This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
As an aircraft article, this page falls under the Wikipedia Aircraft Project. The project has guidlines for aircraft article at WP:AIR Page content Guidelines, which give a suggested format for aircraft articles. While these are just suggestions, following the guidleines does have an affect on whether or not the article can achieve a higher status. This is especially important as this page is currently rated as "Start Class", the second lowest class, just above a "Stub". In addition, these guidelines are an attempt to standardize presentation in the vairous aircraft ariticle, for the ease of both readers and editors.
While Wikipedia in general has guidelines for articles, projects are allowed to have their own guidelines which suit their particular needs. It is very disruptive to attempt to change an article solely because it does not follow the general guidelines, but while it is following those of the project. Please refrain from such disruptions in the future. If there is a particular reason that this page should depart from WP:AIR's guidelines, in whole or in part, please discuss them here, and build a consensus to have the article's format changed before attempting further changes. Thanks. - BillCJ03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I took great care not to revert the productive chages made atthe same time as the reformatting. ANy change beyond the re-ordering was inadvertant. - BillCJ03:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry about all of the work you had to do to "fix" that. That must be very stressful for you. I must admit, though, that I found the addition of the heading 'See also' for the footer amusing, as it is already has bold, centered headings and is enclosed by boxes. "Related content" violates our own style manual, and "Operators" and "Operational service" are the same subject and clutter the table of contents.--Gnfgb205:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is a guideline, and it's not mandatory for all projects. Have you even bothered to check the WP:AIR/PC guidelines? Whlie I don't necessarily like the layout of the "Operational service" section, there seem to be no other way to do it at this time. Oh, the usual title is "Operational history"; thanks for pointing ou the erro to me. Also, "taking great care" and "hard work" are not synonomous, nor was the process stressful. I was just trying to be courteous, as the other option was to revert your disruptive edits wholesale. Given your apparent sarcasm, it was obviously a waste of effort on you.
No, I haven't, because the consensus of the project can be found at the "Manual of Style" page, and publications cannot have radically different styles for each of their entries. (See Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors for more information.) Canvassing is also against Wikipedia policy, by the way. Your initial edit summary is what really set the sarcastic tone for our discussion. Nevertheless, Rlandmann's version seems like an acceptable compromise.--Gnfgb207:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asking a project to enforce its own guidelines is not canvassing, which is itself a guidline btw, not policy. We have had to deal with overzealous editors try to disrupt articles before, and I'm sure we will again. If you feel that WP:AIR's guidelines are against Wiki's MOS, then take up the issue with the project and Wikipedia, and stop trying to fight the battle here. And I stand by my initaial assertion that the article layout was not broke, and therefore does not need fixing, and that I was stating fact, not being sarcastic. Also, every project has different styles for many things such as infoboxes and templates. Are you going to try to get WP:AIR's templates changed too? - BillCJ07:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've separated out the "Operators" section again, and limited the prose section to combat (only 2 items removed) as the "Combat history" section, as is sometimes done in combat aircraft articles. Again, I still don't like separate sub-headings for each country, but this seems the best way to do it for now. I do hope this compromise will work for you. - BillCJ07:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an alternative would be to remove the national sub-headings,a nd try to place them in chronological order. Much of that section is unsourced anyway, and it may be hard to determine the dates from what is in the text. It's definitely something that needs work. - BillCJ08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the heading to 'Combat history' makes the article less informative. I don't see any reason to do it.--Gnfgb208:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect you would, but I had to try a compromise anyway. I'm going to leave this be for now, as no one in WP:AIR seems inclined to back me up on this. I guess it's not that big a deal to them. If you're satisfied with this being a start-class article, so be it. This format will confuse some of our regular aircraft page readers, but the general article readers should do just fine, maybe. - BillCJ18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't say for sure who reads these types of articles. I've read other Wikipedia articles on MiGs, Sukhois, the F-14, etc., and was confused by the layout of this article. The table of contents was almost useless due to the three nearly identical sections: 'Operational history,' 'Variants,' and 'Operators.' For now, I've made some into subsections in order to unclutter the table of contents. The key factors for making this into a good article (according to Wikipedia‘s standards) will probably be polishing the prose and adding citations. This isn't personal. It's a matter of readability for me.--Gnfgb221:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't match up to the user's list. Most notably Sudan is not colored in. I am new, so I don't know how to change an image like that, but if somebody could that'd be great.
North_Korean_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory mentions 40 F-7 and 150 Mig-21. This page mentions 180 F-7 there. At least one of them is wrong - I suspect that page confuses J-7 and Mig-21, since the 180 number is suspiciously close to the total of the two.
This used to be a very good and interesting article written by someone who had taken his time to do some researchon the subject and who damn well allmost succeeded in clearing up the incredible amount of Chinese variants and sub-variants. Now it looks as though somebody with far less knowledge and a lot more fantasy has had it's way with the article. Especially everything that follows the subtitle 'F-7M Airguard' is an embarrasing heep of nonsense - reading something like '1980's Airguards with double-delta wings that are 40% more effective 'according to customer claims' is just plain painfull. Since the PAF and its obviously truly heroic pilots time and again come out as the inventors of efficiency I already have a feeling where all these needless 'contributions' came from. To the wonderfull little PAF-fan who blessed wikipedia with his tireless efforts I would like to say stop writing what you think/feel/would like to be real and try to look up some credible sources, or even better, leave this kind of articles to engineers or historians who do know what the words objective,scientific and unbiased mean. And stop embarassing yourself and the PAF while at it.
That's the sad thing about wikipedia - good articles destroy themselves. I consider these latest 'contributions' to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.253.57 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An image used in this article, File:F7 airguard.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
I have just added archive links to one external link on Chengdu J-7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Chengdu J-7. 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.
I have just modified one external link on Chengdu J-7. 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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Chengdu J-7. 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.
Per WP:AIRMOS Lead Image of an aircraft article should contain the best possible view of the aircraft in flight. There are currently better images of the J7/F7 available on Commons which provide a better 3/4 view of the aircraft in flight which is better than a top-down view with a laughable caption.
Below are the nominated images to replace the current image in the article. All of the images show the aircraft in flight with a 3/4 view:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the photo which you are edit warring to remove (i.e. , which clearly shows the aircraft's layout and nothing wrong with the caption.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
