Talk:Aircraft in fiction/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Is the space shuttle an aircraft?

Are we going to consider it an aircraft? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In the broadest sense, I'd say yes, since it flies in the air (and space), it's more than a rocket. It is currently listed in the Category:Hypersonic aircraft on Wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Orbiter flies like a glider on after reentry. So yes, aircraft applies. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I guess if we look at it like a glider. I was thinking that since it couldn't take off on it's own power and only glides, that it was iffy. Ok, was just curious. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is already a Space shuttle in popular culture. I've put a main hatnote in the section in this article. YLee (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That is probably the best idea, given the length of that article. Reading through it though it has almost no refs and is loaded with non-notable gamecruft. It needs some major work! - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerous changes reverted.

An editor made changes to numerous reliably sourced entries without providing any sources to support his changes or contradict the exiting ones. In several cases, he altered the entry and left the existing source in place, thereby altering what the source said. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• When I asked him to stop his repsonse was: "Well, your source are obviously not really reliable at all! I can list the exact airplanes flown in the movie BoB with serialnumbers and registrations, they can be found at several places, but you can also check the article about the movie itself here at Wikipedia and you will see how embarresing much in this article that contradicts what's already written there!! All numbers there are correct! That's not the case here! Same thing with Wikipedias article about Tora! Tora! Tora! Read it and then change the BS here about Zeros, or I will do it. Also, why not compare the article about James Stewart first, before changing facts here? It's a wellknown fact that he never flew again as a military pilot in command after WWII. Aircraft in fiction could be an very interresting article but have way to much other incorrect facts right now, obviously based on very unreliable sourses! " Niteshift36 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well all this blather on his part is very interesting, but Wikipedia is not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable ref as per WP:CIRCULAR, so quoting other articles to support adding text is not acceptable. If he doesn't like the refs cited then to change the text he needs to cite a better ref as per WP:V, so you were right to revert that all. - Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I left him a more detailed note. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I left him a longer response too. A look at his contributions shows he's done this in other articles, usually to be reverted (although one dubious one still stands). Niteshift36 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

In view of the fact that several films based on real historical events (Pearl Harbor, the Doolittle Raid, et cetera) are included here, perhaps a title change to something like Aircraft in Popular Media might more accurately reflect the focus instead of just Fiction. Thoughts? Mark Sublette (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting issue that has been discussed above. The general consensus there was that these kind of films are fictionalized accounts and not documentaries and so count as fiction essentially, but it is controversial. - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Ahunt. Fictionalized accounts of real events are still fiction. Policing this article with fiction only is already tough enough, let alone starting to add in documentaries etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I take your point. Say no more. Mark Sublette (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious reference

Looking at the Pittsburgh Post article that is used as a reference for the A6M Zero item - I think that it is the ARTICLE that is wrong. I have seen both Tora, Tora, Tora and Midway countless times, and the only F4F Wildcats in either one were a pair that were placed on the deck of the USS Lexington for filming of Midway, and they certainly weren't marked as Japanese fighters. The story of how T-6 Texans were converted to look-alikes for Zeroes is well-known. Heck! Most of them are still flying with various wings of the Commemorative Air Force. I suggest that the newspaper article is wrong. Mark Sublette (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right there. Do you know of a ref that contradicts the other one? - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Found it - change made. Sub* Mark Sublette (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you will need a new ref - that Russian one appears to just be an out of date mirror of the Midway (film) article. That causes a WP:CIRCULAR problem. - Ahunt (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Correct, that source is just a mirror. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Shoot! Mark Sublette (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay - here's a page with a list of all the Tora aircraft: http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/wix/wixdownloads.html . Mark Sublette (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

They're probably right and almost certainly trying to be accurate, but I'm not too certain that would pass RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep looking... Mark Sublette (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Mark Sublette01:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

None of the Wildcats listed in the Warbirds Worldwide Directory appeared in Tora! Tora! Tora! and the first time I saw that entry I thought, well that's wrong, Gary Numan had a Tora T-6. We all 'know' that the Tora aircraft were T-6s and BT-13s, but is there an RS? Might this website do? Click on 'News' and go to the story "History Rebuilt". YSSYguy (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not going to fight either ref. I'm just pointing out that they may not pass RS, so if they do get contested..... Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed Electra in Amelia (Hillary Swank)

Was that depicted aircraft actually a Lockheed Electra and if so would somebody add that to Lockheed Electra or Lockheed Electra Junior? I know Amelia Earhart flew an Electra.Chris-marsh-usa (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris-marsh-usa (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry forgot the signature.

Yes this is listcruft

Just because the list is broken up by section headers and not formatted as a bulleted list does not mean that it is not "contain[ing] items that are not notable, encyclopedic, or helpful." and that people following the guidance of "Please help out by removing such elements and incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article." would not make this a better article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a list per WP:Manual of Style (embedded lists) and that what matters. Please find an appropriate tag for this issue. -fnlayson (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• An occasional item may not look that encyclopedic, but many of them are. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana added undue weight and cleanup tags to the article. User:Fnlayson removed the undue weight tag with the edit summary "undue weight? to which angle, POV or other?". I am assuming that User:Fnlayson found, as I did, that it was not clear what the tag indicated needed fixing. User:Active Banana replaced the tag with the edit summary "Undid revision 390938276 by Fnlayson (talk) that they are worthy of mention AT ALL in this article". User:Active Banana I am sorry but you are going to have to indicate with more clarity here what you specifically think the problem is so those of us working on this article can try to address your concerns. What would fix it? Let's see if we can come up with a consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) :::Fine then if it is not a "list" list it is giving undue weight to non-encyclopedic entries in the "non-list" part of the article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• First off, your piped link to wikilawyering is just insulting and rude. Your sole contribution here thus far has been to come in, call this article cruft, then start being insulting. At first, I thought you were looking for something constructive. Now I'm beginning to doubt that. If you want to be contructive, let's do that. If all you want to do is tear down what has been a project that a number of editors have put a fair amount of time into, then take it to AFD and we'll see what happens. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD is not for clean up. I think it is obvious that there is "significant coverage in reliable third party sources" about the topic of the article, that the article is not an attack, nor does it fall inot categories otherwise subject to deletion. But its value as an encyclopedic article that covers the topic its current state as primarily a collection of "thereisthisaircraftinthismovieandthisaircraftinthisbook andthisaircraftinthisvideogame," has minimal encyclopedic value. Active Banana (^bananaphone 13:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• No, AfD isn't for clean-up. But what this ends up being is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part and little more. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

