Jump to content

Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.112.199.78 (talk) at 05:14, 30 September 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested deletion

Proposal to delete all references to Transformers from article as being non-notable, and irrelevant to the article. The proper places for this are the Transformers articles. - BillCJ 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion

I guess I look at things a little differently - to me, if (1) it's definitivly stated that such-and-such a thing is such-and-such a plane, and (2) this can be verified, then I don't have any problem with listing cartoon/comic appearances. Games I can see the point of exclusion, as there's so dang many of them - unless the subject is central to a plot point - but, as I said, cartoon appearance? Leave it in. - Aerobird 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, it's a CARTOON! What real F-15 can turn into a robot? Which F-15 was purchased by the cartoonists for conversion into the robots? How are the Transformers any more notable than any othr cartoon apprearence of the F-15? (I don't know of any others right off, but if we leave this reference in, they WILL appear!) - BillCJ 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point - I don't think they shouldn't appear as long as they're verifiable as F-15s. But your mileage may vary. - Aerobird 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I hadn't heard the the new Transformers movie was live action, and that they were using actual F-15s in the movie. I assume this because Top Gun was mentioned, in which the studio rented actual Tomcats from the Navy, and Tom Cruise and the other actors actually rode in the back seat of F-14s for much of the flying footage. - BillCJ 02:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Transformers was a huge pop culture phenomenon in the 1980s, whether you were a fan or not (I wasn't; it was a little before my time), and to say that any reference to it here is verboten simply because it's a fictional depiction is a pretty weak argument.--chris.lawson 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll noticed that point is not mentioned in my proposition. What is mentioned is Notability, which I do not believe this merits. Btw, I owned the F-15 Transformer! Would still have it today, excpet I had to leave it behind in a move back from overseas. - BillCJ 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously one person's cruft is another person's trivia. Considering the pop phenomenon Transformers has been, as long as there IS a "Pop culture" section, it should probably be permitted. Frankly, though, I'd prefer that these sections go away — articles on the films and games and toys and whatnot are Wikipedia's coverage of "pop culture" and should be covered there, not in articles on primarily historical topics. This is, of course, a perennial issue, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Official policy on "Cultural references" sections in articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck is a Transformer based on the F-15 not a notable pop culture instance? I pretty much agree with Mark -- as long as there is a section for it, this pretty much has to be here as it's by far the most widely known fictional reference (i.e., excluding video games) to the F-15. If that section goes away, so can this mention.--chris.lawson 04:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am for getting rid of the whole Pop culture section. But Rome wasn't destroyed in a day. As for notability, if the F-15 was the only robot in the cartoon/movie, then this might be a differet situation. However, it is but one of a good number of robot models featured. I have no problem with these models being listed in the Transformers article, that is the place for it. - BillCJ 07:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the fact that other vehicles were featured in the show is irrelevant. A-4 Skyhawks were in Top Gun, but eliminating that movie reference from the F-14 because of it wouldn't make sense. Transformers is still the most popular and widely seen fiction featuring the aircraft...and the three characters that changed into them were in almost every episode so they featured heavily. As for the entire pop culture section, I'd much rather keep it. There are more aspects to vehicles than their operating statistics and real-world history...the frequency of their appearances in media can show how pervasive (or popular) the design is, etc.. Also, I don't see how the source material being a cartoon affects the relevance...animation is no more fictional than live-action film.-- CaptainVlad 10:35 10 January 2007

It seems to me, the Transformers cartoon is most certainly notable and the F-15 was a notable character in the series. I can't think of a more notable pop culture reference. Along the same lines, I oppose removing "Pop Culture" and to a lesser extent, "Trivia", sections. I am not in favor of WP following the old-fashioned printed encyclopedia example just because that's how it's always been done. Printed encyclopedia publishers have serious physical and economical realities that require them to be extremely conservative. There is virtually no such limits for a purely web-based encyclopedia. If the pop culture section becomes ridiculously large or too trivial, then I would support spawning a pop culture sub article and trimming. With a small pop culture section that has only notable and cited references, it adds dimension to the article that a printed encyclopedia would never touch. But not because they don't want to, it's just economically irresponsible. --JJLatWiki 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

After 6 days of votes, the tally is 8 in favor of keeping the section, and 5 for removing it. So it stays, for now.

