Talk:Avro Vulcan/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

File:VulcanB2atFilton1960s.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:VulcanB2atFilton1960s.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:VulcanB2atFilton1960s.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Stealth" capabilities

I have removed a sentence ascribing "stealth" capabilities to the Vulcan. It possesses a large radar signature, and the idea that the shape of the Vulcan somehow conferred stealth ability, at whatever level, seems to have taken hold. See, for example, p113 of the Vulcan manual [1]for further details. Sarahburge (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually for its size the Vulcan did have a small RCS. It wouldn't be classed as stealthy as the compressor faces of the engines and the radome gave a strong return. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Not one but two articles published in New Scientist ("The Bomber that radar cannot see" March 1982, "Sound Strategies for Survival" Oct 1986) noted that a certain angles of approach, the Vulcan would be invisible to the radar completely: "The Avro Vulcan...who's shape makes it astonishingly hard to detect on radar". If an RS source states that to be the case, it becomes quite difficult to overrule. The Vulcan was by no means a 'stealth plane', but it gave a smaller radar return than one would expect for an aircraft of that scale, albiet by accident rather than design. In addition to the New Scientist links, one already included in the article, Doug Richardson's "Stealth Warplanes" accredits the Vulcan as having being difficult to aquire on radar. The official summary at the North East Aircraft Museum, housing one of the remaining Vulcans states that the aircraft had a 'low RCS'. "Understanding radar systems" by Simon Kingsley and Shaun Quegan highlight the importance of the Vulcan in demonstrating early on that it was shape as well as material that could reduce the RCS of aircraft; and thus recognising that the shape of the Vulcan was indeed benefitial to incurring a reduction in observability. It isn't a stealth aircraft by the modern definition, but noteworthily, and unusually low for the era, as remarked by multiple commentators? I would say yes. Kyteto (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I also question the assertion that the sentence was ascribing any 'stealth' claims to the Vulcan. The deleted statement is as follows: "In addition to an extensive electronic countermeasures suite, the Vulcan had a small radar cross-section, aiding its deterrent role by evading detection and therefore increasing the likelihood of penetrating Soviet airspace and deploying its weapons load successfully". The word Stealth does not even appear in its content. A reader could project from the multiple reliably sourced statement of the Vulcan having a low RCS that it could be considered a crude/early stealth aircraft, but that is interpretation of the statement rather than direct implication. A critic could reason that the Vulcan having a low RCS for its size doesn't necessarily mean it came anywhere close to the levels of Ultra-Low Observability to qualify as a stealth aircraft, which it likely did not; the fact that it has a low RCS for what is a fairly massive aircraft doesn't have to be scrubbed because some people jump to that conclusion. Kyteto (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The Vulcan has a small RCS compared to a Bear. It has a small return from the forward quarters, thanks to the blended fuselage and wing (compared to a slab-sided B52). However face-on there's a large return from the pressure bulkhead behind the radome and an even bigger one from the compressor faces. Side-on the massive vertical stabiliser gives a 'barn door' return. So it illustrates some of the principles of stealth, without actually achieving much for the overall aircraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The section remains in the main text though removed from the lead. A combination of flying, radar profile and the countermeasures may explain its performance in Operation Skyshield I and II. Skyshield isn't in the text at the moment is it, though it is possibly the closest the Vulcan got to its nuclear role. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, fair points above. I think it's best left in the main text, not the lead though.Sarahburge (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Skyshield wasn't a success because the Vulcan had a low RCS, but because the RAF at this time had an ECM capacity the USAF still hadn't recognised the need for. That, and it was flown by a squadron of browned-off Prunes who'd been told that their Vulcans were to be axed, post-Skybolt - which in RAF terms means carry on as normal, only at half the altitude. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I note that this contentious issue is still featured in the lead text as well as the main. In my own experience: [1] At the bottom of the 'article' page, there is a link to a photograph of a silvered model Vulcan used in RCS trials using a light analogy. I was demonstrated this kit whilst training. Silvered model aircraft on sticks were placed at the back of a darkened tunnel and lit by a spotlamp. The models were rotated and the reflected light measured. Guess which model gave the greatest reflection???!! [2] Having been on the Vulcan force for some years, no one ever mentioned how curious it was that the aircraft disappeared off the radar scope.
But don't take my word for it. I can commend Sarahburge's posting on this topic (the first) and spell out part of the citation from Price, Blackman and Edmonson (Haynes Manual). The writer is Dr Alfred Price FRHistS, an ECM expert and ex Vulcan AEO: "In truth, the Vulcan, like other large aircraft of its time, posessed a large radar signature. In its day it was a great aircraft, but we do not enhance its reputation by ascribing to it capabilities it never had."
Since the matter of a low RCS is disputed, then it should be removed. If not, a caveat will need to be added that the matter is disputed. XJ784 (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe under the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, we should cover both sides of the debate. Dr Alfred Price's viewpoint should be added to those given in Note 3l which generally documents opinions on this matter. This would allow what is verified on the issue as being noteworthy points of view on the issue of contention to be documented and displayed to those interested; rather than pretending no such conversations have taken place at all. Wikipedia:Verifiability states we should include verified opinions on an issue, even if they don't fully agree with each other on the degree of the issue in question, rather that attempt to divine a 'truth' out of it. That is not to say Price is wrong, we just aren't qualified to say one way or the other; it is perhaps more important to document the dissention and the debate on the issue that the 'true' answer; in a similar manner to political debates in Parliament or academics on the validity of two rivalling scientific theories, the arguement's process and existence becomes as important as the real answer, if that is known at all. At least, that's my thinking on it. Kyteto (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But why change the note which is not necessarily read. The main text has to be neutral. It presently reads "Despite its large size, it had a relatively small radar cross-section (RCS) as it had a fortuitously stealthy shape apart from the tail fin; at certain angles, it would vanish from the radar altogether." This text has cited a text in the New Scientist which says "The Vulcan could virtually vanish from radar screens at certain angles". These are not the same. Where does the NS article claim that it had relatively small RCS or that it had a fortuitously stealthy shape apart from the tail fin? Who actually disputes that from most angles, the Vulcan had anything less than an ordinary RCS? The best you could say is that "Some commentators have claimed that from certain angles, the Vulcan could virtually vanish from radar screens<reference> but this was not materially significant in its operations<reference>."

