Talk:Soko J-22 Orao

Cleanup

Needs further clean up. I started it, but the English is so bad I couldn't figure out what the poster was trying to say.

NATO Aggression

In the part of the article that talks about the Orao shooting down the Tomahawk cruise missile, it mentions NATO aggression. I do not believe that the NATO bombings were aggression, as the author of this article does, but rather a means to end the Serbian aggression towards her neighbors. I believe that we should remove this phrase (I have already seen the needs source post after the comment).

A agree with the agression statement.

13.11.06 What you agree or disagree with is your own affair, hence keep your comments to yourself unless they're related to technical and operational details of this aircraft.

Practice what you preach.

The first guy is funny. Of course it was aggression of the worst kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.35.211 (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I like unintentional irony as much as the next guy, but that is beyond asinine.--172.162.135.177 (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

First flight

The IAR-93 article says that both Romanian and Yugoslav prototypes flew at the same time, October 1974. Here it says that the Yugoslav prototype flew in November 1976. Which is correct? Drutt (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

File:J22yu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:J22yu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:J22yu.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

File:JRV Soko J-22 Orao.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JRV Soko J-22 Orao.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:JRV Soko J-22 Orao.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:NJ-22 FRY.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NJ-22 FRY.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:NJ-22 FRY.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

New upgrade/modernization

As per: http://www.janes.com/article/75600/

Maybe someone more knowledgeable could enter this new information into the article.

Jurryaany (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Additions silently reverted without reason given

Hi, added some citation needed tags and rewritten the lead today, absolutely all changes have been reverted without so much as a word given for why. Reverts ought to have an expressed reasoning for why they're done. Kyteto (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I do notice that you appear to be adding text which you know to be unreferenced as you are tagging it with citation needed tags - please provide a source.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nigel. I didn't think I had actually added any text towhich I had affixed a citation needed tag to; I have altered many pre-existing sentences that I have tagged. Amongst other things, the version (by a very new editor) removed all the citation needed tags, but not the content I had placed them against. I've done my best so far to cite some of the old content that we're left to guess at what the source was, but I am still coming up short. There's a fair few sentences I'd like to delete, but I was going to give it some time to see if anybody (perhaps the original submitters?) will cite any of it if given the chance before proceeding to binning. Kyteto (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe that, as they are now edit-warring to keep uncited content in the article, their object wasn't to do with objecting to the uncited - that it has been altered at all maybe. Kyteto (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Accuse others of what you do? Nice tactic you got there. Karen Kho (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am glad you've come to the talk page. Do you mind if I ask what was the rationale behind your two reverts with blank edit summaries? It is typical to have explanations expressed for executing such action. Kyteto (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Merger?

Is there any good reason why this and the IAR-93 have separate articles - they are the same aircraft, after all?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't merge them. Only two types of this plane exist, one built in Yugoslavia and another in Romania. It is no longer being built, so there is no fear we will have more articles about different types of the same plane. Since each type was built in one of the countries and is representative of two separate aircraft industries and most of their service was inside those countries (and I do believe there are some differences in performance and construction, but I'm not sure) I propose not to merge them. Karen Kho (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's much reason to have them separate, other than the difficulty of choosing which name to give the article e.g. should it be Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur? The design is identical, and the merged content would still not result in a large article. Kyteto (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason to have them separated as I have stated above. Karen Kho (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I heard your reason, I didn't think it was particularly decisive/strong. Take the Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight for example, it was also produced by Saab in Sweden (as the HKP 4) and by Kawasaki in Japan (as the KV-107II) - we addressed them all in one article. Thus, having a second production line/an alternative name for the exact same aircraft typically doesn't justify a split on its own. Kyteto (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you don't think it's decisive/strong enough that's your problem. Still a stronger argument than yours. Karen Kho (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)