Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

Largest aircraft to achieve an aerial kill

The claim that the B-52 is both the largest aircraft to achieve an aerial kill in combat and the largest aircraft to be shot down in combat has been challenged. Please present evidence that this information is incorrect or the challenge will be removed. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a claim without a reference. The burden is on the one that added it per WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize that. Will modify the article accordingly. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article still states this, however, the B-52 is one of the largest combat aircraft with an air-to-air capability (admittedly it is a past capability). It has two confirmed kills. If there is a larger aircraft with a kill, it should be easy to find, but I cannot find anything. While it is still unreferenced it is a logical inference. I'm going to leave it for now, but I am also researching it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to add something about the use of Diamond Lil in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and how Michael Moore lies about what its dedication plaque says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the term "aircraft" is a bit too broad to apply here because Zeppelins are certainly aircraft, are certainly larger than the B-52 in almost every respect, and are certainly credited with air-to-air kills during WWI. A better term here would be "airplane". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.162.166 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Now what

Ok. I think the best way to go about this is to do a proof by exclusion. There are not many combat aircraft larger than a B-52 (in terms of mass, wingspan, length, or payload) and most of those are unarmed cargo aircraft. I think the best way to prove this is to conclusively show why this claim is true by showing all larger aircraft did not have a kill.

The following military aircraft are larger than the B-52 in some manner (the parameter listed in parenthesis may not be the only one that exceeds the corresponding parameter of the B-52, but is one characteristic that does exceed it):

Those with a gun turret/air-to-air capabilities

B-36 Peacemaker (wingspan)

Convair_YB-60 (wingspan)

IL-76D (payload)

None of these have air-to-air victories

Those with no armaments

C-5 Galaxy (payload)

C-17 Globemaster III (payload)

Tu-160 (wingspan)

An-124 (wingspan)

An-225 (payload)

Boeing 747 (wingspan) in various military configurations

Hughes H-4 Hercules (wingspan)

There are several other cargo aircraft (civilian/military) which have payload capacities and/or wingspans above that of the B-52; none of these were ever armed with air-to-air weaponry. Feel free to add them to the list. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the article calls the chapter "Air-to-air victories" -- it then makes sense to add Pham Tuan and his victory over B-52 -- probably the largest military airplane shot down with air-to-air weaponry.94.248.125.55 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Even the book cited in his article only mentions that PT "claimed" to have shot down a B-52. It doesn't say he actually did. This is also the only book which has such a citation. Given that the North Vietnamese had a propensity for exaggerating results (as did the Americans at the time) and no evidence has been produced to verify the claim (despite ample incentive to do so), I see no reason to include it. Buffs (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

USAF doesn't seem to dispute the loss of that B-52 (there goes exaggeration argument), so the only point is whether it was downed by SAM's (USAF version) or a MiG. Basically there are three possible 'votes' in the determination of the cause of the downing: USAF, VPAF and VPA. USAF seems to say it was a SAM; VPAF sais it's an air-to-air, and VPA air-defence doesn't claim that victory (something unlikely for "exaggerating Vietnamese"). Seems like a clear reason to include it as a "possible". 94.248.125.55 (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

NVAF claimed LOTS of kills that were actually SAM kills, so, no they don't actually have that many kills nor is this claim any more credible. Buffs (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

FA push

To those who have contributed to this article, I intend to work on this in the near future and press for FA status. The prose needs a little bit of work here and there, some sources are needed, and some formatting needs to be done with respect to the references (dates, italics, authors, etc), but it largely appears to be ready for FA. Thoughts on anything else? Please add them to the list below. Once one of the items below is done, strike it out and put your signature after it.

