Talk:Aircraft in fiction/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cherokees in Goldfinger

In the James Bond Goldfinger movie, would the Cherokees in Pussy Galore's Flying Circus be considered significant enough to include. I think so, as they are part of the main plot, but I am very new to this. (BE77 (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)) http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/Live_and_Let_Fly.html

Yup, it is so notable that it is already in the article and that ref is already cited! File it under "great minds think alike".- Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Fools seldom differ as well..at least this one, who missed it in the article even after searching...go figure. Follow up question though to make sure I get the feel of it (newbie stuff) - the band B52s would probably merit, and I 'think' the reference here taken from the main article would work? http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/TheB52s/;kw Conversly, can someone confirm that the reference to the B52 in Springsteen's song Growin' Up ("I played B52 and bombed them with the blues...") would not qualify, since it's only one part of the song? (Unlike Steve Earle's P47 reference in Johnny Come Lately). While I'm at it, I will guess that Steve Miller's song "Jet Airliner" would qualify for a Boeing 707..."As I get on the 707" is one of the lines in a song about life on the road. Thanks BE77 (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a consensus-driven inclusion criteria stated at the top of this page that excludes mere mentions of aircraft, without even seeing them in the media in question. As it says "Real world aircraft (not fictional or made-up aircraft) that have significant roles in books, films, video games and as toys, provided reliable refs are supplied." So one mention of a 707 is not a "significant role". Also the B-52 band is named for the hairdo, not the aircraft. (Of course the hairdo was named for the aircraft, but that is pretty indirect), but a band name is hardly a work of fiction! - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

IMDB source

I tried just tagging an IMDB source as dubious, but apparently that was going to be acceptable. Most of IMDB has been rejected over and over at RSN, but the summary part has never been accepted. It clearly states on the source page "The content of this page was created directly by users and has not been screened or verified by IMDb staff". There is no way we can claim that passes RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that and for removing it! - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Maule

I added the Maule M-5, which was featured in The Cannonball Run. The Maule Air article mentions Speed 2: Cruise Control and Gone Fishin' but I haven't seen those films and I don't know if the Maule was featured prominently enough to include. That is why I didn't include them or remove the popular culture section from that article. Rsduhamel (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As per the consensus inclusion criteria at the top of the page it needs to cite a ref or it will be cleaned up on Friday. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

PAK FA in media

There are numerous works that include the Sukhoi PAK FA as one of the aircraft in fiction. Most recently, Ace Combat: Assault Horizon. Any other ideas? 115.133.212.200 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to be able to cite reliable references to add this to the article. Do you have any? - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do. It's here: http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/PAK_FA :) 115.133.216.94 (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikis are not reliable sources, see WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

10 omissions, need references

"Always" also had C-119 (with jet engine pod), "Independence Day" has B-2 Spirit, TV show Foyle's War has a brief scene of a Do-17z dropping bombs, but is also has at least 2 eppisides with Spitfires prominently shown, and the movie Dark Blue World (Tmavomodrý svět) also used Spitfires (and unknown biplane, B-25, He-111, and 109, latter 2 from BoB). Cessna 172's where used in at least one of the "Iron Eagle" movies, and in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (used by the escaping heros), and no doubt many more. In The A-Team (film) the Martin Mars has a quick shot (BA is tricked into thinking it is a boat), with C-130, F-22 and Predator drones.
I just now read about the IMDB aircraft page.... Flightsoffancy (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Well as long as you can find references and the use of the aircraft in those shows and films is extensive and not just fleeting appearances, then they can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To reinforce that.....this is about prominent appearences (which some sound like), not brief glimpses (like others sound). Niteshift36 (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Future appearance?

The F-35 section has info about a future use. It is sourced well enough, but there hasn't been an appearence yet. Opinions on whether or not we list a future role? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dont think we should as we have no evidence that any future appearance would be notable or in fact will use real F-35 aircraft! MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If you mean the Tom Cruise movie - I think this has had enough press and has enough refs that we should probably make an exception and hang onto it for now. But if the film gets canned it should go. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If it weren't so well sourced, I'd really oppose keeping it. I guess my bigger concern here is the precedent we're going to set. We're presuming that the F35 will be notable in it. It probably will be, but we're still making a presumption. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • One notable point is that I can't find any ref indicating that Top Gun 2 actually is filming, actually has a finished script, or actually has signed contracts from the purported principals. A Hollywood Reporter interview with the head of Paramount published last month spoke of it exclusively in future tense. Although the F-35 may have been pre-determined as part of the film's concept, and it may merit mentioning on that note, I think it's premature to describe Cruise as an F-35 test pilot or the film as "filming in April," which it certainly seems not to be doing except possibly for F-35 test footage. Alexiskai (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks like "that project is now on hold indefinitely", so I will remove it from the article for now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

F-35 in Avengers

The F-35 made a very notable appearance in the recent Avengers movie.173.73.60.73 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)TheEagle

It has been removed several times due to the lack of references, so if you have one please post it here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this - after I posted. I included a reference which includes a picture of Hulk and the F-35. Hope that's suitable. If not I'm sure I can find more. Alexiskai (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The refs you added both support the F-35, so that seems okay. - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

C-130 Hercules

Why isn't the spectacular scene of Cmdr Harmon Rabb Jr landing a C 130 on "his" Aircraft Carrier U.S.S. Seahawk while in the ranks of CIA mentioned here? (JAG TV series, Episode 9.5 "Touchdown") IT was even featured more than once as it cost him his job because the TV news got their hands on feetage and so his "CIA credibility" was damaged...--109.91.42.96 (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably because references are required. If you have one it can most likely be added. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft featured in Anime

Why is it that no one has bothered to mention anime in this entire article. Area 88 is an Anime that featured the following aircraft. A-10A, F-14A, A-4, F-4, F-5, Draken, F-16, MiG-21, MiG-17, English Electric Lightning, F-100, F-105, MiG-23, MiG-27, C-130, 747SP, Cessna 150, F-8, F1 Mirage, Kfir C2, F-18, OV-10 Bronco, UH-1 Huey.