say for example, what is the encyclopedic value in helping a reader understand the topic of "Aircraft in fiction" of this section Aircraft_in_fiction#Thurston_Teal. (and the sourcing in that section is quite spectacular, too) Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that section is a mere mention and not particularly notable. As far as I am concerned it can be removed. Before we get too far into this you probably need to know some background about this article as it has been the subject of great debate and consensus. That is not to say it can't be improved, but by agreement it is providing a great service as part of WikiProject Aircraft. I would recommend that you have a read though Talk:Aircraft in fiction/Archive 1 and also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_26#Aircraft_in_fiction, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_26#Aircraft_in_fiction_nominated_for_AfD and lastly Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_26#Update_on_Aircraft_in_fiction. - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually to get the full background on this article you should probably have a go though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft in fiction as well. The bottom line is really this: while this article contains a lot of items that are close to trivial, everything is carefully referenced and non-referenced material is cleaned up every Friday religiously. While overall the article is not as useful as an article as some Wikipedia articles, the broad consensus in WikiProject Aircraft is that it serves a very important purpose, that of keeping the cruft out of the vast numbers of aircraft type articles. As you can tell by the above background that while cleaning up some of the lesser important aircraft appearances is probably not a bad idea, wholesale removing large sections of this article is probably going to be opposed by many editors, if only because the aircraft type articles will again start to fill up with lists of toys and games. This article contributes strongly to making Wikipedia better in the role it serves. - Ahunt (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• When I started editing in this article, it was a mess. At that point, I would have agreed with the listcruft argument and possibly voted delete at AFD. But several editors put a lot of time into it. Take a look at this article before the clean-up then now and see that significant progress has been made. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"significant progress has been made" != "no cleanup tags are needed". It may not be as bad as it was, but there is still significant room for improvement. Active Banana (^bananaphone 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently you didn't go back very far. This article was essentially a list of Transformers and Gobots with almost no reliable sources. This article has been clean significantly, sourced pretty damn good and shaping up nicely.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Active Banana - You have not given us any specific indication what your problem is with this article beyond your one objection to the Teal entry. Unless you can be more specific then we cannot make any meaningful changes. If you are just here to gripe that you don't like the article's existence in general then I suggest you take it to AfD. Unless you can provide a concrete list of objections then I suggest we remove the tag. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Any entry in the non list thats only content is "Aircraft X appeared in Fiction Y" is non-encyclopedic. The entries should be based on a reliable source discussing how the aircrafts appearance mattered to that fictional work or how the appearance in the fictional work impacted the real world. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we have discussed that problem before and the editors working here are always looking for refs to improve the article in that regard. If you read the background material I noted above you will see why this article exists, and that there is strong consensus for it to continue to exist to keep the aircraft type articles clear of cruft by its existence. So there is consensus to continue to improve it by adding the sort of analytical text that you are looking for, dependent only upon locating suitable references. There is no support for wholesale cutting 95% of the article text solely because it needs improvement, because that would result in all the cruft moving back into the type articles and cause a lot of unnecessary work for thousands of editors. All I can offer is that we are always looking for refs that offer analysis of the subjects and that you are welcome to help us improve the article. Tagging it and then not contributing is not going to result in much improvement, because we have a solid consensus to improve the article and not remove the text you want to see removed. Anyone can criticize the article, but why not help us out here looking for analytical references? - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the tags without addressing the concerns is not appropriate or helpful. "better here than there" doesnt really hold water, either. No content should be in the article that cannot be validly justified as appropriate encyclopedic content for this article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay will since you object to much of the text in the article, but don't have a consensus to remove it, apparently aren't interested in helping us improve it through researching refs, aren't going to take it back to AfD again and don't want the tag removed, then I think we have a stalemate. I propose that given all this that we remove the tag and continue working on the article. Let's see if we can gain a consensus here on that in the next week or so. - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The tag stays while the issue remains. Once the issues identified by the tag have actually been addressed then the tag can be removed. Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think that the current tag is the right one for your objections. It says "An editor has expressed a concern that this article lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole." As I understand you don't think the article is unbalanced by presenting one side over another side, which is what this tag is for, but rather that you think 95% of the article is trivia. Perhaps Template:Trivia is more what you meant. - Ahunt (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I was prevented from using the "listcruft" tag because the list of aircraft is divided into sections and not presented as a bulleted list, the NPOV content is what was left. And yes I think that the content in this section Aircraft_in_fiction#A-1_Skyraider (and most of the other sections) "lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole" . Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess I am a bit confused then. This tag is used when one point of view in an article is presented in an unbalanced manner over another point of view, for instance if a World War Two article presents the allied point of view and excludes or diminishes the axis point of view. I note above you indicated that "it is giving undue weight to non-encyclopedic entries", linking "NPOV" is consistent with the tag, but "non-encyclopedic entries" is not what this tag is for. I don't see a POV problem being highlighted here. May be you can explain what ideas, incidents, controversies or matters does this article lend undue weight to? If you think that the subject is non-encyclopedic then AfD is the place to make that argument as Wikipedia shoudn't have articles on non-encyclopedic subjects. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to focus on the details of the wording of the tag, go ahead but I am not going to participate. The issue is the article spends too much space and coverage on trivial things that are only tangential and not illuminating to the actual subject of the article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks for that clarification: you think there is too much trivia in the article and not that it has an NPOV problem. With that understanding I think you will find that most of the editors here agree with you on that. We would all like to improve the article so that each section not only states appearances of the aircraft type in various media and provides reliable refs to show notability (as it does now, as we carefully remove anything that lacks reliable refs and therefore lacks notability), but also that each section explains the cultural impact, importance or enduring significance of that appearance. The article is obviously at an early stage in its development towards that goal, lacking only the sort of refs which provide that sort of careful analysis, such as you would find in a Masters-level film criticism text. So I think we probably all agree with you that the article needs improving with better refs. That is what we are working on here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I've listened to about as much of this as I can assume good faith over. We have a number of long time, established, active editors that hold a point of view and a single editor who holds a different POV. This is the essence of consensus. Several of us, myself included, had a fairly dim view of the article when the project to revamp it began. But everyone pitched in, did work and brought it a long way. Bannana picking out the occasional entry (or harping on 1 in particular) doesn't negate the rest of the article. This is bordering on ridiculous. Again, if you don't like it, take it to AfD and see what happens or, better yet, offer some suggestions to improve instead of how to destroy. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been weighing in on this particular discussion as I hold the majority view, and feel that the respondents to Banana have delivered the argument as well as anything I could add. Mark Sublette (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I am in favour of waiting a few more days for additional opinions to surface, but unless anyone else thinks the tag should be retained, I will then remove it, since even User:Active Banana indicates it is the wrong tag for his complaint. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see I am too slow today -the tag has been removed in accordance with this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

V-22 Osprey

There is an V22-Osprey in the movie Megafault. 168.103.45.175 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a significant part or just a couple of minor appearances? Do you have a reference for this? - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the first known popular-culture appearances of the V-22 Osprey was in Half-Life from 1998: http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Osprey And it's differences in appearance are on trivia part here: http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/Osprey

Can't realy see whats the point of 18:44, 8 December 2010 changes? This whole article seem to be mostly about minor movie sigthings and somewhat resembling Transformer toys. I don't think the V-22 Osprey has played bigger part on any other game than HL. --95.130.28.84 (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit you are querying just moved the text and tagged it for a ref. The two refs you cited are both wikis and therefore not acceptable under WP:SPS. By consensus all uncited and tagged text gets removed every Friday from this article, so if you have a real reference please add it before tomorrow. - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Might need to look at what constitutes a notable entry again

I just took a look at some of the current entries and there are some that seem pretty trivial (sourced, but not too notable sounding). I know the original criteria we decided to go with was that it needed to be a notable appearence. Are we going to modify that to now include cameos or any appearence at all? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

