Talk:Aircraft in fiction/Archive 4

Page size

This page currently has 424,794 bytes of markup; it's far too big. What's the best way to divide it up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Apart from culling some of the more trivia mentions if it was to split then into film and books but leave this as a narrative overview. MilborneOne (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It is important to keep in mind that this article of of significant strategic value in building the encyclopedia as it has a key role in keeping fan cruft out of thousands of aircraft type articles. I would suggest start with cutting it down, by removing the less notable stuff first and then see where we end up. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree we still have a number of "Bloggs Superplane appears for ten seconds in Blobs rule the world." not sure that some of the more incidental appearances are encyclopedic rather than aircraft that were actually featured or part of the plot. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Those can easily be removed as our inclusion criteria is "significant roles". - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Would there be anyone willing to move American military aircraft from this article and move it to another article? It seems like there would be enough for its own article, but I'm not an aviation expert. Alternatively we could split this between military and civil aircraft. @Hill9868, Ahunt, and MilborneOne:. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete minor entries and tag questionable entries first please. Some trimming of excess details could help some also. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We have been pretty lenient here so as to keep other articles clear of unnecessary trivia. It's probably time to remove many of the more incidental entries, lesser-known Transformers appearances, etc. CThomas³ (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly focusing on the questionable and minor entries, we just need someone to look at how the article can be split. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes I really think we need to comb through this and cut down the minor appearances and similar before we get into any talk about splitting the article. If the editing is complete enough it may not need a split, depending on results. - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fnlayson: thanks for all your work fixing the article. Looking at the current "importance inline" tagging it seems most of those are not "significant roles", mostly WP:TRIVIA and can be axed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, I tagged for others to review and decide. I\ll come back to this when I have more time in a couple days. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay I have looked at all your tagging and removed most as not "significant roles", plus a couple with primary refs. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Good deal and thanks. I was hesitant to remove all the entries that are worded as non-major appearances in the event that article text un[der]stated the appearance. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That was a risk I was willing to take! There are probably more that can be chopped, too. - Ahunt (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It's still very long at 404,869 bytes. What about splitting it up by basic aircraft type, such as fixed-wing, and rotary-wing, and lighter-than-air? Most fan-persons know the difference between an airplane a helicopter, and a blimp! - BilCat (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That might be possible - any count to see if that would help? - Ahunt (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I rather keep this content in one article, but that may not work out. Over the past year the article size has surged up and back down some. It was at 400k in early August 2019. It was at 360k in August 2018‎ and 335k in August 2017. It is trending up for sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts on perhaps changing the inclusion criteria to cut out the more minor stuff and cutting it back that way? - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is so large that I can't edit the whole file on my tablets, which is how I do most of my editing. I'm only able to edit the subsections. IMDB is used as a source in a number of entries, so removing those might help. - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the references to IMDb and the material that was cited only to IMDb. It didn't remove as much as I'd hoped, but it's under 400k now. CThomas³ (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Need Help

Please go to Su-30SM section in the article and replace the reference error with a reference to https://acecombat.fandom.com/wiki/Mihaly_A._Shilage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.230.178.114 (talk)

I have removed the entry. The ref you were trying to cite is an open wiki and is covered under self published sources and, as such, not a suitable reference. The whole entry doesn't meet our inclusion criteria here for video games, which you can read at the top of this page. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

A better understanding of the distinction line

Trying to understand the dividing line between acceptable or not contributions and also acceptable or not references.

RAH-66 Comanche: Accepted: The 1993 shooter game Jungle Strike has the main character flying the RAH-66 Comanche to complete various missions

Not accepted: The Comanche game series entirely devoted to flying the RAH-66. Is this not a "notable games dedicated to the specific aircraft" ?

Accepted: mentions the F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II featured as the enemy plane in Top Gun. Not accepted: the T-38 Talon as the eney plane in Hot Shots!, a parody of Top Gun ? Not accepted: the SIAI Marchetti SF.260TP being the antagonist airplane during the airplane chase scene worth mentioning the DC-3.

Accepted: The Airspeed Horsa has a minor role in A bridge too far. Similar or larger level of presence is seemingly not accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrixnet (talk • contribs) 07:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Not accepted: The Beechcraft C18S and the Bell 206B having multiple appearances in The A-Team, show which frequently features the use of aircraft, these two being the most commonly used throughout and the former taking part in several episodes with major involvement in plotlines.

