Talk:Savoia-Marchetti SM.79

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

More than a stub but wants building. Who's got the meaty stuff on this bird? SDasey 12:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Misfortunes of Sparvieros section 2 Some perspective 3 References 4 Answers and disclaimers 5 Maiden flight

[edit] Misfortunes of Sparvieros section

This section is really un-encyclopedic trivia. Is there any justification for keeping a vauge list of unfortunate incidents that occured to SM79s? Nigel Ish 22:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but Nigel, be prepared... FWIW Bzuk 04:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC).

Welcome to the party Nigel, this one could go on for a while! There is much that could go and the problem is knowing where to draw the line, so perhaps it would be "advisable" to move it (and a lot more) to another linked page/s just to err on the safe side. BTW, thanks for saving me the trouble of polishing my own efforts.--Red Sunset 05:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In what sense do you find 'unenciclopedic' this section? And yes ,there is a justification: they happened, whetever you say about.--Stefanomencarelli 10:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The section appears to be merely a random list of events that happened to SM.79s or to units operating the Sparviero. These events do not appear to be particularly significant to either the history of the aircraft or the overall history of the Spanish Civil War or of World War II. Remember - Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and events discussed should be notable. Much of the section sits very poorly in an encyclopedia article about the SM.79 - if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in articles about the units that were operating the aircraft - and even there would need considerable clean-up - some of the section is barely comprehensable - what exactly does "The scaramancy was often a problem with the early phase of aviation" actually mean??? Nigel Ish 16:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what you have read. In Wikipedia there are thousands of pages enriched by Trivia section. I found your critics silly because i don't see why in Sparviero page there should be not place for 'trivia'. First i would see disappears trivia from zillions pages, then hear critics like you post here. It's really 'strange' that after all the work made here it's the only comment i must have: a critic about a trivia section in an article of Wiki, the 200.000th that has one.--Stefanomencarelli 16:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, i forget to say that: thanks to show me in any manner as possible, the 'gratitude' for the efforts i make to develope as i can these articles. my tired fingers really wouldn't deserve nothing best than this.--Stefanomencarelli 10:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (see [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|WP:NOT]}) - this is an official policy of English Wikipedia. The manual of style states (WP:TRIV) that Trivia sections are to be avoided. There may be a lot of pages on Wikipedia with Trivia sections, but there is a continual drive to trim down and remove these sections, or integrate them with the rest of the article. Just look at all the articles at AFD which are proposed because they are lists of trivia.

Please note that none of the above is meant as a personal attack. The aim is to improve the article. I raised this section on the talk page because clearly deletion of the section would be a signifcant change. Nigel Ish 17:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

---

One, i don't rate 'an indiscriminate collection of information' because if nothing else they are placed in a proper paragraph. Two, i still failed to see where is the holy need to scrap trivia. Three, my dear, what i found in other articles, in wich NOBODY has said one word, are bright examples of NNSNADPPAéPOV like this below:

At a cost of five gallant ships and hundreds of brave men "Taffy 3," aided by her own planes and those of "Taffy 2," sank three enemy cruisers, seriously damaged several other ships, and turned back the "most powerful surface fleet which Japan had sent to sea since the Battle of Midway." Domination of the skies, superior seamanship, and prudent, timely maneuvers helped to nullify the overwhelming odds. In the highest tradition of naval service, the finest qualities of the American sailor became commonplace during the heroic fight. Devotion to duty, daring courage, uncommon bravery, and an indomitable spirit were part and parcel of this victory.

So don't cause me LOL in so indecent manner. Before break my ..... i wuold see 'how' this stuff above can be counted in wikipedia. I would remark, my dear anglo-saxon friends, that this piece is what could be called shameless agiography and pubblicity for US Navy.

Perhaps this don't bother you, because you are US or close friend of them, but as not-anglosaxon i am really pissed off to read this stuff that seems became directly by a J.Wayne movie (Note well that i love JW, he was a sincere apologyst of US, not an hipocrite that couver himself behind 'objective' claimings). So, all considered that in all i wrote about italian stuff i never failed to remark defects and defeats , you can just image i feel your 'critics'.

And as my objectivy, you can see accounts of airbattles, in wich i could simply posted the italian claimings and be sure of nobody contested them, every if their claims are shamelessy false (ex. 12 P-38 vs 1 MC.202). As S.79 Sparviero, i would even remark, my dears that until me it was posted the shamelessy false datas about almost 800,000t sunk by italian torpedo-bombers. Now are around 90.000. So judice my work, but not with the manner you use usually.--Stefanomencarelli 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some perspective

The article at present is now 57 kilobytes long. Here are some comparable statistics on other Wikipedia aircraft articles:

• B-52 Stratofortress: 46 kilobytes long
• de Havilland Mosquito: 44 kilobytes long
• F-86 Sabre: 41 kilobytes long
• F-15 Eagle: 35 kilobytes long.
• B-29 Superfortress: 34 kilobytes long
• Hawker Hurricane: 34 kilobytes long
• Messerschmitt Me 262: 33 kilobytes long
• De Havilland Comet: 31 kilobytes long
• Gloster Meteor:30 kilobytes long
• de Havilland Vampire: 27 kilobytes long
• Fokker Dr.I: 24 kilobytes long
• Wright Flyer: 24 kilobytes long

FWIW: the article continues to grow. Bzuk 12:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC) .

