Talk:Scout (aircraft)

	Aviation portal 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 is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation Start‑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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-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 not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Re-write

I have completely rewritten this. I realise that it still needs some work like references, notes, examples etc. PLEASE rather than peppering it with ^{[citation needed]} tags - find the references yourselves!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Close as no consensus. - The Bushranger 03:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scout plane is essentially about the same kind of aircraft as this article, only referring to the World War II period as opposed to World War I. It seems to me that the two pages really should be combined into one. Thoughts? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. Just READ both articles - they're not quite what you claim! THIS article is essentially an explanation of the reason why single seat fighters came (for a while, essentially 1915-1920) to be called "Scouts" (at least in non-US English). The "other" article describes small, light ship-bourne aircraft used for reconnaissance. Anything less like a single seat fighter (or for a pre-1915 "scout" for that matter, which was for its time cutting edge technology - very fast, and with a very vaguely understood role) would be hard to imagine. A merger would be entirely semantical - in fact I challenge anyone to prepare a coherent synopsis of how it might read. In fact - you're joking, surely? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that - would both or either article benefit from renaming (moving)? There is at least some potential for confusion. I've added "scout plane" to the "Scout" disambig page anyway.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not joking...it just seemed that "Scout (aircraft)" applied to both (and "Scout plane" sounds a bit...unencyclopediatic?). I can see your point though. Sort-of a catch 22 - they're similar in role and name, but not in type...hmm...comments folks? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of a WWI "scout" was that it wasn't a scout at all, but a fighter. In practice the roles envisioned for "scout" types before the war were undertaken by larger, slower two seat reconnaissance types and the so-called "scouts" got fitted with forward firing guns, becoming fighters. Later usage (scouts that WERE scouts) seems to have been restricted to naval use, and applied especially to light seaplanes carried on (say) the catapult of a battleship or cruiser, as well as larger carrier-bourne naval reconnaissance types, often amphibious flying boats like Catalinas. All that matches really is the word "scout". I am concerned about disambiguation - and am wondering if we need to rename the articles - but since they refer to quite different classes of aircraft I think it would be a great mistake to merge them. If you want other opinions it might be an idea to invite some likely folk - pick a popular WWI article like the Red Baron's, perhaps, draft a little note, and put it on half a dozen likely people's talk pages.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I guess I might Oppose myself then (pending further discussion), suggest further disambiguation, and see about roping WP:AIR into things. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since both articles are barely stubs, I don't see why one article can't cover the usage of the term's two senses. There's no reason to send people to other pages. - BilCat (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly tongue-in-cheek: How about getting rid of both and incorporating the information into sections of Surveillance aircraft (to which both Spotter plane and Reconnaisance aircraft redirect)? As I undersatnd it, WWI scouts were initially surveillance aircraft; when both sides employed them, the pilots tried to prevent the enemy scouts from returning to report their findings (troop positions, defensive positions etc.) by firing at their opposite numbers with their pistols. Escalation (better weapons) and specialisation (surveillance aircraft, bombers, interceptors, torpedo bombers etc) followed. The US term bomber scout, mentioned in "Scout plane" I believe, is historically accurate but a contradiction in terms. It shows that the military roles were unclear at the start of WWI and that terminology struggled to keep up with developments as aircraft became more specialised. In others words, I would support merging these two articles with 'Surveillance aircraft'! --TraceyR (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Scout bomber" is the acutal term - and it was a WW2 term. Although it was intended to be "bomber + scout", it wound up being basically a synomym for "dive bomber". Then you have the "torpedo scout"... Not sure about the Surveillance aircraft merge, as that page seems to focus more on unarmed recce aircraft vs. armed scouts, which both of the pages in question here are about. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance aircraft could definitately due with some work - compare it to Aerial reconnaissance which at least has references. Spotter aircraft are not even covered in surveillance aircraft so why its a redirect I don't understand. Mind you if you go down the route of improving Spotter aircraft you will eventually have to confront Artillery observer which is another article in need of work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion in this article of particular reconnaissance aircraft

This article is about 1915-1920 British single seat fighter aircraft - specifically, why they were called "scouts", as if they were reconnaissance aircraft. This was felt to be a bit strange even at the time (one "scout" pilot remarked to his diary, "can't think why everyone, including me, refers to us as 'scouts' - I'm sure if I were asked to scout something I would have no idea"). Oddly, it has persisted in modern writing about this period of aviation history - so that people will sometimes still call the Sopwith Camel, for instance, a "scout". This may add "period colour", but is confusing if we don't know what we are actually talking about. We make a point in Wiki always to use the current terminology, and call them "fighters", but all the same this explanation is useful.

Some people are misreading the article, or at least its title - suggesting it be merged with articles about reconnaissance aircraft - or even adding references to specific (non-British and/or non 1915-1920) aircraft types. Totally not what it's about! Does the article perhaps need re-naming? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]