Wikipedia:Userboxes en This user is a native speaker of the English language. This user is a participant in WikiProject Aviation.

French Navy initialy planned to convert ex trawler Apache (Malin) to a commando support vessel. Convertion was considered to be too expensive. Finally ex A616 Malin was converted into a patrol vessel to replace La Rieuse in La Reunion. In 2016, P701 Malin is still a patrol vessel Take a look at the french wiki page : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Malin_(bateau) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.190.12.176 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information, i'll go amend my edit. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi im vijay rath I just wanted to say that you have done wrong by editing the page list of active ships in peoples liberation army navy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay rath (talk • contribs) 14:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I don't understand according what you concluded that those informations which I put to "Notes" weren't appropriate and then deleted it, when literally with the same way is edited also the List of active United States military aircraft and nobody has problem with it there. Another thing, why do you think that hyperlinks for aircraft's roles which I put there weren't also appropriate when again, here List of active United States military aircraft nobody thinks it is wrong. Are there different rules for wikipedia pages with US military equipment and different rules for wikipedia pages with Russian military equipment or what? Because I don't see any reason why something what is allowed in one wiki page couldn't be allowed in other. At the end, those UAVs which Russian Ground Forces use are not patrol but reconnaissance. Also most of Russian sources called those UAVs "разведывательный БПЛА" which means "reconnaissance UAV". BlackFlanker (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BlackFlanker. Nothing personal against your edits, its just per the guidelines and consensus at WP:AVILIST, some of your changes were a little off the mark. However the reliable sources you added to the article were very excellent and helpful, so thank you for that :)

Per the guidelines / consensus at WP:AVILIST, we try keep the notes section to a strict minimum, as excessive notes (like the ones you added) make the table very difficult to read on mobile or tablet browsers. Besides, those notes are better off on the individual aircraft articles anyway. And try not overuse hyperlinks, they are both ugly and unnecessary. As for the Patrol vs Reconnaissance thing, WP:AVILIST says;

So as you can see, reconnaissance aircraft come under the patrol category.

I am afraid I don't know anything about the situation at List of active United States military aircraft, as I am mostly concerned with European aviation articles. But no, AFAIK there are no separate rules for American articles, except the usage of US-English over British-English haha! Although I do re-call a discussion over at WP:AVILIST that the American list would be allowed an extra "Manufacturer" column.

Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochus the Great You're welcome, I spent over 2 days of searching those sources at Russian wikipedia and various Russian websites.

Ok, I accept that I put a little bit much texts in the notes but to my opinion at least some basic infos such as variants of aircraft, number of ordered etc. should be there same as it is in List of active United States military aircraft.

When I was editing the List of active Russian military aircraft I was mostly doing it according the List of active United States military aircraft because these two Air Forces are still the main rivals in the current world so it would be right if those pages would looks simmilar in some ways.

As for the hyperlinks, it provides to get more detailed infos about something just by one click, so I would not say they are completely unnecessary, especially in the aircraft role column.

The WP:AVILIST category for aircraft's roles is too simple. Idk if it was good idea to put several types of different roles into those few ones because it can easily confuse users. For example, the Interceptor and Fighter or Bomber and Strategic bomber are all different roles. I think I don't have to go into details about this because I'm sure you know the roles of aircrafts well, I just want to say that there should be allowed to use more specific roles except those in the category. The List of active United States military aircraft also doesn't strict hold to what WP:AVILIST says even when it's one of the main wikipedia pages about military aviation.

Also I want to inform you that I will edit the List of active Russian military aircraft again but now more according to WP:AVILIST , but I would want to know whether you at least partially agree with what I wrote above.

Thanks. BlackFlanker (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again BlackFlaner. Yes, to us the roles used by WP:AVILIST may feel very simple, but what you have to remember is that Wikipedia has to be accessible to the average reader (who may or may not have any knowledge or experience with military aviation). That is why the community at WP:AVILIST decided on using the roles I mentioned above. To the average reader a bomber is a bomber (I.e a plane that drops bombs) putting the word strategic before it means nothing to the average reader, and might even confuse them. However if you want to use some more specific roles, then I don't think that would be too much of a problem, as long as you keep as close as possible to WP:AVILIST.

