Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of AWACS aircraft operators/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 19:18, 19 September 2009 [1].
List of AWACS aircraft operators edit
- Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all featured list criteria afterwards considerable work. Eurocopter (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose see comment below. Woody (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as per Woody; 3b content forking; should be incorporated into main article. Buckshot06(prof) 03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues for User:Woody
'''Oppose''' for now ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_AWACS_aircraft_operators&oldid=313836117 Original reviewed version])</s>
- Oppose over comprehensiveness and 3b, see below
Support pending a discussion about the flags. I am looking for other opinions from other reviewers on that. As far as the rest of the list goes, I think it now meets the FL criteria. It is comprehensive as far as I can work out, a quick look on google and I couldn't find any omissions from the list.I checked the image licences and they look good (you could move the one outstanding image to commons). Regards, Woody (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. If you figure out ways of improving the visuals in the main table and making it more easier to read just let me know. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Little things first
Santiago is a dab page- done.
You need alt text for the images, see WP:ALT- done.
- Not really. You haven't explained what the image actually shows. A better version for the first one would be "A white plane with two propellors under each wing and a large disc on top of the fuselage is flying over an industrial landscape." You need to actually explain the image not repeat the caption.
- Done now, I believe. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a tweak for a few of them, so striking this
- Done now, I believe. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. You haven't explained what the image actually shows. A better version for the first one would be "A white plane with two propellors under each wing and a large disc on top of the fuselage is flying over an industrial landscape." You need to actually explain the image not repeat the caption.
- done.
Some overlinking in the lead.- done.
- Why are the operators in bold?
- for better visuals. Can I leave them as they are now or is it necessary to de-bold them?
- Should be de-bolded per WP:MOSBOLD. There is no need for it, particularly as you already have the colours for that presumably. Woody (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be de-bolded per WP:MOSBOLD. There is no need for it, particularly as you already have the colours for that presumably. Woody (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- for better visuals. Can I leave them as they are now or is it necessary to de-bold them?
What is up with the US line? It isn't bolded and isn't centre aligned- fixed. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bigger issues
- What made you go with that scheme for the table? Why have you got colour that shows nothing? It just looks distracting to me
- I don't think you would need the colour at all if you moved the operators into the table itself rather than colspans.
- WIAFL: 4 Why isn't it sortable? (A: You can't have sortable with colspans, see above)
- Are the Flags really neccessary? If so, should they not be the forces flag, say the RAF ensign for the RAF?
- You could then put the citations into a separate column. (Mock-up below)
So, a few things to think about for now. Woody (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{- Flags
- Removed flags, though I believe the table is quite dull and visualy unfriendly now. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the statement was open, I was looking for your opinions on why they should be in the table. I want your reasoning, particularly why you have the national flags and not the force ensigns for example. Personally, I think they are distracting, and take up space, but you obviously see something redeeming in them. Put them back in if you want and see what other reviewers think. Woody (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first of all we don't have available force ensigns for all the air forces (for some we have only roundels and for few we don't have any air force specific marking at all). Secondly, I believe that we should add a representing marking for each air arm and be consistent in the same time (we shouldn't use national flags only were air force ensigns are not available). --Eurocopter (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Omissions (ordered aircraft)
- My apologies for opposing again but a further look on google suggests there are some omissions on this list. How did you draw this up? I note that India has been cleared to buy the Hawkeye E-2D and the article states they are the second country to be cleared after the UAE. Neither of these are listed on here. This article says that India now had "the first of 3 A-50 Awacs" delivered last month. The table currently states they have 1 AWAC in operation. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think you hurried up a bit and missed the essence of the sources you've cited above. First of all, to be cleared by the US Congress in order to purchase an aircraft does not mean that you submitted an order or signed any contract (it simply gives you the right to buy the aircraft). I must say that currently there is no source stating that India or UAE ordered any E-2D Hawkeye aircraft. Regarding the Indian A-50, yes they have one operational and was delivered earlier this year (is the article stating anything different?). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets try a different tack then. The list as it stands does not reflect ordered aircraft. It attempts to with the future operators section, but it only does half a job by omitting aircraft ordered by a country already operating AEW aircraft. I know the difference between an order/contract/tender etc. and a clearance to buy. I suppose my point was related to the future operators and I realise now that I should have laid this out A,B,C for you. So here goes: Why are India not listed under future operators if they have two on order? The current setup has no way to factor this into the list. The future operators needs to be able to reflect the E-2D developments for the US, as they have ordered aircraft. In response to your bracketed comment The article doesn't state it, but it doesn't elaborate either. If you truly want to reflect the current circumstances then you need to either integrate the ordered aircraft into the future operators section or you need to remove the section. At the moment it only does half a job. Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll try to answer you as clear as possible. India is listed in the current operators section because it already operates the type of aircraft, therefore is not a future operator of it (Beriev A-50 in this case). Are you telling me that the US Air Force is not a current operator of the F-22 Raptor because it has in service only 130 of the 180 aicraft ordered and should be considered a future operator? This is nonsense. In my opinion the current shape of the article together with all the notes explains pretty clear which are the current and the future operators. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the current list deal in any way with ordered but not operational aircraft for a country that currently operates existing aircraft? (eg. India or USA) No. Should it? Yes. Read my above statement, look at the list, read it again, then understand my point. There is currently a gap in this list. The future operators section needs to be refactored, something along the lines of future aircraft which then widens its scope to the aircraft discussed above. Woody (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually yes, it deals with ordered aircraft - see footnotes 4, 5, 6 and 9. I would not agree with a future aircraft due to long term uncertain dates as usually on aircraft orders. Such a section would be difficult to update and probably innacurate. What I would agree with is expanding the footnotes by adding expected delivery dates.
- There we go, I missed those. So will readers. Why can't we have this in a table? I don't think it is very accessible in that format. The delivery dates are no more flaky as those for future operators, essentially they deal with the same issues. Woody (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we add the notes in the table we'll make it even more cluttered and difficult to read. I'll make them more visible than they are now, although I'm sure they are visible enough in the current form. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There we go, I missed those. So will readers. Why can't we have this in a table? I don't think it is very accessible in that format. The delivery dates are no more flaky as those for future operators, essentially they deal with the same issues. Woody (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually yes, it deals with ordered aircraft - see footnotes 4, 5, 6 and 9. I would not agree with a future aircraft due to long term uncertain dates as usually on aircraft orders. Such a section would be difficult to update and probably innacurate. What I would agree with is expanding the footnotes by adding expected delivery dates.
- Does the current list deal in any way with ordered but not operational aircraft for a country that currently operates existing aircraft? (eg. India or USA) No. Should it? Yes. Read my above statement, look at the list, read it again, then understand my point. There is currently a gap in this list. The future operators section needs to be refactored, something along the lines of future aircraft which then widens its scope to the aircraft discussed above. Woody (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll try to answer you as clear as possible. India is listed in the current operators section because it already operates the type of aircraft, therefore is not a future operator of it (Beriev A-50 in this case). Are you telling me that the US Air Force is not a current operator of the F-22 Raptor because it has in service only 130 of the 180 aicraft ordered and should be considered a future operator? This is nonsense. In my opinion the current shape of the article together with all the notes explains pretty clear which are the current and the future operators. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets try a different tack then. The list as it stands does not reflect ordered aircraft. It attempts to with the future operators section, but it only does half a job by omitting aircraft ordered by a country already operating AEW aircraft. I know the difference between an order/contract/tender etc. and a clearance to buy. I suppose my point was related to the future operators and I realise now that I should have laid this out A,B,C for you. So here goes: Why are India not listed under future operators if they have two on order? The current setup has no way to factor this into the list. The future operators needs to be able to reflect the E-2D developments for the US, as they have ordered aircraft. In response to your bracketed comment The article doesn't state it, but it doesn't elaborate either. If you truly want to reflect the current circumstances then you need to either integrate the ordered aircraft into the future operators section or you need to remove the section. At the moment it only does half a job. Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think you hurried up a bit and missed the essence of the sources you've cited above. First of all, to be cleared by the US Congress in order to purchase an aircraft does not mean that you submitted an order or signed any contract (it simply gives you the right to buy the aircraft). I must say that currently there is no source stating that India or UAE ordered any E-2D Hawkeye aircraft. Regarding the Indian A-50, yes they have one operational and was delivered earlier this year (is the article stating anything different?). --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Definition of AWAC, Omission of helicopters
- Why are the Sea Kings ASaCs not listed? They are also considered AWACs under the definition in the lead are they not?