True, we do seem to be sliding into the "incidental" or even "trivial" mentions, like the tail of the B-52 in Apocalypse Now. Any suggestions for level of notability or quantity of appearance? - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to precisely quantify it, but we need to exclude appearances where the aircraft is just seen/mentioned and has no real role in the movie/book/other work. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll follow y'all's lead. If you think that I'm being too inclusive, I'll be happy to modify the criteria for picking the entries. Mark Sublette (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead and struck the B-52 listing for Apocalypse... Mark Sublette (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark: you are doing great work there, but I think the B-52 in Apocalypse Now was pretty minor and incidental. Jeff has a good thought in that we need to cut out just incidental appearances or else this could be a very loooong article! - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I copy, five by five! :) Mark Sublette (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What we talked about initially is that the aircraft either had a prominent role in the fictional work or was pivotal to the story. Cameos, part of an aircraft and things like that would not make that criteria. The example I used was Black Sheep Squadron.....F4U's, very notable. The C-47 that ferried supplies in once in a while, not so much. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that remains a good criteria for inclusion. Any disagreements? - Ahunt (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Mark Sublette (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well this issue is back on the front burner. I thought I would do a trial clean up of one trivia item, what I thought was a pretty clear cut case on a non-player game use of an MV-22 and see what happens. My removal was reverted with the edit summary "Revert. The entire article is about "minor trivia". Every other MV-22 reference is just as minor (i.e. a single line of dialogue from SGA?" Any thoughts? Do we just collect ever more trivial entries or do we nail down a consensus criteria and conduct a major clean-up? - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the less game cruft, the better. Unless a game is mission specific to that one aircraft type, I don't think that the incidental mentions add anything. Mark Sublette (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mark - main type used in the game only. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Still in agreement. When an entry starts talking about "unlockable", non-player characters or used only in certain levels by certain players, I see non-notable. If a game is notable (the game itself needs to be notable) and the game centers around a specific aircraft, different story. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. We probably need to add a criteria on notability/importance of the entry to the inclusion list. Add something like "The aircraft needs to have a notable role in the work and not simply being seen." Add wording about games there or use a separate line. Also, it would be good to come up with a way to combine some short sections where possible. The C-130 and Sikorsky H-60 sections combine related variants, for example. -fnlayson (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you brought this thread back to life again! The criteria currently says "significant roles", but maybe we need to be more specific there. Do you want to suggest some additional words to add? - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I forgot/missed that. I'll add a subsection just below so this won't get missed. -fnlayson (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Add notability line to criteria

I suggest we add this line to the Inclusion Criteria at top and in article.

• The aircraft must have a significant role in the work and not simply being seen. Appearances in games are considered non-notable except for notable games dedicated to the specific aircraft.

Please post if you support this or not. Suggest wording changes if needed. -fnlayson (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not a dramatic change over what we have now, but it does refine it. I support that. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll add this to the bottom of criteria at the top and in the article in a couple days, unless there are suggestions/comments for changes posted. -fnlayson (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fine with me. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good - thanks for adding that! - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You can note that I have updated WP:AIRPOP to reflect this latest version. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Short sections

I think this article has too many short sections. I tried combining some from the same manufacturer to help with this. Maybe there are other and better ways to do this, short of adding fluff to the existing entries. Other ideas? -fnlayson (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the question here is whether to leave the sections by aircraft type or group them under manufacturers, at least for the short sections. Personally I think it should be left by type for ease of locating aircraft, but I am open to being convinced of the efficacy of other approaches. - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Aurora question

Quite a bit of material has been added about the Aurora. Some is well written and sourced, some isn't. However, there is one minor point I think we need to discuss: Can we definatively say that the Aurora exists? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup that is an issue that is being discussed at Talk:Aurora_(aircraft)#Lockheed_D-21). It may be more of an urban legend than an aircraft. At the present unless someone finds all those refs tagged it will be reduced to one referenced entry on Friday anyway, unless someone thinks we should hang on. - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• There article on the Aurora states in the first line that the aircraft is hypothetical. Without definative evidence of it, I'm looking at this being like the X-men's plane. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Aurora aircraft is an urban legend type thing for sure. It has has been covered in non-fiction sources, so it is not a purely fictional aircraft. So I'm not sure where it belongs. -fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I kinda swing both ways on this one. The F-117 and Have Blue existed for quite a long time before their existence was confirmed or acknowledged. SOMETHING made the donuts on a rope contrails, and unexplained sonic booms WERE heard. I am keeping an open mind on the matter. And I think it was well-credentialed aviation writer Bill Sweetman who reported seeing a mystery aircraft being refueled over the North Atlantic... Mark Sublette (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mystery aircraft or something made this or that contrail doesn't necessarily equal Aurora. I fully accept that aircraft exist before they are confirmed. However, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia of verified items, right? I could even buy off on it if it was something reasonably confirmed, but one of those things the govt didn't acknowlege (like the Delta Force was), but at this point, this looks like much more speculation and theories than facts that this particular aircraft is flying. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

While new "black" projects can indeed remain secret for a while, keep in mind that if this existed that it probably first flew in the mid-1980s, some 25 years ago, and may well be out of service by now. It is an old story. I don't mind if we decide it is too close to "fictional" for this article and delete the whole thing, I moved the popcruft here, because it was cluttering up the Aurora (aircraft) article and didn't belong there either. If it isn't sourced pretty fast it won't be here either for long! - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• To my thinking, the fact that you had to say "if this existed" speaks for itself. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well no one objected or added any refs and so the bulk of the Aurora text went in the weekly clean-up. I did alter the introductory wording to the section a bit, but please do review it and see if it should be further explained. - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still left with my basic issue: we can't say for sure that it exists. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure that it DOESN'T! Mark Sublette (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mark, whether it does or doesn't exist is really secondary to what we can prove through a reliable source. Do you have any reliable source that says, unequivocably, that the aircraft does exist? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It is true that there is no evidence that it exists, but in tracking this issue over many years I would say on the balance of probabilities that there probably was at least one prototype at one time, although it is probably retired by now in favour of the Global Hawk. I would suggest that since the section is now pretty small that we leave it a bit and see if the aircraft gets donated to a museum or something and if not in a period of time we revisit this. - Ahunt (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• The only problem we run into is that we have a criteria that specifies that the aircraft has to be real. I won't debate the probabilities/possibilities or likelihoods, but the next time someone comes to put the next urban legend into the article, how do we justify removing it? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36: you make a good point there. I think the other factor in favour of removing it is that because virtually nothing is known about the rumoured aircraft that therefore any depictions in movies and such are likely to have been inaccurate and therefore not a representation of a real aircraft used in a work of fiction, but a fictional aircraft. Anyone in favour of keeping it? - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I can't cite no statistics for the presumed Aurora, I'm slightly more in favour of keeping it than less, but if it the consensus that it doesn't make the cut, I won't quibble. That being said - as a former Air Force brat who spent the late 60s in Southern California, fully aware of what and where Groom Lake was when I was in the 8th grade, my feeling is that of the purported black projects of the era that MAY have existed if any have, this would be most likely candidate. Just sayin'. Mark Sublette (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mark, I appreciate the possibilities, but is that where we want the article to go? Fact: We have removed fictional aircraft from the article repeatedly. Fact: We can't provide a reliable source that will state the Aurora exists. How do we square those 2 facts with each other? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor but hard to fix(IMO) typo in C-54 section

Templehof is a typo. It should read Tempelhof, which is the correct German spelling. But it is bracketed, so I gather it's a link to another article, which is named Templehof. I don't know how to change it without breaking the link. Anyone? User.Zero.Zero.Zero.One (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! The correct link is indeed to Tempelhof. Templehof is just a redirect to that article anyway. Incidentally you can edit anything inside the square bracketed links, just test it to make sure it goes to the article you intended when you are done! Let me know if that isn't clear and I'll explain it more completely. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sink the Bismarck!

I see Mark has included a section on the Swordfish in this film. My only query on this is that according to the film article and my own recollection of the film it is a "true story" and therefore not fiction. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right on all counts, although there were no doubt some aspects of fiction in the book and/or film, Swordfish did play a major role in the sinking, so I've removed that entry. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

We have already had this discussion - we have many mentions of productions that are based on "true" stories, to wit: Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, A Bridge Too Far, The Longest Day, Tora, Tora, Tora, to name but a few - and the previous consensus was that as dialogue and sequencing is invariably modified for the screen production, these kinds of entries are included... Mark Sublette (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess since it isn't clearly a documentary then you are right it is "fictionalized history". - Ahunt (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21

Hello. Just asking humbly, so that I might avoid these mistakes in the future (this being my first post - and couldn't find any other link to ask my queries). :-)

The lines 'However, the movie is set in 1971. The IAF (Indian Air Force) only had the MiG-21FL variant in service at that time.' were removed from my original post.

Was it because these were not relevant to the topic/heading? Or because the references were inadequate? Or both?

