Talk:SPAD S.XIII

message: Please Mr (Ms?) PIPE, I'm really not out to get you! BUT sooner or later one has to consider how relevant a fact is to an article. 23 squadron RAF received a few SPAD S.XIIIs while they were in the process of converting from the SPAD S.VII to the Sopwith Dolphin. Now in an article on 23 squadron it may well be notable that this caused fewer problems than the operation of three types at once might have because after all the S.XIII and the Dolphin mk.1 used the same engine. On the other hand this is a very small chapter in the history of the S.XIII, which was never "officially" an RAF fighter. The relevance of the Dolphin and the S.XIII both using 200 hp (geared) Hispano-Suiza engines (after all, so did several other types) is so marginal in this article it does no more than render the text harder to follow. A footnote perhaps? One always hesitates to revert good-faith edits made by knowlegeable, well-meant editors intent on nothing more than improving articles, but not to the extent of allowing the constant cramming in of further detail into every sentence into which it can be crammed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly - you're still at it! - in this case the Halberstadt D.II's having a single gun. Sorry old man, since I generally speaking have a lot of respect for your erudition and sincerity, but so what? Guynemer (like some contemporaries among allied airmen) seems sometimes to have called the Albatros "D" types (and perhaps even the similar Rolands), "Halberstadts" - but of course this is even less relevant - TO THIS ARTICLE. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that the reference (and dubious unsubstantiated claim) are of any relevance whatsoever for an aircraft that was out of service before the S.XIII even flew, and the Dolphin belongs only in the similar section if at all.NiD.29 01:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for causing confusion by not giving my latest remarks here their own heading - just that when I came to add an "extended edit summary" for cutting the Halberstadt bit I noticed that exactly the same thing had been done (by the same editor) almost exactly three years ago! The Sopwith Dolphin reference is of course now ancient history - my "keep it relevant" remark on the other hand is (alas) timeless. The Halberstadt gets into it because of Guynemer's remark (quoted here) about the capabilities of the type (actually superseded at the time, as NiD.29 remarks). We can speculate (on this talk page, but NOT in this or any other Wiki article) that he actually meant the Albatros and/or Roland "D" types which were still around on the French front at the time. Airmen are often given to imprecise and generic identifications of their enemies of this kind. In any case, nothing can make the edit I reverted relevant, unfortunately. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sopwith Dolphin 

message: Substituted at 05:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Sorry to barge in guys, I do help maintain a few pages but I don't do corrections on pages I'm not familiar with.
Under the first header Design and development, it says "SPAD 12". Since English is not my native tongue, is this some kind of comparison or it's just missing an " I ".
HF Netweezurd (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The SPAD S.XII is correct. Similar but different aircraft armed with a cannon. I have moved your comment to the correct place (the bottom, as it is a new topic). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up? Typo? 

message: The information about the SPAD XIII at Sky Harbor has a "citation needed" flag for the claim that that it is painted to look like Frank Luke's plane. I've found a source direct from Sky Harbor that agrees with this claim. However, the document also has some built-in links to Wikipedia elsewhere, making me concered this could lead to a case of WP:CIRCULAR. Should I go ahead with adding the source or should I leave it as is?
Additionally, I could reach out direct to the group that handled the restoration (GossHawk Unlimited) and inquire if they can confirm this claim. Would that be preferabale? Cmdrraimus (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phoenix Sky Harbor SPAD XIII