For example, if you really want, we can probably get away with changing "Patrol" to "Reconnaissance" (as I still think that is simple enough for the average reader to understand). We can also change "Bomber" to "Strategic bomber" if you like, as I do agree that Russia and the USA are unique in that they are the only air forces operating large numbers of these types. But I disagree with the use of "Interceptor", as I feel the term would be completely lost to the average reader, so I think we should stick to WP:AVILIST on that one.

As for the use of hyperlinks, I agree they are not completely useless, but they do become useless (and ugly) if every instance of the term uses a hyperlink. Wikipedia guidelines says each article should only use hyperlinks for a specific term once. So as an example in the table below, "Strategic bomber" is only linked once for the first instance, the rest don't need it.

Regarding notes for different variants or number of aircraft ordered, that information is not important enough to warrant inclusion in the notes. Why? Because this is first and foremost a "List" article, and is not meant to be a comprehensive account of each aircraft. As a reader, if I want to know more information about the different variants or upgrades of the Tupolev Tu-160, then I can click on its hyperlink under the "Type" column and find all the information there. That was the consensus agreed at WP:AVILIST. There is also the importance of accessibility and readability for readers using mobile, tablet or other small screen devices. As excessive notes in the notes section severely squash the table and make it almost unreadable on those small screens. This is also why all images were from aircraft tables too.

Again, I don't know why List of active United States military aircraft does not adhere fully to WP:AVILIST. But I don't think copying that article is the solution. But I do understand your concern, and it can feel a little unfair when we stick to the rules while others don't. Just look at List of active Indian military aircraft, they are breaking lots of WP:AVILIST rules. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yes BlackFlaner, thank you for saying you will try edit more in accordance with WP:AVILIST, and keep up the good work! Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Antiochus the Great , yes an average reader probably doesn't care whether there is strategic bomber or just bomber as a role, but you know that not only average readers are browsing through these articles and therefore it may looks incorrect to some people. Therefore it would be nice if there could be used more specific roles, at least those ones with which you agreed above.

Ok, I agree with your example of using hyperlinks but since aircrafts in those lists are not sorted by roles (attack, attack, attack, bomber, bomber, bomer, etc.) but by names, I'm not sure whether it would be correct to use hyperlinks like you typified it above, because the roles are sorted randomly (attack, transport, patrol, bomber, etc.) and the hyperlinks may not looks good if they would be used, for example, in every third or fourth line.

I understand that too much texts in notes can squash or deformate the page on small screens but I think that notes column is worth more than just some links. Anyways, few words in that column won't do anything serious with the page on other devices.

I was looking on various Air Force list pages and it seems that almost none of them stick to the WP.AVLIST so strictly and also no one tries do something with it.

For example, look at these ones List of active Canadian military aircraft tons of texts in notes and roles which aren't even listed in the WP.AVLIST, List of active United Kingdom military aircraft versions of aircrafts submitted in notes, German Air Force numbers of ordered aircrafts in notes, Finnish Air Force , Swedish Air Force , Royal Norwegian Air Force totally different lists than WP.AVLIST determines. So if the WP.AVLIST rules have to be so necessarily applied in List of active Russian military aircraft , then it should be applied in other Air Force list pages as well, otherwise it doesn't make any sense why those rules are there when almost no one sticks to them.

One last question, why do you try enforce those rules only in some specific articles such as List of active Russian military aircraft and not also in other such as those articles I mentioned above, and make people comply with the rules? I'm not trying to blame you for anything, I'm just trying to understand why it's like that. You said before that you are mostly concerned with European aviation articles, but nevertheless I don't see that you have any interest to asserting the WP.AVLIST rules also in other Air Force list pages, where lots of rules were already violated. BlackFlanker (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No time to waste with a such person.You are 0 compared to me.Benniejets (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]