Talk:Aircraft boneyard

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aircraft boneyard article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: 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.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Knockdowns and EDAs

I had my link to knockdown aircraft removed, but I still think it's appropriate to mention it in this article. The same for Excess Defense Articles. This is the closest related article I can find for now, and I would like to develop articles depending on these ideas. Perhaps someone reading this can create stubs to help get the ball rolling? 70.247.162.50 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have found a reasonable link for knockdown aircraft now under Complete knock down, so I've added it back under the See Also section, since no rationale has been provided for the removal. 70.247.160.227 (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is more generic than 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group, I feel it would be more appropriate to reference the term Excess Defense Article there, as it's more focused on military aircraft. 70.247.160.227 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the US

Are there any aircraft boneyards outside the US? I imagine a country like Russia must have a sizable stock of old aircraft too and the space to accomodate them, yet I've never heard of one existing except in the US. - Berkoet (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia has few places that could work like the deserts, but they do store quite alot of "obsolete" weapons. usually in actual warehouses and such.24.187.19.109 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle boneyard article

Would someone make the Vehicle boneyard article. This can mention aircraft boneyards, Ship boneyards, and Ground vehicle boneyards (this would be a redirect from Junkyard I guess). Would help people to find the boneyard they seek (eg to fix up a vehicle for personal or communal transport). 81.246.177.113 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the term Ground vehicle wreck yard is even better, replace the boneyards in the names above by wreck yard (not wrecking yard) as the latter suggests its a yard for wrecking stuff, not a collection of wrecks.

Vehicle boneyard could probably survive as a DAN page, but I don't think that's a common enough term for one. Probably best to just putlinks to the other aritcles in the "see also" sections on each page. - BillCJ (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move rationale?

Where's the proposal and rationale for moving this article? Why does it need to be moved? This is the common term for such yards in the US, which is primarily where they exist. We don't need to make up generic terms for something that already has a common name. - BillCJ (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. - BillCJ (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citations Notice June 2007

The article has seen quite a few changes since this notice was posted. Would it now be appropriate to remove the notice and perhaps replace with {{Cn}} where appropriate? --N8 12:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a source for each table row. Six rows have inline citations; the source(s) for the other seven are unclear. I don't see an advantage in replacing the {{refimprove}} with seven {{citation needed}} templates. What is needed should be obvious, either by inspection or from reading this talk section. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning this WorldBruce. I went ahead and added citations appropriate for each table row in line with your recommendation and removed the notice. --N8 23:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aircraft boneyard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622003203/http://www.planesofthepast.com/abilene-regional-airport.htm to http://www.planesofthepast.com/abilene-regional-airport.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]