Talk:Spanish Air and Space Force

message: I agree. In fact, Ejercito del Aire (WWII) would be a good section inside a future History of the Spanish Air Force main article linked from Spanish Air Force. --Maurice27 13:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging both articles

message: If there is a separate air force for Croatia during WWII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_of_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia) not attached to the air force of today, why not make an article about the FARE (Fuerza Aerea de la Republica Española)? It was quite distinct from the Nationalist air force, which is the precursor of today's Spanish Air Force. The FARE was something completely apart that I think it deserves an article --83.61.246.162 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Xufanc (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish Republican Air Force

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Spanish Air Force's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named " World Air Forces 2015 pg. 12":
From Royal Cambodian Air Force: 
From Central African Republic Air Force: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Spanish Air Force]] 

message: The current images in addition to being poor in quality are repetitive, you can't put in the article 2 consecutive images of the Eurofighter and a third in the gallery, two of the c130 and two images of the c295 that are seen at a time, because one is next to table and the other image is below in the gallery. It is much better to add two images of the main fighter aircrafts in formation with a good quality and one of the c130 refueling two f18, in this way it doesn't become repetitive.--95.20.97.44 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--95.22.190.163 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Really dont need the gallery as it duplicates other images in the article and galleries are not used when we have a link to commons images. I have tweaked some image placement but anybody is welcome to add any relevant images in the appropriate place in the article, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Added image(s) that show the variety of their inventory, removed shadowed, poor quality image(s) - FOX 52 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I Agered with Fox, The Photo You Using Was Not Clear Shot Photo and The Galarries Even We Don't Need. Just In Case. By Tge way, You Should Put The 4 Picture Or 5 Pictures If You wanted to. Just Don't add the Non-Clearshot Photo.Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The images that you put are repetitive and have poor quality, don't even look good, the profile looks blurry, it is ridiculous to put two images of the same type in a row and that the second one has a horrible quality. And FOX52, it is clear that you don't learn, forget your accounts and forget to edit in wikipedia. I'm going to report you for WP: SOCK. By the way, I don't accept this, has to say more people not only you.--95.22.190.163 (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was Not a Sockpuppet, Im Just Help FOX 52's Articles. I think you have Mentel Cases. So Stop Insulting FOX 52 and Me .Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

text: See my comment about the gallery not being used so should not be added again, any images that users think add to the article can be added in the suitable section without creating duplicates. If anybody wants to change any of the images in the article then please just list tem here with a reason why, please dont edit war and you guys need to cut out the personal attacks, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the images on the right of the inventory table, not about the gallery, I agree with that. These four images, if the image of the Dassault Falcon 20 is discarded, are the 4 images that must be next to the table because these images are the ones that were originally, before the editing war. Then it could be discuss to change this images. --87.223.84.198 (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point consensus is to use the four there now - For: , ,  - Opppose : 1 IP user - FOX 52 (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

text: A  mystery account who began contributing 5 days before this debate started (That's some fortune telling). I’ve been at this for five years I’m not about to jeopardize my work for a non-issue such as this. Besides myself and Hawkeye Ridgesaw,  summited his support for the change in this edit – And am not seeing how this image is somehow inferior to this image image - FOX 52 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of the current equipment 

message: What happened with the article? Zarargoza Air Base - 87.217.213.133 (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Zaragoza Air Base. --Sitacuisses (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zarargoza Air Base 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion