Talk:Caproni Ca.165

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

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated 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 This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[edit] Image

Ok.....so apparently a 10-year old boy did a project for an art class and it wound up being a picture in this article. There are almost certainly no free images available for this plane so we have to make do with this crudely drawn charicature which may well have been drawn on a napkin. Are there ANY free images of this aircraft? But hey, I guess we'll have to take what we can get. Antimatter--talk-- 04:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Few is better than nothing. I am not a 10 old year boy (diffrently to many other wikipedians) but this is what i done. If you don't like it, you always have two possibilities: find autorized photo (unlikely) or post another, better draw. In every case, i inform you that any kind of effort in improving wikipedia should be welcomed, and this is the case. What is pissing me, it's the attitude to insulte who AT LEAST, tries to do 'something' to fill the holes in wich the copyright often leaves the wikiepdia articles. I, atleast, i have do something and you can have the chance to see how this plane was (an image is better than 1000 words). Where are the 'artists' here, that can solve such problems? Where are 'critics' like you when it's needed to override the copyrights presents all around?--Stefanomencarelli 09:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa..ok I'm sorry I was not aware that you were actually the artist...I suppose I should have checked the copyright status. If my comment sounded like an insult, I apologize. That type of contribution is exactly what wikipedia needs: someone taking the initiative and using their talents to improve these articles; I made that comment after a serious night of copyediting with my computer freezing just as I was about to save it all...very frustrating indeed. I can't draw to save my life, and I don't even know what the plane looked like. Given the fact that only one was produced, it is amazing that any representation of it at all is in the article. My comments were out of line; please accept my apologies and thanks for your contributions, Stefan. I know a lot of people have been giving you a hard time lately, I don't want to be one of them. I also try to avoid conflict on Wikipedia wherever possible. I like to think my copyediting work improved the article enough to be more widely understandable, i tried to keep your language usage wherever possible. Cheers Antimatter--talk-- 13:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, i know well how stay at computer is boring and your words sound exacts and nice. If you want to have fun, check also SAI SS.4: at least there i've painted even a 3-view. Not a masterpiece, however, but it was hard to explain with words how such airplane really was..--Stefanomencarelli 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Quite a unique looking aircraft...it kind of reminds me of one the Japanese made towards the end of the war. Antimatter--talk-- 17:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)