--66.32.222.178 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is mostly a lack of adequate references. If you can locate some then these can be evaluated for inclusion, if they meet the general criteria at the top of this page. - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the B-25s in Pearl Harbor

It states on the page that critics complained that the bomber and its role were portrayed inaccurately, but the source (and I read it a few times to be sure) doesn't say anything of the sort. All it says is that the impact of the Doolittle raid was overstated in the film. Spartan198 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  • isn't overstating is presenting it inaccurately?Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking for references for the following items

G'Day, I am seeking (so far unsuccessfully) for reliable and appropriate references for the following:-

  • SE5as in the novel Goshawk Squadron by Derek Robinson (1971)
  • Handley-Page Hampdens & Vickers Wellingtons in the novel Damned Good Show by Derek Robinson (2004)
  • Curtis P-40 Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in the novel A Good Clean Fight by Derek Robinson (1993)
  • Spitfires which featured in the 2010 BBC docudrama First Light based on the memoir of the same name by Geoffrey Wellum
  • The Cessna Bird-Dog (standing in for a Piper Cub) that starred as Henry Fonda's spotter plane in The Battle of the Bulge (1967)
  • The full-scale replica Nakajima Ki-43 Oscars that were used in the 2009 Japanese war film For Those We Love
  • The CGI-rendered Polikarpov I-16 Ratas that appear in the 2010 Russian war movie Fortress Brest (released in the UK on dvd as Fortress of War) and the Korean WW2 film My Way (2011).
  • The replica BE2es and Fokker Eindeckers that were used in the 1977-78 BBC TV series Wings.

Cheers. Hill9868 (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Snoopy and Sopwith Camels

Howdoo, friends: As an inveterate editor of this article, I want to lay out a small case for why I think including Snoopy and his Sopwith Camel is valid. My view is that the publication of Sparky Schulz's whimsical turn with Snoopy imagining himself as a WW I flying ace, is just as legitimate a bit of fiction as any novel, many featuring imagined non-historical plot lines while still based on an accepted reality (Pat Frank's "Alas, Babylon" set in the Cold War, which turns hot, or the many extropolations by Tom Clancy's novels, for examples). That Schulz only showed us the doghouse rather than an actual Camel is immaterial. In Snoopy's fantasy world (FICTION), which took many turns, including quaffing root beers with Bill Mauldin, his piloting of the Sopwith Camel was true printed fiction, just as legitimate as Frank's or Clancy's. The doghouse suffered bullet holes in some strips, not truly likely in Charlie Brown's real yard.

My point is simply that we have already accepted on the page items of much less magnitude as legitimate claimants on "aircraft in fiction". Which do you think will be more remembered in a century - "Peanuts", or Transformers? I think the omission of Snoopy fighting the Red Baron on the pages of daily newspapers (as well as spawning at least two pop songs by the Royal Guardsmen) in this article needs to be reexamined.

Respectfully, Mark Sublette (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You make a fairly good case, but I think the key determinant is our consensus inclusion criteria above: "Real world aircraft (not fictional or made-up aircraft) that have significant roles in books, films, video games and as toys, provided reliable refs are supplied." No "Real world aircraft" ever appears, just a made up, pretend, aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry Mark, I can't go with this one. There is no Camel, there is Snoopy playing and imagining one. I see a difference. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That requires background knowledge and the Camel is never shown that I am aware of. Maybe try getting a consensus on the Camel talk page to add it there instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Might be worth pointing out too that Muadlin wasn't born until 1921, after WW1, which kind of makes the whole "quaffing root beers" with him part a little less convincing as reasoning. As for the which will be remembered part...... at this point, I'm gonna say Transformers stands as much of a chance. I might be wrong, so feel free to remind me in 2112 how wrong I was :) Niteshift36 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, gents, I had to give it a whirl. I think that people looking at this article may think it an obvious omission, as do I, but I bow to the general consensus. Mark Sublette (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It is good to have these discussions, so thanks for bringing it up! - Ahunt (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It was something I hadn't considered before. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A-26

Someone has listed the A-26 as being in the John Frankenheimer film, The Train. This is incorrect. The airplanes in question are clearly DeHavilland Mosquitos. Similar type, similar operational roles, but profile is clearly different. Theonemacduff (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That entry is refererenced to a book, Hagedorn, Dan and Leif Hellström. Foreign Invaders, the Douglas invader in Foreign Military and U.S. Clandestine Service. Earl Shilton, Leicester, UK: Midland Publishing, 1994. ISBN 1-85780-013-3. Now the book could be wrong, but you will need to produce a ref that shows these were Mosquitoes to challenge that ref. - Ahunt (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the scarcity of Mosquitoes in relation to Invaders, even in the 1960s, I'd be surprised if it was Mossies. YSSYguy (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Although wikipedia is not a reliable source, according to The Train (1964 film) they were French Air Force A-26s. MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

One-wheeled B-17 in Tora Tora Tora! (1970)

Regarding the scene in the 1970 WW2 film Tora! Tora! Tora! where the B-17 has to make an emergency landing on only one wheel. The actual real-life incident where the B-17 suffered an actual malfunction in its landing gear and had to make a real emergency landing on one wheel was only filmed by one camera. The frontal shot immediately before of the B-17 approaching the runway with one wheel down was filmed later, using a different B-17 making a 'dummy run' along the runway. The Confederate Air-Force used the same gimmick years later at airshows where a B-17 would pretend to make a one-wheel landing but then pull up at the last minute. In the film, the actual footage of the B-17 sliding along the runway on its belly is more grainy and poorer quality than the rest of the film as the real-life crash-landing was only filmed by a smaller, hand-held camera. After the incident (in which no-one was hurt and the B-17 only suffered moderate damage), producer Elmo Williams incorporated the footage into the script by devising the scene where the flight-leader's B-17's undercarriage is damaged by a Zero. Hill9868 (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have this incident in the article already. - Ahunt (talk) 10:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Size split?

Split - Article is over 200 kB, and should be split alphabetically. Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  • This article has a number of dedicated editors who keep it well maintained. It went from a dumping ground of unreferenced crap and a candidate for deletion to a well referenced, well cared for list. It's not broken, so "fixing" it solely because of an arbitrary size suggestion doesn't seem prudent. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
While the article is a bit long I wouldn't favour a split unless a really logical means of splitting it can be found. Alphabetical (like Aircraft in fiction A-M and Aircraft in fiction N-Z) doesn't make a lot of sense, especially since Wikipedia:Article size doesn't impose any really hard limits and cautions not to be hasty in splitting. I am concerned that if it is split it will just keep on growing forever and getting split more over time, making it more of a cruft magnet than it already is and harder to police. Personally I think we have a lot of minor (ie non-significant) uses of aircraft in fiction in the article and that the existing text can be seriously trimmed to include only the more significant roles to shorten it, rather than splitting. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, we probably could thin out some of the existing. Also, doesn't our extensive sourcing artificially increase that size number? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't worry about the number of refs - if we start paring down the non-notable appearances then some of the refs will go with them as well. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Airships