This is of academic interest perhaps but when you consider that nowhere in this article does it mention the huge ongoing effort to give crews low-level training from Goose Bay in Labrador (where an RAF Unit was especially established) or from Offutt AFB in Nebraska (where there was a permanent RAF Vulcan servicing detachment), then why are we getting bogged down with such curiosities? XJ784 (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Some commentators have claimed that from certain angles, the Vulcan could virtually vanish from radar screens<reference> but this was not materially significant in its operations<reference>." The problem I have with this wording, is that it is POVish. It takes a side and assumes that side is right. To be neutral, it should say something more along the lines of: "Some commentators have claimed that from certain angles, the Vulcan could virtually vanish from radar screens,<reference> however others have argued that this factor was immaterial to operations<reference>." Both are commentators and arguments, rather than elevating the position of naysayers to fact while leaving the (more numberous) pro-sources as 'claimed' alone; both should be put as claims of weight, rather than giving the final say a factual and automatically-right air of authority denied to the opposing viewpoints, the very essense of WP:NPOV. Kyteto (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As for why we're getting bogged down in such matters, why not? This section of the talk page was made for discussing this factor, it is hardly a suprise that its content is dedicated to its topic. There's nothing in this debate that's blocking other such matters from being discussed or worked on. Kyteto (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"Where does the NS article claim that it had relatively small RCS or that it had a fortuitously stealthy shape apart from the tail fin? Who actually disputes that from most angles, the Vulcan had anything less than an ordinary RCS?" Both of these things are covered in Note 3; I could cross-duplicate the references across if that would make it more clear, I had originally felt it to be overlinking/spam. J. Seddon, E. L. Goldsmith, Simon Kingsley, Shaun Quegan, from my reading of the cited works of theirs, seemed to hold the view that the RCS low, or to be more precise, lower than typical for an era nuclear bomber of such size and low enough to make reference to it in work concerned more with RCS and radars than British bombers, brought up specifically because they thought there was something mentionable and noteworthy about the RCS that they brought it up. The Vulcan may have had a bigger RCS compared with a Spitfire or a Harrier, but it is also many times bigger than either of those aircraft, from what the sources seemed to say, proportionally there was something interesting going on and there was a noticable corresponding impact on radar systems; just don't jump to the conclusion that it must be the impervious B-2 bomber level of evasive capability. The effect appeared unreliable and not deliberate; and reliant on chance angles to the radar's position (then again, the 'stealthy' F-35 becomes visible to radar when not making a frontal approach, even stealth technology today had wildly fluctuating RCS values depending on the angle). Kyteto (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Stealth is not *invisibility*, so if the RCS is low, then it would be already a 'stealth' by radar operators POV. Evidently, it was difficult to track from some aspects, just like the 'flying wings' (B-35 and 49). Another thing: the turbine blades, as i can see, were totally couvered by air intakes, and so they did nothing to augment the RCS. If the Vulcan had a low RCS, while it cannot be a 'stealth bomber' like the B-2, it was already a result. Sadly, there is too much fashion in aeronautics and therefore, 'stealth' is F-117/B-2/F-22 and nothing else, while in truth, even the SR-71 was made like it was properly to make more difficult track it with radars. So yes, Vulcan was basically a stealth aicraft, atleast compared with its contemporaries and with the ECMs available. Not because it was meant so, but because some aircraft projects, like the Ho-229 and YB-49 were effectively characterized by a low RCS, no matter if they were meant to be so stealthy.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Vulcan was renowed for its stealthyness, I think special paints were used though (Fdsdh1 (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC))