- You are not paying enough attention again. By simply reading the first three sentences of this article you would figure out why the Sea Kings are not included. Do not confuse AWACS/AEW&C capabilities with airborne surveillance/AEW. There are currently no helicopters capable of flying at high-altitudes to fulfill AWACS tasks. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question my intelligence and observational skills, excellent discussion technique. I am paying attention, I have paid attention, I have read very thoroughly on the subject, believe me when I say I am not confused. I think it is the list that is generally confused. The Royal Navy describe the Sea King variants as airborne surveillance and control aircraft (ASaC). The exact specifications of the system are not publicly available for obvious reasons. If you are clinging onto the high altitude aspect, then this needs to made clear in the lead. Something along the lines of: 6 helicopters currently fulfil the Airborne early warning task but these are not included in this list as they cannot fly at high altitudes. If you are using this list solely for aircraft without known command and control capabilities then this also needs to be made plain. Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not question anyone's intelligence and observational skills, so let's not make it personal. I know you since few years as a reliable editor with precious contributions for the project and I don't question neither your knowledge or good faith. Regarding the subject, this is a list of AWACS (airborne warning and control system) aircraft operators and the Sea King helicopter is not an AWACS aircraft. If you disagree with this I can bring you loads of sources supporting it. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not paying enough attention again. That is directly questioning my skills. I sense we are hitting a wall here, you have your entrenched opinions, I have my own. I am not disputing the fact that Sea Kings do not utilise Boeing's AWACs system. I am disputing your definition of AEW/AWAC/ASaC in this list. I will oppose this FLC until there is a satisfactory statement about helicopters and their AEW role in the Lead. It only has to be a good sentence. Woody (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Questioning your attention does not mean that I question your skills. First of all, I have added a footnote in the lead regarding the helicopters. If you think it isn't enough, or you insist that it should be a sentence in the lead, please feel free to add it yourself, I won't have any objection. Secondly, it isn't "Boeing's AWACs system", AWACS is an internationally used aircraft designation by press, military organisations, governments, online arms databases as following: [2][3][4] [5]http://www.defencetalk.com/india-to-acquire-first-awacs-aircraft-18814/ [6]. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They go hand in hand. That footnote is very subjective and not very visible. Check other featured lists. The idea of the lead is to summarise and introduce the topic of the list. Any exclusions should be explicit within the lead. That some people misuse it does not mean that we should continue to. I refer to vacuum cleaners as Hoovers, I am wrong to do that. AWACs is a limiting term that is more specific to a country. It is one system that has come to erroneously represent the whole industrial area in the media. AEW&C is a more general and more modern term that has a wider scope; a scope that this list fails to address. Woody (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, I'll add a sentence in the lead. Regarding your statement that AEW&C is a more general and more modern term that has a wider scope; it is POV unless you provide reliable sources which support it. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They go hand in hand. That footnote is very subjective and not very visible. Check other featured lists. The idea of the lead is to summarise and introduce the topic of the list. Any exclusions should be explicit within the lead. That some people misuse it does not mean that we should continue to. I refer to vacuum cleaners as Hoovers, I am wrong to do that. AWACs is a limiting term that is more specific to a country. It is one system that has come to erroneously represent the whole industrial area in the media. AEW&C is a more general and more modern term that has a wider scope; a scope that this list fails to address. Woody (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Questioning your attention does not mean that I question your skills. First of all, I have added a footnote in the lead regarding the helicopters. If you think it isn't enough, or you insist that it should be a sentence in the lead, please feel free to add it yourself, I won't have any objection. Secondly, it isn't "Boeing's AWACs system", AWACS is an internationally used aircraft designation by press, military organisations, governments, online arms databases as following: [2][3][4] [5]http://www.defencetalk.com/india-to-acquire-first-awacs-aircraft-18814/ [6]. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not paying enough attention again. That is directly questioning my skills. I sense we are hitting a wall here, you have your entrenched opinions, I have my own. I am not disputing the fact that Sea Kings do not utilise Boeing's AWACs system. I am disputing your definition of AEW/AWAC/ASaC in this list. I will oppose this FLC until there is a satisfactory statement about helicopters and their AEW role in the Lead. It only has to be a good sentence. Woody (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not question anyone's intelligence and observational skills, so let's not make it personal. I know you since few years as a reliable editor with precious contributions for the project and I don't question neither your knowledge or good faith. Regarding the subject, this is a list of AWACS (airborne warning and control system) aircraft operators and the Sea King helicopter is not an AWACS aircraft. If you disagree with this I can bring you loads of sources supporting it. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question my intelligence and observational skills, excellent discussion technique. I am paying attention, I have paid attention, I have read very thoroughly on the subject, believe me when I say I am not confused. I think it is the list that is generally confused. The Royal Navy describe the Sea King variants as airborne surveillance and control aircraft (ASaC). The exact specifications of the system are not publicly available for obvious reasons. If you are clinging onto the high altitude aspect, then this needs to made clear in the lead. Something along the lines of: 6 helicopters currently fulfil the Airborne early warning task but these are not included in this list as they cannot fly at high altitudes. If you are using this list solely for aircraft without known command and control capabilities then this also needs to be made plain. Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not paying enough attention again. By simply reading the first three sentences of this article you would figure out why the Sea Kings are not included. Do not confuse AWACS/AEW&C capabilities with airborne surveillance/AEW. There are currently no helicopters capable of flying at high-altitudes to fulfill AWACS tasks. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 3b content forking
- I also have 3.b concerns. After looking into it some more, I think this can fall quite easily under 3B regarding content forking. This list duplicates information currently found in Airborne early warning and control under Airborne early warning and control#Operators. There is no need for this to be a standalone list in that the table can quite easily be integrated into that article (replacing the current setup).