Suggest scrapping the heading Zeppelins and replacing it with 'Airships (Rigid)' and 'Airships (Non-Rigid)'. If you were to include every single model of airship as a separate heading, you would end up with 10-20 headings each with only one or two entries, but the current heading leaves nowhere to list airships that were not manufactured by Luftschiffsbau Zeppelin, e.g. the numerous fictional portrayals of the R101 and the Airship Industries non-rigid that featured in a James Bond film from the '80s (sorry - can't remember which one). LDGE (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That approach makes sense to me. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure. There are 3 sections on airships now. Might as well combine them in one section named "Airships", at least for now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys

I just wanted to say thanks. This list was a giant mess. A group effort cleaned it up, saved it from deletion and has kept it cleaned up for 3 years. This is an example of how Wikipedia can work when it works well. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, a group effort has done a lot to make this article better! It could still be better yet, probably by paring out the non-notable appearances and tightening it up, but overall it is not the cruft-magnet it was three years ago! My main fear was always that it was an easy target for deletion and that would mean all the fancruft would end up cluttering up the aircraft type articles once again. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

F-117 is popular

Eeeh. And where's F-117? It was, i thot, much oftenlier depicted that anything. To the point of black f117 against white f117 landing directly in desert. Summarily the most advertised plane around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.190.50.36 (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  • It is popular, but popularity isn't the criteria. Foremost, we have to have a reliable source documenting the inclusion. Second, it has to be a significant appearence. Simply flying over or appearing in a game aren't significant. Lastly, it has to be the F117, not a similar aircraft, such as the fictional Remora in Executive Decision. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
We have had entries on the F-117 in the past, but they were removed as being unsourced. They can be put back in if properly referenced. - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

F-117 in Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. Subtropical-man (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

None of the refs cited in the article Under Siege 2: Dark Territory mention the F-117. To add it here we need to be able to cite references as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources/additions

AC130 Gunship; used in C&C Generals, both COD:MW games, appears in Transformers, etc

B1B Lancer appears in Dale Brown's novels

Harrier Jumpjet appears in C&C:RA2

Picking up the manuals for some C&C Games and some COD:MW would yield some more

I dunno, I think the AC130 not being mentioned is pretty significant.

//Annihilatron (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Along with the F-22s, F-117 Nighthawks and the CV-22 Osprey are featured prominently throughout the movie. Also featured are the A-10 Thunderbolt II, C-17 Globemaster III, MH-53 Pave Low, HH-53 Super Jolly Green Giant, AC-130 Gunship, C-130 Hercules, MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle and Air Force One. [1]
  • [2]
  • I was most impressed with the chatter which occurs in the stage where you are manning the guns in the AC-130 Gunship. The communication from your fellow soldiers in the plane was not only impressive, but informative as well. They were able to give me the heads up on the enemy and comment perfectly on some of my kills. Having watched some real life footage of an AC-130 Gunship on You Tube I was stunned with not only the detail which went into virtual AC-130 COD4 battle scenes but the audio as well. Overall, I enjoyed the near-constant communication from my allies. [3]
  • As with the other games the larger number of production facilities you have the faster your units are produced. There are also some changes here as well - The allied airport acts as radar as well as allowing you to create Harrier attack craft for instance.[4] Annihilatron (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The most reliable source, the Air Force one, has nothing at all to do with the game stuff you're talking about. It's completely about the Transformers movie. Ultimateconsoledatabase is hardly a reliable source. Game-boyz might barely make it, IGN should. The problem is, the aircraft is an unlockable reward, which means not everyone gets it. If it isn't there for everyone, you can hardly call it significant. You clearly don't need it to finish the game. How significant is something that everyone doesn't see? The scene with the AC-130 in Transformers is the most significant one of everything you posted, that isn't already in the article.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, I would oppose any aircraft in a game that isn't available to every player. Unlockables simply don't cut it as significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we have a pretty good consensus already on this page that unlockables in video games don't make it as notable and thus will be excluded. Besides that no one has ever posted a reliable ref that describes any of them anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Focke Wulf FW 200 appears in "To Have and Have Not" To_Have_and_Have_Not_(film) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.140.93.163 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The C-47 is the plane that the title characters jump out of several times in Band of Brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipbomber (talk • contribs) 5:12 pm, Today (UTC−6)

I apologize for my earlier edits; I wasnt aware there was a source dispute going on. About the presence of the F-14 Tomcat in Afterburner, I located two sources in the form of box back scans.

  • The first one, elisosoftware.org, aside from not being a reliable source, calls it a F-14 "wildcat", making it look very fictional. Steamcommunity.com is not a reliable source by any standard. Segaages.de? I seriously doubt that will pass at RSN, but you're free to see if someone there will support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • ... First, I have no idea of what the RSN process is or what to do there. Can I have the short version? Second, I'm afraid these are the best sources the Internet managed to give me. Its an old game, I'm not sure how to proceed, or which sites would qualify. Sega Retro? All of this s assuming I cant make my own sources.
Third, the most reliable reference to an F-14 in the Afterburner series I managed to find was the F-14D in Afterburner Climax, where its mentioned in the official Japanese site http://sega-afterburner.com/abc_cs/story.html and in the blurb of Sega's arcade machine distributor. http://www.segaarcade.com/node/279 along other fighter planes. The legalese screenshotted at Steamcommunity can also be found in the PDF manual available in the Steam store itself at page 10 (printed as page 8 in the manual) http://cdn2.steampowered.com/Manuals/212480/SART_PC_MANUAL_UK_ESD.pdf Not the best case, I know, but I had to try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.177.228.146 (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • RS refers to reliable source and WP:RSN is a noticeboard where you can ask for outside input about questionable sources. Simply put, none of these sources meet the reliable sources criteria. Frankly, if these sources are the best ones available, then the information probably isn't notable enough to include in the article. Just because something is "true" or "we know it" doesn't mean it gets included. Besides the RS policy, see WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:TRUTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I can see the problem here. Heh, maybe I'm just terrible at finding sources. I guess this ticket can be archived or something, whatever.

Mi-24 Hind

Hi, i saw Rambo, and I think that this Mi-24 is a SA-330 Puma with wings to see like the Hind. Elkan76 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

The Starscream from the Transformers Prime series has as alt mode in a F-16. User:Rotterdammtje

As noted in the consensus inclusion criteria at the top of this page, we don't mention alt modes as they are not significant. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Shuttle orbiter?