Brake parachute

It should be noted that the brake parachute was only used on the Mk1. Films of the plane landing show it flying level. There was no room for the parachute, which was in any case a considerable nuisance, particularly on dispersal, when the ECM pod was fitted. However a technique had been discovered whereby the plabe was pulled into a nose up attitude just before touch down which gave the required braking effect. Much like swans landing. 95.148.202.209 (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not so. When the ECM bulge was fitted to the Mk1 and the Mk2, the brake chute was relocated from the port rear to a centreline bulge above the ECM bay. The B2 Aircrew Manual reads: "If it is necessary to land at an AUW greater than 140,000 lb, a runway of 9000 feet or more should be used. The tail brake parachute (TBC) may be streamed at 135 knots (145 knots maximum) and should be jettisoned between 50 and 60 knots.
With reference to 'aerodynamic braking', the nose-up attitude was adopted after touch-down. The B2 Aircrew Manual reads: "After touch-down, when both bogies are firmly on the ground, raise the nose progressively as speed is reduced, until the control column is fully back." XJ784 (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rongatai Airport opening incident

As a 4 year old I viewed the opening of the Rongatai Airport in 1959, Wellington, New Zealand I clearly remember an Avro Vulcan clouting the runway and receiving some damage. The incident is reported in the Wikipaedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington_International_Airport under incidents. Perhaps this incident should also be included in this article. Mac160 (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mac. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest, however there are two issues.
First, the Wellington International Airport article doesn't list any sources to support the details about this incident. (Perhaps some can be found, though?)
Second, all but one of the incidents listed in this article at present, involve the complete loss of the airframe; the other one is an extremely unique incident (that amongst other things, would probably be the fastest a Vulcan ever flew). All but three (I think) of the incidents listed involved death of aircrew. The list is already very lengthy, and lengthening it to include every single incident where a Vulcan was just damaged, would make it even longer and risk unbalancing the article.
The first issue is obviously not an issue if sources can be found. The second issue is something others may or may not agree with me about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a reliable source for the accident to XH498, the landing gear got damaged and it punctured a fuel tank in a windy landing and it had to fly to Ohakea to land on only two legs, they plonked it on the grass and the crew got out safely, aircraft was repaired. Dont think it is that notable to include here. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Nice Vulcan display at the 1992 Biggin Hill Air Show, when the operators didn't have to worry about engine hours, here; [1]. The Vulcan completely drowns out the commentator's voice at times.
XH558 Beachy Head practice one here: [2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A Flight report on a 1958 Farnborough Air Show about the Vulcan being a possibility for a LABS role here [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Film on YouTube of a Vulcan doing a climbing LABS half-loop and half-roll off the top here: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Number of Remaining Vulcans

It appears that there should be around 120 Vulcan aircraft still in existence, either flying or in museums. This should be included in the main article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎121.215.162.58 (talkcontribs)

Source? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Doubtful it can be sourced, aircraft on display plus XH558 gives about 19 left and it is unlikely they are anymore. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe "around 120" was a typo for "around 20". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I wrote a list article a few years back, with Google Maps links (including my own) but it was of course deleted as "not notable". I think it was just under 30, including noses. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Which Vulcans should have their own articles?

The current situation, where Wikipedia has individual aircraft articles on XH558 and XM655 but no others, must confuse the hell out of readers. It certainly did for me, since it fits no natural grouping. I tried to rectify the situation with an Afd on XM655 as the obvious outlier, but that only led to an inconclusive result. I tried to resolve that with a merge discussion, but that is yet again simply avoiding the main issue - why XH558 and XM655 but no others? The only resolution I can think of which will actually serve readers is to identify here and now which groups should have articles. So please indicate which group(s) you want to have articles on, with reasoning. Please don't suggest 'none', since I think it's obvious given its own individual history that there's no way that the article on XH558 is ever getting deleted/merged. Give whatever reason you think makes sense, but I will be asking someone to officially declare the outcome, so bear that in mind. Once they declare the result, I will make sure it is acted upon, even if that means doing all the bloody work myself (since nobody else here seems all that bothered if what they say should/could happen, never actually does happen, even on a timescale of half a decade).

  • Group 1 : XH558 only - as the only Vulcan which flew after 1993 (from 2007 to 2015)
  • Group 2 : XH558 and XL426 - being the only Vulcans which flew after 1984 (with the Vulcan Display Flight)
  • Group 3 : XH558, XM655 and XL426 - being the only three taxi-able examples left
  • Group 4 : XM597 and XM607, being the only Vulcans to drop bombs in anger
  • Group 5 : All surviving aircraft - see List of surviving Avro Vulcans (includes Groups 3 and 4)
  • Any other group you can think of which makes some kind of sense - e.g. the scale prototypes (survivors or all), the full size prototypes (two, both scrapped), other notable aircraft since scrapped, the aircraft scrapped in preservation, etc, etc

