Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1925–1949)

CorenSearchBot in error

When this article was created from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(pre-1925)&oldid=342546198 the CorenSearchBot wrongly tagged this new article as a copyvio from http://doryoku.org/site/topic/1916575. The page on doryoku.org is a copy of a Wikipedia page even though it (wrongly) claims copyright. Therefore the CorenSearchBot amendment has been reverted. Greenshed (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Empirestate540.jpg

The image Image:Empirestate540.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

File:Empirestate540.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the image from the Wikipedia article about the Empire State Building. I have deleted it from this article. Mark Sublette (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KWF...?

I have no idea what KWF is short for, it's not explained here, and a web search left me equally non-plussed - any chance of an explanation in the article? Nortonius (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I just found KWF... But it's a dab: probably still best to put something about it in the article - that, or wikilink "KWF" x20! Nortonius (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Support - the article is too long. I would suggest splitting it into three articles, covering 1925-38, 1939-45 and 1946-9. Though I haven't calculated the size of such articles, yearly entries increase in number in the years leading up to 1938, producing longer yearly sections, and these sections continue to be long for each year thereafter; and 1939-45 would seem to form a natural segment to split off, since this covers World War II, the article for which is (currently) settled on having the war "generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939", and to have "ended with the total victory of the Allies over Germany and Japan in 1945". On the other hand, there might be an argument for breaking it down still further, since from 1939 onwards the yearly sections are themselves quite long. Just my initial thoughts. Nortonius (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's now been split.

List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1925–1934)

List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1935–1939)

List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1940–1944)

List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1945–1949)

(Thanks for helping, Mark Sublette!)

I've tried to fix any links that pointed to the 1925-1949 list.

Whilst doing that, I found a few links to a "pre-1950" list which was presumably the ancestor, before some previous split. Those links have been fixed too.

bobrayner (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that there may still be some old links to pre-split lists. Somewhere.

For instance, Category:Accidents and incidents involving United States Air Force aircraft linked to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft, pre-1950 which redirects to a list which was split some time ago and now just has links to sub-lists that I created, one of which (1925-1939) should no longer be live as it's been split again...

I also came across links to a 1950-1974 list; that was split some time ago too.

I'll have a good look round, but an extra pair of eyes would be helpful in case I miss anything in this tangle. If in doubt, try to point readers towards:

I think that's the most recent (most accurate) set of lists. Any comments / complaints / criticisms? bobrayner (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]