Jump to content

Talk:Portuguese Air Force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I am working on this and it should get finished in the next few days. Please be patient and don't delete it in the meantime. Thanks.

Guinnog 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There we are. I think I've brought it beyond a stub now. Working on finding some good pictures. Guinnog 20:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punkmorten (or anybody else!), I am of the opinion that:

Copyright Notice This portal under the addresses “http://www.forçaaérea.pt” and “http://www.emfa.pt” is property of the Portuguese Air Force. All the materials contained herein, including videos, graphics, texts, images, drawings, music, sounds and any other type of information are property of the Portuguese Air Force or were included with the permission of the entities that have the respective copyrights, being thus protected by copyrights and similar, Industrial Property Rights, under the Portuguese Laws, E.C. Laws and all International agreements and conventions signed by Portugal, and, therefore, the material can only be used under the conditions of this Portal. You may freely copy, download or use part or the totality of the material contained herein for personal or public use, provided you do not have any commercial or offensive purpose. You must, however, refer your source. Regarding the sites linked to the Portal, you should get permission from the authors or refer the source, according to the respective copyright notices.

at http://www.emfa.pt/www/avisos.php?lang=ing

gives me the right to post images here so long as they are credited.

Would I be right or wrong?

I'm going to post one anyway as it needs an image; maybe you can advise me if I've misunderstood.

I'm working on a version of the national insignia and should get it done tonight or tomorrow. I'm only learning Illustrator!

Thanks Guinnog 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions

[edit]

Units, formations, and bases[edit] Shortcuts: WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME WP:MILMOS#BASENAME An article about a unit, formation, or base should be placed at "Name (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs; or, in cases where no relevant formal name exists or where a formal name is not commonly employed by historians, the most common name used in historical literature.

from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Units, formations, and bases

Therefore all units and bases should be in Portuguese primarily a la: 

Esquadra 81 - (81 squadron) or possibly Esquadra 81 - (81 squadron)

--Petebutt (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article move

[edit]

I have reverted the name of the article back to English as I cant see any reason why a non-English term should be used. Raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for sanity check, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are sane. Definitely the English version. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft: Current inventory

[edit]

The article's Current inventory of aircraft section has incorrect data from Flightglobal's World Air Forces. I recommend that multiple sources be always used when possible for aircraft inventories and that the data is cross-checked.

  1. The F-16 version is designated as the AM, since it received the MLU;
  2. The F-16 twin-seat trainers are also combat-capable and used as such;
  3. The PoAF no longer has a total of 38 F-16s in service;
  4. Portugal's NH-90 purchase has been canceled for quite some time now;
  5. The NH-90 was never intended for the PoAF, but instead it was intended to be operated and owned by the Army;
  6. The Dassault Falcon 50 has been removed from the list but they are still being operated by the PoAF in the VIP transport, MEDEVAC and organ transport missions;
  7. There are 3x C-130H and 3x C-130H-30 in service, totaling 6 (not 5) C-130s;
  8. The Alpha Jet is no longer used in the light attack role.

Best regards, Get_It (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data from Flightglobal's World Air Forces is once again being strictly used as a sole source for the aircraft section, thus leading to the removal of also sourced content and the addition of aircraft not in service and "on order". I have to disagree with only Flightglobal being used as a source and with the inclusion of aircraft "on order" as per the arguments given on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 155#RfC: Aircraft inventory table on air force pages. Best regards, Get_It (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Portuguese Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portuguese Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

number of P-3C and C-130

[edit]

Below is comparison on information on Portuguese Air Force (PAF), WAF, scramble.nl and other source:

PAF page

  • P-3C: 5 [1]
  • C-130: 3 C-130H-30 and unknown number C-130H [2]

WAF 2020/2019

  • P-3C: 4
  • C-130: 4

WAF 2018/2017

  • P-3C: 5
  • C-130: 4

scramble.nl (per 16 April 2020)

  • P-3C : 5
  • C-130 : 5 (3 C-130H-30 and 2 C-130H)

other source

Can we agree that total number of PAF's P-3C is 5 and C-130 is 5? Ckfasdf (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beforehand, I'm sorry but given the current situation I'm overworked and tired to properly help out with this subject. When it comes to the P-3C, I believe that, regardless of maintenance schedules, the count of 5 is correct. Regarding the C-130 fleet, one aircraft was lost and w/o while another airframe has been "sidelined" for a long time; but the count of 5 makes sense given the "in service" context. Now, can we agree that WAF is not a reliable source by itself? Best regards, -- Get_It (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portuguese_Air_Force&oldid=1214102931"