I'm just trying to coordinate efforts here. If you have a better way to do it, I am all ears. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

FA list of things to do

• Re-examine the prose for writing inconsistencies
• Find sources for statements with a "^{[citation needed]}" tag

  Still have one sentence about the BUFF being the largest a/c with an air-to-air kill, but I don't think that one is controversial and I don't know of a larger a/c with a kill. If it is incorrect, a simple link to another claim would be easily sufficient to remove it. Simple process of elimination reveals the truth. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fix problems with the references
• Really needs more about the Cold War role as it served in that capacity for nearly 40 years. Only 3 paragraphs seems disproportionate.
• Fix dates/numbers/etc IAW WP:MOS
• All aircraft images point at the center of the page
• Check any other MOS issues
• Early Structural issues section/paragraph needs to be added.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 500 kg, use 500 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 500 kg.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 480 mi.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks

Comments

One point that arose from the F-4 Phantom Featured Article review is that Vectorsite and Joe Baugher's website are not considered WP:RS - they will need to be replaced if this is raised to FA.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This comment and the one following it were originally together, but I have split them for clarity. I would largely prefer not to remove them. If the information is accurate, we can add another reference to show that this information is indeed reliable (better to have extra references than not enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Was the reason that Mr. Baugher's website was not reliable because it wasn't peer reviewed? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be relatively easy to fix as he gives his references. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Baugher's pages, GlobalSecurity and similar web pages are all self-published. They don't pass WP:Reliable sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article could do with expansion of the section on the structural issues encountered in the early days that caused a number of crashes. Referencing also needs improvement. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur; added. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Need a better/updated image

File:B-52 3-view.svg looks more like a B-52D (IIRC, B-52D has the tall tail/vertical stabiliser and is the only model that can carry more 750lb bombs than the other B-52 variants) than a B-52H to me, and in my view, this file should not be use as it does not correspond to the header of Specifications for B-52H, kind of misleading to place it there in the first place. Thoughts, anyone? --Dave1185 ^talk 16:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nevermind all, I've switched the image to that of a short-tailed B-52G instead, which is similar to the H-model except only for the tail-gun. But if there's a better image or outline drawing of a H-model, please feel free to change it to correspond to the B-52H specification. Thank you. --Dave1185 ^talk 16:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference format

Is there any consensus for the complete change in the reference format?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I expect not, it is normal practice just to keep to the style adopted by the first editor. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And do we really want all the adverts for Google books sprinkled into the references? They don't add anything.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The links aren't needed unless maybe there's some dispute over the info from it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The links aren't needed if you have the book, BUT, "you should cite where you found the material", not just the book's info. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Three of the Google books links gave no preview and no additional information, so I deleted them (as its easily reachable if you click on the ISBn link its no great loss.) One of them has a review (but no preview) and one has a limited preview, which could theoretically be used to find information.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Was trying to lend a hand to get this towards FA, but clearly folks are unhappy with my efforts, so I'll leave you to it - good luck with the review. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question, what is the current reference format used here? I've seen examples of manual coding, citation template'd ones, and half finished ones; so which actually is the standard we're supposed to be adopting as one right the way though? While I recognise that we should keep to whatever standard is dominant and first used, I'm unable to tell what that is, so the clarification would be appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The article originally mainly used manual coded references - an attempt by one editor to impose cite templates on the article and change the layout of the standard appendices without any prior discussion resulted in the above discussion and the current mix of reference formats.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah good. Just thought I had better get that established, so that I and other editors know what to work towards on this article. Kyteto (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering putting this in for GAN

I wanted to state my intentions that I am currently making considerations on this article towards nominating it for a Good Article Review. I note that there was an ongoing FA push several months ago, I'm not sure how active those efforts are right now, I don't want to step on anybody's toes with this. This article would be the first that I've taken through with manual citations, which I find a real pain to work with, but I'll manage it somehow as I think the quality is essentially there. If anybody is in favour of this move and wants to keep an eye on this article for when it happens, or even more importantly if there is opposition to me taking such actions here, drop a comment below this one. It's only an idea right now, I'd be much more confident going forwards with it if I knew someone more experienced in tuning up manual referencing was enthusastic and ready to go, as there I could certainly use what help is offered. Kyteto (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Putting it up for GA is probably about right. Another option is going for A-class with WP:MILHIST. I don't think there has been a focused effort to improve this article in months. A couple of the first things to do is probably improve the referencing (replace non-WP:RS refs maybe?) and make sure all major details are covered. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-RS refences have been booted out. Think that I have gotten them all. Anybody like the new quotes I've found? Kyteto (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another 20 Book references thrown into the article, hope that looks good. Kyteto (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominating for GA Review now, feels like its hit the spot now. Kyteto (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I think the Development section needs a summary of the post-A-model variants and mention of the upgrades performed. I'll try to work on that.. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Have a great picture of a B-52D tail gun, where to put it?