Also, I couldn't find anything that specifically mentioned the other planes used in the movie. For.e.g The HAL HJT-16 Kiran trainer, the Sukhoi Su-7 (used to depict aircraft on both sides !! As itself, on the IAF side and probably the Shenyang F-6 on the adversaries side) and the Mi-8. However, there are clips from this movie on 'youtube' where these planes are visible and easily identifiable. Is it advisable to use the links to these clips as references? --Gsh71 (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions. As you can see from the discussions on this talk page this article tends to get a lot of unsourced minor appearances in video games and similar added, so the editors working on this article have created a consensus to require everything to be carefully sourced, as well as to have "significant roles" in the production named. I removed the discussion of MiG 21 variants in service and the refs that went with them because it wasn't really relevant to the film appearances and also because none of the refs addressed the film at all, just provided service dates. Essentially this amounted to WP:SYNTHESIS and isn't all that germane to the film anyway. As far as the other types go, no sorry but someone's interpretation of what they see in a video isn't a usable ref, particularly when the video is probably copyright violation and therefore not citable anyway. Basically you need a WP:RS for the other aircraft, although I suspect that their parts in the film are relatively minor and therefore don't make the inclusion citeria anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think recent edits have sorted this out. There are enough refs for both the MiG-21 and Kiran and I have moved the Kiran to its own section. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey ! Thanks so much, AHunt. :-) Really appreciate your help and comments. I'll try to get some definitive references for the Su-7 and Mi-8 featured in the film, but that may prove difficult. The Indian defence establishments are generally quite conservative about depictions in public media, more than most countries. It is only now that they are becoming more 'open', but, as is evident from the controversies encountered while filming 'Rang_De_Basanti', not quite enough. Pity though, this film may be the only one depicting the Su-7 in public media (other than documentaries).  :-) Thanks again.

--Gsh71 (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

F-104 Starfighter in Star Trek

The 60's episode Tomorrow Is Yesterday uses Air Force stock footage, since the fate of an F-104 pilot plays a major role in the plot of that episode. --MikeZ (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, but you need to find a reference for it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The second time around the reference link was removed even though it contains visual confirmation of the F-104. What do you expect? Personal confirmation from the US president, written in blood? --MikeZ (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No what you need is a ref that conforms to WP:RS. Identifying aircraft from videos is considered WP:OR on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Video_links#References for more information. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ref links to possible copyright violations

We currently have three You Tube references cited in the article. One http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0dn4COqsoY seems to be a US govt film, which would make it public domain, but the other two are clips from copyrighted films and they were not uploaded by the copyright holder as far as I can tell, nor do they seem to be on You Tube in compliance with US "Fair Use" copyright law (for review, comment or parody, etc). Under WP:COPYLINK we aren't allowed to use copyright violation links as external links or refs, so I am thinking these refs should be removed. One is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH8zdA5J1yc used in the F-4 section and the other is the newly added http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4CkCFFN4gU in the F-104 section. These are both sole refs for their respective sentences, meaning that unless another ref can be found the sentences will get deleted as well. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay since a week has past without any objections I will remove these two links and replace them with ref needed tags. - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I looked for an inline copyright type for this, but found nothing. -fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think because using these copyright vio links is prohibited as per WP:COPYLINK that there isn't a special tag, they just have to be removed. I intentionally waited until Saturday to remove these refs to give us a week to find new refs before the text gets clean-up next Friday. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Massive Article Bias

Hi

As it stands, this is not really an article describing Aircraft in fiction. It is an article primarily describing aircraft in film. (I know there are one or two honourable exceptions, but they remain in a tiny minority). The problem begins with the article introduction, which is solely a description of the representation of aviation in cinema. This introduction therefore needs to be rewritten to better reflect the article's title...or the article needs to be renamed and the few references to video games and novels expunged. Personally I favour a more inclusive, more balanced article, in which you can find a comprehensive reference to the fictional appearances of a given aircraft type, rather than three parallel articles itemising appearances in film, literature and video games.

What does everyone think? How do we fix the problem? BlackMarlin (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mainly films, but there are several entries on books also. You need to establish a new consensus regarding video games. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The article contains aircraft in films, books, TV shows, video games. It was never intended to be just film, although that is where the most complete refs are found, which is why there is more content in that area. I don't see any reason to change the scope, but if more refs for non-film uses can be found that would be helpful. Keep in mind that the main use of this article, as explained above, is to keep all the cruft out of aircraft type articles, so a wide scope is needed to accomplish that goal. - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature consistency

Why are some aircraft - such as the P-38 Lightning - known simply by their designation, while others - such as the North American AT-6 Texan - receive the full name including the manufacturer? It would be nice to impose some sort of system on the article. And that's before we even get to special cases like the V-22, which appears as the MV-22 in the Dale Brown novel Hammerheads and the CV-22 in the film Transformers... BlackMarlin (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Each aircraft type is generally linked the first time it is mentioned and that includes the designation and name. I see little reason to repeat the full designation and name on subsequent mentions. Aircraft where this is not done may need to be corrected. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is because WikiProject Aircraft underwent a change in nomenclature from Designation, Name to Manufacturer, Designation, Name recently and this article has not been fully updated yet. As mentioned generally in each section the full Manufacturer, Designation, Name should be used upon first mention, wikilinked to the type article and then a shorter name or designation should used in subsequent mentions. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Fnlayson and I have gone though the article and fixed all instances we could find. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer with my original query. Why is it, in the TITLE of each subsection, that some aircraft such as the Texan receive the full designation while others - like, any of the modern US fighters - are simply known by the alphanumeric designation? In other words, if there's a section entitled 'Vickers Wellington', then shouldn't the corresponding American bomber be entitled 'North American B-25 Mitchell'? I know this is taken care of in the sub-articles themselves - it's just the titles that I noticed. I'm happy to do it myself, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't treading on any toes by doing so... BlackMarlin (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point - as mentioned, on Wikiproject Aircraft all articles used to be named Designation, Name and were recently changed to Manufacturer, Designation, Name. This article still has many of its section headings under the old system and you are right it really should be updated just for consistancy. This would require renaming the section headings (from say A-1 Skyraider to Douglas A-1 Skyraider) then moving the sections to make them alphabetical within the article again. As a third step, many of the individual aircraft articles have links in them (usually through "Main" templates) to the corresponding Aircraft in fiction section, so these would have to all be tracked down and the links fixed. That last part is the main workload, but if you want to take it on, then please do. - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sections were arranged based on the articles names at the time as Ahunt described. They seem better arranged that way and make it easier to find. I don't see a real need to rearrange them. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It would definitely be a fairly big job to do so and I am not sure how much value it adds. - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So the "Harrier jump jet" is a correct name for aircraft? In case you guys forgot this is an encyclopedia and whether you think the article maybe trivial or not, it should have correct titles. Jetijonez (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The main Wikipedia article on this aircraft type is Harrier Jump Jet, Aircraft in fiction is just reflecting that. - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Harrier Jump Jet"/"Harrier family" covers all the versions: Harrier, AV-8A, Sea Harrier, Harrier II, AV-8B, etc. A couple of the entries do not specify which version. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Include UAVs?

