is a fairly rare French mount, or a British one - but it is clear that there is no track, but rather that it flips up with a hinge. Maybe a Foster prototype abandoned in favour of a track? In any case, I am not arguing none were ever fitted (since I cannot have photos of every aircraft at every stage in its service), however to claim it was a standard fitting from old references (a lot of new information has surfaced since 1982 contradicting most of what was though to be known then) is a very weak one when there is such a paucity of photographic evidence.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft
Hi, you recently stated in an edit comment that there are no guidelines about removing certain columns from aircraft lists. There is a discussion about this on the Aviation project talk page, here, where I have replied to that comment. You might like to engage in the discussion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you just have, sorry to bother you here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Siemens Schuckert D VI and the WW II link (???) to the "Allied Control Commission"
Sorry, but the Siemens-Schuckert D.VI was never under the "control" of the 1943-founded Allied Control Commission whose control did NOT extend back to 1918...I am reinstating my correction of earlier on June 11, 2019, and for one reason why, please remember that the Siemens aircraft article covers a German aircraft design that was meant to serve with the Luftstreitkräfte of the German Empire's "Deutsches Heer", with the Luftstreitkräfte that the Siemens aircraft was intended to serve with, would itself cease to exist on May 8, 1920. The PIPE (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Allied Control Commisions were created in 1918 to deal with de-militarizing the German military, and they are specifically talking about evading it, so it is relevant - even if someone created a shortcut to the wrong page - or that page is missing the part about it being a recreation of the post-armistice organization. Your change removes all of the meaning from the sentence.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Breguet?
According to French wikipedia, Louis Breguet and the company did not have an ecoute. I noticed the category being emptied. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  20:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikidata has English as the only language using this form. What is the source for the new spelling? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  21:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Usage seems to be inconsistent, even for French sources. Signage seems to omit the accent, even as they use it on labels at the same air salons, while some later documentation also omits it.

&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Odd to base the decision on the strength of a few old postcards, was this discussed anywhere? This French article clearly shows the manufacturer's name on the aircraft and Louis Breguet's signature, both without diacritics. I assume you will be correcting his article? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  19:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only one of those was a postcard (although I have dozens of others that show the same). One was official documentation, the other from a French archive collection. Jane's also used the accent. I changed one of the pages most likely to be viewed in the set, and waited for a reaction but other than page views spiking to over 50, I got none - until now, well after I had changed them all. FWIW, many of the pages hadn't even been touched in over a decade.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just stumbled across this. Jean Cuny's book Les avions Breguet 1940–1971 doesn't use the accent, nor does the book Le Bearn et le Commandant Teste. Nobody in Breguet's very famous family uses the accent, nor does the Library of Congress. I agree that French usage is inconsistent as I suspect that native speakers expect to see the accent and take it upon themselves to add it despite the family's usage. I suspect that my Gallaway relatives similarly struggle with people trying to "correct" the spelling to the much more common Galloway. I think that you might have to revert yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Except then how do you explain multiple documents CREATED by the company having the accent? More likely is that they later simplified it to avoid confusing their English speaking customers. &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up.

Angle of incidence
In your recent edit at Angle of incidence you wrote an edit summary that incidence is “definitely not a synonym” for angle of attack. In fact, angle of incidence is/was the terminology used in the United Kingdom to describe what Americans call angle of attack. A statement to this effect can be found in Angle of incidence (aerodynamics), 3rd paragraph. The cited source is A.C. Kermode “Mechanics of Flight”. I suggest you return to Angle of incidence and either revert your edit or refine it so it is consistent with the fact that many British authors and textbooks use angle of incidence in a manner that is the same as the Americans’ angle of attack. Regards. Dolphin ( t ) 14:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read the third paragraph as it suggests nothing of the sort. The Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary (ie from the UK) provides this definition:
 * incidence:
 * 1 Angle between chord of wing at centreline and OX axis
 * 2 Generally, the angular setting of any aerofoil or other plate-like surface to a reference axis.
 * 3 Widely and incorrectly used to mean angle of attack.
 * Notice the incorrect part. &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You regularly cite Laurence Clancy’s Aerodynamics. Unfortunately I don’t have access to my copy, or to any other British textbooks, and won’t have access to them until mid-September. Could you help me by commenting on the above thread? Many thanks. Dolphin ( t ) 10:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi folks. I have UK editions of both Clancy and Kermode (they both have parallel US editions, which might be worth someone digging out). Kermode has clearly been through this very pain before, but I give Clancy first:
 * Clancy (1975) p.56: "The attitude of the aerofoil, as expressed by the angle between the chord line and the free-stream velocity vector. This angle, denoted by α, is called the incidence, or angle of attack."
 * Kermode (1972) p.75 [his bold]: "We call the angle between the chord of the aerofoil and the direction of airflow the angle of attack. ... This angle is often known as the angle of incidence; that term was avoided in early editions of this book because it was apt to be confused with the riggers' angle of incidence, i.e. the angle between the chord of the aerofoil and some fixed datum line in the aeroplane. Now that aircraft are no longer "rigged" (in the old sense) there is no objection to the term angle of incidence; but by the same token there is no objection either to angle of attack, many pilots and others have become accustomed to it; it is almost universally used in America, and so we shall continue to use it in this edition. The term "riggers' angle of incidence," although no longer in general use, is even now a convenient term for describing the angle at which the wing is set when the aeroplane is in "rigging position"...
 * It is worth looking at the context for each. Clancy's focus is on the aerodynamics, in effect the airflow rather than the machine, and consequently has no time or space for riggers. By contrast Kermode is concerned with the mechanics of flight, the forces exerted on the plane, and design of the machine is more significant to him.
 * I see in all this a historic broadening of usage for "angle of incidence", from one static rigger's meaning to ambiguity with the dynamic in-flight meaning. Meanwhile here we are, forty-something years after they wrote, and I doubt that common practice has stood still, for example is the outrage expressed in the above dictionary definition nowadays universal or aired only by a small minority of diehard pedants? (See also WP:COMMONNAME). My own suggestion would be:
 * We ignore language locale issues unless and until someone can bring forward significant contemporary sources.
 * We allow both usages unless and until someone can bring forward significant additional contemporary sources to give The Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary priority over last century's Clancy and Kermode.
 * We do not make a distinction between articles on aerodynamic science on the one hand and engineering design on the other, for that would open the way to endless confusion and PoV-pushing.
 * Where there is no ambiguity we don't make a fuss, although we obviously support editorial change for say consistency within an article or readability.
 * Where there is ambiguity in a given article, we specify as necessary to clarify what we mean and avoid such ambiguity. Again, we allow editorial discretion in the article whether we contrast "angle of attack" with "angle of incidence" or say contrast "angle of incidence to the airflow" with "rigged angle of incidence."
 * Hoping at least some of that makes sense. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Clancy and Kermode adopt slightly different definitions of the chord line, meaning that they may set marginally different angles. but I do not think that affects this discussion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . You’re a genius, and it makes a lot of sense! Dolphin ( t ) 14:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks NiD.29. I have done as you suggested and re-read the third para in the lead of Angle of incidence (aerodynamics). To my horror I discovered that the sentence I had in mind was erased on 22 November 2018 over concern that it wasn’t adequately supported by Kermode, the cited source. Prior to 22 Nov 2018, the third para ended with the following sentence:
 * The use of the term angle of incidence to refer to the angle of attack occurs chiefly in British and French usage.
 * In the coming month I will restore the deleted sentence, or something similar, and support it with suitable citation(s).
 * I agree that Kermode says nothing about French usage. (If you go to Angle of attack and then transfer to French Wikipedia you will see that the French equivalent of AoA is “l’angle d’incidence”.)
 * In the past thirty years the Europeans and Americans have done an amazing job of harmonising their aviation requirements and legislation. (Look at the way BCAR D gave way to JAR 25 and that led to CS 25 which is very, very close to the American FAR 25. International collaboration on aircraft design projects demands it.) I’m not surprised the UK has, in recent times, formally adopted “angle of attack” and now repudiates “angle of incidence”; and the result is that industry glossaries, like the Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary, explicitly state that “angle of incidence” is unacceptable or even incorrect for future use. However, it would be incorrect to imagine that the CAD is able to retrospectively make historical use of “angle of incidence” incorrect.
 * It isn’t uncommon for reliable published sources to differ on a common issue. Wikipedia doesn’t attempt to arbitrate and determine which sources are correct, and which are incorrect. In these instances, Wikipedia reports the plurality of views found in reliable published sources, and in doing so attempts to give due weight and avoid giving undue weight. On the matter of angle of attack, Wikipedia should give maximum weight to use of the expression “angle of attack” but acknowledge that, in the past, “angle of incidence” was used synonymously in British sources (and perhaps also French usage.) Dolphin ( t ) 14:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see where the misunderstanding would occur - with an aerodynamicist working in a wind tunnel, where the longitudinal datum is aligned with the airflow from the tunnel, both values would be the same, and so they may use the two terms interchangeably despite the differences in how they are calculated, however this still does not make them synonyms. I would have to see a bunch of sources that have used them interchangeably in a broader context before I would accept that this usage is anything other than someone misusing the specific terms (which is also incredibly common in aviation). Also, niche usage in the UK does not make it a full blown synonym OTHER THAN IN THE UK - which means even if you wish to add the synonym part, it must be clear that this is not widespread.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @NiD29: Thanks for your prompt response. I’m not suggesting the article use the word synonym because I seriously doubt we will ever find a reliable source that states the two expressions are “synonymous”; we can use the word synonym as shorthand on Talk pages. I’m suggesting the article gives due weight to the two expressions used in reliable sources to describe the angle alpha.
 * Both Clancy and Kermode acknowledge that incidence means the same thing as angle of attack. As you can imagine, Clancy’s textbook “Aerodynamics” refers to the angle alpha many, many times, and always it is described as incidence or angle of incidence. That it is the way British authors did it in the past. The French still do! The article must give due weight to use of the expression. Dolphin ( t ) 01:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My gripe was with the word synonym - by all means other use (or misuse) should be included, although I hesitate to include French usage as it generally has little correlation with English usage. &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

