Comment There are more than a 100 good photos in this scope, not to say more than a 200. It is very difficult to choose one. How can be the scope narrowed?--MrPanyGoff13:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know but from the encyclopedic point of view there is no difference between Norwegian F-16 and Argentinean F-16, imo.--MrPanyGoff16:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As some solution I can suggest a Valued Set of the same scope including in addition to this photo also these ones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 --MrPanyGoff 12:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC) All photos can be geocoded and should be described well.--MrPanyGoff12:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem at all. Location of this kind of objects means not exactly the coordinates of the airplane but some airfield, town, valley. All photos I suggest have descriptions which specifie particular airfield or town or area. Every photograph of airplane is taken in the range of something on the earth. That's what we need here.--MrPanyGoff11:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good collection. Is this a preparation page for Valued set nomination? I suggest to continue the discussion on the User:Airwolf/F-16 talk page because it is high time this single nomination to be closed. I wonder if the differences between the F-16 variants are considerable enough so that every variant to have its own Valued set?--MrPanyGoff16:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made this set as a basis for discussion, so as to include all the versions and as many countries as possible. Of course, the images may be changed, but it's a start. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