I think this entry is a bit of a stretch, the problem is twofold. One the shuttle is defined as a orbital spacecraft, the re-entry gliding part appears to be non-notable. The second, and more importantly is these craft are fictional (they never actually flew). These entries should be listed on List of fictional spacecraft. - On a side note this argument could probably be made for Blue Thunder and Airwolf, although the birds did actually fly. - FOX 52 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That discussion didn't cover the fictional (aircraft) aspect. I'm a little confused on the title of this article, are these real aircraft in fiction or not? If so, what about the List of fictional aircraft and addressing shuttle issue List of fictional spacecraft? - FOX 52 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This list is only real aircraft. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Fictional aircraft are ones that exist only in fictional works. They could be totally made-up or be an enhanced version of a real aircraft. This article covers aircraft that exist in real life, either built or a real ones being designed. The entries you removed were about Space Shuttle orbiters that appear in one in fictional works. They don't have to be real orbiters such as Columbia, or Challenger. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
OK Fnlayson, if your saying "They (aircraft) could be totally made-up or be an enhanced version of a real aircraft" should be in the fictional list, then shouldn't aircraft like Blue Thunder and Airwolf be romved this article? - FOX 52 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Airwolf and Blue Thunder helicopters are fictional aircraft. But they are real aircraft with fictional dressings as well. I'm fine with removing them or keeping them. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Fictional aircraft don't belong. For example, we've removed the Remora from Executive Decision a few times. It is based on the F117, but doesn't exist. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure. The actual aircraft were used, just in a fictional way. A F117, however, wasn't used. It was solely CGI. I could go either way. We have retained entries where T-6 Texans were used as stand-ins for Zero's in Tora, Tora, Tora. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's one I could understand, it's one real aircraft portraying another real aircraft. With that said I'll leave'em and restore the shuttles, I think moonraker, is one that should be moved to the fictional list. - FOX 52 (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

SR71 in "Space Cowboys".

Tommy Lee Jones talks about both the difficulties and joys in flying this plane whilst it is shown behind him. The allegory of this to his illness and age is quite clear; it makes the incident very significant. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Quite a few aircraft in "Executive Decision".

From memory, there is an F-117 and a KC-10, possibly more. As the main plot of the film as about a hijacked aircraft, pretty well all aircraft appearances in this movie are significant. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Lots of aircraft in "Foyle's War".

There are a number of appearances of several Spitfires (Andrew Foyle, the son of the main character, is a Spitfire pilot). There are a number of Spitfire incidents in the show that are crucial to the plot. One entire episode is centred around a hospital that treats badly burned pilots; a Spitfire crash and burn is shown, and a Wellington crash and burn is mentioned although not shown.

An Avro Lancaster appears at the end of one episode; it appears to be conducting an early testing of a Dambuster bomb and is filmed (ie, the "filming" is part of the plot) whilst doing so. Whether this is "significant" or not is open to interpretation.

A few Luftwaffe aircraft appear on occasions. Some are significant to the plot, although as generic "German aircraft", rather than any particular make/model. So again "significance" is open to interpretation.

At least two episodes show British barrage balloons. In one episode, they are crucial to the plot - the failure of the balloons to stop the German bombing is implicated in a motive for a murder. Old_Wombat (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

At least two aircraft in "Flying High"(also aka "Airplane")

Most of the sequences are in and around a Boeing 707, but there is, briefly, a Boeing 727 pictured. Old_Wombat (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In all these cases that you are pointing out here we need third party references to include them and they have to be "significant roles" and not just "appearances". - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Ahunt probably not worth mentioning if it's a quick appearance - FOX 52 (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In "Foyle's War" and in "Executive Decision", ALL of the aircraft in question are highly significant, indeed crucial to the story. At least, at least as much, as pretty well all of the other movies already included here; well at least those movies that I have seen. In no way are they "quick appearances".

The SR-71 is "Space Cowboys" is problematical. The aircraft is specifically mentioned, and it is certainly not just in the background. Tommy Lee Jones' character has just discovered that he has incurable cancer, so he is "flawed". There is a clear allegory to his illness with the many "flaws" that the SR-71 has; the leaking fuel at ground level being the most significant one discussed. Having said that, it is a "quick appearance", there is only the one scene, only about a minute.

The "Flying High" one is even more doubtful. It is certainly a flying movie, yes, but a parody comedy, not a "serious" movie. It is centred around the 707, so that is essential to the story. in fact almost the entire "story", such as it is, is set inside the plane. The 727 reference is really a "blooper" rather than a significant appearance, and is only a few seconds. 124.179.103.88 (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, as to third party references, Foyle's War has its own website ( http://www.foyleswar.com ) . The character of the Spitfire Pilot is there ( http://www.foyleswar.com/foyles-war-characters/andrew-foyle ) , as it a brief description of the episode about the burnt pilots ( http://www.foyleswar.com/foyles-war-episode-guide "Enemy Fire"). There are images of the crashed Spitfire scene (http://www.foyleswar.com/photos-set-3)

By consensus here we don't rely on primary refs, so we still need some third party refs to include these. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I wasn't sure what the status was of a web site about a show. Wot about IMDB references? I understand that they are generally not acceptable, but hey, that is a site about movies, and we are talking about movies here. And there is already at least one IMDB link listed under references. Old_Wombat (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The website about the show seems to be part of the show's PR campaign, done by the same people who produce the show itself (Acorn Media Group), so a primary ref, I would think. We have used IMDB here in this article, but not the user-submitted portion of that website as it would be WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

B-2

The B-2 was also featured in the movie Broken Arrow.Phd8511 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No actually that was an Imitation bomber called the "B-3", which is listed in the fictional aircraft article - FOX 52 (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Clearly it was a B-2 given a fiction name. So the B-2 did appear in that movie.Phd8511 (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
No in the film Broken Arrow they used a pure fictional aircraft shown here and here, obviously not a B-2 Bomber - FOX 52 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Twelve O'Clock High the TV series is missing from the B-17 section.

Twelve O'Clock High, the TV series has it's own Wikipedia page, yet there's no reference to it or mention of it here. I can't help but wonder if there's a good reason why not.

It was one of my favorite TV series as a teenager during the 1960s, and watched often in reruns. Mrmazda (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The original film is in the article, but not the TV series. The B-17 was certainly prominently used in the series so it would meet the inclusion criteria to be added here. As far as I recall it has never been entered here before. The ref you cited http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057793/ doesn't mention the use of B-17s at all, but if you have a better ref that does, then I think this should be added, perhaps as a sentence or two in the same para as the related film. - Ahunt (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A26

The planes in Frankenheimer's movie, The Train are, so far as I can tell, Mosquitoes, not A26s. I will check again just to make sure.Theonemacduff (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The entry for that does cite a paper ref, but, again, it could be mistaken. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of the movie itself to identify aircraft as a ref