North American NA-40
On the North American NA-40, I agree it's a different aircraft, but it's covered in some detail in the main text and in the variants section, and there's even one photo. I've no opposition to creating a separate article for it, as the content is cited. We mainly need specs for it at this point, and it would be of comparable size to the North American XB-21 article right from the start. As to listing it in the infobox without a separate article, that's another issue probably better discussed at WT:AIR. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say the problem lies with the redirect which simply needs to be deleted, or turned into a stub. There must be specs for it somewhere - or maybe in the list of references here. It is a "likely" article though.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I can try to stub it out in a few days. I don't know about the reliability of b-25history.org, but I may have a couple of sources I can check for specs. - BilCat (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ - BilCat (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good start, I just added a few images to wikimedia, and a few of those to the page.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Basically all I did was copy the XB-21 page, and then add the relevant text from the B-25 article. It's actually something I enjoy doing, as I don't have to write much copy myself. Good find on the photos! They really help make the article look like more than just a stub. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Page move
Just a question, but did you mean to move User:NiD.29/Curtiss-Wright CW-14 to User:Curtiss-Wright CW-14 Osprey instead of Curtiss-Wright CW-14 Osprey (which is a redirect to Travel Air 2000)? Note the "User:" - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope - I was tired and in a rush, and made a mistake - then someone had modified the redirect I was trying to move it over.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not hard to do! No problem, I just wanted to point it out. I'll leave it to you to fix it, unless you need some help with that. By the way the article looks good, so thanks for writing it! - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't have the permissions needed to complete the move - btw, how does one get those permissions?&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Admins can do it, but page movers (like me) can move a page without leaving a redirect, which can also fix a situation like this where a redirect is blocking a move. Let me see if I can fix that with a round robin move. You can ask any admin to make you a page mover. It is useful to have. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I just submitted a request to be a page mover - probably take as long as waiting for an admin to fix my botched move. Will the round robin move keep the history though?&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Just so you know what I did: 1. I moved the redirect Curtiss-Wright CW-14 Osprey to Curtiss-Wright CW14 Osprey (no dash) without leaving a redirect, which causes Curtiss-Wright CW-14 Osprey to be an available page and 2. then moved User:Curtiss-Wright CW-14 Osprey to Curtiss-Wright CW-14 Osprey, again without leaving a redirect since we don't really need one from User:Curtiss-Wright CW-14 Osprey (and making it a red link as you can now see). That is really the only "super power" that a page mover has that a regular editor does not have, to move a page without leaving a redirect. If you are creative though it can be quite useful for solving issues like this, so do ask an admin to grant it to you! - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * To answer your question: yes the page history is retained, as you can see here. It works! An admin can grant that in a few seconds, it just a setting on your account dashboard, so hopefully should happen soon. If you have any questions on how I did that please do ask. The round robin move is a useful method, but it is a bit confusing the first time or two you do it, or see it done! - Ahunt (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, NiD.29. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ANiD.29 granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing!  Anarchyte  ( talk &#8226;  work ) 15:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks!&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. Drop me a note if you need any pointers in using your new powers! - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Winch
Hi NiD.29, why don't you want to keep proper photo of a glider winch ? Just because of cables ? I don't understand ... your picture is not a good one. Why not keep both ? Regards --Olga Ernst (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * . It doesn't show it as anything beyond being a lump of machinery, with no context whatsoever. Not even a cable to be seen. It could just as easily been a generator or some other stationary machinery for all it shows us.
 * . It isn't doing what it was designed to do, and the photo (unfortunately) does nothing to clarify that. Same reason I chose a fishing boat winch rather than the sailboat mentioned in the article.
 * . It duplicates the one I found in action, showing the cables. If I could have found one with the glider in view, I would have used that.
 * . Image clarity is only one of many reasons to choose a particular image. In this case, just because it is sharper doesn't mean it adds anything.
 * . There are too many images to include it just because.
 * Now, if you were to take a picture of it with the winch(es) out, in action, and a glider in the background, that would make an excellent replacement. Also, I would have replaced the wakeboarding winch shot if I could find a better one there as well. Cheers, &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC) (ps - is that your local airfield? Nice place. I used to live in Baden-Sölingen).
 * I changed the image to another, although this one shows less cable. The image should also not be crowded, which poses problems for getting the ideal shot. Winch, cable and glider, with the least number of distractions.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed explanation NiD.29, with your new photo I am quite happy Yes, de:Flugplatz Albstadt-Degerfeld is our local airfield. My son started his pilot career there. I don't know Söllingen, but I know the Airport was a military airfield in earlier days. Cheers --Olga Ernst (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Granville Gee Bee Model A
Thanks for the correction. I didn't realize that NEAM had more than one Gee Bee and had confused it for their R-1 replica. –Noha307 (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was in sad shape when I was there about 15 years ago, and hasn't gotten any better. As the last true Gee Bee, it deserves better (the R-6H was built after the dissolution of Gee Bee). cheers,&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Do 25 and Do 27
According to this source, 8-25 and 8-27 were allocated to Dornier by RLM, but were not used by the company until after the war. The fact that they were allocated before the war ended makes them RLM designations. - <b style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</b> <b style="color:#6B8E23">T</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">\</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">C</b> 16:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First the source is not exactly reliable - show me a book that claims this. Andreas Parsch is not a published expert.
 * Secondly, he deliberately included every possible German aircraft and he himself says that many of those designations were not a part of the official RLM sequence, when he sources them. Re-read section 2 - "Designation Listing". In essence he has made an utter mess, and just because he has included a number, cannot be trusted AT ALL to be an RLM. Look at his sources for the actual RLM numbers. Even he admits that many of the numbers he has included are NOT RLM numbers.
 * Thirdly, the numbers are WAY out of sequence and it is very unlikely they would have assigned such a low number and a duplicate late in the war, and development wasn't even considered for either type until well after the RLM had ceased to exist. Furthermore, it could have been assigned and then abandoned as many other designations were, still with no connection to either the Do 25 or 27 as built. Indeed, the Do 25 was probably originally a projected flying boat or a bomber. The post-war Dorniers otherwise ignored the RLM sequence entirely and simply started off with the last pre-war number.
 * Likewise, HD and HE (note capitalization) are internal Heinkel designations, and would have only have been assigned an RLM number if they were being used in Germany, but many were not - such as with the Aichi.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't see that. I'll have be more careful to read the entire source in the future. - <b style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</b> <b style="color:#6B8E23">T</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">\</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">C</b> 17:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Np, cheers.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Will.you please slow down????
Hi NiD, as a near-high-functioning autistic, I don't deal with change very well, and many at WP:AIR and WP:AVIATION are like that also. You've unilaterally consolidated all the Japanese WWII navboxes (not bad actually, it was a mess), rewrote the Style Guide, and now created a huge new navbox for British military aircraft. If you decide to consolidate all the US military navboxes, my head will probably explode, and that will make a BIG mess! I honestly can't deal with that much change all at one! I'm being somewhat humorous, but it is a bit much all at once. Can you perhaps pick a different subject project next? Something like biology, geology, Pakistani music, or something else totally unrelated? Thanks. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * NP, I tried to consolidate the German WW1 navboxes but even that was much too large - the US military ones are already large individually and I doubt I could produce something that wasn't incredibly unweildy - so no risk there. I am being told I should paint the house next. lol.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate it. And I understand about the house. - BilCat (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This was the Idflieg designations attempt - I never got to fixing the formatting issue with the borders as I realized there was no way to compress it down enough to ever make it manageable - and Navboxes aren't set up to do both rows and columns for some reason without getting really ugly with the code. I used the data I collected fill gaps in the existing tables, and I merged several. Not much point to a type nav box with less than half a dozen links - or that is more than a page in size. I ruled out doing a French one as not only would it have every airplane they ever flew, the FAF has had a lot more types, and documentation for certain eras is very weak. It would also need both company name, as numbers, as the numers aren't in a single sequence like the RLM ones are.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
But don't blow BilCat's mind in the process. - <b style="color:#6B8E23">ZLEA</b> <b style="color:#6B8E23">T</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">\</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">C</b> 02:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * :-) - BilCat (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ZLEA, I will try not to blow anyone's mind.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names
Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

R-Zs
Hello I tried to add some info in the R-Z page but I did something wrong and I I can not fix it, I tried to undo my contributs but for some reasons I could not do it. Could You help me please? --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, np. You'll notice at the top right there should be a tab called history - you can simply click the previous versions undo to revert it.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons categories
Why are you adding back commons category links like ? There are no photos of the aircrafts on Commons, so it makes no sense to link to Commons? (I'm saying this as someone that is most active on Commons!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The aviation project has always provided a link to the manufacturer when the specific type isn't yet covered with its own commons page as a placeholder and means of tracking. Also, most of these aircraft types have very closely related types that often are covered, and often when new additions are added, they get moved to the manufacturer first before being moved to a specific directory since the person initially categorizing it often doesn't have the knowledge to do so. It was simply not appropriate for you to mass delete all these links. I am sure on other projects they don't make sense, but they do on the aviation project.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I found your comment at Category talk:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories and have replied there. Probably we should take this discussion to the relevant WikiProject? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I already made most of those points there.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Then could you explain to me why having the Common category links to the manufacturer categories help, please? Wouldn't it be easier to watch the manufacturer categories on Commons to see when new images are added to them, and then you can move them to the appropriate subcategories, and/or create a new category that you can link to from here? I respect the work of the aviation community here - I've been impressed by the level of categorisation on Commons - but this part of it really doesn't make sense to me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiwings

 * Thanks. :) &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Avro Lancaster
Why was the insertion of the link to Silverplate B29s removed from the Avro Lancaster page? The mention of a similar aircraft and long range bombers is relevant, especially when discussing the strategic role of bombing Japan. From the timeline, at the outset the B29 was nowhere near being ready. The Lancaster was the single candidate, until the Silverplate model was available. Signed Maple Leaf Eh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maple leaf eh (talk • contribs)
 * Because the silverplate program is not relevant - the B-29 as the aircraft IS. Which is why is was that before you changed it.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Stomping your foot and saying "because" is not a satisfactory answer. Silverplate was the long range nuclear capable B29.  Its development was not a sure thing in 1943.  I stand by my edit that the nested link to the Silverplate version of the B29 is entirely relevant as a lateral association to the long range strategic opportunity of the Lancaster.  That the USAAF and the Manhatten Project did not want an RAF aircraft to drop its bomb is an unstated element of the conversation.  Maple Leaf Eh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maple leaf eh (talk • contribs)


 * LOL, nope, I didn't stomp my foot. As I said (and reading comprehension would be a useful skill for you to acquire), the statement was referring to the B-29, NOT the program that resulted in the B-29. A big difference. Read the Silverplate page - it is about the program as a whole, not the airplane, while the Lancaster page was referring to the airplane, not the program. To quote -
 * "Prior to the decision to use the B-29 Superfortress to deliver the first atomic bomb over Japan, serious consideration was given to using the Lancaster with its cavernous 33ft bomb bay instead."
 * Now I have no objection whatsoever to there being a link to the silverplate program, but it just doesn't make sense to simply replace the B-29 link with the silverplate link. We could instead say:
 * "Prior to the decision to carry out extensive modifications under Silverplate to the Boeing B-29 Superfortress to allow it deliver atomic bombs over Japan, serious consideration was given to using the Lancaster with its cavernous bomb bay instead."
 * - thus using both links, appropriately (and there is no need to indicate the length of the bombbay as that was never a factor. - ps, always, always end comments on talk pages with four tildas (~ x 4) &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye
Have you actually read the source that the IP added? It's https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/66/. It starts with: "Properties of the phenobarbital induced cytoplasmic aldehyde dehydrogenase (EC 1.2.1.3) have been studied in rat liver."

You haven't been giving any benefit of the doubt lately, and I don't what I've done to set you against me like this. I'd like to make it right if possible. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, all good - that wasn't what loaded for me though as I got a bunch of stuff on Hawkeyes, although the page had difficulty loading - and I don't recognize your url from the changes. Have you run a virus check recently? Something could be redirecting you to random pages - I had a plugin a while ago that was doing that to me, and the anti-virus wasn't recognizing it. I got a url from flightglobal - www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iai-rolls-out-first-upgraded-e-2c-hawkeye-at-ben-gurion-176849/, along with an archived entry at https://web.archive.org/web/20141018183911/http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iai-rolls-out-first-upgraded-e-2c-hawkeye-at-ben-gurion-176849/ - it looks like they probably copied it from somewhere else, as I would not expect an ip to have the syntax correct. Of course I would prefer to see a book source myself (one should be available by now), but you use what you have.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Apparently, User:Nigel Ish saw the medical source too. See his revert here. BilCat (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like some sort of weird edit conflict - you somehow managed to remove the Flightglobal link and add the rat liver one.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not add or re-add any rat liver link - look at the actual links I added rather than the pages they open, and you'll see that they are flight global links. They work fine for me.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weird - it showed up in edit screen correctly, and in changes, but shows up as rats in the saved page. hmmm - I think this might be a wiki issue.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup, very wierd! BilCat (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the addition I made:

Although I should have changed live to dead.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mexican Navy
 * I am guessing someone either made a very unfortunate mistake editing something system-wide, or they found a new way to attack the system.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I reckon so. As long as we're all seeing the Flight Global source/archive in the most recent version, we should be good now. BilCat (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it. Thanks.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

DH.2
Since we're both looking at this one, I'll leave it to you for the time being! Two things I was going to change, and probably will if you don't get to them first - the fuel system needs an adjective - otherwise there is an implication that the earlier version didn't have this essential feature at all - and the "release" of the controls of a highly unstable 1915 vintage aeroplane would be likely to produce a stall, followed by a spin! To "centre" the controls (as originally suggested) is a better description of what the pilot had to do (and an essential part of spin recovery). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have to do some editing on the government wiki for a while, so do what you can - this article needs a surprising amount of love. The rudder and elevators would also need to be self-centring for it to be a useful in-flight feature, and of course they would not have been - I was going to check the references on that one, as so many refs on this page are sufficiently ancient and/or too general to take seriously. I am not convinced about the aces section either, and the technical description definitely needs expanding. The fuel tank could also be inboard - or outboard under the outer wing. Sorry about deleting the "dismal RFC training" edit - I had a whole bunch of changes I had made at the same time - and from what I understand, the training was dismal until maybe just before it became the RAF - if not after. That probably needs a reference of its own.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Shrapnel
I respectfully disagree. Henry Shrapnel's invention was an artillery shell containing musket balls surrounding an explosive charge. It's hard to see why his name should be applied to something different invented centuries earlier. (Well, it's hard for me - if it's easy for you please explain it.) Much will depend on which dictionary you consult. General purpose dictionaries document language as it is used (and sometimes mis-used) by ordinary people; an article on a technical subject should use terms recognised in dictionaries for that subject. But I don't intend to get into a big debate about this. Philip Trueman (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

First, wikipedia is intended for a general audience, not a technical one specialized in any particular field, and so the language we use must be appropriate for the audience. Second, with regard to Mr Shrapnel, no-one remembers him, or his invention, but when I was in the military, the term shrapnel was quite definitely used in reference to the chucks of metal that go flying everywhere, which is how it was being referenced. Indeed, the one used that matches his original idea closest does not even refer to the steel balls as shrapnel, but rather to a fragmentation effect. Many terms in English have multiple meaning - the use intended does not also preclude other uses and is the clearest use we can provide.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you may be taking a very U.S.-centric viewpoint. I wasn't in any military, but my father was a British officer, and when I was growing up he'd correct me if I mis-used the term.  I also think that your lowest-common-denominator approach to language is simply wrong.  I may write an essay on that sometime.  But for now, let's agree to differ. Philip Trueman (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked it up in several widely used dictionaries:
 * Cambridge dictionary definition (just the fragments definition)
 * Collins Dictionary (includes both our defintions)
 * Oxford English Dictionary - mentions not only both uses, but a bunch of others, and the etymology.
 * Merriam-Webster dictionary definition (includes both definitions)
 * Dictionary.com (includes both definitions)
 * Very clear the word shrapnel as it was being used is the common use in the English language, regardless of the supposed "correctness" of the terminology.
 * The Oxford definition says nothing beyond a fragment being a "small part broken off or separated from something". Absolutely nothing about it being used as a projectile, or about it being used to do damage to something. It sanitizes the action - oh it is just fragments. Shrapnel gives movement that fragments lacks. Fragments downplays the energy and the damage it does, sterilises it for mass consumption. A propaganda term, a euphemism used to make death palatable like so many other terms the military finds occasion to use - collateral damage, enhanced interrogation techniques, extraordinary rendition. Fragments sit. Shrapnel tears through bodies. Wikipedia is not in the habit of bowdlerizing what it offers for the easily offended and feeble minded, and that is exactly what a fragment is. A euphemism to make it palatable to those who wish to pretend it isn't what it is.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Now I really, really do disagree with you. It is none of the above.  It is a precise technical term that has been mis-appropriated.  I think you can see that, now. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The dictionaries don't agree with you, and your euphemism to avoid using the current term is comical and absurd.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And the Wikipedia guideline on this is at MOS:JARGON. PS - I really don't care whether you agree or disagree with me.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