HOWEVER, today someone added a fourth transformer, "Airraid". One of my problems with pop-culture sections is that they never stay the same, that they keep growing. As far as I know, the source quoted is for 3 robots, and that's where it needs to stay. If it keeps growing, I will chuck the whole thing, per page content guidelines. - BillCJ 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What section of the page content guidelines would justify removing cited material based on people expanding with uncited material? CaptainVlad 08:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you believe that a non-bullet point presentation in the Pop Culture Section would be less likely to draw additions? I remember reading something like that on the F-16 talk page...how effective has that been? If it's worth the effort, I could reformat. CaptainVlad 08:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth a try. Seems to have helped in some cases, but not in others. - BillCJ 16:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BillCJ, in my opinion, your argument, "pop-culture sections never stay the same, and they keep growing", is very flawed. Isn't growth and change axiomatic for all sections, all articles, Wikipedia in general, and encyclopedias in general? Are you suggesting that the pop-culture section be frozen in time? I'm wondering what your vision is for this article. Is it your hope, and everyone who votes against "pop-culture" sections, that articles like the F-15's should be pure, unblemished documentaries of the plane, and it is unacceptable debasement and adulteration to include the F-15's place in history, especially with something so frivolous as "pop-culture"? --JJLatWiki 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar tack, unless they re-write MediaWiki to prevent the addition of sections with "pop-culture", doesn't this seem like a never-ending battle? I am a LOVER of military aviation. I really don't care or understand what made the Transformers so popular. I never watched the cartoon and never had any transforming toys. It's a ridiculous concept. But I do acknowledge the notability of the cartoon, and acknowledge the prominence of the F-15-based characters. For many people, their first introduction to the F-15 was that cartoon. It may have even influenced some people to join the Air Force or sparked a general facsination with aviation. I would support a deletion that said, "In some little known movie about a man lost on a deserted island, an F-15 can be seen in the photograph in his ex-wife's boss's office.". I might even support a deletion that said, "In the movie, Wargames, General Beringer orders the scrambling of 2 F-16's, but the planes that are shown are actually F-15's." For this one sentence about the Transformers though, I think it will be the anti-pop-culture purists who will be forced to get over it. --JJLatWiki 17:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many things on Wiki are never-ending battles, most notably the battle with vandals. My arguments against including Pop-culture sections are based on the following: A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable. We happen to disagree on the point that the "Transformers" appearances is "especially notable". The fact that these sections continue to grow at rates over that of other sections of the articles is an "illustration" of the problem, not the bases for my arguments. But if you want more pop-culture references in articles, you need to try to change the overall guidelines first. The guidelines are clear: Pop-culture section are to be avoided. - BillCJ 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it written, "A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable."? Pop culture is not mentioned in WP:TRIV, at least when I read it about 5 minutes ago. In fact, WP:TRIV pretty clearly advises editors to "Avoid organizing articles as lists of isolated facts regarding the topic." Clearly, the F-15 article is not organized so. WP:TRIV also advises editors to "Whenever you see a "trivia section", take a look at each fact and consider how you might integrate it into the larger text, whether by inserting it into a section, adding a new section, or creating a more targeted list of closely-related items, such as Cameos or Continuity errors." So, by that guideline, simple deletion is also a violation of the guideline. WP:TRIV suggests that "trivia" sections should be thought of as, "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Based on that, it's encumbent on editors to integrate the trivia into the main article, either into existing sections or into new sections as appropriate, and adding sufficient context, but avoiding the use of lists for the format, unless the facts are especially tangential or irrelevant. Pop culture connections can be significant and meaningful for a variety of reasons. Now, of what problem is the disproportionate growth rate an illustration? --JJLatWiki 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture:

A "Popular Culture" section should be avoided per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable. This section should not be a compendium of every trivial appearance, but significant ones of relevance to the airframe. The canonical example would be Top Gun for the F-14 Tomcat. Due to the large number of survey and arcade simulations, an effort should be made to avoid tallying every sim appearance unless there are very few of them. Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research.

