Talk:Heinkel He 111

Please stop deleting this

the photo in question

This picture is a picture of Heinkel He 111. It was used during World war 2 by the Germans. The article also talks about many campaigns in which it was used. It stays. Is that understood?103.100.11.3 (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. You're in danger of being blocked for edit warring, so I suggest you stop, and discuss why the photo on s relevant beyond making demands that it remain. BilCat (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I already have. Now stop being a child.103.100.11.3 (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The article already has a range of photos of the He 111 in service including several one taken in 1939-40 - what does the photo in question add to THIS article - note the operational history of the He 111 is covered in a separate article - i.e. Heinkel He 111 operational history, which does include the photo in its coverage of the Battle of Britain, as does the article Battle of Britain and Battle of Britain Day (covering the fighting on 15 September.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The photo is not needed, adds to section clutter, is already used at Heinkel He 111 operational history and whining and threats are not a reason to include it here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia colleagues are whiners. As for threats, where have I threatened someone?? You do know you are making false accusations yeah?103.100.11.3 (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No need for the childish insults, not least as this image violates a basic wikipedia-wide rule (see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE) that images are not to be used solely as decoration. If someone reverts your addition (as an ip), rather than assuming malfeasance, it is on you to understand that they probably had a reason so mundane and obvious that it did not need explaining, especially since ip editors rarely return anyway. Instead, images must illustrate what is being discussed in the article and this image is appropriate to the article's operational history section. As that has been split off to its own page, that is where it belongs as it can't illustrate anything else given the lack of visible detail. Images in each section must tie into that particular section, so images in the Operators show operators (Turkish He 111s for instance), images in Versions illustrate specific versions, images in Production illustrate the aircraft being built, etc. The first image at the top of the page (the lead) shows the entire aircraft at a good angle to help with identifying it, in flight. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, on the contrary, the other person is being childish. And this photograph is a decent photograph which is in a relevant section. The same photo is in the "Operational History of the Heinkel He 1111". 103.100.11.3 (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That image is already in use on twelve articles. And it's still not a good image for illustrating the operational use of the He 111 in this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The operational use section on this page is barely more than a link to another page. It does not require any illustration, and your own words continue to condemn you. Their motives were not in the least bit childish. As for the image, its overuse also argues against it being used, even if there was reason to add an image. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No, they don't condemn me. But nice try. As for the section, I wouldnt say that it's barely more than a link103.100.11.3 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The operational history section should be fleshed out, it's very sparse. But even then the use of the He 111 over London was only a small part of its service history. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I could add another paragraph to the section at some stage.103.100.11.3 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

normally one would take the lede of the linked article, but that's also short. Need to cover Spain civil war, 1939, battle of France/battle of Britain, Med/North Africa/Italy, Eastern Front, Western Front (and V1) and neutral Spain? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

A-D variants wingspan

" the passenger variants had their wings reduced from 25 to 2 m (82.0 to 6.6 ft)"

Is this correct? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:A46F:EF6:553F:352B (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

LOL, no. Hopefully someone who has the paper book ref cited can correct that! - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, the error appeared during this number crunching fest. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Super, thanks for fixing that! - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Gunners

In the specifications it lists among the crew "dorsal/waist gunner, ventral gunner". I am pretty sure that should be "radio operator/dorsal gunner, ventral/waist gunner". The dorsal gunner is seated on a raised seat in the roof of the fuselage surrounded by radio equipment. It is unlikely that he would be jumping up and down off his seat to operate the waist guns, especially when the dorsal gun is the most important and heavily used defensive gun. The ventral gunner, who is rarely needed in comparison and who only needs to stand up to be at the waist guns makes far more sense to fill this position. Although obviously either of them can do the job as the situation warrants.

I also noticed in the section on the H variant it says "the 20mm MG FF cannon was removed" although it doesn't say anything about one being installed prior to this. The only other mention of 20mm guns being fitted was a brief mention that sometimes 20mm cannon were fitted to increase defensive firepower on one of the earlier variants, which I think is also not entirely correct. I think the point of the 20mm was to suppress defensive fire in anti shipping missions. Not sure how a 20mm in the front of the ventral gondala is very useful as a defensive gun.

Idumea47b (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)