My personal preference is Group 1, since I simply don't see the depth of coverage others claim exists for any other aircraft - what I have seen out there could easily be accommodated in expanded entries the list (one source was pointed out in the merge, but I had already seen that and discounted it as being no more detailed than what is available out there for XL426 and others listed above, including from the very same book). Natural Ratio (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Notifications for the previous Afd participants:

(merge) :

(keep) :

  • Only G-VLCN is notable enough for a stand-alone article, very few other Vulcans are notable enough for a mention and if they are they should be in the main article. The list of survivors is a bit of a mess as it doesnt follow the normal convention for such articles, just because an aircraft survives doent make it notable enough to fill the article with trivia on its history. Perhaps any effort should be to clean up the survivors article to remove the guff not sure we need to do anything else. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware there was any convention....and I'm having a hard time seeing which aircraft you would select to remove, unless you intend to cut it to just the 3 (or 5 or 2) detailed above, in which case, what's the point in even having a separate list? And it really is pointless claiming something is trivia or "guff" if you don't give examples....I was quite careful to avoid including what I considered unimportant to the average reader (and note the list is not finished - don't equate the lack of info in any one section with none being available). Natural Ratio (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. OK, well, feel free to AfD XH558 if you want, but I really can't see how that would succeed - it is quite clearly hugely notable in its own right due to the civilian restoration to flight and display career - and so I'm sticking with my recommendation that the arbiter completely ignores this as a viable option, unless it's merged/deleted in the mean time. Natural Ratio (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
An AfD is not needed, it is being discussed here. If the result of this RfC is "none", then the consensus is not to have an article about XH558, and it can be merged to this article. Is that what you want? You recommendation that the closer ignores "none" !votes has no more weight than TREKphiler's "none" !vote, in fact if a "none" !vote is backed up by wikipedia policy, it bears a lot more weight than your empty recommendation. Martin451 01:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I find it strange you would even say this, considering you are absolutely insistent that XM655 is notable. You surely can't be blind to the fact that for every word written about XM655 in independent sources, ten have been written about XH558. I'm forced to conclude your only interest here is to keep on casting me as some kind of incompetent, even if it makes your own opinions look absurd in the process. Natural Ratio (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Again? I don't recall anyone ever agreeing with this accusation of yours in the first place. If you cared at all about other people's time, you wouldn't have objected to my Afd of the now gone appearance list (since I only did that to avoid wasting hundreds of hours finishing it), you would have also included enough independent sources on the 655 article in the first place to avoid an Afd, and you wouldn't still be pretending like it's not an issue that you evidently want to leave it to others to decide if they want to properly finish that (or any others so it looks less like an outlier with reference to the above groups). Just like the appearance list, I'm happy to do this work if nobody else can be bothered (even after they claim at Afd it could/should be done), but I'm not going to do it unless I'm sure I'm not going to be wasting my time on articles that will ultimately be merged/deleted. The merge discussion wasn't addressing that, even though people could surely see that was what I wanted comments to address, so I've changed tack to make it absolutely explicit. Sorry if that upsets you to the point of making unfounded accusations again, but one look at your contributions shows that coming here to berate me wasn't exactly taking you away from any other active projects. I don't think anyone else but you is going to have a problem with me shutting down a discussion of my own making after just 3 days and 3 comments on those grounds. But hey, this is Wikipedia, who knows what people will say about anything, or how much sense it will make given the already established facts which people take a lot of time to detail for their sole benefit - that sort of utter pointlessness and its inherent time wasting seems to be all just part of the fun here. Natural Ratio (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. What about admin User:The_Bushranger saying that the AfD on XH558's appearances was disruptive to the AfD process.[5]
  2. With regards to expanding the article for XM655, wikipedia is not compulsory
  3. The merge discussion at the list of Vulcans should have been closed by a disinterested party. You have no business closing a contentious discussion that you have opened or made an opinion on. See Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure. You have effectively cast a veto !vote, and then reopened the discussion elsewhere to get the result you want.
  4. You complain about time wasting. You have wasted the time of the three people who contributed to the discussion you closed, just because you did not like the way the discussion was going.
  5. At WP:ANI I advised you to stay away from AfD and major policy until you have come to understand it. You clearly have not tried. You say above you were not aware of any convention about list articles. You need WP:COMPETENCY to edit wikipedia, that includes reading up on policy about AfD, merge discussions before you use or abuse them. Martin451 01:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
At this point I think it's you who is incompetent. You created the article on XM655 without including any independent references, contrary to WP:N, and without apparently noticing the contradiction it set up in Wikipedia's overall coverage of individual Vulcans, which, even if it's not against any Wikipedia rule, is just bizarre to say the least. You're now standing by that judgement 5 years on using an argument no more developed than this idea that on Wikipedia nobody can be forced to do anything if they don't want to (which I regard as nothing but open contempt for both readers and the entire principle that this is meant to be a coherent reference work). You're also still insisting that I have wasted other people's time - yet it seems beyond you to factor in all the time I have wasted by doing things like asking people how they intend to decide what was a major appearance or not, getting nothing but silence in response. You have certainly repeatedly disregarded the many many hours I've put in, while arguing here that it's a major crime to get three people to write one line opinions, just to give views which were no different to what they had already said in the Afd. As such, I have no issue in shutting down that merge discussion - you can object to that all you want, I'm frankly not remotely interested unless/until you accept that the discussion was not meant to be a re-run of the Afd, which it quickly turned into. If you have some way to force people to discuss the merge with reference to the actual issues in play, then I'll listen. But it doesn't seem to me like you're interested in doing any that at all, it's all just considered 'disruption' by you. You seem to be only interested in frustrating my efforts to have any of these issues discussed at all. It's quite clear to me your only interest here is to stop me doing anything, because you still apparently believe this ridiculous notion that I am somehow anti-Vucan, an accusation which doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I am the only person here who seems to currently want to write anything about Vulcans, I just want other people to make some actual decisions that would help me do that. I fully appreciate you don't care about my time, and you don't care if readers can't make any sense out of the seemingly random decision to have articles only on XH558 and XM655, but I am hoping others have more appreciation of what's best for Wikipedia. Natural Ratio (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. When I created the article on XM655, there were articles on XH558 and XL426, there was no contradiction. There is no contradiction now due to WP:OTHER, a guide that has been pointed out to you before.