[edit] References

The cite template has a special line to indicate what language the reference is in, if it is not in English. I guess that some of the references here are in Italian, but I think that it would be good practice to include the relevant language with the citation. Would it be good to have more references in English here on the English wiki? Snowman 19:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some additional verifiable reference sources. Since there is no means to verify some of the more obscure Italian magazine references, at least if there was a clear indication that the work can be traced back to a page number, that would remove a bit of a doubt about the source of the statements. BTW, I usually see the (in Italian) [or (in French), (in German) or other], note placed on reference sources. Yeaman work on this editing job! FWIW Bzuk 19:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

Why does none of the book citations in this article include which page the citation is from? I thought this was common pratice. Manxruler 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor who provides some of these inline references can not or will not provide the page numbers, see: [1], but these are necessary. FWIW Bzuk 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

I see... Well, just thought I should comment on it in case someone had misunderstood. Afterall, this isn't the first time I've seen citations on Wikipedia without page numbers, and/or publishing year, just the name of the author. It seems quite a few people chose to leave out a lot of data. Those references are almost useless, really. Manxruler 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, 'almost useless' is a Big word, to be fair. I gave over ten references, so it's not exactly true equip them to a 'non existent reference'. Moreover, just look to some articles like AA-2 Atoll, totally lacking even one single source. But since i did not write it, nobody apparently cares. The same for another million articles, perhaps.

All you or someone else have to do is 1-grab the magazine number i gave 2-look in the summary where is the article 3-read it and see, among the 4-5 page lenght average, where is the stuff needed. Last day i lost around one hour to put all the citations pages, and i am pretty sure that these page numbers will never used by anyone to check them, and even in this case, he will waste just 30 secs to find the stuff needed.

Seriously, i understand this in a book, but in a 5 page articles, it's really 'so' important? I could do it, but hell, this need me another two hours to be fair.--Stefanomencarelli 18:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That was a general observation on page-less citations on Wikipedia, not yours specifically. I simply commented the fact that many give imcomplete references. A ref is a ref, they should always include page numbers. It doesn't take any longer to do, I just look at the page in front of me and note the page number. And I wasn't talking about page numbers in the literature list at the end of the article, I meant in the footnotes. Page numbers are unnecessary in the bibliography. Specific page numbers for specific citations within the text of the article, like I did when I added info from Lyman's book to this article. Manxruler 19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That way, one can see which pages from which book/magazine are used in specific parts of the text. Bibliography page numbers only tell people that the pages have been used somewhere in the article, not where. Manxruler 19:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done, exactly what I was talking about. Well done indeed. I'll just delete the page numbers from the Bibliography since you have inserted them into the text now. Good job. Manxruler 19:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that is more like it! The citations now fit well into the text and the bibliography is also better presented. Congrats, everyone! FWIW Bzuk 22:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Answers and disclaimers

I am very sorry, but there 'obscure references' are not obscure at all to me nor to italian press. The problem, sorry, it's your, not my guilth that there is not so many published works in english about stuff like S.79. When we talk about B-29 we (italians) must thrust on anglo-saxon sources, right? So don't make this thumb statements: if you don't thrust on what i write, you can even buy the older numbers of these magazines: perhaps anglo-saxon world once time will discouver that there is also someone else that write history.

Yes, Mrs Graziani is actually Marschall Rodolfo Graziani.

And now this: (I'm coming to the conclusion that there is waaaay too much detail here, considering the it.Wiki SM.79 article is only 1/3 the size). Still another provocation by Bzuk.

Well, let's see how wiki.it and wiki.en compared in other pages:

Spitfire: Wiki.en, 50,598 bytes Witki.it 21.324 byte (around) 2,5 TO 1

P-39:Wiki.en, 37,672 bytes , wiki.it 12.199 byte: 3 TO 1

P-38: Wiki.en, 60,268 bytes, Wiki.it 18.642: 3,3 TO 1.

P-47: Wiki.en, 40,563 bytes. Wiki.it 12.443 byte: 3,3 TO 1.

P-51: Wiki.en, 75,841 bytes wiki.it 21.842 byte : 3,5 TO 1

B-17: Wiki.en, 99,664 bytes Wiki.it 11.345 byte: 8 TO 1

Avro Lancaster: wiki.en, 40,497 bytes, Wiki.it, 4.676 byte: 9:1

B-24: Wiki.en, 43,920 bytes, Wiki.it 3.591 byte: 12 TO 1.

Note well that i make contributions in Spitfire, P-38, P-38, P-39, P-51 P-47. Not in B-24, Lancaster and B-17. With all i think it's blatalanty clear the nonsense of the Bzuk statements. I still ask apoligies for his insinuations.--Stefanomencarelli 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maiden flight

According to this the prototype (SM.79P I-MAGO) first flew 2 October 1934, not September 28, while this claims it was on 8 October 1934. Which is correct? Drutt 14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)