On the second note: what kind of references are acceptable and what not, if aircraft mention has reference(s). For example: is IMDB trivia sufficient? Or only established press outlets?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrixnet (talk • contribs) 07:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

IMBD Trivia is user-submitted content so WP:SPS and not an acceptable ref on Wikipedia. Otherwise the criteria we try to follow is described in the box at the top of the page, this is basically "significant roles" and not "brief appearances" and must be supported by reliable, third party refs that describe the appearance. As you can imagine this article is a spam and WP:CRUFT magnet, so we tend to be pretty quick to clean it up and not let it get out of hand. Any individual addition or deletion can be brought up here on the talk and debated. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Northrop flying wing

A Northrop flying wing plays a significant role in Blue Gold, a novel by Clive Cussler. Kdammers (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

To add this we would need both the actual aircraft type (YB-49, perhaps?) and a third party ref that shows this to establish notability, (i.e. not just citing the novel itself). - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Steamboat

I have only added a ref to the book itself for the Mitchell book by Craig Johnson. Of the various reviews I have looked at, the only ones I could find that give the actual model of the craft are Spirit of Steamboat, http://pulpfictionreviews.blogspot.com/2013/10/spirit-of-steamboat.html (Because the first is a blog, I am posting it here to get approval before it gets listed) and https://lesasbookcritiques.com/spirit-of-steamboat-by-craig-johnson/. Is either acceptable? Kdammers (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like lesasbookcritiques.com would be okay because she has been published in the field and is therefore a "an established subject-matter expert". WP:SPS says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Changes to the article

This article is incredibly long, containing mostly unnecessary trivia, quirky formatting and is over 380,000 bytes. The page was reduced before, but this is still too long. Furthermore, this should really be a category rather than an article and I don't really see the point of this article. What should be done about it? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 01:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The whole article is trivia and always has been, but it serves a very important purpose on Wikipedia: it keeps the actual serious articles on historic aircraft types from being flooded with anime, movie, gaming and other trivia, because it is here instead. - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Could this not be written in a category? Most of this information isn't even notable so, arguably, the information would be reverted on these "serious articles" because they aren't notable enough. MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 01:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The point is that this trash bin keeps the workload on thousands of other articles manageable, otherwise we get run over by WP:FANCRUFT and the endless debates on the talk pages about why some mention in manga must be in the B-2 article. Some articles, like the F-15 and AH-64 would end up as 90% fan cruft. This article means it is just all moved here - no endless debates that eat up time that could be used improving articles. I would be in favour of just deleting this article, if we could introduce the death penalty for adding trivial garbage to aircraft type articles. - Ahunt (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, thank you. If you have the time, could you link me to one such debate? MrMeAndMrMe_{Let's talk} 02:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

LOL, that is 2000s history! We don't have them anymore since we made this article - we just move stuff here, no debate. - Ahunt (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing information

I believe that the F-22 Raptor was featured in the Monk episode "Mr. Monk and the Astronaut" (season 4, episode 14) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.220.73 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It needs to have been a "significant role" to be entered in the article and not just a brief appearance and we need a third party reference as well. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

B-58

Did not mention B58 Hustler in Fail Safe. 168.197.133.34 (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. Was the appearance of the B-58 a "significant role" or just a short appearance? Also we will need a reference to help determine that. Do you have one? - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I remember its italian translation "A prova d' errore". A wing of B-58 enters USSR and one drops an atomic bomb on Moscow. To avoid WW III, a B-52 does the same on N.Y. Excuse my poor english. 151.29.59.56 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I also remember a film with a sabotage on the Concorde. One is lost an another saved in extremis. The sabotage caused at first the loss of the MW radio and then ... The good guys work in a Carib's island where an hostess remembers something ... pietro151.29.59.56 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

