Talk:List of military transport aircraft

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

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Military history: Aviation

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

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 not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Lists need merging and reviewing

The two lists currently in this article, of fixed- and rotary-winged types, should be merged. An extra column will be needed to classify the different configurations. The other columns may also need some rationalisation. See WP:AVILIST for more detailed guidelines. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it should be separated... The role of helicopters is so different from fixed wing aircraft, it doesn't make sense to merge it.

People who want to compare helicopters won't be able to classify them in a certain order. It's a pain and it's not a readable table that way.

2 tables make it much more readable. Fabrice Ram (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List format/s

Basic information such as the class of aicraft needs adding. WP:AVILIST specifies standard columns for Type, Country, Class, Role, Date, Status and Notes.

The class should be one of propeller, jet or rotorcraft.
Roles will need to be adapted for this list. Freight, passenger, tanker and utility seem a good start.
The date should be of first flight in transport form, as there is often no one significant operator to whom a date of introduction relates.

Some of the existing columns fall outside these characteristics. The number built is not especially significant and can be deleted. The comparative performance figures probably are a strong reason for readers to come here and should stay, at least for now.

Unless anybody has a more practical proposal, I hope to edit them along these lines and eventually merge them, per the above thread. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that went quicker than I expected. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you want the date column to be the one of the first flight... But you want to keep the name as "date"? So in order for readers to understand the table, they should read this page as well?

What about being clear?

For the payload and the range, there is a problem in your table...

It's not specified either the type of payload or the range with which parameter...

- Is it the range at the payload mentioned? Is it the maximum range? If so, some numbers are wrong

- Is the payload the max one, or the payload for the range mentioned?

No matter the parameter, it should be specified for the reader...

YOUR table has 0 source ! 0 !

There are numbers that cannot be verified. Fabrice Ram (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary columns

The table is looking pretty cramped, due to the number of columns. I propose deleting the three columns for maximum weight, cruising speed and service ceiling. They are not the most significant figures used in transport aircraft comparisons and I think that the important ones, such as payload and range, would be a lot easier to appreciate. Comments appreciated, as I know that this can be a sensitive issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cant see why this cant look like the other aircraft lists so spec info is not really needed, it is available in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add because of the subject that load and range may be useful as you have commented. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Also added a Notes column, so net reduction of two. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

A lot of light transport and communications aircraft missing from the list, have you an inclusion criteria in mind ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not thought that far ahead, I just wanted to rescue the list and bring it into conformance with our guidelines. In principle we should go with the definition given in the Military transport aircraft parent article, but I think that definition probably needs some discussion on its talk page and perhaps some resulting revision before we copy it over here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Update] I have now opened a discussion over there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Most of the dates currently given appear to be dates in service. For lists covering multiple operators such as this one, the date given should be that of the first flight (or of project cancellation if it never flew). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article sucks

Here is my proposal of an article...

[Entire article cut to preserve page usability]

Fabrice Ram (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid personal attacks, see WP:NPA. I have redacted it.

I have removed your proposal from this page; it is preserved here. We do not use talk pages for such massive rewrites; apart form anything else, it screws up the ToC. Just discuss one issue at a time, or put up your proposed version as a user subpage in your own user space (as [User:[username]/[pagename]) and post a link to it here, along with an explanation of your changes. At present, that explanation is sorely lacking.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is wrong with my proposal, and how isn't it MUCH better than what is existing now? Fabrice Ram (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Ram What was wrong with your proposal is that you put the entire article in the talk page. It's alright to recreate the content of article if you want to propose large changes, but please do so in your sandbox, not the talk page. You can even split your sandbox into multiple sub-pages like I do. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retired types

I have now populated the empty 'Retired' section with all the types I am 100% certain are now fully retired. Most were no-brainers for an old lag such as myself, but several types required further investigation, such that along the way I was able to update 'List of Operators' pages on several individual types e.g. DHC-5 Buffalo. Some of us are old enough to remember the DHC-5 still being demonstrated at Farnborough as a new aircraft 'in production'. (Yes, that was the one that had a mishap right in front of its potential buyers)

Elsewhere I have applied 'if in doubt, leave it out', and may have left particular types off the list. But it's a start, and it gives others the opportunity to consider my efforts as a first draft, and improve it with further edits.

The next stage, when I have recovered my sanity, is to remove the duplicate entries that are still lurking on the 'Out of Production' list. Then we will have truly made progress.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]