We have an editor adding notes on aircraft in movies, but using the movie itself as a ref for the entry. It seems to me that these require third party reliable refs. Identifying aircraft from the movie or video game itself as been rejected here before as WP:OR and it further opens the door to adding every appearance of any aircraft to the article, which, as we have discussed we are trying to avoid for volume reasons. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I think you're on the right track. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the other factor is that if there are no third party refs describing the appearance, then it probably isn't notable enough for inclusion here anyway. We long ago decided that this page should not be a list of all appearances of any aircraft in any media, but only "significant" ones, to avoid a trivia list and also an infinite-sized article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay since a week has passed with no further discussion I think we have a consensus to remove teh movie ref and tag this. - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There are several other entries in this article that are cited with the film or book itself, i.e. primary sources. I've let this slide where the type was obvious and no OR-type specifics included. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but is it notable if no 3rd party notices it? Hcobb (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, if no third party refs have noted it then it isn't notable! As part of the week-end clean up I have removed all of these, but if anyone thinks they are still notable then please present your case here and let's discuss them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the original person who added these would rather edit-war to include them against this consensus than discuss here. I have removed them one more time and invited him to participate here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I have gone though all the refs and removed text only supported by primary refs, as we discussed here. I may have missed some, so please do double-check me! - Ahunt (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we have a good enough consensus here that third party refs are needed to show notability that I will add this to the criteria box at the top of the page and at WP:AIRPOP. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

For a couple of days I've been trying to add to the media appearances of the B-1 Lancer. At first I added two that I knew of: one on television and the other in a popular feature film. The next day they were deleted with a note that they were unreferenced and that they appeared to the Moderator to be minor. They were unreferenced, and one of them was minor. To defend the one I consider to be of greater significance, I located at least one clip from the film showing the B-1 in flight during its big scene. But, according to this talk thread, the film itself isn't acceptable. So I located an article sporting both a screen-capture of the Aircraft in its initial (but not only) appearance, and an interview with the matte artist who created the finished screen image. My entry is still there today, but with my reference source excised and replaced with "[citation needed (This claim needs references to reliable sources.)]"

So I'm just curious: Exactly what constitutes a reliable source? I ask because the other standing entries on the B-1 have what I consider to be even less reliable or legitimate than my choice of source. One has as source a link to a gallery of pictures of a completely different aircraft, one of which is captioned with an assertion that its undercarriage stood in for the B-1 in a James Bond movie. Another cites a book in-print, a Transformers collectibles price guide, no less. Thus, it's neither available to a typical net surfer for reference, nor is it even what I expect to be definitively authoritative on the topic at-hand. The remaining one is only a link to a movie review which very briefly mentions a B-1. How do I know that the Reviewer even knows the difference between a B-1 and a C-47? I don't know. The only way to verify it is to see the movie itself. But, the movie itself is a forbidden source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Good questions. Identifying aircraft yourself in the movie has been discussed before here and is definitely original research. Other people might identify it as something else and the key problem is that it is not verifiable. The editors working on this article also arrived at a consensus that we don't want to list every time any aircraft shows up in any media of any kind, because the article would be far too long. We have tried to limit it to significant roles, like that of the F-14 in Top Gun, not like that of the F-5 in Apocalypse Now (on screen for about 5 seconds from a distance) and we also decided to not accept primary references, like the book or video game itself (movies are already not acceptable as refs as discussed above), so as to ensure that the appearance is notable in that some media source has noted it. Blogs like the one you used are self-published and not acceptable on Wikipedia as refs anywhere. So basically to include an appearance it has to be a significant role in the movie, book, game, etc and supported by a reliable third party ref. If you have found poor refs used in this article that the rest of us have missed, then they should be removed and tagged and if no ref is found then the entry should eventually go as well. I think one thing you have to remember is that this particular article attracts a lot of "fan-boi" cruft and we try to keep that to a minimum as in the past this article got into a real mess as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You haven't defined for me "reliable third party". Therein lies the gist. For example, I don't find any ironclad refs in the F-14 entry. Imagine that we go back to late 1986. How do you prove that the F-14 played an important role in Top Gun? How do you prove that it appears in any capacity at all in Top Gun? Of course, it's 1986, and everyone in the Western World knows that Top Gun has the F-14. 28-years later there are lots of youngsters who haven't seen the movie. How do you prove it to them rigorously? Old articles with nth-generation aircraft mentions predicated on then-presumed common knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It is defined and explained at WP:RS. Basically we need third party sources that are not self published. So a Transformers collectibles price guide on paper is fine, as is newspaper movie review that notes the aircraft type.- Ahunt (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This reference with regard to the B-1 appearing in a James Bond flick, http://www.concordesst.com/duxford/archive/archivepics4.html, is some guy's personal website, the very definition of self-published. Why are the criteria interpreted and enforced so inconsistently (arbitrarily)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This article uses almost 600 citations, a pretty high number for any article. You cherry picked a single reference and start talking about how the standard is "so inconsistent". I'd suggest you review your wording. This article is very consistent. A single one pulled out is called an exception. Your example is an argument for removing that source, not for keeping the one you want. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that one ref that doesn't meet the standard. It has now been tagged and will get cleaned up later today (in the Friday clean-up). - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that according to Wikipedia policy, using a work of fiction as a source for an article about that work is not original research. This essay supports that interpretation. This type of sourcing is verifiable because readers can obtain the work itself to check the reference, and offline sources are perfectly acceptable. --Albany NY (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The main point above is about identifying an aircraft type based solely on the film using the film as the source. This aspect does involve original research since the viewer must make the determination, not the source itself (except where a character or text explicitly states it). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit Notice

Being as how the hidden message at the top of the page and the talk page consensus material would only be seen if people were looking for them, would there be any objections if I added the consensus criteria material listed in both places to an edit notice? I was thinking that something like what is below would help the page editors, particularly the new ones who may be editing the sections specifically instead of the page as a whole. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. That seems like a helpful addition. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, that sounds good to me! - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Alright then, done and done. I've removed the hidden message at the top of the main article page since with the edit notice that information is now up for anyone to see regardless of the section they edit. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mi-24 Hind in Red Dawn

Opinions... Add Red Dawn to the Mil Mi-24 Hind section? It was a pretty big / dramatic scene. The aircraft did have a big impact on the group. Losing 2 in this attack did kind of break their will.Rocketmaniac2 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There were no actual Mi-24s used in Red Dawn, they were Pumas. We already have this covered at Aircraft_in_fiction#A.C3.A9rospatiale_Puma. - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I was not aware of that.. Then the Red Dawn needs to be edited.Rocketmaniac2 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

F4s in Iron Eagle II

They used F4 Phantoms in Iron Eagle II and pretended they were Russian MIGS. I don't have the time to find a citation to meet the stringent standards of this page. Tumblehome (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Lost World 1960

In the Irwin Allen version of The Lost World the expedition uses a Sikorsky S55 helicopter (or similar) its not mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.111.59 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • The starting point of the discussion would be a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 Done - FOX 52 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The film "Blue Thunder"

In subsection F-16 Fighting Falcon, shouldn't the film Blue Thunder be mentioned?