dH 11 Oxford page move
The aircraft project guidelines say "In general, aircraft articles are named by their manufacturer, then by name and/or designation number" the DH.11 was built by Airco before de Havilland had his own company. Can you move it back because i can't revert it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected my error on numbering. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done - sorry, had it by mistake, then changed it. Thanks for catching it.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * these things happen. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

image params
Re: the "upright=1" param is also default so it can be removed too. GA-RT-22 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - will do.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

External images
Hi Nid.29. On 16 April 2021 you edited about 30 articles on gliders, and erased external images from each article. Your Edit summary said Wikimedia has content – no need for external image.

Here are some examples: Glasflugel Hornet, Grob G-104 Speed Astir, ICA-Brasov IS-28.

The subject of External images is currently a topic for discussion on the Gliding Project Page. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gliding. The topic of External images has been open since August 2020 but I notice you have not contributed.

Wikipedia has some strong advice to Users about External images. At Template:External media it says:
 * If an image … … is currently available online … and readers will expect this type of media in the article then it may be appropriate to use external media to provide a direct link to the media file along with a description of the media.
 * This template is normally placed in the main body of the article, in the same place that you would normally have placed the image ... ... if it had been available on Wikimedia Commons.

Where you have erased an External image your edit summary always says “no need for external image”. I have been unable to find any advice or Guideline to support your statements that there is no need for an external image, and therefore the image should be removed. I hope you have not erased all these valuable images simply because that is your personal preference.

If you know of some advice or Guideline that supports your statements “no need for external image” please let me know or, better still, make a contribution on the WikiProject Gliding talk page. Thanks. <i style="color: green;">Dolphin</i> ( t ) 11:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * They fail WP:ELNO, WP:EXT and WP:ADV, and most of them also failed MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for being nothing more than decorative. An image of the glider landing does not add anything substantial to a photo of the glider on the ground.


 * Which leads to a second point - you also undid my removal of illegal links - on wikipedia it must be possible to determine the likely target of a link from the text - no blind links. 1977 is a violation of that rule, and links in the format are never to be used, and there was an extended discussion on XXXX in music over a decade ago. The same link, used bare can still be used, and I have been adding them in the see also section, where it is more appropriate.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt reply. I am about to post a comment on the Aircraft Project Talk page. I will ping you when it is posted. I hope you will respond there.


 * Your second paragraph means nothing to me. I don't recall anything about removing illegal links. When was I involved? Perhaps it is off-topic. <i style="color: green;">Dolphin</i> ( t ) 12:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at diff. You are right - there is much work left to be done. I can see three ways for you to tackle these tasks:
 * 1) Ignore them and do nothing (not recommended)
 * 2) Search for them and do all the work yourself (not recommended)
 * 3) Seeing I inserted quite a few of these external images I should do some or all of the work in removing those that must be removed. (Recommended) I will be happy to remove external images that I, and others, inserted unwisely. My only request is that when I have a question about what is unacceptable, and why, that you will explain it to me. I don't want to put myself in the position of having to say "I removed that external image because NiD.29 told me to do so."

My first question is: You have identified a few sites - Jetphotos, Bing etc. that are unacceptable. How do you know they are unacceptable, and how can I find out? Is there a Wikipedia page that lists unacceptable external sites or is this something you know as a result of your activities outside Wikipedia? If Wikipedia has no consolidated listing of unacceptable external sites I would recommend a substantial change to how External media operates - instead of encouraging Users to find an external image and insert it into an article, Users should have to put up a proposal to a Discussion site and wait until a specialist such as yourself confirms that the external site is legitimate and can be linked from Wikipedia.

You are the only User who has shown any understanding of the relevance of hotlinking and theft of bandwidth. You are obviously a specialist in this area. It is not in Wikipedia's best interests for you and your expertise to be occupied down in the weeds sifting through large numbers of articles and manually removing offending external links. You should be involved at a higher level - for example, updating External media with essential guidance material and links to where to find that material; working towards consolidating all those bits of information about topics relevant to linking to places on the internet outside Wikipedia.

Remember, all you have to do is write "Hey Dolphin51, would you mind helping me out by checking your remaining external images and removing those that have no place on Wikipedia? Thanks." <i style="color: green;">Dolphin</i> ( t ) 12:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * We are approaching this backwards - WP:ELNO's first rule is that external links must contribute beyond what we would expect in a good article. Few external images would pass this unless they were exceptional and were unlikely to be found elsewhere. This would definitely exclude images taken at a local airport. Shots during assembly might fit - or showing interior structure possibly. Images of specification graphs certainly as Wikipedia strives for a general audience so some materials are too technical - including performance graphs. I am not sure what other rationales are being used successfully elsewhere. After passing this filter, then it must also then pass the other filters.


 * Bing is a problem because it offers temporary pages that vary based on the user's prior searches, or changes in their databases. The links should be followed to the original page displaying the image, which might (or might not) have a good case for ownership. They are vulnerable to link rot, and dead links are frustrating and look bad. The same case for the hotlinks (aside from the leeching aspect) - the image was on a site, so there will also be a page it was on if it is being used legally. Google image search may find the original site.


 * Numerous pages list sites that shouldn't be used as references, but I found none specific to image links, however from long experience running an enthusiast site (hence my knowledge and abhorrence of hotlinks), I know the temptation - either scanned or taken from other websites, regardless of copyright, and for enthusiast sites, consequences are unlikely, but not for Wikipedia which is a high profile eminently sue-able organization with a lot of enemies with grudges and deep pockets. My materials were usually out of copyright and where they weren't I got permission, but few images of sailplanes are. Nor are small organizations immune, and so any site not indicating the source of their images (with a real name) is suspect. Sadly, having a copyright claim isn't enough either as I have found sites making very strong ownership claims on images they stole from my site and that had been created by me.