Since UAVs are technically aircraft, should they also be included in this article? Shuipzv3 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would think so, as long as the entry meets the rest of the criteria stated above, particularly a "significant role" and reliable reference cited. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way in the first section above, Niteshift36 says the UAV in Transformers is a MQ-1 Predator, and the source he supplied supports that too. For me, the UAV looks more like a MQ-9 Reaper to me. The Predator has two vertical stabilisers shaped like lambda or an inverted 'V', while the Reaper has 3 shaped like a 'Y'. If you look closely on the footage it looks more like a Y than an inverted V. However, the UAV in the film was also shown to be powered by a jet engine, though both the Predator and Reaper use propellors. The film also didn't state the type of UAV. Shuipzv3 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my bad, 'Predator' was actually said twice in the film. Shuipzv3 (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Mission Impossible III. Unsure of the type, or where you might even find a ref. on it Jetijonez (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in an episode of NCIS: Los Angeles, a Predator got stolen and nearly destroyed a high school with a AGM-114 Hellfire missile. I think it was in season one. Shuipzv3 (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The episode is episode 3. (NCIS: Los Angeles) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuipzv3 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As always these can be added if refs can be found. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

UAV`s were used quite often in the stargate television show, I am unsure of the type used or it is one they designed themselves for the show however. Tentontunic (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am fairly certain those are fictional aircraft and so would go over in List of fictional aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The trick for this article is the locating and citing of references for entries. There are still a slew of aviation movies out there which are not included here - yet. The 1957 John Wayne film "The Wings of Eagles" about the development of U.S. Naval Aviation is unlisted, as is the 1944 carrier film "Wing and a Prayer", neither of which I have been able to find independent descriptions for, despite both having extensive aviation footage. Mark Sublette (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, by definition, if the use of the aircraft in these films have never been described in independent third party refs then their roles in the films are non-notable. That doesn't make it not worth looking, however! - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Film Posters

Any qualms to adding film snap shot or Movie posters to this article? Jetijonez (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely that you would find any free images to add to the article I would have thought that movie posters and snapshots would be copyrighted and would not pass WP:NFCC for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We have added some free images of aircraft types and also a few copyrighted images that have had information added to the image page for non-free use in this article. As long as the requirements for image licencing can be met I think it would enhance the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed with the above. Any non-free images used here need to be good quality and specific to the appearance in the fiction. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Good deal, I've become quite familiar with the free / non-free lic. on here and Wikicoms. So if I come across any good ones, (pics) I will add them, but probably not much out there. Jetijonez (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That is great as long as the licencing rules for non-free media are met. Overall the article has a lot of text and some more images will help make it more interesting for readers. In some cases, as with rare aircraft, like the Hispano HA-1112, I have added free images of the aircraft type just to show what it looks like. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to say the question should be answered in a case by case basis. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Twilight Zone: The Movie

Although Twilight Zone: The Movie was made, the scene with the UH-1 Huey, was never completed due to the accident, and never appears in the final cut. Therefore I don't believe this entry meets the criteria, of "Aircraft in Action". That's just a news story about a helicopter accident that took place, while it was being filmed for a movie. Jetijonez (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. If it never appears in the movie, it's tough to say it had a significant role in the actual movie. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries - if you want to eliminate it, I won't whine. Mark Sublette (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Friday cleanups

As described above on this page we have had a general consensus to aggressively clean-up unsourced text added to the article to keep the article clear of cruft. As editors who have been watching this page will know, I started doing clean-ups of unsourced text on each Friday several months ago. This seems to be generally working as it has prevented the article from becoming a dumping ground for unsourced fancruft. I should note that some other editors have also been removing obvious cases as they are added, which is appreciated. Since this clean-up has been going on for a while I just wanted to ask if there are any objections. If not then I will continue on with this approach to keeping this article serviceable. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly happy with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm fine with friday clean ups. Although I'd rather they be done later in the day. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is no problem. I usually do them around 1200Z, but I can push it back to 2359Z or thereabouts if that is better? - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Me not being a good morning person is largely why I mentioned it. ;) I was thinking like midday sometime, but before midnight is fine. Thanks. Oh and I will help. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem - it all depends where you live - midnight Zulu is eight in the evening where I live! In fact I'll go and take care of it now, takes mere seconds as long as everything is tagged. - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Of note: I think we are winning the war! Over time the weekly requirement to remove unsourced text seems to be generally diminishing and we are getting more sourced additions each week, too! I think this seems to prove that our policy of aggressively removing unsourced text is working and that the article is getting better over time instead of worse. Probably our next issue to deal with here is going to be what to do about the length of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be time to start regular minor appearance clean-ups, maybe once a month. That will help some with article length. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. The article is currently 106 KB, while 30-50 KB is the recommended length. The alternative would be to consider splitting the article, but I have no idea how we would do that, since there isn't an obvious split point, so I think reducing minor appearances would be better. What criteria shall we use to decide "minor"? - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think removing the game cruft as it appears helps. I'm not worried about the recommended length. That's just a suggestion and this topic doesn't lend itself well to a split. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching the article carefully this past week and I think we are really making progress with the unsourced fancruft - for the first time there was no need to do a Friday clean-up this week! I think we have worn them down with our persistent quality standards! - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Even more progress - no unsourced text to clean up this week either! - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Zero types

Before I go and change it, I would like to open the floor to an idea. Perhaps it would be more inclusive to call the Zero section "Mitsubishi Zero" rather than A6M Zero. If I recall correctly, the models actually flying at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack were A5Ms, and as modified T-6 Texans actually stood in for the no longer available Japanese fighters, the particular variants really weren't shown. So, rather than list the sub-type of the Type "0" in the header, I suggest this change. Mark Sublette (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Since Mitsubishi Zero redirects to A6M Zero, I'm not seeing the need. It sounds like we're getting overly technical. Just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The A5M wasn't a Zero in any case - it was code named the Claude and was a fixed gear open cockpit precursor that was out of operational service before WW2. The sub variants were indicated by a number after A6M - such as the A6M2 or A6M5.NiD.29 (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• What does the A5M have to do with the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Internet Movie Plane Database

IMPDb.org - Aircraft in Films and TV Series

I posted this link in the external links, but it was removed for not meeting requirements, which I would argue but can't be bothered. So I'll post it here instead. This site is essentially an expansion of this page into a proper database with pictures, registrations and other relevant information. Is there anyway this link could be incorporated into the main page as I think it justifiable in being of extreme interest readers of the article - maybe in 'Further reading'? Bthebest (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary in removing it, being a wiki it can't be used as a ref as it doens't meet WP:RS. To be included as an external link, further reading etc it has to comply with WP:ELNO, and it doesn't. In particular item number 12 prohibits this kind of external link and 4 probably applies as well. - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand it doesn't meet the criteria for the 'External links', but I think it would still be beneficial in the 'Further reading' section which is less restrictive. The key issue here would be its extent as a reliable source. Obviously, as it is not a recognised brand or name, its reliability hinges on the fact that it is a community project like Wikipedia, so subsequently it does by Wikipedia standards have an element of un-biased, current reliability. In WP:Further reading, it suggests that unrecognised sources may be appropriate in the case that: "creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article". I, or anyone else, could add lots of information to this page and cite IMPDb as the source - which compared to a lot of the other sources on this page is much more reliable - and the site would, with a brief annotation qualify as 'Further reading'. Bthebest (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as my understanding goes an external link anywhere in the article has to comply with WP:EL to avoid spamming under another name. This article has lots of editors watching it, let's see what others have to say on the subject and see what the consenus is. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