All needs a reference to be added, though, see WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Aircraft in fiction → List of aircraft appearances in fiction – The title of this article is highly misleading compared to its subject matter. Aircraft in fiction as well as Aircraft in popular culture should be redlinked due to it being such a misleading title. An article about Aviation fiction is merited, but this is not that article. (Whether this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE is another matter, but at the very least it should be moved out of the way first.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - this article has been at this title for 13 years and you seem to be the first person who has found the title misleading, at least enough to mention it. I think you are going to need to explain much better why you think it is misleading. - Ahunt (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• I agree "aircraft in fiction" is somewhat ambiguous, a little bit confusing with, and not exactly consistent with List of fictional spacecraft. One cant be 100% sure of the meaing "aircraft in fiction": are they real aircrafts in fiction, or fictional aircrafts in fiction? Current title has element of surprise WP:SURPRISE. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lacking the explanation requested above about how the current title is "misleading" and also that this article is not a true "list" article anyway, plus the fact that the article has been stable at this title for 13 years, leaves no good reason for moving it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Ahunt and Question: ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, if you find the current title misleading - what did you expect when visiting this page? That might help understand the reason behind your move request. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  A prose article about the history of aircraft in fiction, rather than a list of fictional appearance by individual airplane. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Um, it is a prose article that starts off with a lengthy history of the subject and then prose discussions of the use of aircraft in fiction, sorted by aircraft type. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JF-17 Thunder

There should be a section for JF-17 thunder which has been portrayed now in several Pakistani movies as well including, Pervaz Hai Junoon etc. 119.154.182.172 (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You just need to find reliable sources that can corroborate the notability of such appearances and then it can go in. Bear in mind this page is closely monitored for either unsourced or non-reliable sources, and just taking the initiative and inserting anyway will be rapidly reverted by one of many editors. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the subsection "EB-66 Destroyer" be replaced by "Douglas B-66 Destroyer"?

As the EB-66 is a variant of the Douglas B-66, should the subsection be renamed? CloneCommanderFordo (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not required, nor is that consistently done in this article. There are many sections in this article that do not include the manufacturer name. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree - the current naming is consistent with the rest of the article sections and that was dine to keep section titles short. - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Motorhead album cover

should be added onto the Hinkel bomber Forged Gentleman (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

We would need a third party reference that describes that to show it is notable. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the section "MiGs (generic)" have a hyperlink to MiGs, and if so, should I hyperlink to the company or list of MiGs

The title says what the suggestion is, and maybe it should also apply to the "Space Shuttle Orbiter" section CloneCommanderFordo (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

V-22 Osprey in Monster Hunter

Several V-22s appeared in the climax of Monster Hunter (2020), should this be mentioned? 67.209.215.2 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article on Monster Hunter (2020). is that a film or a video game? "Appeared" is not sufficient for a listing here. For films it needs to be a "significant role" and supported by a third party reference, such as a review or similar. For video games the game needs to be centered around that aircraft and not just "makes an appearance". See the inclusion criteria at the top of this page for more details. - Ahunt (talk)

Boeing a/c missing movie/show references

A Boeing 737 is used as the aircraft for Flight 828 in the TV show Manifest. The films Inception and Tenet both feature Boeing 747s in prominent roles. Would someone like to add those in? 130.76.24.30 (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

To add those we would need a third party reference. Do you have one? - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Cessna 208 Caravan in Spy x Family

In S1E5 of Spy x Family (2022), a Cessna 208 Caravan with pontoons is used to transport the Forger family to the castle where Anya Forger's favorite spy cartoon was filmed as a reward for passing the entrance examination of Eden Academy. Should this be mentioned? If this is too minor to be included, I completely understand. - Pogeons (talk) 3:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

We need a third party reference to show that this is notable and then it needs to be a "significant role" and not just an appearance. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Forza Horizon 4: Delta Wing Aircraft

In 2018’s Forza Horizon 4, the race titled “The Delta-Wing showcase” pits an Aston Martin Vulcan against an unnamed Delta wing Jet, which was originally planned to be an Avro Vulcan before the name was changed due to licensing. Does this count as a “significant role” or just an appearance of the Vulcan? VeronViper (talk) 01:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Whatever that aircraft is with twin tails and canards, it is not a Vulcan and so not a "real world aircraft used in a work of fiction", so it is out of scope for this article. It might fit in List of fictional aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

P-40 in cinema

Were not P-40s featured in "Tora!"x3? And "Pearl Harbor"? 2601:249:447E:8420:E5B1:A50F:517B:6C2C (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We would need third party refs to add that. I seem to recall they appeared but did not have a central role on the film, which is our inclusion criteria for this article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)