 * Wikipedia is leery of self-published works and user generated content - which includes enthusiast sites, blogs, and user-uploaded media. Uneven accuracy, and a lack of editorial oversight to (hopefully) correct errors applies to the image's data, including ownership. Not all images maybe, but we can't always know which are trustworthy, and many sites allow pseudonyms which means they can't redirect blame for copyright violations, which means they don't care, making everything suspect. The smaller the site, the more this is likely to be an issue. Flickr is large so will police uploads, but jetphotos.com probably does not as it isn't backed by a large corporation worried about being sued. Also, sites in countries that historically ignored copyrights still do.


 * I pick my battles, and I generally focus on aviation articles. Just your luck that you were the first to use the template on a page I watch, and think hey - that looks useful - and to have added so many. I have done the same in the past. In any case I saw other issues that desperately need addressing, including a paucity of published sources, and templates that no-one has removed the redundant fields from (doubtful any glider will need a volume parameter lol).


 * As someone suggested, I would try contacting the posters of the images for the pages with no images on Wikimedia (Schneider ES-56 Nymph, PZL Bielsko SZD-52 and Schneider ES-54 Gnome), and ask if they would be willing to contribute an image. Wikimedia's copyright rules require that uploaded images be placed in the public domain, which should only be a problem if they planned to monetize the image. That said, Flickr often has images already in the public domain (either no known copyright restrictions or public domain in searches) that only need to be transferred and the interface for doing so is much easier than it once was.
 * I convinced my dad to upload an image of his airplane, which is now THE image that comes up in any search. If the registration is known, you can contact the owner, as their contact information is on government aircraft registration databases - they may be willing to see their airplane come up in any search for that type - and will probably have photos they themselves took. I contacted the owner of one aircraft through Facebook (using the name from the FAA site) for more information, which yielded a wealth of information. Owners of rare aircraft also often have a good knowledge of available research materials - and interesting stories.
 * Unfortunately none of the gliders I searched for there came up under those licences, however it is very possible such images are on there but mislabelled (or unlabelled), or are simply not being found by the horrible search engine the site uses - a job in itself.
 * (sorry for the wall of text) Cheers, &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for taking the time to write all that you did. No need to apologise for the “wall of text”. I will peruse your explanations numerous times in coming days in order to fully understand as much as possible.