  2. With regards to XM655 being only a small article, I would point you towards WP:TIND and WP:NOTFINISHED
  3. You say you don't want to waste time working on an article if it is likely to be deleted, at the same time demanding I work on XM655. This is your third time in as many weeks trying to get the article on XM655 deleted, you even state you are trying to get it deleted on your user page.
  4. You may have no issue with closing a discussion you were heavily involved in, but it is against wikipedia policy. WP:CLOSE only uninvolved editors may close a discussion. You also did not sum up the inputs of the other contributing editors, only labelling their input as "This has proven to be yet another complete waste of time." This is no way to build consensus.
  5. You say you are not anti-Vulcan, and want to improve the articles on Vulcans. You have recently sent an article to AfD that was then deleted. At the same time, as I said above, this is the third time you are trying to get XM655 deleted. Actions speak louder than words.
  6. I am not trying to stop from you creating content. If you want to create content then go ahead, why are you resorting to multiple AfDs, merge discussions, RfCs etc.
  7. You complain about your time being wasted. Well that is exactly the behaviour you are engaged in with other editors.
  8. Finally, I suggested and ANI that you avoid things like this until you have come to understand major policy. I pointed out policies above including WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:CLOSE which your clearly have not read. I really suggest you read up on wikipedia policy, at the moment you are acting like a bull in a china shop. Martin451 20:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Actions do speak louder than words. You point to rules that support you, while ignoring ones that don't. You complain about your time, while ignoring mine. You point to my attempted deletion of XM655, while ignoring all the other things I've done to EXPAND Wikipedia's coverage of Vulcans, and indeed the fact that the Afd has not concluded it should exist - a merge discussion was the mandated outcome. Indeed, you (quite deliberately imho) have completely ignored the fact I didn't even delete one word of that XM655 article, I simply moved it into the list, word for word, including the bits people have already identified as needing a source. You point to my deletion of the appearance list, while again (quite deliberately imho) ignoring the fact that I expanded it (before and after splitting) and gave it a consistent format, and was only putting up for deletion to test whether or not the hundreds of hours it would take to have completed it would have been worth my time. Turns out it wouldn't have been. I'm happy for a merge discussion for XM655 to proceed, if it actually takes the form of a merge discussion, rather than simply a rather weak attempt to justify the continued existence of XM655 as a separate article without any attempt to address the major flaws it exposes in the present day coverage of Vulcans on Wikipedia (and the still remaining basic fact that as it stands, the article fails WP:N by still only being sourced to the preservation society's website - just like the now deleted XL426 before it!). I know you'd have no issue if I myself decided to improve what you apparently don't want to, and both add independent sources and more words to XM655, and indeed create a similar article for the similar plane XL426 so the situation is less baffling to readers, but unlike you, I can see just how little coverage there is out there on both (about a 1/10th of what there is for XH558), and I can see all the people here and at the Afd who said that because of that, it would not be an acceptable approach to take, and instead both should be mentioned simply in the survivor list. If you were in any way interested in building consensus rather than just continuing with these pretty one-sided critiques of my actions aimed at solely removing me as a threat to the continued existence of XM655 as a separate page, you'd have come up with some suggestion as to how to square this circle. I simply think you're not doing this because you realise it's an argument you can't win, so the ridiculously poor status quo is the best outcome for you, unless/until more people can be found who agree with you. You might not agree, and others here may have not even understood the question, but the entire purpose of this section was to establish consensus as of right now, how to square this circle. Because like it or not, doing nothing and hoping other people fix it, is clearly not an effective strategy. As least not if you desire fixes that take less than a decade. Now, I have wasted enough time on you already (more time than I have EVER spent on actually reading and writing for Wikipedia), so I'm not inclined to answer any future reply unless it contains some new information, so please don't take it personally if I don't. Natural Ratio (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Having not looked at and not caring either way about any of the specified articles, I say Other. Any airframe that meets the Wikipedia notability inclusion guidelines ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, emphasis in original), and is the subject of enough content unique to that airframe to justify an article-sized block of text, should be considered suitable for an article. That said, please remember that We Are All Volunteers, and those volunteers have a wide range of interests and levels of input. As with any contributor, I can and will write and expand that articles I want to, when I want to; no contributor should feel like they have a shotgun (metaphorical or otherwise) held to their head by another contributor insisting that their preferred articles be worked on now. Also, with as little offence as possible meant, the request for input posted to the Milhist wikiproject is one of the most loaded and drama-inciting pieces of text I've seen on a project talkpage in recent times. I hope that was not the poster's intention. -- saberwyn 07:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I fully considered WP:N when drawing up the various groupings above. I have researched the Vulcans a lot already to improve the XH558 article and create the survivor list, so I can confidently say that the groups I identified above all have similar levels of notability in terms of depth of coverage. The 'Other' option was for people who might know more, it's not there for people who just want to assume I've not done my own research and/or just want to state the obvious (WP:N=article). There needs to be a decision here and now about which groups pass the bar of WP:N, since the XM655 Afd showed there are people who are quite happy to interpret it in all sorts of ways, depending on whether they want none, some or all aircraft to have their own article. That is stupid, but the current situation is even more idiotic - wherever the bar is drawn, the coverage out there does not justify a conclusion that only XH558 and XM655 are notable. Either X655 is not notable, which is imho the case given people's reluctance to actually go into any detail about what coverage is out there on it, or other aircraft in other groups should also have their own articles. I don't want to force anyone to do anything - I only ask that people consider how infuriating it is for people like me, who are actually wanting to improve Wikipedia by fixing idiotic situations like this by actually writing whichever articles it is deemed are missing, do actually need definitive answers to questions like this. I have wasted enough time already by simply going ahead and doing things without settling issues like this in advance. Natural Ratio (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit of an odd discussion: we can have articles on all the Vulcans which meet WP:N, and don't need to pick subjects in advance. I have no idea what the availability of in-depth sourcing on individual Vulcans is, but that's basically what this boils down to. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