- The operators section in the AEW&C article gives information regarding aircraft procurement history and further capabilities details. This section should be expanded with such information and should not contain table/lists/etc. The purpose of this list is to show tail numbers, units, airbases and other data unsuitable in a section that contains normal prose. I'll give you an example: in the Royal Air Force article the Aircraft section describes aircraft procurement, capabilities and service history details, while the List of active United Kingdom military aircraft shows aircraft numbers and other data for statistical purposes. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. There is no need for that section to be in prose as it almost entirely duplicates this list. This table could quite easily slot into that article seamlessly and as such it is almost the definition of a content fork. Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, I guarantee you that there is no more than 20% common information. Also, I'm planning to add more information to that section regarding the procurement programmes and the capabilities of the aircraft for each operator. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. There is no need for that section to be in prose as it almost entirely duplicates this list. This table could quite easily slot into that article seamlessly and as such it is almost the definition of a content fork. Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The operators section in the AEW&C article gives information regarding aircraft procurement history and further capabilities details. This section should be expanded with such information and should not contain table/lists/etc. The purpose of this list is to show tail numbers, units, airbases and other data unsuitable in a section that contains normal prose. I'll give you an example: in the Royal Air Force article the Aircraft section describes aircraft procurement, capabilities and service history details, while the List of active United Kingdom military aircraft shows aircraft numbers and other data for statistical purposes. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As such I cannot continue to support the promotion unless these are addressed. My sincerest apologies for changing like this but the further review highlighted some serious questions regarding the FL criteria. Woody (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Naming of list encompassing definitions again
- Another thing which I have only just thought about, why is the title of this list under the American brand name. AWACs is the Boeing system utilising the Westinghouse radar dome. Given that the majority of countries use the more general Airborne early warning and control name, would it not be mor appropriate to have the title (if the list should exist) at List of AEW&C aircraft operators? Woody (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The title is List of AWACS aircraft operators because this is the most commonly used designation for this type of aircraft (a quick google search will convince you). Furthermore, the main source used in the list names them AWACS aircraft, not AEW&C. I disagree again with your comments with the exception of the note in the lead saying that this list excludes AEW/airborne surveillance aircraft (though it's pretty obvious). Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is our article called Airborne early warning and control then? Just because some people may erroneously call a vaccum cleaner a Hoover does not make it the correct usage. AWAC is a brand name used by Boeing and is directly analogous to the Hoover scenario. Do you consider all airborne early warning systems AWACs? Google is a poor argument. Woody (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't name it and I don't know why the article was named in this way. However, I will propose to be moved soonly, but that is not my priority for now. Regarding the fact that "AWACS" is Boeing's brand name and is copyrighted you are terribly wrong. AWACS was the designation used for the program undertaken by the US Air Force in the late 1960s in which competed Douglas, Lockheed and Boeing. Boeing was the winner of the competition and therefore was awarded the contract to build the AWACS aircraft. In conclusion, the aircraft was named AWACS well before Boeing started any development of it. See other examples of programes such as: Advanced Tactical Fighter. Is "Advanced Tactical Fighter" a brand name of Lockheed Martin because Lockheed was the winner of the contract for the program? Certainly no. The only difference between these two designations is that "ATF" is not currently widely/internationally used. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying it is copyrighted, I am saying it is the name that Boeing use, not the whole international community. (copied from above:)"That some people misuse it does not mean that we should continue to. I refer to vacuum cleaners as Hoovers, I am wrong to do that. AWACs is a limiting term that is more specific to a country. It is one system that has come to erroneously represent the whole industrial area in the media. AEW&C is a more general and more modern term that has a wider scope; a scope that this list fails to address." I will ask you again Do you consider all airborne early warning systems AWACs? Woody (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained you above several times as well as in the footnote placed in the lead. Airborne surveillance or any other aircraft with higher or lower AEW capabilities are not AWACS aircraft and therefore not included in this list. Definition of the AWACS term: Aircraft fitted with long-range radar used to carry out airborne surveillance and command, control and communications functions for both tactical and air defence forces from high altitude. Those in bold are capabilities which airborne surveillance/AEW aircraft such as Sea King helicopters do not have. Am I explaining clear enough or not? I really don't know what to say anymore, I'm repeating for the third time an obvious thing. I'm starting to have the feeling that no matter how many issues I resolve you still find other new ones, some of them, apologise my sincerity, are absurd. Also, I believe that your latest raised issues are not objective and do not reflect any real problem of the article, but instead are a personal ambition due to our previous divergences - though I might be wrong considering that I'm quite irritated by the fact that I wasted so much time and energy arguing on such issues. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying it is copyrighted, I am saying it is the name that Boeing use, not the whole international community. (copied from above:)"That some people misuse it does not mean that we should continue to. I refer to vacuum cleaners as Hoovers, I am wrong to do that. AWACs is a limiting term that is more specific to a country. It is one system that has come to erroneously represent the whole industrial area in the media. AEW&C is a more general and more modern term that has a wider scope; a scope that this list fails to address." I will ask you again Do you consider all airborne early warning systems AWACs? Woody (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't name it and I don't know why the article was named in this way. However, I will propose to be moved soonly, but that is not my priority for now. Regarding the fact that "AWACS" is Boeing's brand name and is copyrighted you are terribly wrong. AWACS was the designation used for the program undertaken by the US Air Force in the late 1960s in which competed Douglas, Lockheed and Boeing. Boeing was the winner of the competition and therefore was awarded the contract to build the AWACS aircraft. In conclusion, the aircraft was named AWACS well before Boeing started any development of it. See other examples of programes such as: Advanced Tactical Fighter. Is "Advanced Tactical Fighter" a brand name of Lockheed Martin because Lockheed was the winner of the contract for the program? Certainly no. The only difference between these two designations is that "ATF" is not currently widely/internationally used. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is our article called Airborne early warning and control then? Just because some people may erroneously call a vaccum cleaner a Hoover does not make it the correct usage. AWAC is a brand name used by Boeing and is directly analogous to the Hoover scenario. Do you consider all airborne early warning systems AWACs? Google is a poor argument. Woody (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The title is List of AWACS aircraft operators because this is the most commonly used designation for this type of aircraft (a quick google search will convince you). Furthermore, the main source used in the list names them AWACS aircraft, not AEW&C. I disagree again with your comments with the exception of the note in the lead saying that this list excludes AEW/airborne surveillance aircraft (though it's pretty obvious). Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As am I. This isn't about the nominator or our "previous divergences", this is about the perceived inaccuracies in this list that I can see. Trying to get this list to a correct title is not an absurd issue, nor is the accessibility of this list. That is why we have PR (which you missed) and FLC, it is to get other people's opinions on this list. At the moment, my opinion is that it does not yet meet the Featured List Criteria, hence why I will maintain my oppose. Other readers, reviewers and nominators can see my concerns and do what they want with them. Given that you now erroneously consider my comments to be a personal slight, I don't see how any comments that I make will be taken in a positive manner, hence my issues remain unresolved.
- Issues:
- Omission/Integration of ordered
- Definition of AWAC, Omission of helicopters
- 3b content forking
- Naming of the list which again encompasses definitions
- The extant points are listed above and I have sectioned them off above; my oppose remains and I am disengaging from this review now. Woody (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above issues raised by User:Woody were adressed above and do not represent current accurate problems of the article in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eurocopter, you ought to step back, take a pause, and reflect on Woody's comments. All of them are very valid and need to be addressed. Certainly the helicopters should be added, for example. Buckshot06(prof) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly what I'm doing, though I regret wasting my time on this. Perhaps someone could withdraw this FLC? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eurocopter, you ought to step back, take a pause, and reflect on Woody's comments. All of them are very valid and need to be addressed. Certainly the helicopters should be added, for example. Buckshot06(prof) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above issues raised by User:Woody were adressed above and do not represent current accurate problems of the article in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Serial Numbers
I have just checked some of the serial numbers against the http://www.scramble.nl/index.html military aircraft database, those which I checked were spot–on! Farawayman (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Air Forces Monthly should be italicized every time it appears in the article. Also don't overlink it. Just link it in its first appearance.—Chris! ct 19:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to oppose also in light of the issued raised by User:Woody—Chris! ct 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. I really like this list, and think that its definitely a potential FL, but I echo Woody's concerns about what it includes and excludes. In particular, I don't think that Turkey should be listed as a current operator of 4 aircraft, as none of these aircraft (which are still being brought to operational status by Boeing) appear to have been accepted by the Turkish air force yet. I agree that the British AWACS helicopters should also be in the list; it's a bit of an arbitrary decision to exclude them. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the British Sea King helicopters do not fall under the AWACS aicraft definition and therefore are not included in this list. See [7]. I will move the TurkishAF to future operators soonly. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (for now) unfinished work. Wikilinks that are redirected. eg AWACS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.