/ The Further reading section used to be only for print sources. Anyway, WP:EL says "All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions." So I think the "no Wiki links" guideline still applies if the link is in another section. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it may insinuate that 'Further reading' is for print sources only, it actually applies for all publications, digital or otherwise. Anyhow, the discussion has clearly established, through Wikipedia guidelines, that the link will not be published on the main page. This is unfortunate I think for the readers as they are missing out on information that is better formatted and more complete than this page could ever be. If of course a further consensus is reached that the link would be more beneficial than the potential harm prevented by WP guidlines, then great. Bthebest (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Right, I stated "used be" on purpose. The policy pages no longer say that. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, must have misread that. Bthebest (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. I don't really have a problem with listing the link. But I don't see a way in the guidelines to allow it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I had the same problem awhile back: I added an external links section with the IMPDB and it was undone immediately thereafter under the external links rules, but I feel that's a complete misinterpretation of the guidelines. The rule (or rules if you include both 4 and 12) is/are intended to keep things clean by not linking to pathetic wikis with lotsa vandalism and/or blatant spam. The IMPDB is neither, having been fairly stable, well organized, and growing at a considerable rate (several articles per week). It's still new, but based on the firearms database and quite well done. A link to the planes database is really no different than all the many links to Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, and the Muppet wiki among others, albeit on a smaller scale. Continually denying this external link simply prevents this article from having a solid external resource, and, I would add, is a bit hypocritical. (Anything goes here, but lets not direct readers to a well done site?!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.87.175 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

image removal

An editor keeps removing the image File:F15s-transformers.jpg, saying it's not justified on this page. I think it's very justified, as it clearly shows a jet model being mentioned by name in the text of fiction. Opinions on this? Mathewignash (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• As I explained on your talk page, I removed the image from the article because the use of non-free images on this article would be hard to justify, and specifically in this case just isn't justifiable at all. The article where the image is used is linked from the article, and per WP:NFLISTS #4, we should point to the article where that usage occurs, not use it again in this article. If the use here were permitted, there would be no reason to prohibit the use of more than 180 non-free images on this article alone. That is clearly not acceptable under WP:NFCC #3 policy. If you have questions about this, please ask, but do not restore as this is a clear violation of policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Policies aside for the moment, personally, I don't think it really adds much to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• This article is not a list and these are not clear violations here. But the opening the door to numerous images is a fair point. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I do think that with the images removed the article looks far duller, so perhaps we should make an effort to add some more free images of the types involved just to make the article more visually appealing. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• An article with >180 entries of the same general type ('this aircraft had these depictions') having a few sentences apiece is not a list? If this list approached the historical development of aircraft in fiction, industry struggles to use aircraft in fiction, famous accidents that had an impact on fictional use, etc. I could see it not being a list. This is just a listing of every fictional reference people have been able to come up with. If we permit the use of non-free items for depiction purposes for one fictional reference, there's no bar to including all of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, it's not a list. It's a work in progress. Those who have been here working on it know this and for you to swoop in and start acting as you have is, well not exactly polite. Also, when I made my comment above, I was talking about the single image mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you the very civil characterization of my edits. I'm always impolite, swoop in, and start acting as I have. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I wasn't uncivil to you. If you think so, WQA is that way...... You discussed nothing with anyone, never contributed to the article and have done nothing but delete, then demanding that your changes be left in place before any discussion take place. So characterizing it as "swooping in" is pretty accurate. Again, if that bruises your fragile ego, WQA is that way..... Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the characterization of my ego. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• The comments above seem more about the manner of what you did and not about you personally. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• When Niteshift36 is ready to discuss what I did, rather than attempt characterizations of how and why I did it, let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• As Fnlayson pointed out, my comments were about what you did. Linking to civil and NPA doesn't impress anyone and won't make your allegations true. Again, if you think you have a case, you know where WQA is. Declaring that you won't discuss something with an editor because you don't like what another editor said is one of the most transparent delaying tactics I've seen around here. Then again, having looked over your page and what you've decided to be proud of, my hopes for a legitimate discussion and constructive contributions from you are greatly diminished. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• They should not be. If you decide to engage in civil discussion regarding this issue, I will be 100% faithful in tending to the discussion and responding to all points raised. If instead you decide to remain uncivil and attempt to sway discussion by mischaracterizations of me, then the results you get from that decision will be of your own making. I do hope you decide to be civil moving forward. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• You know, I basically agree with your edits. The problem here is that you are so busy being...you...that you can't get to that part of the discussion. There was no incivility from me, at least not until you started your ridiculous campaign of wiki-linking to policies about imagined offenses and your fake excuses. FYI, making demands regarding others conduct, so that a third party is allowed to talk to you, isn't AGF. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I know. Isn't this a fun meta discussion? <cough> Look, talking about me swooping in, being impolite, and having a fragile ego has absolutely nothing to do with whether my edits were proper or not. I don't have to tolerate people being uncivil. All you have to do is drop the incivility moving forward, and discuss the removals in a way that doesn't comment on me or any other editor. That's all it takes. If asking you to do that is breaking WP:AGF, then so be it. You directed me to WP:WQA. I direct you to WP:AN/I to request I be blocked for this violation of WP:AGF. Otherwise, let's drop the knives, drop the incivility, and start talking about the presence or lack thereof of the images, shall we? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Direct whatever you want and I'll pretend like I care. I don't view AGF as a suicide pact, so running to ANI every time someone fails to assume it isn't something I do. Just like I don't needlessly wikilink stuff that an experienced editor has undoubtably read, particularly when they've already talked about it. My initial comment in this discussion was about the issue at hand. It didn't go into other areas until you started disparaging the on-going work that has taken place in this article. Now, YOU can move on to discussing the actual issue or you can choose to continue this back and forth. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• That last comment you made before you became uncivil was "No, it's not a list. It's a work in progress." To the first sentence, I've already replied as to why I think it is a list. There's no need at this point for me to amplify that. As to the second, all articles on Wikipedia are a work in progress, so I don't see a need to respond to that either. If you have an additional point to make in regards to the images being on the article, I'm all ears. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I see you chose "keep complaining about imagined and inflated incivility" rather than "stick to the topic". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I responded to the last points you raised before you became uncivil. If you have another point to make regarding the presence of the images on the article, please make it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, you couched your response in (yet) another complaint about an imagined lack of civility and continue to do so. If you truly wanted to move on, you'd focus solely on the issue of images in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• If you have another point to make regarding the presence of the images on the article, please make it. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Finally. Yes, I do. I do not think this article is a list and trying to treat it as such is not the correct application of style. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• As I noted, I already responded to the claim this isn't a list and see no need to amplify that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps you don't understand this, but just because you "responded" doesn't make your version correct. Have you heard of consensus? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't say it made me correct. I said my comments on the point did not require further amplification. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• As one who has spent many months working on this article, I STRENUOUSLY object to removal of the images by Hammersoft. Images DO improve it, and the mere fact that Hammersoft has so flightily (pun intended) decided to remove content without having contributed anything towards the improvement DOES strike me as an egotistical and high-handed act of self-importance. The correct action is to DISCUSS it first, reach a consensus with the active editors, of which he is NOT one, and then take action. The summary excising of content just 'cuz he thinks it should be so is the improper course of action. Mark Sublette (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• And I'll give you the same caution on civility. Describing *me* in relation to the edits is counter to our philosophy here. Referring to me as "egotistical", "high-handed", having "self-importance" is hardly civil. Please stop. As to my not being an active editor, I am an active editor on Wikipedia. I do not need anyone's permission to edit this article, and I do not have to have edit it previously to make changes. As to the images improving the article, that's vague. There might be a case under WP:NFCC #8 that the images improve the article. What is the case? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Back to more complaining about civility. :rolleyes: Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, it would be an awful lot easier to discuss this if people didn't resort to incivility. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe you don't realize it, but characterizing your edits isn't automatically an "attack" or uncivil. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Referring to me as "egotistical", "high-handed", having "self-importance" is not a comment on my edits, but a comment on me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• It is not all bulleted items or a big table, so not a list per MoS. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• As I told you Hammersoft on my talk page, It's more of deconstructing of WP, than anything else. Perhaps the ideal thing to do is work on a solution rather than just start removing images. Jetijonez (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• On your talk page, you advocated retaining the images for the reason that they add "to the overall appearance of the article". As I noted there, that is not a valid criteria for retaining non-free content on an article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