See above. I have fully considered notability in choosing those groups and identifying the current situation as absurd. This answer does not resolve the issue one bit. Natural Ratio (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Other: per WP:NOTABILITY. I agree with Saberwyn and Nick-D. This idea of a beauty contest between Vulcans is going about things the wrong way. Each Vulcan must be taken on its encyclopedic merits. Are there adequate reliable sources (WP:RS) to demonstrate its notability? If so, can it be sensibly merged in with this article or would that mess this article up too much? If it messes this article up in one way or another then it needs to be split off to another article. Any confusion in navigating the resultant set of articles can be resolved using the various techniques at our disposal: links where a given airframe is mentioned, "Main article" links in the List of surviving Avro Vulcans. redirects from individual serials that have no article of their own, maybe a Category:Avro Vulcans, and so on. Readers who are still confused can ask for clarification on the associated talk pages and navigational improvements made accordingly. Any article seen as over-enthusiastic can be subject to AfD debate and that is that. What articles we end up with and how we avoid confusion thus falls out of the encyclopedic process and not out of some editorial opinion. And yes, the drama queen antics of Natural Ratio (talk · contribs) are indeed becoming disruptive and they need to stop. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
See above. I have fully considered notability in choosing those groups and identifying the current situation as absurd. The potential for confusion does not lie in the difficulty in finding/navigating between articles, it comes about because people are insisting that the status quo is acceptable, that it will make some kind of sense to readers. It does not. The current situation will confuse readers who have read the main article and the list of survivors, because it suggests to them that they should be able to find articles here for all aircraft in Group 3 or perhaps even Group 4. As you can see, they cannot. Why not? Natural Ratio (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, before you can identify some group or other of Vulcans here, you have to establish the notability of that group as an identified group. In the end it always comes back to the sources. While notability may seem static and uninspiring as an end point, it really helps to direct the process - how can I represent the reliable sources a little bit better than yesterday? Just let the content shape itself as it grows: find content worth adding and add it to a suitable article - if you get stuck, ask where best to put it. On occasion, some restructuring may fall out of that - this article is unbalanced, that article is covered better elsewhere, etc. But the stalemate running throughout the current round of discussions shows clearly that this is not the right moment for the restructuring you have in mind. For my own part, I would:
  1. Take up MilborneOne's suggestion that few if any of the surviving Vulcans are notable, and perhaps take that to the Aircraft Wikiproject talk page to confirm consensus on what criteria we accept for identifying a given airframe as significant enough to list and discuss.
  2. In the light of that, review the notability of the List of surviving Avro Vulcans.
  3. If the list survives that, consider renaming it as Surviving Avro Vulcans, with the summary list itself as a section within the larger article.
  4. If the content on any particular airframe unbalances the reshaped article, hive it off as a standalone page. OTOH, if a standalone page can genuinely be merged back in without spoiling the shape, then by all means take that up again in the revised context - consensus (or lack of it) is never set in stone.
You say that you have thought about the notability aspect, but that was not made clear in your opener for this discussion, you talked more about "natural grouping". Had you asked us about "notable grouping" and where to look for sources, I am sure we would have responded accordingly. My own suspicion is that "surviving Vulcans" is about as good as it gets, and even there MilborneOne has raised doubts. This is where the WikiProject can be useful in confirming the ground rules. Anyway, that's how I see it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
While you are correct that I wasn't explicit in explaining that the groups I identified above all correspond to similar levels of notability, the fact that I had already nominated XM655 on grounds of notability, and that I mentioned coverage in the last paragraph to justify my preference for Group 1, should have really made it clear. That said, on past experience, and again based on this section, I'm getting the sense that no matter how carefully or at length you explain yourself on Wikipedia, nobody bothers to even read it. Even after clarifying that I am talking about notability, the only responses since then have merely repeated the fact that the 'answer' here is 'duh, notability!'. Essentially on Wikipedia, it seems like you just have to decide whether you want to waste your time first, because the only way anyone else is going to give concrete feedback, is after you've actually done something which potentially might have taken hundreds of hours. Which is ridiculous. There are lots of independent sources out there, with lots of detail. Quite clearly anyone could use those to write a hell of a lot on at least 5 surviving Vulcans, perhaps a few more. And if they follow your logic, since that would 'unbalance' the list by spoiling it's 'shape' (I'm still not seeing where that is codified as a concept here at all?), that would mean the creation of several new articles would be required. And quite clearly, nobody here is going to bother saying whether that would be a good thing or not, until it happens. Which is ridiculous. Frankly, I'm not seeing any avenue, any project, and proposed form of question, which will help me (or any other gullible fool) simply avoid wasting a hell of a lot of time in advance, should they make the wrong choice, a choice that ultimately doesn't stand the test of time regarding WP:N, should anyone put the articles up for deletion. I'm happy with Group 1 and the list of survivors as being sufficient to deal with how outside sources give them coverage, I simply don't see how anyone here is going to succeed in deleting either. It is other people who have created the issue here, such as yourself, by insisting that the current situation of having just two articles (XH558 and XM655) somehow makes sense. The only way the current situation makes ANY SENSE AT ALL is if XM655 is considered notable (and as seen in the Afd, there is no agreement on that), and then someone creates an article for XL426 to complete the set of Group 3. Yet nobody here seems to want to do that, or even say that should be done to give me the confidence to actually do it, in the face of several people here saying that even one article is too many. As it stands, you're recommending I follow the advice of MilborneOne, yet here I am, still waiting to find out where this list convention is - explicit questions like that seem to get completely ignored here. And his opinion on the notability goes against you too, unless you've now changed your mind about XM655? I certainly don't understand what either of you are proposing re. 'Surviving Avro Vulcans', that makes no sense to me as a proposed article. A list is the obvious natural presentation there, which is presumably why there are so many others here already - Category:Lists of surviving military aircraft. a quick scan of those doesn't identify any convention other than dividing by country and condition, which seems redundant in this case. I certainly get no impression that excluding non-notable aircraft is done at all. It makes no sense to me, and doesn't seem to be the practice of any other author either. With historic aircraft like this, quite obviously it will be noticed if complete airframes survive, and efforts will be made to document them all, even if all that can be said is, it exists and this is its number, location and basic history (built, retired, squadrons). Natural Ratio (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