I was visiting the Kansas Aviation Museum in Wichita, KS yesterday, and took an external photo of the tailgun section of a B-52D they have on display there (tail number 55-0094). Since good pictures of a B-52's tailgun are hard to come by, I figured I would upload this one. I'm just not sure where to put it in the article itself. I was thinking of including it in the Variants section under the picture of the B-52D dropping bombs, but I'm not sure if that's the best place. Raguleader (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it can replace the B-52G on display at Langley AFB image. That B-52G image is used in the List of surviving B-52s and is available on Commons. -fnlayson (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ejection seats & Turbulence-induced structural failure

I've been working on the 1963 Elephant Mountain B-52 crash. During that research I found a lot of useful information here. Thank you! The problem with the ejection seats became more clear to me on this website:The History Of Ejection Seats - Bailout for the other guy If one wants to add a little more details about the series of turbulence-induced structural failures the B52s experienced in the beginning of the 1960s, here is a interesting website on this topic: Look mom, I lost my tail! We gotta bring this Buff in anyway. I would do I myself but I really don't want to mess with this article. WideBlueSky (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A-class review

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Airplaneman ✈ 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

SDASM images

I am working with staff at Balboa Park in San Diego for releasing museum images under free licenses. There are several digitized images of B-52s from the San Diego Air & Space Museum. The images can be seen here and here. If any of the images can be used for the article, please list the requested image(s) at Wikipedia:GLAM/BP/Image requests. If there are any questions please let me know on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

List formatting

I recently fixed the formatting of the Notable accidents section, so that it renders as a a proper HTML list, per the MoS. In doing so, I also moved the image ahead of that list. User:Fnlayson has twice moved it into the middle of the list, causing there to be two, unconnected HTML lists. This is semantically incorrect and unhelpful to our readers. Furthermore, he did so he said, to place it "adjecent [sic] to relevant entry", which it apparently is on his system. However, on my system (which no doubt has a different screen size, resolution and/ or font size), it sits alongside a 1972 incident. Images should not interrupt lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What exact MoS guideline are going by here? You have not mentioned it yet. The caption of the image was directly next to the 1994 entry. If the image link was right above the entry, the image would run into the next section and cause image crowding later on. Note this article passed GA and A-class reviews with no reviewers having a problem with it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BULLETLIST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The screenshot above shows that, again and as I said previously, you are describing what you see on your system; not what others see on theirs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, it is too high now. The image link had been right above the 1984 entry for a while before this month. As long as the image's caption is, some variation in screen size or resolution won't affect things too much. Either part of the image or the caption should be next to the entry with that earlier placement. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Although you've moved the image again, it's still in the wrong place; and the list markup is still broken by it. Per the cited MoS, the image should either be above the list or inside the bullet point to which it applies. Consider also how it is presented to people who do not see our pages, but hear them read to the by assistive software. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You are quibbling over the placement of an image because it could interfere with assistive software which reads to people. Give me a break. I'm not against helping those that are hard of hearing have visual impairments (wow, probably should have re-read what I wrote...), but I believe that this placement places the image chronologically where it should be in relation to the text around it. I've moved the image to within the bullet so the list remains intact, but this is a guideline, not policy. Guidelines can be violated for good reasons. What you SHOULD be campainging for is a correction to the wikipedia software which overlooks the images when creating lists. Buffs (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not "quibbling over the placement of an image because it could interfere with assistive software which reads to people", but in any case that software reads alt text and captions, so is affected by image placement. I'm not quite clear what this has to do with "those that are hard of hearing". The image is not now located chronologically where it should be, because you have placed it within and at the end of the list item about a 1972 incident. The MoS is quite unequivocal in this regard; it belongs ahead of the list, or within and at the start of the list item to which it relates. No good reason for ignoring it has been offered. Placed in one of those locations, MediaWiki will handle it correctly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The MoS is not a requirement. Right now, our miniscule consensus is 2:1 against you. That consensus can' override a mere guideline, however, another important policy certainly applies here.