The two F-16s appear at the end of the film. --Mortense (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Without a reliable source, nothing gets mentioned. It has been a while since I saw the film, do they play a significant part or is it merely an appearance? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Independence Day

Some of the aircraft in Independence Day are mentioned but not the F/A-18 Hornets or the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit launching the nuke against the ship over Houston. There are F-16s on the runways when the first battle takes place but they do not really play a pivotal role in the movie though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.30 (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

These have been removed many times because these are not "significant roles" and also because no refs were cited. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Apache in 'strike' series

Would the Desert Strike computer game featuring the Apache prominently warrant a mention? I believe the Apache was also featured in the later games in the series but I am only certain on Desert in which I believe it was the sole vehicle you could use94.8.24.204 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that supports these claims? - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ring Raiders

Matchbox released a toyline called "Ring Raiders" in the 80s which included many different fighters from the past and present of the time, it included also the hypothetical F19. Shall the adapted fighters added to this list? Or is this toyline not important enough? --Exodianecross (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well this page is for aircraft that have been featured in works of fiction, such as movies, TV series and games, so it would cover Ring Raiders for real aircraft types used in the series. The F-19 is actually a fictional aircraft and might better go under List of fictional aircraft. Entries would also have to have a reference cited. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
That could be a little bit difficult, even the article Ring Raiders on this wiki hasn't very much sources, the cartoon shows different fighters that can be identified by taking a look on them. --Exodianecross (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Identifying aircraft from videos has been noted here as WP:OR before. Our inclusion criteria for this page has long been that we require third party sources that identify the aircraft used for refs here to show that the subject is notable and avoid the spamming that has plagued this article in he past. - Ahunt (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand. But I suggest you should take a look on the side Ring Raiders, pilots are credited with their individual fighters without a source! Only the sources at the end of the arcticle with no specifics! --Exodianecross (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw that, that article needs some serious fixing! - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
That could be a little bit difficult! The toyline was cancelled before the WWW was created, and it seems that Ring Raiders has/had less fans like others, so not very much online. I have only a few comics and advertising brochures in which a few details are revealed. --Exodianecross (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be best to find a review somewhere, paper refs, like magazines are fine. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
That would be perfect, but sadly I don't have anything available! By the way, I remember a short comic which established the Ring Raiders in Germany, and they have done a major mistake! The antagonistic pilot "Mako" flew a MIG 29, but in the mentioned comic he was seen in a F19A! A mistake that was obviously made because in the "Wing Pack" of Mako a fighter of this type was included! --Exodianecross (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Riptide

The detectives on the show owned a Vietnam War-surplus Sikorsky H-34 helicopter nicknamed "Screaming Mimi". It was painted a bright pink and had eyes and a screaming mouth painted over the front. A typical "Supermachine Era" vehicle, it was featured in every episode.Hotspur23 (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the article at "CH-34 Choctaw / Westland Wessex" - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

B-17 Flying Fortress – capitalisation of the noun ‘Arctic’.

I noticed that my change to “Arctic” (I capitalized it) was changed back to lower-case. I guess the regular users of this article will decide what’s best, but in case it helps, I have the strong impression that the writer of the original sentence did in fact use it as a proper noun, as it’s the name of a distinct geographic region (like the Rockies, the Cotswolds, the Appalachians, the Antarctic). The noun is also capitalized elsewhere in the article under the section for ‘B-36 Peacemaker’. Writing it with a capital letter (both as a noun) seems to be supported by these other websites for example:

http://www.britannica.com/place/Arctic

The New York Times capitalizes the noun: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/world/europe/melting-ice-isnt-opening-arctic-to-oil-bonanza.html

The Reuters handbook: http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=A#Arctic_Sea.2C_arctic_chill

'Guide for Authors' provided online for the peer-reviewed, primary research journal of the Arctic Institute of North America - http://arctic.ucalgary.ca/guide-authors >> quote: ***“Arctic” is capitalized when it is used as a noun (“the Arctic”). Used as an adjective, “Arctic” is capitalized when it refers to the geographic region (i.e., Arctic communities) and lowercased when it refers to very low temperatures (i.e., arctic gale).***Samschtig (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Aircraft in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Aircraft in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Aircraft in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted as all pages are 404. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Aircraft in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft in fiction

I'm new to Wikipedia and need some clarity on Aircraft in fiction.

In the entry Hardware (comics), it's noted that the fiction character travels in a flying car that is a refinement of the real life Moller M400 Skycar.

Should this information be listed under Aircraft in fiction or someplace else?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlyn1 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is for real aircraft used in fiction - have a look at List of fictional aircraft which is for the made up stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Merlyn1 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aircraft in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Supermarine Swift

If anybody's interested and believes it warrants inclusion, I believe the Supermarine Swift is the jet fighter featured (both archival footage and on-location shooting) in the prominent role posing as an experimental aircraft in the TV series The Human Jungle episode (s1,ep13) 'Over and Out' (1963)- but unable to provide a third party reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.164.105 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:V, we need a reference to include this, otherwise it is WP:OR so if you find one please do post it back here! - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Lockheed U-2

Both of the cites for the Lockheed U-2 are biography/history, not fiction. Should we (a) remove them from this list (b) leave them, but note that they are not fiction at the entry, or, (c) perhaps, change the name of the list? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • A "docudrama" is not a documentary. It is a dramatized version of a historical event. That makes them fiction. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact, as I glance through the list, the problem seems to be widespread. I note the several entries for Tora Tora Tora and many others. Perhaps we should change the list to "Aircraft in Literature and Cinema". . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I think the main issue here is when Hollywood creates films that are "based on a real story" but contain fictional elements, really making them fiction and not documentaries. Our job is trying to figure out whether they are fiction or non-fiction to include here. The scope of this article is fiction only and I would personally rather see it limited to that and anything that doesn't fit removed (or returned to the aircraft type articles, where we have generally been describing non-fictional uses) than have the scope of this article expanded and made even longer. I suppose that an Aircraft in documentaries article could be created as well, as an option. - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Docudramas and historical films are still fiction. Films like Tora Tora Tora, The Right Stuff and Apollo 13 may strive to be historically accurate, but there is still an element of fiction in them. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Having seen those three films I agree that they are "fiction", they are "based on a true story" and all that, but not "non-fiction". Drawing the line between documentaries and fiction is not always easy, but in my experience, if it says "based on a true story" then it is fiction. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ordering aircraft appearances by date

I am currently going through the aircraft alphabetically and adding years where they are missing, plus sorting appearances into chronological order. I am going to do the rest of the aircraft, although I am currently only up to B.