A few thoughts arising:
WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:SPINOFF and WP:UNDUE all discuss aspects of whether a notable topic should be subsumed into a more general article or needs to be given a standalone article. That might help to show what I mean by "balance".
If you have an idea for say a new article or other significant change, don't agonise over its acceptability, take it to a suitable talk page to get some feedback on the specific proposal. This one from bitter experience: if answers are universally off the point, this is usually because one hasn't asked the right question. Best thing is to reflect carefully on where communications broke down, and then try to ask the right question. Communication skills don't come easy to some people, who can find this bit very taxing (for my part, any such skills as I may have were acquired slowly over many difficult years). Best not to be in a hurry, is my experience. Maybe the question here should have been, Should XL426 have its own article, like XM655? making the point that the article on XM655 has little as yet to justify it so why not XL426 too? (This suggestion comes without warranty!)
I take your point about Category:Lists of surviving military aircraft. Wiser to run with the herd at this point unless one wants to question its direction as a specific issue. But in general, I don't expect consistency to come easy on Wikipedia! The content is driven by the near-anarchic creation process and by conflicting agendas within that process. I have often seen consistency and good sense come and go with the ebb and flow of the tides.
Sometimes, the best thing is just to gather sources on a topic for a while, until the notability arguments become no-brainers.
Sorry I can't be more positive. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTABILITY. Is the clear, non confusing answer, the same as for any article on Wikipedia. (Hohum @) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
See above. While correct, this answer does not answer the question I posed, which was intended to convey a grouping in terms of notability (even if I made the mistake of not explicitly saying that). Natural Ratio (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Your lack of brevity is steering towards WP:BLUDGEON. I can't untangle what your trying to ask from the chaff surrounding it. I don't think I'm alone. (Hohum @) 21:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Christ. It's somewhat complex, hence the need for quite a few words, but it's surely not that hard to understand? Currently, Wikipedia has individual articles on XH558 and XM655. This is monumentally stupid, as anyone who has briefly researched Vulcans could tell you. XH558 is hugely notable, for reasons which are detailed in its article. XM655 is less notable, and has similar amounts of coverage as XL426. Why? Because they (along with XH558 now) are the only other Vulcans still capable of taxiing under their own power - all other surviving Vulcans are static exhibits (and have been, AFAIK, ever since their various handovers from the RAF to their new owners). Only a few Vulcans survived. Only a few Vulcans were used in anger. Only two survivors were used in anger (XM607 and XM597). For the purposes of WP:N, the coverage out there of individual Vulcans reflects these facts (mostly as chapters or paragraphs in books about Vulcans in general), as you would expect. I tried to resolve this issue by putting XM655 up for deletion, but it ended inconclusively - evidently it should not be deleted because some people gave some pretty vague (and completely unsubstantiated) claims that there is enough specific coverage of it out there, but it could be merged. When I duly suggested it be merged, people ignored the issue of XL462 or other Vulcans and instead just repeated the arguments they made in the Afd that it is notable in its own right, even though not one person seems at all interested in adding a single word, or a single source, to the XM655 article, or creating any articles for any other Vulcan with similar amounts of coverage (because, hey, Wikipedia is not school! or something). Because I do care about readers and do not want them needlessly confused, I am prepared to fix this idiotic situation by improving XM655 and creating XL462 and indeed any other article on any other Vulcan deemed notable. But mindful of the fact there are several people here who do not think either article should exist (and even that XH558 should not!), I am not prepared to spend the many hours to that, without a definitive consensus here as to which ones are notable - and for convenience I put forth my knowledge about which groups have similar levels of coverage. The answer that 'all Vulcans which meet WP:N are notable' is not helping the situation one bit because different people set the bar differently, as seen in the XM655 Afd. Other than creating beginner articles on every survivor and then putting every one up for deletion to actually force people to go look at the coverage of each for themselves (which would no doubt be greeted by Martin et al with shrieks of time wasting 'disruption'!), I see no other way of answering this question. But if it cannot be answered, Wikipedia's coverage of Vulcans will continue to look stupid to semi-knowledgeable readers, if not a little bit suspect (since the only references used in the XM655 article are to its owner's website, something which could be done for every single survivor that resides in a museum). And needless to say, it is obviously misleading to readers who know nothing at all about Vulcans, who must be wondering what it is about XM655 that makes it more notable than any of the other survivors (including the similarly capable XL426) or indeed any of the now scrapped aircraft that actually dropped bombs. Natural Ratio (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
*plonk* (Hohum @) 00:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
See above. While correct, this answer does not answer the question I posed, which was intended to convey a grouping in terms of notability (even if I made the mistake of not explicitly saying that). Natural Ratio (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Significance of the list and of the individual aircraft

