Talk:Estonian Air Force

History

This section looks awfully like www.mil.eeDirk P Broer (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like mil.ee. Worst thing is that mil.ee is harshly mistaking about the air force history. I don't know who they paid to write such a .... Anyhow I think the World War 2 part ought to go. Estonians serving in Luftwaffe could be a new topic but it doesn't fit here.

(talk) 1:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

False info

After 7 months from my last comment about World War II and Estonian Air Force's relations, the topic still existed here under the name of "Estonian Air Force in World War II". Estonian Air Force did not take part of World War II, because Estonian Republic did not take part of Second World War, thus it was occupied with out a use of war. This is text book 1-on-1 and there for Estonian Air Force couldn't have possibly taken part of the Second World War. Moreover they couldn't have done it as a part of Luftwaffe - The German Air Force, because it was the German air force, not Estonian. If some Estonians (people, not a country) did take part of the war in Luftwaffe's or Soviet Air Forces uniform, it does not turn these air forces into Estonian air force. In short terms Estonian Air Force was liquidated in 1940 with the peaceful occupation of the country. So could we PLEASE stop talking about Estonia taking part of World War II!

Aside of that usual topic few smaller things I'd like to adress:

• Estonian Air Force is not looking to acquire light combat helicopters. This is not in the current nor in the next official defence planning act.
• Estonian Air Force is not looking to acquire search and rescue helicopters. The Coast Guard have recived 2 new SAR helicopters, it's their job.
• Air Defence Battalion(in older version a division) is not under the command of Estonian Air Force, but Estonian Army.

(talk) 23:53, 3 January May 2009 (UTC)

Aero L-39 Albatros

I know those two Albatroses they had recently were only leased to the EAF from abroad, but should we mention that they served ? Previously, an older version of the article did mention them a bit (plus a few photos) while they were still in service - but now, every single reference about them is completely missing. Logically, I looked into this article about the EAF's former aircraft. But I was disappointed to see that it's more or less just about the early 20th century aircraft of the EAF. Do you think I should add the L-39s there (maybe under a "jet trainer heading"), along with appropriate reference ? I am asking because I don't want to jump the gun. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Modifications to equipment table

I contest the incorrect interpretation of WP:IMAGEMOS and the edit that was made based on it. The guideline specifically says "Don't use images in place of tables or charts." In place of is a synonym for instead of and thus the sentence suggests that you should not use images instead of tables. Using images inside tables is acceptable and actually a common practice with equipment lists. Furthermore, removing the images could have been done in a way that would not have deprecated the useful information contained in the table. Based on this, I am going to revert the edit.--Estonian1885 (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No it has to do with crammed images in articles, and creating formatting issues. Further there is this Use of images which should help you - FOX 52 (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Then you referenced the wrong reason for the edit initially. And again, you can remove the images without deprecating the useful information in the current list. There is no reason to delete the whole list and replace it with an outdated one. I will revert your edit without the images.--Estonian1885 (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, why has the information in the table been deprecated and references broken (link to the change)? The reasoning given for the edit makes absolutely no sense. I have read through the guidelines for aircraft lists, tables, general list guidelines, etc and nothing supports this sort of edit. Also, I have checked one of the sources given (World Air Forces) and it is clearly incorrect. For example, the 2015 version claims that there were 2 L-39 and 4 R-44 in service. However, the An-2 was also (and still is) in use. These sources support my claim: | Source 1, | Source 2, | Source 3. The current version does not seem to fix that mistake. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to lose the information about the aircraft procurement/introduction dates. They were perfectly neatly organized into a separate notes section. None of the edits made in this manner have made the article better.--Estonian1885 (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind your source(s) are almost 3 years old, as opposed the 2018 citations. Many issues can change any of those programs, also dates and such should really be covered in actual article. - FOX 52 (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Only one of my sources (published by Estonian Defence Forces themselves) is 3 years old, and that was on purpose - to demonstrate that even since 2015 the World Air Forces information was incomplete. The other two sources are from 2017. Did you not even bother to check them? I can also point you to IISS The Military Balance 2017, which clearly has two An-2 listed. Furthermore, the airplanes are supposed to be replaced by March 2018, which means, that until that date, they are still in service. Face it, the source you have provided is incomplete. In addition, if the dates should be covered in the article (you have provided no guideline that supports this sort of reasoning here), then you should have at the very least lifted the notes (along with the references) under the Equipment section. But no, you decided to deprecated it all and break the references while doing that. Also, the image you have added next to the tables messes up their format by shrinking them sideways. Thus you have made and edit that directly contradicts the aviation lists guideline. Your edits have done nothing but lower the quality of the article. You need to restore the information, fix the references and fix the image placement. I am not going to engage in an edit war, but I will take further course of action if you refuse to compromise or comply with me.--Estonian1885 (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

On style: I see no clear benefit to either style of table - with pictures or without - except when larger air forces are concerned, when the multitude of pictures will create a mess. I suggest keeping with convention and avoiding the photos here for the time being. On sources: Estonian1885 seems to have provided the most up-to-date sources. Unless you have a reason to doubt those sources, I suggest keeping with their information. François Robere (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean losing the table entirely? If so, I think I could agree with that. More substance could be provided under the Equipment section because there aren't really that many items anyway. Thank you for your contribution.--Estonian1885 (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

English sources should supersede foreign languages one when possible, and it the information is up to date 47.152.55.107 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see there being a preference for English sources because they are easier to verify and use for most other users of English Wikipedia. However, considering that often times the information can be extremely specific, finding a source that actually fits the purpose can be downright impossible. I am currently trying to update information about each Estonian Defence Forces unit, and finding information even in native language is extremely difficult.--Estonian1885 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't, but given the small number of units that is a possibility, though I would advise against it to keep everything clean and consistent with similar articles. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)