I know that there is a weekly check where unreferenced content is deleted - would it be possible to also place any new referenced content that is out of order into correct chronological order? I think it really helps the page look consistent. --Josephus37 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense to me! If I am reading it right, you are ordering them by the movie release date? - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I've mostly been following what was already there, which was written like that. Although actually, it may make more sense to do books first if movies were based on a book. Perhaps that makes more sense. --Josephus37 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Well if you find dates for both books and the movie version I suspect they will naturally fall into order that way. Anyway, good job so far! - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll plug away at it over the next few days. --Josephus37 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've been though the page and made a lot of changes. I've added years where missing, done some edits for expression and tried to standardize the language, using "film" and "telemovie" instead of the variety of terms that were used before. I've left "movie" where it is part of a quote or a title, but taken it out otherwise. I think "film" sounds more appropriate for something encyclopedic like wikipedia. --Josephus37 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Great work! - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Cool. I guess you are the one who does the weekly cleanup - if it is possible for you or whoever else may do the weekly check to edit new content to match what is now there it would be really awesome. Consistence of style and terms really helps things look serious I think.----Josephus37 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
There are a few of us watching this article who do the clean-ups, but everyone should see this conversation and hopefully follow through. As you probably gathered this article gets a lot of editing from random IPs so the style can get "inconsistent" pretty fast. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Great! Well, have a good one.--Josephus37 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aircraft in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Aircraft in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

F104 Starfighter

In the original series Star Trek episode Tomorrow is Yestrday season 1 episode 19, there are several appearances of the Lockheed F104 including one where the plane is destroyed and pilot "beamed" aboard the space craft. I have no experience properly editing articles, so anybody with ability who is willing to take on the task would be greatly appreciated. I am hopeful I provided enough information to research this suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:601:E4D0:69A2:E790:B02B:672D (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Two worthy examples of real world aircraft in movies, but without "...reliable refs are supplied."

The British TV series "Foyle's War", not too surprisingly, is set in WWII. In each episode, there are two crimes (or at least incidents), which are usually "entagled" with each other. One of the crimes is related to the war, the other is not. A big part of the interest of the show is the ability of the eponymous character, DCS Christopher Foyle, to "untangle" and solve both crimes.

Andrew Foyle, the son of the lead character, is a Spitfire pilot. As the movies cover the entire six years of the war, his character develops in this role - from trainee, to active service, to senior pilot, to instructor, and then into retirement - as would be expected. There are a number of episodes in which his being a Spitfire pilot is an essential part of the plot. For example, one episode is set almost entirely in a hospital where a doctor is trying a novel techniques to manage the burns suffered by Spitfire pilots whose aicraft have caught fire (usually of fcourse through enemy action), and their pilots have suffered those burns as a consequence. There is a long sequence where a Spitfire is shot up, catches on fire, and crash lands, with the pilot taking a long time to escape the crashed plane, because of a fault in the plane. Sabotage of the plane is suspected. There is much discussion and imaging of said crashed Spitfire. More, in every episode where Andrew either appears or is mentioned, which is perhaps 1 in 2, there is always mention, albeit sometimes only tangential, of his being a Spitfire pilot. So this would appear worthy of mention.

In the comedy romance drama "Space Cowboys", there is a section where one character is told he has cancer, and will therefore be denied the chance to travel into space, his dream of over 30 years. There is a fairly long following section, almost a monologue, filmed entirely under a real SR-71, where he compares his now very imperfect self, metaphorically of course, to the equally imperfect SR-71. This whole episode is a very important plot component, being the entire raison détre for the final and very surprising denouement to the movie. So again, this would appear worthy of mention.

I have suggested both of these in the past, and have been denied on the grounds that I have failed to "... provided reliable refs are supplied... ". How, exactly, is one to do this? How does one "prove" that in a fiction movie, a particular aircraft is shown, and that its role is "significant"? It is only a work of fiction, after all, so there are no "diffusing" consequences that one could gather as "proof". Imdb references are not allowed. Apparently not even stills from the movie itself are enough "proof".

Web sites dedicated to these movies have been disallowed on the grounds that they are "self -referencing". This to me seems totally absurd. Surely anything and everything about a movie would, by definition, be "self-referencing"! Is that not the whole point, thus eliminating the possibility of "reliable refs" existing at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.37.157 (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It is all a matter of reliable sources. IMDB regular pages are fine to cite as refs, as they meet the requirement for reliable sources. The "trivia" pages are written by readers, not fact checked and may not be accurate at all. They are self-published; it is not "self-referencing" that is an issue (whatever that mans) but self-published sources that cannot be used. The problem with identifying aircraft from movie stills is that it is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia and with good reason, as we have had cases where editors mis-identify aircraft or where there is a dispute as to what we are seeing there. Adding entries is easy, you just need a reliable source that identifies the aircraft involved. As far as a significant role, we have defined that as something that is significant to the film, not just a momentary glimpse of an aircraft. Putting those in here would be trivia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Aircraft in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Grumman "Duck"

The "Duck" appeared in several episodes of "Black Sheep Squadron". --94.114.40.212 (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Got a reference for that? Canterbury Tail talk 21:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Television use of Helicopters

In the first part of this article a short paragraph about the high cost of Helicopter flying time limiting use in television movies and series like Riptide, Adam-12, Emergency and Police Story among others. i know I read an article in TV Guide article about the use and the cost but do not remember when in the 1970's it was printed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mws72 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

SAAB J 29

In the movie The Yellow Squadron(in Swedish Gula divisionen)from 1954 several SAAB J 29 appear. [1] [2] Luxemburgarna (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047057/
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRHV-KIPtl8

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aircraft in fiction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

B-25 Mitchell

A Mitchell plays a primadonna role in Gavin Lyall's novel "Shooting Script" (1966). Cited in the WP Article on Gavin_Lyall as well e.g. by Amazon in a customer review: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R3DDGO6SRLJMJU/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B001LP7PV0 I don't know how to set a reference, would please someone kindly do this for me? 194.174.76.21 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin

You need to provide a proper reference to add this. The Wikipedia article on the author does not cite a ref (it needs serious work) and customer reviews are not reliable sources (see WP:SPS). - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

F-104 Starfighter

The plane appeared in famous japanese monster movie Daikyojû Gappa, didnt it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.41.47.225 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Dassault, Nighthawk & Electra

Should the Dassault Rafale, F-117A Nighthawk and Lockheed Model 10 Electra be included in this article? as all three also had fictional appearances (the dassault and nighthawk appear in various Transformers versions as some of the most common vehicle-modes many transformers use. The Electra appeared in the Madagascar movie, its sequel and the prequel-series All Hail King Julien, being the residence to King-Julien and his fellow lemurs until the zoo-goers need it to return home.184.186.4.209 (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

