Jump to content

Talk:Royal Netherlands Air Force

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

Orphaned references in Royal Netherlands Air Force

[edit]

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 Royal Netherlands 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. 17":

  • From Estonian Air Force: "World Air Forces 2015 pg. 11". Flightglobal Insight. 2015. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
  • From Guatemalan Air Force: "World Air Forces 2015 pg. 17". Flightglobal Insight. 2015. Retrieved 25 March 2015.

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⚡ 01:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Royal Netherlands Air Force

[edit]

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 Royal Netherlands 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. 17":

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⚡ 19:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Netherlands 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of F16 in inventory not correct.

[edit]

Hi, this source (Government) says it owns 68 F16 fighters. https://www.defensie.nl/organisatie/luchtmacht/materieel/vliegtuigen-en-helikopters/f-16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A466:EA61:1:74D5:9E:F31A:97BB (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which information is out of date as they are actively phasing out F-16 and Phasing in F-35 (not on a 1-for-1 basis). Some of the F-16 will be disposed of to Draken US. Correct active no. of F-16 in inventory is approx 25 (third party source) 2A02:1810:3E21:A500:D4EB:AEF0:EA5C:A820 (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed updates to some numbers in the article

[edit]

I saw the poorly sourced attempted revisions there and I don't think they were an improvement to the article. Are there better sources for the info? John (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to strongly 'personal opinion' driven updates from FOX-52 I totally agree as his source is a third party magazine publication World Air Forces which often is out of date and not reliable - which often is prevailing over official government sources apparently. 2A02:1810:3E21:A500:D4EB:AEF0:EA5C:A820 (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You did it again, reverting back to an incorrect inventory overview, fully outdated and lacking recent sources other than incorrect WAF magazine - a shame! 2A02:1810:3E21:A500:291B:5808:509E:6180 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MQ9 Reaper in Inventory

[edit]

Unfortunately updating the actual number of MQ9 reapers in the inventory table is continously reverted by user FOX-52 as both the vendor (General Atomics) as well as the user (Royal Netherlands Air Force) as reliable sources indicate that they have been delivered and are in the process towards Full Operational Status. The Dutch MoD and Royal Netherlands Air Force are also in the process (decision made) to source 4 additional MQ9 reapers, also confirmed and soon to bo formalised & announced. How to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.248.54.18 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly show the wording in the source that states "that they have been delivered" as well as the "signed contract for the additional units" - that should suffice - FOX 52 talk! 23:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, all in The Netherlands (Politicians, Military, Manufacturer) know that the initial 4 reapers ordered (through FMS) are delivered and operational in the inventory, and as said; all (formal) publications confirm that the sourcing of ordering 4 additional reapers is denied & confirmed but only final formalisation with GA/FMS is lacking. Who are you to prove, maybe we should reverse the question; please provide added references are wrong or not reliable? Simple; these are facts and as such, based on your reverting, raised to the talk page. 151.248.54.18 (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to us to disprove anything here. Per: WP:BURDEN All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[1] the contribution.[2] - cheers FOX 52 talk! 18:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The official site of the dutch MoD https://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/materieel/vliegtuigen-en-helikopters/mq-9-reaper which qualifies as reliable, we all agree will prevail over WAF as a source (and many more other publications). 2A02:1810:3E21:A500:F9E3:F840:90AA:CF8 (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the source "The MQ-9 is expected to be fully operational by mid-2023" and the actual number received, at best appears to be two. - FOX 52 talk! 23:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All have been delivered and are part of the current inventory, full operational phase will be achieved in 2023 but as said delivered and being used and the MoD article and official acquisition documents confirm the decision made to source 4 extra prior to production line shut down by General Atomics. 2A02:1810:3E21:A500:7521:D550:2EBE:3E18 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations, etc.
  2. ^ Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g. why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

FOX-52 Updates

[edit]

Hi Fox-52 please stop your edits as they are unsourced and based on personal opinions and unreliable third party sources and your 'description' of reverts are not representative for your enforced updates, followed by rather strange changes to prevent someone can 'undo' your updates. It's very obvious and embarrassing.

The current information displayed based on your recent intervention is not representative, incorrect and lacks reliable sources. 151.248.54.18 (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All added sources have been removed as well unfortunately 2A02:1810:3E21:A500:291B:5808:509E:6180 (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
151.248.54.18 Maybe you should stop attacking others, and learn how to read what citations really say 47.152.62.140 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced facts and the reputation of FOX 52 is well known! 2A02:1810:3E21:A500:7126:6910:79B9:B2A5 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid personal attack on your fellow editors - Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same. See: WP:CIVIL for additional information - FOX 52 talk! 01:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FOX-52 please stop enforcing your personal and poor sourced updates/reverse edits and blocking them from the undo option (your modus operandi). The Gulfstream IV is sold [1] as offical source of the Dutch MoD instead of your WAF magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.90.186 (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The acquisition & sourcing of Caracals as SOF Rotary Airwing has been confirmed after a selection process as published by the Dutch MoD [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.90.186 (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2023/06/30/defensievliegtuig-gulfstream-iv-verkocht-aan-nederlands-bedrijf
  2. ^ https://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2023/06/05/defensie-koopt-nieuwe-helikopters-voor-speciale-operaties

Number of F35

[edit]

Hi... I couldn't find any reliable source of total F-35 delivered is 38 aircraft. Netherlands MOD, only listed up to September 2023 with 33 F-35s delivered. WAF 2024, which using database in October 2024 listed up to 34 aircraft (26+8). As of 10 december, scramble.nl did mention up to F-039 as shown here, but scramble.nl also mentioned that the unit is still in FACO Cameri Airbase, Italy, which indicates that the unit not yet delivered to RNLAF. Ckfasdf (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is confirmed, 38 are delivered (8 based in US, 30 at the squadrons based in NL), more to come and indeed F-039 will sonn be handed over after pre-delivery checks finally towards 52 ordered in total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.159.96 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And number 39 has arrived [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.159.96 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/VlbLeeuwarden/status/1745504078417805407
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Netherlands_Air_Force&oldid=1205121624"