How conveniently you cherry-pick WP MOS to support your view. What you CAN do as an editor is not the same thing as what you SHOULD do. Until your wholesale removal of images from this article, you have not been an active editor on THIS article, which is the issue at hand. You undercut the efforts of others who HAVE worked on it, and you completely dodged the main point that I was making about DISCUSSING the matter before taking action. Mark Sublette (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't cite WP:MOS, so I do not understand your accusation. As to my not being an active editor here, I'll state again; I do not need anyone's permission to edit this article. If I do, perhaps you can point me to the guideline/policy that says I must seek permission to edit this article? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My point is still that you have done nothing to contribute to this article, but are keen to remove content without seeking consensus. Period. Mark Sublette (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• My lack of contributions to this article does not prohibit me from editing it. I removed the content I felt violated WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFCC. Two editors sought to restore some of the material without addressing the core issues. So, I removed them again, and left a message on both of their talk pages. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• And NFLIST is a guideline that is being wielded like a sword here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

NFLISTS may be a guideline here, but WP:NFCC is policy. It states that Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding In this article the non-free files are not critical and are thus decorative, and re-inserting will result in admin intervention and probable blocks for violating our non-free content policy. If personal attacks and similar comments continue administrator intervention may also be needed. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That is correct, it is used to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. This non-free image was chosen when this article was started because it specifically illustrated to the reader the use of specific by name aircraft in fiction, being named in a way described in the article. The narrator of the comic speciffically mentions a real world aircraft model, not simply says "jets". A simple free image of a jet without text from fiction WOULD NOT illustrate this point, so the image is not replaceable. Mathewignash (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And you are forgetting the last part, any image helps the reader understand to a degree, however in this article it fails NFCC#8. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The picture enhances understanding of the article by it's presence, and the article would be negatively affected by it's absense. #8 is perfectly fulfilled. Mathewignash (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

negatively affected is not enough, when asking if you really need an image, ask yourself why must this article have this exact file? most of the time non-free files are not required, just make the article better, however if it falls into the second category it becomes decorative, like in this case. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

NFCC 8 requires more then that, as is plain. None of these images are needed to get any understanding across. If the use is in fact opaque enough to require a non-free image, it will be on the article for the work of fiction, not this list. -- ۩ Mask 20:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@Mathewignash (and anyone holding a similar view); Your claim that having the images fulfills WP:NFCC #8 would allow the use of any non-free image for any fictional reference the list makes. As just a starting example, I offer this revision of the article which has 8 non-free images and I haven't even made it halfway through the "A"s in the list yet. All of those non-free images satisfy the requirements in the same way you claim. Under your rationale, what's stopping us from including hundreds of non-free images in this article? Anything? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference would be that you can use ONE non-free image to illustrate something in the article. After that point is illustrated you don't need 7 more (or 179 more) images that illustrate the same point. I find this idea that if one image is somehow justified than it opens the door for 180 images to be a red herring. You can illustrate an article with ONE non-free image without it meaning you need a hundred more that illustrate the same thing. There are currently NO non-free images in the article. The image was not originally poaced in the F-15 section, it was the first image in the article, and I would advocate placing it there again, as it pertains to the entire article. Mathewignash (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• How is it a red herring? You say we can use ONE non-free image to support something mentioned in the article. I did precisely that in my revision. None of the images that I added were from the same fictional references. They were one each from different fictional references. Extending that could yield hundreds of non-free images. Perhaps you meant one non-free image per aircraft mentioned? That would still yield as many as 185 non-free images. Am I missing something? Do you have a more precise definition of what should be allowed? What "the image" are you referring to? I removed 4 non-free images from the article. Two others were removed before that. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• You very well know I mean one image for the main meaning of the article as a whole, no one has mentioned trying to give images to every section of the article, and you are only mentioning it to illustrate an absurd point to get the image removed. Mathewignash (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• You have no 'entitlement' to any non-free images, let alone a specific number. Non-free images are used only when required for understanding, not whenever you feel like you'd like to illustrate something. -- ۩ Mask 23:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed entitlement, I claimed that the image is fully justified. Do not accuse me of things I never said to confuse the issue. Mathewignash (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

..you can use ONE non-free image to illustrate something in the article. After that point is illustrated you don't need 7 more (or 179 more) images that illustrate the same point. How else would you read that statement? -- ۩ Mask 23:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I see now from your edits (that I've reverted; no consensus to include this non-free material and its contested) that you mean File:F15s-transformers.jpg. Why this image? What is particularly significant about this particular non-free item that we must included it as the representative sample that the article requires? The purpose of use you added to the rationale is weak, saying only "this image is used to demonstrate the use of real world aircraft in a fictional setting." Again, this sort of rationale could be used to explain ANY addition of non-free content to the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to back this up a little bit. Mathewignash, please carefully read the 8th numbered item in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. How this is usually applied across the project is that an image that is not directly tied to its subject (such as an album cover on that album's article) needs to be tied to the text, usually using secondary sourced discussion. If there's no such tie, then the article will read the same and be understood the same whether the image is there or not. Right now, unless the text of the article changes, I could add a non-free image of the Eiffel Tower at night for all the relevance it adds to the article. Is File:F15s-transformers.jpg somehow notable as being an excellent example of aircraft in fiction? Can you support that with secondary sourcing? Something. Anything. We can't go with an argument like 'it's significant because an editor says its significant'. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I submitted this image because it specifically mentions the model in the text, easily for people to see, has several examples of the jet model in the image, and is in a well known series. I'd gladly look at other non-free images that you think are better examples though, but no one has submitted one yet. Mathewignash (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Entitlement? well let's review, if I understand correctly, we (editors, you, me and everyone here) is WP. So a consensus should be gained like anything else. And Yes WE are entitled to do so. This Free / Non-free images rule is a joke, If I had a nickel for every non-free image unnecessarily put in a artcle I would be a billionaire. Interestingly more over who are they (owners of the image) gonna sure you? me? Jimmy? They get free advertisement on their logo ,poster, organization , or product, on here there no one is making money from WP..Just makes no sense. Jetijonez (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• The non-free image rules stem from things that are not consensus driven, Foundation resolutions and our founding mission and vision statements. Our EDP is consensus driven but there are firm bounds placed on the maximum extent of it. -- ۩ Mask 23:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• I completely understand and attempt to comply with the current non-free image rules, however, I believe those rules have been followed faithfully with the image in question. It does seem like some editors have taken to enforcing the rules to the extreme, and perhaps a bit past it, which I understand, as non-free images have been abused in articles. This is just the swinging of the pendulum in the opposite direction, first we were too permissive, now we seem to be too strict. Sadly some editors are taking advantage of this debate to goad others into arguements. That is not helping improve wikipedia. Mathewignash (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• @Mathewignash; Ok, so you're saying if a specific representation in fiction is mentioned in the article, it's ok to include a non-free image of it? Doesn't that still yield the problem of having dozens, if not hundreds of images? How does this get us down to one? How does this one image represent the entire subject such that we must have it in order for the reader to understand the subject? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• No Hammersoft, I did not say that at all. I don't take you as being that unintelligent, so I can only guess you are trying to derail this talk by injecting purposely innane arguements in an attempt to get an emotional response. Mathewignash (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• WP:AGF isn't just a good idea, it's an agreed upon editing guideline. Assume at least some good faith here please? I am not throwing inane arguments at you. Look, we come from two different perspectives on this. Finding common ground is impossible until we get at least some inkling of perspective commonality. I'm trying to find that with you; to understand how you think the F-15 fiction image is somehow representative, supported by secondary sources, of the entire genre. If you think that's inane, I'm sorry. But please assume some good faith and answer the question. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Side note this talk page, it is text, a lot of times things can get misconstrued or takne out of context. Let's try to keep everything in perspective. Jetijonez (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Now that this discussion seems to have come to an end I wanted to indicate that I am planning to add some free images to illustrate it, since we can't seem to justify non-free images. These won't be from the movies/books/games/etc, but will help readers see what the aircraft look like and make the article less of a monolith of dense text. - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame we have to go to this extend, but thanks Ahunt I'll see what I can dig up from my end too Jetijonez (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a selection of free images to help illustrate the aircraft types involved, but didn't want to flood the article with pictures. See if you think we need some more or not. - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good I think you have covered it quiet well. It looks like the right amount, kind of similar to the List of Bell UH-1 Iroquois operators a picture even so often Jetijonez (talk) 00:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

