Jump to content

Talk:List of X-planes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steelpillow (talk | contribs) at 08:28, 1 May 2016 (→‎Article Cleanup: also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


"X-plane projects are still underway as of 2004."

"X-plane projects are still underway as of 2004." Any updates? :) ----Unforgettableid | Talk to me 18:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone going to put the recently announced X-56A in the list? 94.197.208.227 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's already there. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LockheedX7.JPG has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:LockheedX7.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Origin?

Where does the X notion come from? Does some authority (e.g. NASA) designate new 'X' craft? Or do companies do it themslves, according to tradition? Either way, I think it should be explained in the article? --AndersFeder 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'X' is part of the Mission Design Series of U.S. aircraft designations, and is assigned by the U.S. Government. Companies can, of course, call their aircraft anything they want. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Company name] in front of X?

Any objections to moving the the couple of articles that do not include the company name in the article title (3, 13, ...), so the company name is in the title/URL when it's explicitly written with it in the article body? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-15t18:52z

no list?

Since the content of {{X-planes}} has changed to a link from a list, there doesn't seem to be a complete and (I'm feelin') convenient list of all the X-planes, or is there? If not, why don't we put it in this article or should we access X-plane/gallery every time? --marsian 15:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I am returning the template. I think the gallery shoudl go in it as well. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written conjecture

Removed this:

"Some believe that the United States Government has developed a X-Plane that is capable of reaching mach 12! Several people one day in california said they heard a sonic boom and several windows broke. In the air above them a huge cloud formed like the ones you see at the end of commercial airplanes in the skies (kind of looks like smoke comming out of the back of the plane or off the wings). Some ex-workers for lockheed-martin say that there was infact a plan of building a plane that went mach 12. Some even say that UFOs are used to cover up secret projects by the government. Nothings certain for sure weather these planes exist or not but if humans built the space shuttle to go mach 20+ couldnt they have built a X-Plane that goes Mach 12. That for you to believe or not."

Exclamation points, conjecture with no cited sources, questions asked of the reader...


X-52

Why is there no X-52 plane in the series? (Iuio 06:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Explained that it was to avoid (?) confusion with Boeing B-52

Lack of images

Who can import free of rights images yet here not available : X16, X39, X41, X42 ? I found images, but not free or rights. --Tangopaso (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

It seems to me this page would be better served being moved to List of X-Planes, as that's basically what it is - and wouldn't require too much work to be a very excellent list, as opposed to a stub-type article that happens to include a large list in the middle of it. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

other X

Should there be a mention of other "X" designated planes? Stuff like the XB-70, XF, XP, etc. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not related. X in those cases is a modifier meaning prototype version. See 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system for more explanation. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Fynlasyon says, those are entirely different. Here, 'X' is used as a mission symbol - equiviliant of 'F' or 'B'. In those other types, 'X' is a mission modifier (equiviliant to, say, the 'U' in 'UC-103'). The other types are sometimes covered in List of experimental aircraft, as well. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement suggestions

Note the comments on the current peer review. Improve citation formatting is the main suggestion so far. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The WP:AVILIST style guide bans images in aircraft lists by default. However it allows that local consensus can agree that a given article is a special case and can differ. Are the X-planes a special case? Images in the table certainly make it look prettier, but do they genuinely add to its functionality or do they just get in the way? If a consensus to keep them as a special case does not emerge in this discussion, they will be removed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an enhancement and adds to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think they work well, at least on a laptop. These are very unusual, I doubt that many people can match most numbers with even the general look of the plane, and the notes don't help. Sammy D III (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images should be included where appropriate. AVILIST would seem to be at odds with the MOS. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might like to take that up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. In particular, to point out what the MOS does regard as "appropriate" use in this context and how that differs from AVILIST. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain, most of the X-planes are very distinctive and a simple description doesn't convey that. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain images, they are of encyclopedic content, and what users want to see/read/use to identify the X-plane they want info on. WP:IAR on the MOS; it's not like it's a list of all ships of the same class (ie. Arleigh Burkes) , or ships that all look similar (ie. battleships), these do not look similar, and people use the look to identify the topic -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the images - they absolutely improve the article. There is no downside here. - theWOLFchild 20:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Data columns

Can I suggest breaking out a couple more columns?

First, split the manufacturer/agency into separate columns for each. This should make it easer to see which is which and, perhaps ultimately, to sort on the primary or sponsoring agency.

Second, to split off the role or purpose from the notes. Again, this should make it easier to sort on a given research goal.

What do folks think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be BOLD and go for it. You put a lot of work into articles and I'm sure your suggestions will only be an improvement. Cheers. - theWOLFchild 20:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Cleanup

There are a few inaccuracies that I have found while editing the article. I recommend double checking the data in the tables (sponsoring agencies, first flight date, etc).

Is there a way we can add a column for Final Flight without cluttering the page up? We may want to work on the table formatting a bit as well.

Made a lot of significant updates, let me know if there are conflicting ideas. Thanks!Kees08 (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AVILIST before tinkering with the table format. You should not have added the number of flights column without establishing a consensus here first. The purpose of a list like this is not to jam in as much detail as possible on each machine but to provide a summary overview. I don't think there should be a column for this. Also, column headings are fairly standard so for example it should be Date and not First flight.
I have no other problems with your content updates.
The final flight might be recorded in a Status column, similar to the lists of aircraft with military operators, if folks agree here.
I note also that the Date entries should be trimmed back to the year only, in line with WP:AVILIST.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_X-planes&oldid=718055296"