Talk:Boeing X-32

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

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

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

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

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

Aviation: Aircraft

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

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Aesthetics

I was glad to see this article addressed the butt-ugliness of the Boeing proposal. If it had been selected, we would have all had to resign en masse from the human race. Raymondwinn (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I saw something in the news about how the aesthetics affected the outcome of the competition. If I find it I'll add it, as it's a serious public policy/money/jobs issue.Pär Larsson (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Boeing JSF X-32 on tarmac.jpg

Image:Boeing JSF X-32 on tarmac.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boeing JSF X-32 on tarmac.jpg again

There are two free content images to show the appearance of the X-32. Is it necessary to include a third, non-free one? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is explained in the caption. This image is of a different configuration to be used on the production version. The X-32 has delta wings; the production version was to add horizontal stabilizers. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

This article states: "Boeing had proposed, in the 1960s, a similar supersonic fighter with a mid-center-of-gravity mounted engine with vectored thrust nozzles, but this never proceeded beyond pictures published in Aviation Week." One wonders where "pictures published in Aviation Week" fit into the development program for the aircraft in question - was it a milestone? Sounds more like some enthusiast's POV or original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.18 (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Monica" nickname

The article claims a source for this, but the linked source does not mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.161.8 (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the X-35 in "See also"

I'm not sure why the X-35 should be removed under See also, the X-35 article itself links back here, and they are clearly comparable in role and directly competed against each other as concept demonstrators. The rule of not linking articles not linked in the body does not seem to be a hard and fast rule followed by any other aircraft article. Understand that there was a discussion where additions for nationalistic reasons should be minimized, but that's clearly not the case here. 2600:8803:F50F:7E00:4105:B247:3D7F:A741 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links in "See also" should be items not included in the main body of the article. In this case, the X-35 is linked early in the article, so is not eligible for inclusion in the "See also" section per WP:SEEALSO. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The exclusion of links already in the body is a "general rule" and not something that must be strictly adhered to. In this case, the X-35 should be under "See also" because it is a concept demonstrator competing for the same contract as the X-32. In fact is a stronger case for having it there than the other entries. 2600:8803:F50F:7E00:A825:7131:BEE:BB63 (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the "See also" section is to provide access to related articles that aren't already easily accessible. It's not meant to be a general catchall for related links. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]