Template talk:USN fighters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history
MILHIST This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Temp Templates do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

Title[edit]

I noticed that many of the templates in Category:United States Navy aircraft designations navigational boxes are titled "USN/USMC ####### designations pre-1962", but this navbox is titled "USN fighter designations pre-1962"... I thought some of those fighters were indeed used by the Marine Corps. Am I wrong, or was that just an oversight? bahamut0013 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplications and order[edit]

  • I notice that there are several instances of duplicated manufacturers and aircraft. For example, the McDonnell FH is also listed as the FD, in a separate part of the box—these are the same aircraft, redesignated after a naming conflict with Douglas. Is there any reason not to list "McDonnell: FD/FH • F2D/F3H • F3H • F4H" instead? Similarly, with Lockheed, the XFV and FO are under separate headings. Why not say "Lockheed: FO • XFV"? And is there a particular order to this list—or should it be alphabetized? TheFeds 21:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes - this is quite deliberate. These designations cause enormous confusion to people only acquainted with the USAF/tri-service designations, who expect (for example) F4B to be followed by F4C. This was painfully evident when WP:AIR put these navboxes in place in early 2008, replacing an old "sequence" parameter in {{aircontent}}. The USN boxes have been designed to emphasise that the designations are manufacturer-based (or, more precisely, based on a code letter that the Navy assigned to a manufacturer).
The order in all of these boxes is determined by the manufacturer code-letter. In a few cases, this means that manufacturers whose letters were changed or re-assigned (Lockheed, for example) may appear in more than one location in the list. While perhaps annoying, this does faithfully reflect the designation system it documents, for better and for worse!
It's not surprising that the USAF system was chosen over this one when the systems were all rationalized in 1962... --Rlandmann (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
PS - note also that, to add to the general untidiness, when an aircraft was manufactured under license, it received a new designation as well; hence FM Wildcat, TBM Avenger, and FG Corsair. This practice is also faithfully echoed here. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is, as I've just discovered, the box can only display a maximum of 20 sections....! I'll try to fix this. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)