Talk:Boeing B-29 survivors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 05-27-2007. The result of the discussion was Nomination Withdrawn.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 05-27-2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Contents

[edit] Comment

this is a much better way of doing a survivors piece. It still ought to have a intro paragraph since the page could be reached by the "random article" link from the wikipedia main page. The paragraph could just be a repeat of the summary section from the main article with a little more context of the aircraft itself.GraemeLeggett 08:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is lack of info, proper referencing etc. I didn't added that because I didn't wanted to work on this article right now, it's just a "technology demonstrator". Piotr Mikołajski 08:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the lead paragraph should form part of your technology demonstrator. GraemeLeggett 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree with Changes

DELETE I am now strongly in favor of Deleting this article as it now stands - The intent of this seperate article was to complete document and list the survivors not a random selection according to some fanciful system Piotr has designated - This change has destroyed the intent and purpose of this sub. I am also demanding that the original list be returned.Davegnz 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Several other editors agree with this new format. Please discuss at WT:AIRCRAFT. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Dave, but the problem here is with your intent. Though I know you meant well, Wikipedia simply isn't the place to completely document and list all the survivors, even of a notable aircraft like the B-29. I can easily see the justification of all the ones which have a significant history (and no, flying in WWII isn't a default significant history - after all, we don't list all the human survivors of that war, either), and all those preserved in museums. More than that, though, you might want to consider your approach. You've been responding as if these lists are your personal property, going even so far as to try to pull them from the Project. That simply isn't way things are done here, and I'm sorry if you weren't clear on that. At the bottom of every edit screen is a "Please Note" section, and the second item there says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I know this experience has probably left a bitter taste in your mouth, which is regrettable, but you need to realize that when you come into an environment where teamwork is the key to truly great things, you need to be willing to concede some, even though you might not think it's the best thing, or the direction things start going isn't what you "intended" the article to be. I've certainly had to give in on issues, and I think everyone here has. AKRadecki 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the Wiki is the perfect place to list all survivors of significant historic types. After all, the list will generally get shorter over time for the planes of fame that are out of general use (P-51s might be an exception though...) I have been listing preserved C-130 Hercules on the C-130 page, and I might add that Lockheed Constellation populations are now pretty much finite. Having the Wiki be a reference on preserved aircraft, as opposed to listing all operational models (good luck on listing all surviving Dakotas!), seems like a reasonable paragraph/list in articles about the type.

But then, I'm a serial number fiend, and like exact identifications...

For what it's worth...

Mark Sublette 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I know Dave really disagrees with our naming conventions, but that disagreement aside, the name of this article really should be changed to drop the Boeing, so that it will be consistent with the main article. I'm happy to do the move, but I wanted to give notice first. AKRadecki 22:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should also be named in accordance with most naming convetions for lists. I will look into it later but i doknow it exists. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be List of B-29 Superfortress survivors. AKRadecki 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved to List of surviving B-29 Superfortresses, because 'survivors' implies some agency that I don't want to assign to an inanimate object. Just being bold here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. AKRadecki 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Much better. When I first saw the AFD for the article under the old name (not being familiar with other articles of this type), I had no idea what the article was about. Surviving members of B-29 crews? People who survived crashes or accidents involving B-29s? Now it's clear. PubliusFL 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree that title is much better now. - BillCJ 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table Format

If we're going to list so much information on each entry, the table format is not a good idea. Not trying to be difficult here, but tables work best for just one or two lines per entry. - BillCJ 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bill. BTW - table format is more difficult to keep and expand, especially for less experienced users. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 07:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, tables are superior for cases like the less noted survivors. It presents the information in a consistent, controlled way. GraemeLeggett 09:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well... it really depends ;o) When I get more info about particular aircraft, I'll move it from the table to the upper section. Piotr Mikołajski 09:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the compromise of the text and table format. Thank you team! I was frustrated with Chris(Talk) on the pure table format as I am a little too close to TSq54 and could not see this excellant compromise. Kudos! I will re-focus my efforts on our av-projects after our holiday weekend. Maybe we all can take a short break from Wiki for a couple of days and comtemplate on the men and women who flew and restored these suvivors for our great nation on Memorial Day. We owe it to them. LanceBarber 17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the dual format too. Much more workable and readable. - BillCJ 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plane names

Individual aircraft names, like Fifi, are like ships' names, and are properly italicized, rather than put in quotes and/or bolded. I fixed this once, but somehow they got put back. I've fixed them again. AKRadecki 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

True. However some names are in quotes as painted, so that the name in article should be: "Nickname".--Buckboard 07:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fate of 44-86402

According to this, (I know, message boards are not reliable sources), that plane was scrapped in the 90's, after having been moved to a Ohio collector some years earlier. I found this by googling "44-86402". I could find no reference for the "Aircraft Industries Museum" in Louisville, Kentucky. Does the person who added this one have a source? --rogerd 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No good source. Did find this info on Joe Baughers s/n search s/n search -- 86402 used as mothership for X-7/XQ-5 programs ... Also found an Aviation Museum of Kentucky...being developed but NO references to a B-29.... LanceBarber 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is any evidence that this airframe still exists. I think we should remove it. I lived in Louisville from 1968 to 1978 and was a student pilot and Civil Air Patrol member during part of that time. I also visit occasionally. I think if such an aircraft existed in the area, I would have heard about it. Also, this Aviation Museum of Kentucky is in Lexington, KY, not Louisville (75 miles apart). --rogerd 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur to remove it. Others may find it, and can add it back in. LanceBarber 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 44-70039 on Bomber Glacier, Alaska

Hello all, I saw this great photo on Airliners.net today and brought this poor bird back to my attention. 44-70039 crashed in 1957 and remains there to this day [1]. I don't know where or if we'd like to have it on this section. Technically it's not a "survivor." However it's a pretty famous wreckage. --Trashbag (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)