Talk:Spanish Air and Space Force

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Aviation / National / European / Spanish

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	National militaries task force
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Eurofighter Typhoon#Germany and Spain|EF 2000]] The anchor (Germany and Spain) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Modify 'The Franco Era' section

The period mentioned as 'Franco Era' should be named 'Post Civil War' period as it is mentioned in the Spanish version of this article. The period from 1939 when the 'Ejercito del Aire' was founded, to 1975 when Franco died, is 36 years long and several modernizations and reorganizations were carried out, including deep changes in materiel, doctrine and procurement policies. Spanish Air force history cannot be structured only according to Franco´s rule except if it is the intention to bypass Wikipedia neutrality regulations. As a matter of fact, in 1953 Spain and USA signed a cooperation agreement and consequently, new weapons systems were provided to the Spanish Air Force. Those changes also brought new doctrines and a different geographical setup. In 1970, French aircrafts were procured, opening a new period of diversification in the Spanish Air Force suppliers in order to avoid excesive dependence on the USA. Not mentioning any of the previous, shows a clear intention to manipulate the article with political intentions. I propose the much more rigorous approach of the Spanish version of the article.

Merging both articles

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)[reply]

Spanish Republican Air Force

If there is a separate air force for Croatia during WWII (http://wiki.riteme.site/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)[reply]

Done.Xufanc (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Spanish Air Force

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: "World Air Forces 2015 pg. 12". Flightglobal Insight. 2015. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
From Central African Republic Air Force: "World Air Forces 2015 pg. 11". Flightglobal Insight. 2015. Retrieved 26 December 2014.

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)[reply]

Images of the current equipment

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)[reply]

Done.--95.22.190.163 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is the version before the editing war. So these should be the images that are in the article before a consensus on whether to change them.--87.223.84.198 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

At this point consensus is to use the four there now - For: FOX 52, Hawkeye Ridgesaw Summer, BilCat - Opppose : 1 IP user - FOX 52 (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? At this point is your own consensus the only one here, and by the way you haven't exposed any reason for it, only you and your supporter account (who has mysteriously only 10 days old) wants those three images. He does things as strange as opening sections on his talk and answering himself, other things befall like you ask him to come in here and support you, which he hasn't done because neither you nor he has given a single reason for the changes etc. I repeat, 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) 10:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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, BilCat 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)[reply]

Images of the Eurofighter, C-295 and C-130

As I said the changes of the images are necessary for the poor quality of the former images. Sorry for the format but it looks directly. Typhoon #1 This image of the Eurofighter is horrible doesns't even have a clear profile, for this Typhoon #2 (CN295 #1 for this CN295 #2} {C-130 #1 for this KC-130 #2). In this case the image is better because it shows the refueling function of the C-130s actually a group of them are KC-130, which by the way doesn't appear in the inventory table. It is only a 3 images of the same aircraft that change, a change that doesn't modify the article at all but that improves it a bit. 95.22.141.226 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The C-130 that is darkened from a back lit sky is better? Sorry I don't see it 47.152.55.107 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image(s) with cluttered backgrounds don't make them any better than the ones already in use - FOX 52 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"cluttered backgrounds" What?.... anyway, sincerely I don't understand your intention to put images of poor quality, the Euorfighter image is simply painful, I don't understand your intention and also the interest in not changing 3 images by others of an acceptable quality, just 3 images for other 3. The article right now has 3 images that seem to be chosen because they are the worst available. 95.22.141.226 (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This image is of poor quality? You're not making a very good case of one over another - FOX 52 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you still ask? seriously? is an extremely poor quality image, and even more compared to this image. Your fixation towards ip accounts it's taking you to make a fool of yourself, sorry but this is ridiculous. 95.22.141.226 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@95.22.141.226: Comments like "make a fool of yourself" & "this is ridiculous" are not an argument for the purposed changes 47.152.55.107 (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are 47.152.55.107 ? Come on FOX52...., the arguments are above in the rest of the messages, What are you doing comment with an ip account to put things like this?. It's ridiculous what you're trying to avoid. Copy and paste to see if you find out:

"This image of the Eurofighter is horrible doesns't even have a clear profile", "the Euorfighter image is simply painful, I don't understand your intention and also the interest in not changing 3 images by others of an acceptable quality, just 3 images for other 3. The article right now has 3 images that seem to be chosen because they are the worst available."

It is ridiculous just change this for this - 95.22.141.226 (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new proposed images are inferior to the originals. In some cases darker and less clear, and in all cases show a worse profile of the aircraft. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]