As for the rest, no, that image only falls within that list item in a textual sense. Graphically it overlaps between three or four list items. You are ignoring the graphical layout (which the vast majority of people use) to attain a marginal improvement in a relatively unused realm. That is a good reason and Fnlayson & I agree on the point. As for my comment, I fixed it above (my mistake). Buffs (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

2:1 is not a consensus of any kind; consensus is not voting. IAR is not a "get out of jail free" card for prematurely closing a discussion such as this. The image is on the wrong list item in a textual, semantic and logical sense; and that is wrong. You make the same mistake as Fnlayson in considering your own experience of using Wikipedia. The image is not aligned next to the correct item on systems with a very large font setting, nor on the mobile view of the article (which site's popularity puts lie to your "vast majority" claim), nor to various other users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

2:1 is the only consensus we currently have, so spare me the lectures about voting and what consensus means. I never said the discussion was "closed" and I never made any attempt to do so. There are very few things on WP that are "wrong". The vast majority is merely preference and style choices. You are indeed correct that it doesn't line up when placed with "very large" font settings, but other problems also arise by placing it with the chronological incidents (for example, it runs into the next section).

WP:IAR was created exactly for something like this. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Fnlayson and I have decided this is the best option right now. You are the sole dissenter. Far too many people are dedicating their WP lives to making WP a bureaucracy with formal requirements for everyone else to follow in a vain power trip. It isn't worth it. Buffs (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm only going to reply to those parts of your essay which appear pertinent to the issue at hand. The image is currently associated with the wrong item in the list. This can be remedied in one of three ways. Place it inside the correct item; place it ahead of the list (as I did in my reverted edit); or remove it entirely. The latter seems unnecessary; the former, you say, causes it to run onto the next section. This, then, leaves only one viable solution. You appear to have raised no reasoned objection to this. I note also that you have ignored my point about the mobile view of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you have missed our point entirely. The problem lies with limitations in WP software which doesn't allow alignment with the end of a section or to avoid overlaps into another section. There is also the issue that the image shouldn't be associated with anything in the first place (again, an HTML coding issue). Again, aesthetics for a small minority of people (BTW, both my iPad and iPhone seem to display the image just fine) do not override the aesthetics for the vast majority. Again, I contend you are directing your energy into the wrong discussion. I recommend Wikipedia:Help desk instead. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If that's your point then it's not a valid one. The limitation is not with the MediaWiki software, but with HTML (please, if you believe otherwise, explain how you would avoid such overlaps using HTML & CSS). And yet again you seem to base your arguments on a limited world view based on your own system, rather than a wider understanding of how the various hardware and software systems work. Did you view the mobile-version link I provide for you, above? Between which bullet points is the image locate, on your devices? This is a matter of semantics, not merely aesthetics; and your apparent claim of understanding the experiences of "the vast majority" is, as I have already pointed out, bogus. As is your remarkably self-contradictory assertion that "the image shouldn't be associated with anything in the first place", to which I respond by again referring you to the MoS, and especially its suggestion that the image be placed ahead of the list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You know what? You just don't get it. It's worthless "discussing" anything with you if you are simply going to call my opinions invalid or view them as not pertinent. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am confused by the location of the image. The image shows a 1994 incident, right? So why is it placed all the way up by the 1968 stuff, rather than down with 1994? On my computer screen, there's a full two inches between the bottom of the caption and the top of the relevant bullet item. Why would anyone object to moving it lower, so that it sits right next to the relevant bullet item? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's within the relevant bullet point, in accordance with the Mos (WP:BULLETLIST), I wouldn't; but that would cause it to "dangle" below the list for some people, and it appears that some of them would object. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:B-52 Stratofortress shot down in Operation Linebacker II.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:B-52 Stratofortress shot down in Operation Linebacker II.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)