My aim was that for most screen widths that a reader would have one image on-screen at all times, just to make the article less dull. More could be added of course, but it does slow down page loading times. - Ahunt (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pepsi Stuff mention in the Harrier section

The Harrier section has a mention of a Harrier being offered as a prize in a Pepsi give away contest. Even though someone tried to claim the prize, the company refused, the claimant went to court and was told it was a joke, I am not entirely sure that this qualifies as "aircraft in fiction". The aircraft really exists although Pepsi didn't have one to give way and the use was in a real life advertising campaign. Opinions? - Ahunt (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not feel it was an appearance in fiction, so I left it there. Does not really matter to me where it goes though. -Fnlayson (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it meets the criteria Jetijonez (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't belong. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove it then. - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• And I moved it to the AV-8B article. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! It is really more a general "pop culture item" than a fictional use. - Ahunt (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Image Exchange

I'm wondering if you guys think we could switch out the Huey pic for this clear, color shot seen here I think it might be more representational of how the UH-1 Huey has been seen on the big screen, and best of all it's free. Str8 out of commons . And by no means is this to impugn on Ahunt's work Jetijonez (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no sweat - the image I added was pretty arbitrary. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

ok DONE thanx Hunt Jetijonez (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine! - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Republic Seabee

A new editor to this page added a large amount of text about the Republic Seabee, with hidden embedded external links, which I removed. I also removed the external link to the Republic Seabees in the Movies web page, because it seems to be WP:SPS. I have tagged the remaining entries as requiring refs, but in reading through the descriptions it seems most are minor and trivial appearances in the films listed and thus don't meet the inclusion criteria for this article. Perhaps someone else, who is more familiar with these films could take a read though the section and judge which appearances qualify as "significant roles". - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like you made the right call. seabee.info doesn't look like it comes close to passing RS and is being used to spam numerous articles. Editor is starting to edit-war on this and has been invited to this discussion more than once. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the number of attempts to insert this ref into Wikipedia it does start to look like a WP:SPAM/WP:COI situation. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the entries into this article for the Seabee do not seem to be significant - i.e. "playing a significant role in the work and not simply being seen", and so probably warrant removal even if the ref wasn't a SPS.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Aside from being trivial appearences, the entries are overly detailed. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well unless some suitable refs are added this will all be cleaned up on Friday as per the standing consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I just completed the Friday clean-up and because this section was still lacking any refs it was removed. It can always be reinstated with suitable refs, although I think we would need to assess the entries for "significant roles". - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• And he just tried to put it all back in again. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that. It is all sourced to WP:SPS and full of WP:SPAM links. I think we have a consensus here to remove it and keep it removed. The editor is going to have to come here and make a convincing case for putting it back in, provide some acceptably reliable refs and gain a new consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• He left this on my talk page: "Hi Niteshift, Thank you for your interest in my "Republic RC-3 Seabee" section of Aircraft in fiction. I am interested in any ideas and suggestions you or others may have. Sorry, I didn't realize anyone wanted to discuss my work when I first submitted the Seabee piece recently. I'm new to this type of editing and discussion. I have since tried to made significant changes to the original piece, and find the best footnotes I could. I find writing for Wikipedia pages very challenging but interesting. I will check in with your page again over the weekend. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks." I told him that discussion needs to happen on this page, not my talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition to Boeing 747 Section

The movie Snakes on a Plane should be included in the 747 section due to the aircraft being the setting for the vast majority of the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.117.9 (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It could be included if a reliable reference is found as per WP:V. Do you have one? - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I see one here: http://movies.sky.com/snakes-on-a-plane/review Mathewignash (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks like it will do! - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not 100% sure that entry is written by a reporter. I am certain about these ones: [1], [2]. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. I have added them! - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

AC-130 game appearances

I'm not convinced that the game appearences listed for the aircraft are notable and that second source is questionable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Dubious tags on the entries should get some more attention. These game appearances do not seem notable to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying they are that notable. I pulled them. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So every shitty movie where this thing makes an appearance is noteworthy, but an extremely popular video game where the player actually gets to use it in-game isn't. Yeah, makes perfect sense... -- Imladros (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• If that's how you see it. Thanks for your constructive input. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We have included video game appearances, but only for main aircraft in the game (not minor or killstreaks) and only if proper refs are supplied as per the consensus above and WP:V. The major factor keeping more game appearances out of the article is lack of references. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just being "popular" doesn't make the apperence relevant. A Bond movie, a Harrison Ford blockbuster and the first Transformers movie are hardly minor films to be ignored.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Some Omissions

I'm not sure what quality of references is required for backup. But there are some quite notable omissions here.

Len Deighton's novel Bomber, listed under the Avro Lancaster, also deals closely with a Luftwaffe night-fighter unit, based at the fictional Kroonsdijk in Holland, flying the Junkers 88R.

A number of Hawker Hurricanes appear in the 1952 British film Angels One-Five, starring Jack Hawkins, which centres mainly on the control room of an RAF fighter station during the 1940 Battle of Britain. An enormous box-office success in its home country, it is the only film to give the Hurricane, numerically the most important RAF fighter in 1940, its due. A caption at the beginning states that the Hurricanes were loaned by the Portuguese air force.

A Spitfire makes a very striking appearance in the 1997 film The Land Girls, starring Rachel Weisz, which deals with young women serving in the British wartime Women's Land Army (conscripted farm labour). After ceremonially overflying a village 'Wings For Victory' fund-raising rally, the Spitfire is seen messing about at very low level over the countryside, vanishing into a dip and then bouncing up at the camera, the pilot clearly enjoying himself. The sequence was flown, very impressively, by the late Mark Hanna. A little awkwardly, the scene is set during winter 1941-2 and the Spitfire is a Mark IX, which didn't exist till several months later. Towards the end of the film, the world's only airworthy Messerschmitt Bf109 puts in an appearance, and a convincing crash scene is staged with clever editing and a full-scale replica. Sadly the unique 109, property of the UK Ministry of Defence, was written off in a bad landing by the Chief of the Air Staff a few years later.

The Lockheed SR-71 plays an important role in Frederick Forsyth's 1980s novel The Devil's Alternative, and a painting of the SR-71 featured on the paperback edition's cover. The novel is probably no longer available, but Forsyth is significant as the author of Day of the Jackal, which popularised the 'fact-based thriller' (even though he copied much of his style from Deighton's Bomber).

Former USAF pilot Richard Herman Jr. wrote a number of technically informed novels which featured various warplanes heavily: The Warbirds (USAF F-4 Phantoms in a fictional war with Iran), Firebreak (Israeli F-15E Strike Eagles in a fictional war with Syria), Force of Eagles (US F-15Es, not surprisingly, an AC-130 and an F-111 in a fictional hostage rescue from Iran) and Mosquito Run (DH Mosquito FB VIs in the British 1944 Operation Jericho to release French Resistance prisoners from Amiens jail, with one aircraft flown by an RAF Yank who in the 1990s, as US President, has to order another hostage rescue, this time from Thailand, involving Special Forces Sikorsky MH-53 Pave Low helicopters, MC-130 Combat Talon tankers and another AC-130 Spectre gunship. Herman's books are now out of print, but he sold well in his day, and he must be more notable than all this nonsense about Transformers toys. 91.125.129.36 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Hugo Barnacle

• Keep in mind that just appearing isn't the criteria for inclusion. Otherwise, feel free to edit yourself instead of waiting for others to do it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)