 * Can I encourage you to write a short essay that could be appended to Template:External media to alert good-faith Users to some of the subtleties you have raised in recent days? A few hours writing such an essay could save you many hours of low-grade work removing ill-advised external images. <i style="color: green;">Dolphin</i> ( t ) 22:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Finnish Arado
NiD, not every source on wikipedia is a 'published work' and nowhere does it say that it has to be. The site is reliable until you can say otherwise, it provides a bibliography and the image among its sources show a Finnish Arado with its historical armament of four 100kg bombs. This is a historical fact at this point, there is a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxLousada (talk • contribs) 09:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that site isn't even close to "reliable".
 * It doesn't have enough footnotes to determine sources, and without editorial oversight errors have creeped in.
 * It used stolen material that they don't own the IP to - which Wikipedia cannot link to. Ever.
 * They copy material with no understanding of the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable one. You copy the information onto Wikipedia and create a misinformation loop, so the errors are copied back to enthusiast's web sites until they get picked up by a semi-reliable magazine. Sites like that are a dime a dozen - and I used to run some of them.
 * Images are not references either as they are open to interpretation - ie Original Research.
 * Find a book that mentions the Finnish mods, and you are good to go, but I would not include this site in any list of sites I would EVER use as a reference. I would recommend looking on internet archive for books that might have the relevant information if you don't have a book on hand. When Wikipedia started, references were not as thoroughly scrutinized as they are now, and sites like this one are the reason they now are, because they caused the incorporation of a LOT of garbage onto wikipedia that was then repeated mindlessly elsewhere, and which needed a lot of work to weed out.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I will find a more 'solid' reference. MaxLousada (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts
Wondered if you can add anything to this circular Discussion – In short the debate is over aircraft receiving individual entries into a table vs. a single entry (notability issue) as it seems to conflict with aircraft ID's - <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">FOX 52</b> <b style="color:dark blue">talk!</b> 04:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Royal Navy Canadian Air Service
You created the Royal Navy Canadian Air Service redirect in 2013 and there have been no subsequent edits. It redirects to the article about the Royal Naval Air Service and can be found in the list of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Navy; I haven't searched for it elsewhere on Wikipedia. Shouldn't it redirect to the Royal Canadian Naval Air Service? I'm no expert on pre-WWII Canadian or British military aviation, but it seems peculiar for there to be two different aviation arms of the Royal Navy with such similar names, and a Google search for the "Royal Navy Canadian Air Service" only leads to information about the Royal Canadian Naval Air Service. Carguychris (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * On further investigation, the "Royal Navy Canadian Air Service" redirect was only linked on the RCN list page and nowhere else on Wikipedia, so I've assumed that it's erroneous and replaced it with a link to the RCNAS article. I'm going to edit the redirect next and relink it to the RCNAS article also. Carguychris (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a redirect, so no subsequent edits were required, and it was a division of the Royal Naval Air Service, which operated in Canada and had nothing whatsoever to do with the RCN or any branch of the Canadian Government or military. It operated some flying boats out of the east coast of Canada and existed before the Royal Canadian Naval Air Service, which WAS under the authority of the Canadian Government. References on it are hard to find, but I'll dig up something shortly. Hence why it was redirected to the RNAS article, and not to any Canadian military page. I created it as a redirect, because it existed, and questions would have eventually arisen, but was not appropriate for the content to be on the RCN page. It was certainly NOT created in error. &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well snip, that's confusing, but I think I've got a handle on it now. The absence of any formal relationship between the RNCAS and RCN explains why I couldn't find anything about it in RCN reference sources, and the similarity in the names evidently fooled Google! I've gone back and revised the RCN aircraft list to better explain the situation, and I've added a "distinguish" hatnote to the Royal Canadian Naval Air Service page. The next piece of the puzzle is to add some info about the RNCAS to the RNAS page, which currently says nothing at all about Canada, even though it addresses RNAR operations in several theaters other than the UK proper; this threw me off the scent. Carguychris (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I have found so far, they received four Sopwith Schneiders, in April or May 1917, and a small contingent of men with one officer (but the source, A History of Canadian Naval Aviation, by JDF Kealy and EC Russell, from 1965, doesn't give the name, which came from somewhere else - alas a bunch of the potentially relevant books are blocked right now), but these don't appear to have been used, and were eventually donated to the USN and sent to Florida, but the US later (in 1918) operated their own air arm out of NS, as the "US Naval Air Force in Canada", pending the organization of the RCNAS, which was no sooner formed and then disbanded. A footnote to a footnote in effect.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Patrolling the vast and rugged Atlantic Canadian coast with four slow, fragile, single-seat, single-engined floatplanes manned by a few ratings and one officer... no wonder it's a footnote. It sounds more like a poorly funded experiment; one wonders if the Admiralty really thought this would be effective. Carguychris (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They expected funding from the notoriously tight fisted Canadian government (lol), and were definitely premature in terms of technology. Now if I can only rediscover where I found the name.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Admiralty expected the Canadians to pay for it?! (rofl) Also seems like a possible lateral arabesque involving the officer. ("Lt Marmalade is driving me mad with his incessant prattle about seaplanes." "Let's place him in charge of the Canadian Air Service and send him to Nova Scotia with some Sopwiths! He will not bother us for the rest of the war!" "Jolly good!") On a more serious note, I'm particularly curious about the reference in the list to Curtiss H.12 flying boats; it seems to originate in this edit you made in Sep 2014. Carguychris (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely possible - he spent a good part of a year in both Canada and the US, not including travel time to cross the Atlantic twice, and he did pester enough higher-ups with memos, suggesting they weren't spending much time actually meeting with him. Perhaps this calls for a visit to the archives - last time while searching for the origins of the Nieuport 12, I found extensive correspondence between the Canadian government and Bishop/Barker, over their misuse of the aircraft they were being paid to store after the war (they were caught because they entered them in races in the US, and the media covered it) - and chapter that like this one, usually gets skipped over. Sadly not much use on Wikipedia since it would all be primary sources, but it would provide a better idea of the reasoning and attitudes.
 * The reference to the Curtiss might be in error - the H.12s seem to have been connected with their long range plans, beyond the initial Sopwith delivery, but were definitely never delivered. A slightly saner choice of aircraft for the job, but still premature, technology-wise. The Canadian factories (then producing Canucks) were going to take too long to deliver the required types, a problem that was later solved by transferring them from the US.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've quietly deleted the H.12 reference; it's a sidetrack anyway, as the list is about Canadian aircraft, which these weren't. Funny that I may have guessed right about the officer; the Admiralty in this era mastered the art of shuffling bothersome and/or questionably competent officers to far-flung and inconsequential yet impressive-sounding posts. Carguychris (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I am sure it still happens too.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Curtiss R-1454
Hi there! Based on your comments from a few years ago at Talk:Curtiss V-2, I've created a basic draft article for the R-1454 at Draft:Curtiss R-1454. I'm not sure what the best way is for me to bring this to the attention of the Aviation project, so I'm posting here as a first stage. Any help or suggestions, including a better place to post this message, would be very welcome. Tevildo (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Page looks good. Post on the talk page at the aircraft engine project page, which is at WT:AIRENG. Alternatively, there is also the Aviation project page at WT:AVIATION which covers all aviation related pages, if you don't get a response, although I would post to the more specific page first.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Nieuport 10 family
I saw that you have been making extensive changes to Template:Nieuport 10 family, changing it to "Nieuport V-strutters‎". Some of the changes do not make much sense, such as grouping the aircraft by wing area and number of seats, fuselage shape, grouping the German-built variants with replicas rather than the other foreign-built variants (this is not consistent with similar navboxes), and the removal of the Nieuport Triplane despite being a variant of the Nieuport 10 and 17. I had created the template as the "Nieuport 10 family" as opposed to "Nieuport V-strutters‎" because not all members of the aircraft family could be described as "V-strutters‎". Given that the changes are highly inconsistent with most other aircraft family navboxes, I suggest that the changes be reverted and further discussed. - ZLEA  T \ C 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, judging by this edit summary, you seem to believe that 80% of the contents did not share a lineage with the Nieuport 10. May I ask which of the aircraft you were referring to?  To avoid any further confusion, I've compiled a family tree of the Nieuport 10 family, showing the branches of development as detailed in their respective articles.
 * Nieuport 10/18/83
 * Nieuport 10 Triplane
 * Nieuport 11 (scaled down derivative)
 * Nieuport 16 (improved 11)
 * Nieuport 17/23 (improved 11)
 * Nieuport 17/23bis (17/23 with new fuselage)
 * Nieuport 21 (re-engined 17)
 * Nieuport 24/25/26 (improved 23)
 * Nieuport 27 (based on the 24)
 * Euler D.I (based on the 17)
 * Euler D.II (re-engined D.I)
 * Siemens-Schuckert D.I (based on the 17)
 * Nieuport 12/13/20/80/81 (re-engined 10)
 * - ZLEA  T \ C 00:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * My changes make sense if you know anything about Nieuports.
 * I have factory drawings that show they are not related. I have terabytes of photos of internal structure showing they are not related. Your "Nieuport 10 family" in reality is just the 10, 12, 12bis, 13, 20, 80, 81 and 83, and nothing else. Your family tree is entirely wrong, as are your notes. The Nieuport 18 was not a 10, but a twin engine v strutter, and the Nieuport 12 is not a re-engineed 10, while the 11 was never, in any universe a version, variant or derivative of the 10.
 * Three different designation systems apply to Nieuports in France - their internal numbering, now only known for the prewar monoplanes - the highest number known for these is XII. The SFA numbering system, which is what is usually used, and which we have the most information on, and the numbering system used operationally by the French mechanics, which went by wing area. Wing area generally provides the most accurate means of breaking them into separate design families, which is why they used them because they denoted the important distinctions between those unrelated groups of types, and why I used them.

As for the split between the 17/21/23 and the later scouts, this is because additional major structural changes were made.
 * The Nieuport 11 was far more than a scaled down derivative - it was an entirely new design that was ALSO much smaller, and shared little more than a general configuration. It had no components in common with the 10, and cannot in any way be regarded as a derivitive or version of the 10, because it wasn't.
 * To make it even more clear, in plan view (from above) all of the Nieuport vee-strutters have the upper longeron wider than the lower longeron at the cockpit, and directly over each other at the rudder post and somewhere at the front. On the 10, they are above each other ahead of the engine, because they initially had an additional front engine mounting that was later deleted and replaced with a horseshow cowling. All of the subsequent related two seat designs shared this configuration of the longerons, such as the 12, which started out with just a larger top wing, and then had the seating changed around, and later received a new engine - sometimes.
 * However, the single seaters had the longerons directly over each other at the firewall, behind the engine, and not ahead of it. The fixed horizontal stabilizer was not just scaled down, but reduced substantially in chord, so it was now narrower than the elevators rather than wider. The cabane structure (connecting the fuselage to the wing centre section) was considerably simplified, as the forward inverted V struts (ie Ʌ) were replaced with single I struts, while the complex |Ʌ| or |∩| rear cabane was also simplified, to a single inverted V (ie Ʌ). The internal structure was also now completely new. The 17 was much refined, and wasn't just an enlarged 11, but had significant changes to the wings, internal structure, and it received new fairings. The 17 didn't initially have a Vickers, but when it was added, that resulted in further modifications to the structure. The 17 added riblets to the wing, and had different reinforcements in the fuselage, while the later group of scouts (aside from the 17bis and 23bis), had a new wing with the spar moved to the rear (visible as a change in the angle of the front cabane struts), a plywood leading edge on the wing, and all of them had internal structural changes, but their longerons were the same length as on the 17 - and the rear wing spars were the same length.