- BillCJ 19:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I see. I've never been to WP:Air/PC. Very interesting. That pop culture section though seems to have several contradictions. It implies that WP:TRIV is the governing authority that prohibits "pop culture" sections, when in fact WP:TRIV could be construed to suggest the creation of a pop culture section as a logical location to house facts about pop culture references involving the subject. It also states that fictional versions constitute "original research". I would like to know how such a conclusion could be agreed to, since fictional versions might possibly be well documented by a wide variety of trusted, independent sources as being so, and hence could not possibly constitute original research. If the creators or owners of the characters have stated that the characters are F-15's, then it can not be considered original research. If no one offers proof that the characters are by intent, F-15's, then WP:NOR applies. A trivial appearance of an airframe is in the movie Independence Day where F-16's are being blown up on the ground at the so-called MCAS El Toro.
Also, would you mind responding to the question, what is the problem that disproportionate growth of pop culture sections illustrates? --JJLatWiki 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed out on the vote, so I'll merely add my two cents worth here for the time being. I usually tend to be against the deletion of any factual material in an article given that Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia rather than a print encyclopedia, has no space limitations. However, I am beginning to loathe the ever-present "Insert topic of article here in pop culture" sections. Given the sheer number of Transformers produced over the past couple decades, some believe that just about every aircraft in the U.S.A.F. inventory really really really needs and must have some reference to Transformers in it. We don't need every article imaginable crammed with a list of pop culture references, do we?

  • Does the article on WWII need a list of every pop culture reference to WWII that has occured since 1939?
  • Does the article on swords need a list of every pop culture reference to swords - surely a titanic list encompassing eight billion sword-and-sandal epics, three million sword-and-sorcery pulps, fifty billion Japanese samurai epics and probably six hundred and seventy-seven quadrillion, five hundred and two trillion, one hundred and seventeen billion, nine hundred forty-one million, one hundred eleven thousand, two hundred and thirty-eight-point-seven anime flicks featuring an adolescent hero with saucer-sized eyes, purple spiked hair and a mystic katana that's nine feet long, two feet wide and can destroy a planet with a silent, slowly expanding sphere of light that evokes the specter of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
  • Perhaps the same should be done with G. I. Joe; every weapon that was used by any character during the entire run of G.I. Joe, along with any real-world vehicle or aircraft that was represented as a G.I. Joe vehicle or even showed up in some episode of the show should have their article graced with a reference to the fact that - highly important fact here, by the way - that thing, whatever the article may be about, once showed up in a toy store or an episode of G.I. Joe. Editing the article about submarines? Don't forget to remind the reader that a submarine was once shown in an episode of G.I. Joe. Done some research into the history of the M-4 carbine and planning on editing the M-4 article? That's great; while you're there, make sure that the article reminds the reader of the fact that the weapon was included with (I'll bet money) a number of G.I. Joe action figures. Be sure to list each one, from each production run - this is important cultural information, after all. And don't forget to detail when it showed up in the cartoons - and I mean each one, with the episode number, date of airing and the name, rank, serial number, job and life history (you know the information is out there somewhere) of each character that used an M-4 or had one used against them.
  • Perhaps the article on sixguns would be improved by the inclusion of a paragraph informing the reader that sixguns show up a lot in Trigun along with a list of the different types of revolvers shown and how they likely differed in performance from real-world sixguns? No? Just a thought.

Sorry if this seems like a bit of a rant from somebody who's admittedly rather new to Wikipedia with few contributions to date. I just get the feeling that we've got a rather disproportionate amount of time being devoted to cataloging references to pop culture references to just about everything under the sun. I suppose that's fine and it's every editor's business - and their business alone - what articles they spend their time editing. I do, however, think that for the most part the material concerning cultural material (high culture and pop culture alike) should remain in the articles on cultural material unless the reference in question is truly significant. Given the literary drive shown by the samurai class in feudal Japan I am willing to gamble that the body of Japanese poetry from that time contains some examples of a samurai writing a haiku about his sword, and I would find it appropriate if the article on the katana (not the article on swords) had a section discussing that very thing. Otherwise...

Trivia is useless clutter. Trivia is useless clutter. Trivia is useless clutter.

