Talk:Soko J-22 Orao

message: In the part of the article that talks about the Orao shooting down the Tomahawk cruise missile, it mentions NATO aggression.  I do not believe that the NATO bombings were aggression, as the author of this article does, but rather a means to end the Serbian aggression towards her neighbors.  I believe that we should remove this phrase (I have already seen the needs source post after the comment).
A agree with the agression statement.
13.11.06 What you agree or disagree with is your own affair, hence keep your comments to yourself unless they're related to technical and operational details of this aircraft.
Practice what you preach.
The first guy is funny.
Of course it was aggression of the worst kind.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.35.211 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like unintentional irony as much as the next guy, but that is beyond asinine.--172.162.135.177 (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NATO Aggression 

message: The IAR-93 article says that both Romanian and Yugoslav prototypes flew at the same time, October 1974. Here it says that the Yugoslav prototype flew in November 1976. Which is correct? Drutt (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First flight 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:J22yu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:JRV Soko J-22 Orao.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:NJ-22 FRY.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: As per: http://www.janes.com/article/75600/
Maybe someone more knowledgeable could enter this new information into the article.
Jurryaany (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New upgrade/modernization 

message: Hi, added some citation needed tags and rewritten the lead today, absolutely all changes have been reverted without so much as a word given for why. Reverts ought to have an expressed reasoning for why they're done. Kyteto (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I do notice that you appear to be adding text which you know to be unreferenced as you are tagging it with citation needed tags - please provide a source.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Nigel. I didn't think I had actually added any text towhich I had affixed a citation needed tag to; I have altered many pre-existing sentences that I have tagged. Amongst other things, the version (by a very new editor) removed all the citation needed tags, but not the content I had placed them against. I've done my best so far to cite some of the old content that we're left to guess at what the source was, but I am still coming up short. There's a fair few sentences I'd like to delete, but I was going to give it some time to see if anybody (perhaps the original submitters?) will cite any of it if given the chance before proceeding to binning. Kyteto (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that, as they are now edit-warring to keep uncited content in the article, their object wasn't to do with objecting to the uncited - that it has been altered at all maybe. Kyteto (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Accuse others of what you do? Nice tactic you got there. Karen Kho (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you've come to the talk page. Do you mind if I ask what was the rationale behind your two reverts with blank edit summaries? It is typical to have explanations expressed for executing such action. Kyteto (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you are now reverting with the edit description "Reverting vandalism". Can you elaborate on what part of the edits were vandalism - not accepting your WP:POV-ish change of "targets" to "military targets" without evidence/cites, or the addition of citations to Chant, or the implementation of WP:AIRCRASH to determine if the mention of a lost aircraft was noteworthy? Kyteto (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I ask for you to please address the accusation of vandalism you made against me in this edit? You're clearly checking this talk page. Kyteto (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions silently reverted without reason given 

message: Is there any good reason why this and the IAR-93 have separate articles - they are the same aircraft, after all?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I wouldn't merge them. Only two types of this plane exist, one built in Yugoslavia and another in Romania. It is no longer being built, so there is no fear we will have more articles about different types of the same plane. Since each type was built in one of the countries and is representative of two separate aircraft industries and most of their service was inside those countries (and I do believe there are some differences in performance and construction, but I'm not sure) I propose not to merge them. Karen Kho (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's much reason to have them separate, other than the difficulty of choosing which name to give the article e.g. should it be Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur? The design is identical, and the merged content would still not result in a large article. Kyteto (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reason to have them separated as I have stated above. Karen Kho (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard your reason, I didn't think it was particularly decisive/strong. Take the Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight for example, it was also produced by Saab in Sweden (as the HKP 4) and by Kawasaki in Japan (as the KV-107II) - we addressed them all in one article. Thus, having a second production line/an alternative name for the exact same aircraft typically doesn't justify a split on its own. Kyteto (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you don't think it's decisive/strong enough that's your problem. Still a stronger argument than yours. Karen Kho (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger? 

message: According to User:Karen Kho in this edit summary, the recent contentious edits have apparently been explained by them on the talkpage. If this is same talk page referenced, I cannot find any such explanation here from them; the history for this page shows it hasn't been edited prior to this edit since 15 July of this year. Am I looking in the wrong place?
Regardless, let's try to discuss this out. As noted correctly by User:Karen Kho in in this edit, "WP:AIRCRASH says incidents "are mostly non-prominent", that means there are exceptions" - Indeed, there are exceptions. If we read the whole paragraph of that policy, it does state objective criteria for making such exceptions for inclusion. Quoting from WP:AIRCRASH: "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent. They account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft. Military aircraft accidents may be suitable for inclusion in the relevant List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. For accidents involving light aircraft (maximum gross weight of 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) or less) or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is: 
the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)."''
As these accidents did not A. involve the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia, and/or B. resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations - surely, that should mean that, under the above policy, these losses are non-notable and should not be covered in the article Soko J-22 Orao. Am I applying these wrong/is there evidence that would affect either of these criteria to state? Kyteto (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep looking, I explained it here and you forgot to mention that you could have created "list of accidents" section, but you did not. Because, why would you? Karen Kho (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please directly link it e.g. like how I've linked this, because my conclusion so far is that I cannot find it. You've said twice you've explained it 'here' (as in this talk page?) but I can find a grand total of four edits by your account on this talk page's history page: The first, The second, The third, and The fourth. The second, third, and fourth submissions are all to do with a proposed merger (not relevant to aircrashs), and the first says "Accuse others of what you do? Nice tactic you got there" - not what most people would identify as an explanation. Are you sure you've made an explanation here? Kyteto (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

text: As I forgot to comment on this, as you seem to be asking for input on it, yes, I could have created a "list of accidents" section. I did not, as I don't have any entries that meet WP:AIRCRAFT's two measures for inclusion: A. involve the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia, and/or B. resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations. Those two standards for inclusion apply to an accidents section just as much as anywhere else in an article. With nothing meeting the inclusion standards, I saw no point in creating an empty section - this is why I did not bother, as you put it. Kyteto (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Application of WP:AIRCRASH 

message: Intro has the J-22 as a “subsonic” aircraft. Glancing at its specifications, I noted its top speed is Mach 0.96, and it is noted in the article that she is capable of achieving supersonic speeds. Would anyone have any issue if I altered it to read “transonic” vice “subsonic?” Mach 0.96 is well-within the upper range of transonic flight and barely breaking Mach 1 is, as well. Thoughts? For reference, without doing any research, another aircraft labeled as “transonic” is the F-86 Sabre and I believe the MiG-15. MWFwiki (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure we should use the word transonic without a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, fair enough; I only have two aircraft encyclopedias. One described it as “subsonic” and the other didn’t mention its speed until later in the article where it was indeed described as “transonic.” Most of the Google/Google book searches do mention that initial tender sought a “transonic” airframe. You find anything? MWFwiki (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Subsonic” vs. “Transonic”