Duncan Cubitt and Ken Ellis; Vulcan: Last of the V-bombers, 2nd Edition, Bounty Books, 2014 (2nd printing 2016). This book devotes three chapters explicitly to the surviving Vulcans, including; XJ823, XJ824, XL318, XL319, XL360, XL391, XL426, XM569, XM575, XM594, XM597, XM598, XM603, XM607, XM612, XM655, XM605 -606 and -573 (USA), XL361 (Canada), and of course XH558 which gets one of those chapters all to itself. I have not yet compared that list to the List of surviving Avro Vulcans, but its history of five print runs over two editions certainly supports the notability both of the list and of XH558. Doesn't help the others to justify their own articles, though. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC) P.S. "2nd printing 2016"? That's what it says. And to think that Hollywood used a car to go back to the future, huh! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It is fairly normal to list aircraft on display so having a list is not a problem, as I mentioned before we do have an issue in trying to write a complete history of every aircraft on display, the fact they have survived is normally of note but shoe horning complete histories of each airframe into the list article is not something we normally do. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • ^ Edmondson, Alfred Price, Tony Blackman, Andrew (2010). Avro Vulcan manual : an insight into owning, restoring, servicing and flying Britain's legendary Cold War bomber. Sparkford: Haynes. ISBN 9781844258314.