Let's leave the Transformers material in the Transformers article. Go wild editing the Transformers article; include all the material you see fit. I've read it before - I freely admit it. I'm planning on seeing the movie when it comes out. I just don't need Transformers-related material (along with all other pop cultural material) getting in the way when I'm reading the F-15 article. I take history very seriously and I hate seeing an otherwise fine article cluttered with a barrel-load of pop-culture trivia regarding historical events, personalities and artifacts.

Yours truly, --Molon Labe 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav MiG-21s Downing two F-15s?

I've deleted the section about the Yugoslav MiG-21s shooting down two USAF F-15s; because there is no factual proof that such shootdowns ever took place. If someone can in fact find proof do so, otherwise; please do not write up fictious material like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.140.35 (talk • contribs)

Here's the removed paragraph:

On the other hand, in March 26, 1999 an american F-15E was shot down by a MIG-21. The plane crashed in village Donja Trnova, 15km southwest of Bijeljina, Republic of Srpska. The crew was killed. Another F-15 was shot down by a Yugoslav Mig-21 in April 6, 1999. The plane crashed near Avala mountain.[citation needed]

The editier that added it said it came from NATO bombing of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#Air_war. It is not cited there either, by the way. -Fnlayson 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some of that information is definetly "Unofficial" notably the B-2 that was supposedly shot-down. Which I seriously doubt as well. But as I said before; unless someone finds genuine proof; it should not be considered as fact.

Lost Air Superiority?

Is the F-15 losing the battle against other aircraft? Yes, it is in a way. Its perfect kill loss record isn't going to last long. It has equals already in aerial warfare and it is not able to keep up with next generation aircraft. The French Rafale, Europe's Eurofighter 2000 and the Russian built Su-35 are better than the F-15. Newer SAM missiles threaten the F-15. Many pilots are switching over to the F-22. Can the glory days of the F-15 be over? Agknowledgequest 02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The F-15 is pretty good but still a 1970s era design. The USAF is starting to replace its older F-15s with F-22s. Nothing is perfect forever... -Fnlayson 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that an aircraft is "better" than another one is a vague and frankly, not very useful, statement. You have to be specific. Are you talking about avionics? Instantaneous turn performance? Sustained turn performance? In some aspects, yes, the aircraft you list are "better." However, there are other ways in which the F-15 retains superiority. And, one has to consider pilot proficiency when assessing a weapon system's effectiveness. While it's ridiculous and arrogant to say that a pilot from a given country will always fly better than another pilot from a different country, it is possible to look at how they train overall, and to what level of proficiency.Double493 15:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of SAMs. Newer SAMs do not threaten F-15 or F-22, since no aircraft will ever enter teh area where these SAMs are operating, since it is suicidal. SAMs are death for aircrafts automatically, and in question of russian S-400, it is death at 400 km range. Fighters have nothing against SAMs whatsoever. 74.98.216.68 04:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Pavel Golikov. 14 August, 2007.[reply]
This is patently untrue. SAMs have never been, and never will be, "automatic" death for a fighter. There are always ways to overcome a given weapon system, or at least prevent it from doing its job properly.Double493 15:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towed Array

I hear the F-15C/E has a towed array now. Is this true?

  • I saw on a website that it was a planned upgrade a few years ago. But has it been done ? I don't know. But the towed array decoy to be installed was in fact, the same as the f-18.
The decoy system is the Raytheon AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoy System.
  • No, neither version of the F-15 has an active towed decoy. And it's not likely that they will in the future, because the Air Force would rather put that money into upgrading other avionics.Double493 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have every F-15 crash in this article??

It is unavoidable that aircraft crash in exercises from time to time. I don't think that an F-15 article should be spammed with three or four lines for every trivial F-15 crash. The Israeli incident is in this article, because it apparently landed with only one wing, the other 2007 crash is not particularly special. Necessary Evil 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abnormal question

Can the F-15 release fuel? Just a silly question :) 84.250.110.93 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you mean dump fuel in order to land? Or do you mean the ability to act as a buddy tanker, similar to what some Super Hornets are set up to do? If you mean dumping fuel, then the answer is yes.Double493 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleated Comment

Who the heck deleated by Strike of Lightning comment? The F-15 had a major role. If it's the last part about Randy Prince comfirming it, I could delete that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.210.34 (talk • contribs)

Who were you then? And when was then? I don't see your IP as having edited the page in the ;ast few days. I know WIkipedia is a place where anyone can edit, but you really ought to learn the ropes a bit before trying to add to major airticles like this one. aTHere is a lot to know, as I'm sure the editor who removed you item will explaine to you soon. - BillCJ 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't exactly like to have any address to identify me by. I am a former Air Force pilot and am very cautios about what I do. Whoever did deleate it, please do explain. Once again, sorry. Also, I edited it on the 8th of August.

