Talk:Boeing VC-25: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:30, 18 December 2009

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States C‑class

This article 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft Start‑class

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Article title

An alternative title to Boeing VC-25 would be VC-25 "Air Force One". My preference is for the first, following the pattern of Boeing C-32. However, I can live with the second choice, even though technically they are only AF1s if the President is actually onboard. - BillCJ 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead

The second third and fourth paragraphs of the Lead (Introduction) are still pretty much as in the Air Force One article. THey may still need to be rewritten to fit this article. Feel free to take a stab at it. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I heard somewhere (not this article) that the VC-25 is not called Air Force One when the President is not on board. What is it called then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.205.75.240 (talk • contribs) 18:26, August 12, 2007 (UTC)

---I thought it was Sky Angel. I could be wrong though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.0.100 (talk • contribs) 11:54, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

It is a US Air Force aircraft. When it isn't carrying the President or Vice President, its call sign is the same as any other AF aircraft, in this case it would be "Air Force 28000" or "Air Force 29000", depending on which aircraft we are talking about. --rogerd 16:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.199.0.100 (talk • contribs) 15:07, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

See Air Force One, the way I understand it is that any US airforce aircraft carrying the president is the AF1 but when its civilian it's Executive 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.110.93 (talk) 19:09, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Photos

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/gallery.php?id=41

This is a great link with photos of the inside of this type of aircraft that would really benefit the page. I don't have time to upload any of them right now, but if anyone would like to please feel free. Best, Happyme22 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the discussion was no merge. Happyme22 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that this should be merged back into Air Force One. Aside from the technical specifications, this article is only about eight paragraphs long (not the best-formatted article, so eight is an estimate of what a properly structured article with the same content might be). It will easily fit in Air Force One. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger - The VC-25 is not Air Force One, they are two aircraft that are used with the callsign Air Force One when required. Air Force One is a callsign not an particularly aircraft. Bit like merging Concorde into Speedbird One. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No merge - Keep seperate. The AF 1 article covers the history and all for the call sign and airplanes used. The VC-25 article covers the specially modified 747-200Bs. This article is just as notable as the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft with 2 airplanes. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger - Concur with Milb1 and Fnl. The original AF1 article was becoming far to convulted and mixed up, as it was trying to be both an aircraft article, and one on the history and usage of the term AF1. As such, I propsed and executed spilt. Also, I'm not quite sure what "a properly structured article with the same content" is supposed to mean, as this article follows the proscribed format for aircraft pages per WPAIR's page content guidelines. It is therefore a "properly structured article" already, though perhaps it could use some expansion and editing, as all WP articles are "works in progress". - BillCJ (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, I added the merge tag to the Air Force One per Merge policy. Also, it's usually better to place the merge discussion on the page being kept/merged "to", otherwise it's necessary to add an extra parameter directing to the location of the discussion, which I have done. - BillCJ (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is notability. Nobody has put forward an argument that the VC-25 is notable for anything other than Air Force one, and only two of them seem to actually be in existence. If the VC-25 is not notable in its own right, it should not have an article, per policy. Please address this notability concern. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry the request was for a merge which is nothing to do with notability - but can the two topics be merged. If you are concerned about notability then you should propose it as a candidate for deletion quoting your concerns. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:AIR guidelines, all aircraft types/variants are notable on their own. Notability was not brought up in your proposal, hence it was not addressed initially. However, I am posting at WT:AIR to get a broader consensus on the issue, including the notability question. - BillCJ (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I can't nominate it for deletion since I don't think it should be deleted. I think it should be merged. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK so you accept that it is Notable enough to exist, then the only merge criteria you have mentioned is that the page is short and unstructured which in the opinion of other editors and guidelines is contested. If their was consensus to merge which has not happened yet it should be merged into a page covering a broader topic which in this instance as it is an aircraft would be Boeing 747 not Air Force One. MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can only repeat what I said before. It is not notable enough in its own right. Different merge options may exist, but as per the article, The VC-25 is most famous for its role as Air Force One [...]. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, but that does not mean they have to be in 1 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - or with the E-4 article even. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not very clear from the article, but it seems those are two different planes that have also been used under the Air Force One call sign? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe so. There's not much public info on these two airplanes. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh dear, now that you mention it... E-4 does have an awful lot of unreferenced (unverifiable?) content. 0_o Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Oppose merge - the articles are describing two different things: an aircraft type (VC-25) and a callsign that has been applied to a number of different aircraft types over the years. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the VC-25 is a highly customized nuclear bunker command center. That's plenty notable independent of its mission. Potatoswatter (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Air Force One

They are a number of reference in the article like On board Air Force One are medical facilities.. which should really be Each VC-25A has medical facilities. It mentions that Air Force One had a treadmill added. Do we known if both aircraft are fitted out exactly the same or should it referenced as either 28000 or 29000? Any comments MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-interesting info

In the office areas, the aircraft has photocopying, printing, and word processing services, as well as telecommunication systems (including 85 telephones and 19 televisions). There are also secure and non-secure voice, fax, and data communications facilities. I don't know if redundant is the word, but I really don't think this information has any value. Of course there's telephones on Air Force One. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.0.63.96 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VC-25 or VC-25A

Which is it? The article uses both. Rillian (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct. VC-25 covers all variants. But there's only been 1 variant; A-model. This is explained some more at 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system#Series letter. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article consistently uses VC-25, except to explain the A-model now. Let it be, please. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

The speed was incorrect. Mach 0.94 is not 630 miles per hour, it is 690 miles per hour. 630 miles per hour is Mach 0.84. The 630 mph belongs on the line below; not associated with Mach 0.94 as it was in the earlier edit.

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 : This article consistently uses VC-25, except to explain the A-model now.  Let it be, please. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 13:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
+== Speed ==
+The speed was incorrect.  Mach 0.94 is not 630 miles per hour, it is 690 miles per hour.  630 miles per hour is Mach 0.84.  The 630 mph belongs on the line below; not associated with Mach 0.94 as it was in the earlier edit.