 * First group of two seat designs.
 * 10/83
 * 12/80/81 (new much larger top wing)
 * 13 (12 derivative with larger centre section and splayed cabane struts, one had Le Rhone, the other a Hisso - wing area was greater but not enough for a new number)
 * 12bis (12 with refinements similar to the 17, moulded fuselage sides, full round cowling & spinner)
 * 20 (development of 12, using some 10 internal components for RFC only, moulded fuselage sides on all but first example, but retained the horseshoe cowling)


 * Second group - multiseaters with little in common with first types.
 * 14/82 (much larger two-bay wing, longer fuselage)
 * 15 (another new design, even larger than 14 all around, with new flying surfaces, and powered by a massive inline engine)
 * 18/19 (twin engine bomber, possibly based on 15, but very little beyond an ID drawing has survived. Wing area is not known, but may not be the same as for the 15)


 * First of the single seat fighters.
 * 11 (much smaller and entirely new design, greatly simplified, Proportions are radially different and nothing in common with 10)
 * 16 (reinforced forward fuselage, different cowling for larger engine and headrest)


 * Later single seat fighters - these had nothing in common with the first fighters
 * 17/21/23 (another new design, nothing in common with 10 or 11) The 21 used an 80hp Le Rhone, and a horseshoe cowling, while omitting the headrest - often confused for the 11, hence the nonsense about the Siamese having 11s. They did not. The 23 was externally similar to the 17, but all of the parts were redesigned, and it had longer undercarriage legs.


 * Final refinements
 * 17bis, 23bis, 24, 24bis, 25, 26, 27 (fuselage stringers added, but underlying structure as per the 23 and the fuselage length and wing plan, minus the ailerons was the same as for the 17, but were very different structurally from the 24 onward. Ailerons rounded off on all but 17bis and 23bis, 24, 25 and later examples also got new tail).


 * The Eulers were not closely based on the Nieuports, but instead combined features from the 10, 11 and 17, and can't claim to be descended from any specific Nieuport. They also lack the longeron detail I mentioned above. The Siemens-Schuckert D.I was much closer, but again was not an exact copy, and has noticeable differences, so it cannot claim direct lineage either.


 * Finally, there were four different triplanes built by Nieuport - the first used a 10 fuselage, the second and third a 17 fuselage, and the fourth a 17bis fuselage. I omitted them as they weren't V strutters, any more than the 22, 28, 29 or 30 you omitted were.


 * Is that any clearer? Also, as you made it, this navbox pointlessly duplicates the existing Nieuport navbox, unless it is broken down as I have done it - and will be nominated for deletion.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Given that "V-strutter" is not a true aircraft family based on shared development lineage, and navboxes are rarely made for aircraft which have a specific feature, I wouldn't be opposed to deleting the navbox. -  ZLEA  T \ C 14:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the Nieuport Triplane, as its development is intertwined with three different V-strutters. I've placed it in a new "Related development" section to clarify that it was not a V-strutter itself. -  ZLEA  T \ C 14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated the vee-strut wing area information in the standard Nieuport company template - not sure if the foreign production needs to be as well, as they are already covered in their own nav boxes (Mitsubishi, Nakajima, RTAF, Beardmore, Nieuport & General etc).&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Belay that, I added the foreign production section as well.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Aircraft 3-View Drawings
Could you be more specific about the source of the NA-64 and BT-9 3-view drawings you uploaded? Specifically, if they came from a military manual, could you provide the technical order number? (e.g. AN 01-60F-3 for an AT-6 3-view drawing) Also, where you found/how you obtained the specific copy/scans you used, as I would like to try to find them myself as part of a 3-view drawings project. Plus, I have been making a list of digital aircraft manual sources and locating a provider for prewar aircraft manuals has been difficult. –Noha307 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the drawings, while definitely official, came to me as a set, and minus written identifying information via my father, who had collected them at least 35-40 years ago.


 * I have scans of bad photocopies of BT-9 manuals with Technical Orders 01-60-D1 and 01-60-C1, although neither manual lists a drawing, nor are they maintenance manuals which are far more likely to have drawings, so those weren't the source, and I don't have any of the maintenance manuals that they might have come from.


 * The NA-64 manual wouldn't have a technical order number since it was never operated by any US military service, but was instead being reported on. On that note, I had a scan of the German flight manual for the NAA-64, but no illustrations were provided. Note that the same drawings also appeared in a number of unrelated contemporary publications. In both cases I suspect that North American drawings were copied for a completely different publication, as the drawings I have from North American are better drawn and more detailed, including an extended report from North American to the US military - but as it is also a scan of a photocopy, the numbers are illegible, but seems to be for US Army Specification number 98-701 and contract W-535 AC-9345 under North American report number NA-130. Some drawings I have came via NACA (NASA NTRS), including the data used for the BT-14 drawing I did. Both aerodynamic research papers (with wind tunnel models scaled off of real aircraft), and technical reports have proven a rich source for drawings. A lot of the material I have that is original came from period publications (books, manuals, magazines, stress reports, etc) from the aviation museum here in Ottawa, which has an entire room devoted to manuals - including a large collection of German technical manuals, which are VERY detailed. Unfortunately the last Conservative government got rid of the librarian, and it is now hard to get access.


 * The British published a series of rigging drawings, some of which have been reprinted in books, and a smaller selection of those are on wikimedia - but there were a lot more done than I have ever seen published, but aside from a few being on the IWM website, most would require paying the British archives for the sets, and they charge by the hour for "research", mostly to find them. They also have complete drawing sets for any aircraft produced under licence in the UK during WW2, and a small selection of those are also on the IWM website. Other national archives are similarly posting material from their collections, and while most of it is photographs, sometimes there are technical drawings. One Japanese archive had a lot of detailed aircraft drawings, with a high chance of any types imported for evaluation showing up there but I have lost their link in a HD crash. They were very hard to navigate due to the language barrier though.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Armstrong Whitworth Ensign and "Ricco 2017" ref
In 2021, as part of an expansion of the Ensign article, you added several citations to a Ricco 2017 - unfortunately you never defined what the reference actually is.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks, updated. The source is .&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)