We would need third-party references to include these, to show that the appearances are notable. - Ahunt (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI

That's not the actual plane configuration. The Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI had four engines in two nacelles, one on each side of the main cabin. This was due to the Riesenflugzeug requirment that the engines be serviceable in flight. In some pictures, you can see the mechanic who sat between the two engines in each nacelle. The plane in the movie instead has four individual engines. Darci (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

So was that an inaccurate reproduction or something else? - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

F-35 Lightning II

F-35 in Transformers: The Last Knight, air combat lasting a few minutes from about 2h07m. Need sources. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it needs sources! - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Halifax, 200 Condor, Black Widow, Typhoon and IL-2

Should the Handley Page Halifax, Focke-Wulf 200 Condor, P-61 Black Widow, Hawker Typhoon and Ilyushin Il-2 be included (they all appear in the Call of Duty video games)?184.186.4.209 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Incidental Appearances

We have had a few entries added when the appearance of the aircraft is incidental and not featured or the subject of the work of fiction. Suggest we prune out these non-noteworthy mentions. Any thoughts MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Our inclusion criteria above is "significant roles". - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

V-22 -- Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film)

The Osprey appears on several occasions in G:KotM but there are currently few references. There's a reference in a Popular Mechanics review to them having "the speed and range of supersonic jetliners" but I believe that's because they're used to travel to Antarctica off-screen and is about inaccuracy rather than any depicted characteristic. Would this set visit work instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C37H67NO13 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is only for real aircraft in works of fiction, not fictional aircraft versions in works on fiction (see Inclusion Criteria near top of this talk page). -Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The V-22 appears in Godzilla: KotM and it appears to be the real aircraft. The only fictional element would appear to be the operator MONARCH. It is seen in several scenes in the film. Several airframes appear, and are referred to as Ospreys including in on-screen text. --C37H67NO13 (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The Popular Mechanics source says the Ospreys have supersonic speed and says they are "entirely fictitious". -Fnlayson (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
That is why I removed it, the PM ref made it clear it wasn't a real aircraft, but a fictitious aircraft, so would belong at List of fictional aircraft, but is out of scope for this article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The "entirely fictitious" is referring to the flying wing, the ARGO, which is already on List of fictional aircraft. I'll wait for a source that complains less about the V-22's off-screen heroics.--C37H67NO13 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria, particularly with reference to the Lockheed F-104

The inclusion criteria specified for this article lists the following media types:

  • Real world aircraft (not fictional or made-up aircraft) that have significant roles in books, films, video games and as toys, provided reliable refs are supplied.

There is a satirical musical album about the F-104:

Should that album be listed on this page? If so, should the inclusion criteria be modified to include musical albums as well as the other media listed? Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I dont believe that "music" comes under this article about fiction. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
We do have a precedent for including music albums, see the first entry at Aircraft in fiction#Messerschmitt Me 262. It would need a third party ref to show notability. - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay - but if music albums are suitable for inclusion, surely that should be mentioned in the inclusion criteria?
In the case of Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters, I would suggest that the requirement 'Third party references are needed to show the notability of the appearance' does not apply since it is a concept album explicitly and entirely about the Lockheed F-104G Starfighter. The aircraft's named in the album title, pictured on the album cover, the text on the back of the original vinyl LP explains that the album's all about the F-104G (that text is inside the CD booklet), and all the tracks are about the aircraft and its acquisition by and service with the German Air Force (albeit with heavy satire and absurd fictionalization, with a few tracks only indirectly referencing the aircraft). If you ask me, it'd be like requiring a third-party reference to demonstrate the notability of the appearance of the main subject of a book named in the title of the book.
Although if it's really necessary, I expect I could find something. Anyway, what to do?
Should the inclusion criteria be changed to include music albums? And should Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters appear here? If a third-party reference really is required, I dare say I could find something. Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Our insistence here on third party refs is to exclude vanity projects, self-published books and records, etc. Making sure it has been noticed by reviewers eliminates a lot of that sort of thing. I guess we should update the inclusion criteria since we have had the above-mentioned examples for many years in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Righto. That all makes sense. I've added the album to Aircraft in fiction with a reference.
I do wonder, though, if this article is mis-titled, since it's the article pointed to by sections on aircraft articles entitled Notable appearances in media. Would it not be preferable from the point of view of consistency and clarity to change the title of this article to Aircraft in media or similar? Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
We have tried to limit the scope here to fiction. The sections in each aircraft type article still catalog the non-fiction uses, such as documentaries. It probably helps to know that this article was started to keep the reams of fanboi text out of the aircraft type articles. In many cases the movie/video game/etc text was dwarfing the aircraft articles about the actual aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
If you saw what this list looked like before, you'd know why it is so tightly monitored. It was a dumping ground. Now it's a well curated list. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Su-35UB or Su-30MKI?

Under the 'Su-35' heading, it states that an Su-35UB was used to in the movie Mirror Wars Reflection One.

While I have never seen the movie, the 3D modeller, Precise 3D modelling, claim that this aircraft is an Su-30MKI (http://www.precise3dmodeling.com/). I shall have to change this. Does anybody have any qualms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling Saini (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there an actual reference that says that? - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
According to the article on the movie it's actually supposed to be a SU-XX so not even a real aircraft therefore outside of this article's scope. Canterbury Tail talk 14:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
and the cited ref doesn't even mention any aircraft by type, so doesn't support the text. Given all that info, I agree, the entry should just be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
And the cited ref is IMDB. IMDB is not a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference (see Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb). Canterbury Tail talk 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

B-52--Fail-Safe

What about the 1964 movie Fail-Safe, based on a novel I think of the same name? I can't believe you omitted it: the B-52 was a major character in an excellent film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.141.147 (talk)

To add this we need a third party ref to show that at least some source thinks it was significant. Got one to cite? - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The wiki on “Dr Strangelove” mentions B-52, so if “Failsafe” movie wiki included B52 instead of “bomber” than the wiki could be ref? I don’t remember seeing the B52 in the movie, only the inside of a generic cockpit. Shjacks45 (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In general open wikis cannot be used as references for Wikipedia as they are WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

P-51 Mustang in upcoming movie

A P-51 Mustang is shown in trailers for the movie “Top Gun: Maverick” Shjacks45 (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Unless it has a significant role in the film it wouldn't meet the requirements to be mentioned here. It would also need a third party source, noting it, not just someone identifying it in a trailer. - Ahunt (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Trailers generally aren't notable, as it's the movie itself that is important. Even then, it has to a notable appearance per the guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aircraft_in_fiction/Archive_3&oldid=1136503036"