This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related articles
Denniss has reversed all my edits regarding spacing inbetween model and variants, claiming I am incorrect. Yet strangely, he/she has left many examples of model/variant with no spacing, as I did, so why is this? Why is it ok for Denniss to leave "mistakes" withing the article that he/she claims I vandalised? Why doesn't he/she edit the entire article to reflect the "correct" way, instead of just concentrating on my edits? How is that fair? Where is the consistency here? He/she apparently has no issues with other people doing what I did, apparently that is of no concern to him/her. Why is that? Why is it ok to have both nomenclature styles in the article, as long as I didn't do any of it? Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a book to the bibliography but Denniss removed it. Why is that? Am I not allowed to add anything to the bibliography for this article? Is there a limit to the amount of books that can be added? Do I need his/her permission to add any more books to the bibliography from now on? I've added it back so I hope he/she leaves it alone or at least does me the courtesy of explaining why it doesn't deserve to be here, especially as it is included in dozens of other bibliographies on Wikipedia Troy von Tempest (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done a quick perusal of Wikipedia articles for aircraft mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_II, and it seems that the spread between present tense (such-and-such is fighter) and past tense (such-and-such was a fighter) is about 50:50. The point about the Arado still being "in existence" is an interesting one. In the sense that the restored remains of Arados still remain in air museums, yes that seems correct. Although the actual statement in the article is that the Arado "is a jet-powered bomber", and clearly what is in those museums is no longer a jet-powered bomber. It is an historical artifact. I'm easy either way, but I'd thought I'd post this conundrum here, in case other editors have any thoughts. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