  • I agree with our pilot, Major John Doe. It did have a major role in that book. Also, I added to the Popular Culture on August 17, telling about the Major Role in Air Force One and it got deleated too. Please comment, Mr. Deleater

Thanks for the backup. By the way, I was a Captain.

Just to clarify, I wasn't asking about your real-word identity. I am cautious about mine on here too. I just meant that with the different IPs you'd been assigned, I didn't know which edit was yours. In actuality, it is easier to find someone's identity on here through your IP. That is one reason why registration is recommended. Another reason is that you always have the same wiki identity with a account name, no matter where in the world you might log on from (as long as one remembers one's password anyway!) In addition, most vandalism and nonsense on WIkipedia comes froms unregistered users, tho certainly not all. - BillCJ 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the book and film appearences, we try to limit mentions to those that are notable beyond judt the medium in which they appear. THe Transformers apperance is there because of a vote, as I don't believe it is notable ether. - BillCJ 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, and sorry about the confusion. I'm new at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.0.100 (talk • contribs)

Speed

Who calculated the sped of F-15 for this article. Anyway, the person has no clue of what is MACh number, because Mach 2.5 is 2600 km/h, while 3000 km/h is mach 2.83, and only Mig-31 or Mig-25 reachedss this speed among fighters currently, F-15 is slower. I edited it according to the real numbers. If you want wiki to look credible, please do not make such silly mistakes. 74.98.216.68 04:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

Top speed 3000km/h??? O_o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.93.99 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this true?

I wonder if this is true...I am a die hard aviation enthusiast and I have read lots of books on fighter jets and air-combat.

A few years ago I read a book named "The fighting Israeli Air-Force". I dont remember the name of the author though.

It was mentioned that during the 6-day Arab-Israeli war in 1973, the worlds most dreaded air-combat action took place between the IAF and the Syrian Air Force.

24 F-15 Eagles engaged around 150 attacking Syrian MiG-21's, MiG-23's and MiG-27's. The battle went on for a whole day and the author claims that for the loss of 1 F-15 due to a non-combat related cause, all the others returned safely back to base shooting down 105 Syrian MiGs.

Is this ciattion by the author really true?

Does anyone have an account of the actual events that took place on that day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbir (talk • contribs) 15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oops...!!! I apologize for the year of the war. But my question was, keeping in view the way modern day air-combat progresses, is it really possible for 24 jets to shoot down 105 enemy jets without the loss of even one? Unless its F-22 Raptor with BVR and stealth capabilities?? Coz it really seems that even though countries are using such high-speed high-tech jets to fight modern-day combats, the strategy of using SWARMS of aircraft for an attack is somewhat primitive. Any comments are appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbir (talk • contribs) 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The odds are not good, but that could be possible if the 24 fighters had better, longer range missiles, better/newer fighters and were better trained at dogfighting than the 105 fighters. They'd have to strike first successfully with missiles out near the edge of their range. And the larger force would have to be careful not to catch each other in cross fire while dogfighting. This is not talk pages are for, so I'll leave it there. -Fnlayson 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

This article is very short on references. Help if you can. -Fnlayson 00:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP Aviation review above states grammar does not meet criteria. I've improved some wording, but I'm not seeing anything other than passive verb usage. Any help here would be great. Thanks. -Fnlayson 02:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were a bunch of us editing the references all around the same time. I'm going to step back for a bit and let it settle down. I still have at least two books to dig through. --Colputt 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bunch of cites from Jane's and the Complete book of Fighters, only to hit an edit conflict. I'm gonna go work on 1930's airplanes. --Colputt 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finished now, really, you can have it, I'm done. I'm not a wikiaddict, really, I can stop at anytime... --Colputt 21:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is out of date. it says 103-0 on the kill record, but we just lost two a month ago.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle&oldid=161256966"