Talk:F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Merger With F-4 Phantom II?

  • Agree. This article needs a heavy dose of cleanup and editing before being merged with a FA. It certainly can't go as it is now. FWIW, I would be tempted to throw the whole thing out and start all over, but, maybe it's a start. Bzuk 13:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Not agree(All so prevedible, yeah). It's all so hilarious. This article was born because F-4UK info were considered 'redundant' and place here, to be handle apart without censorship. Yeah, there were just 2kb. Now there are 30 and the stuff is not finished. And now, needless to say that it should 'be merged', after 'cleanup'?

What kind of cleanup? As that made with B-50[[1]], Saab 37 Viggen[[2]], Macchi C.202 [[3]] and CF-104[[4]], when my contributions were sistematically trown out of the window for unexplicable (and not explified) reasons? No, definitively it's an 'unfair manner' to handle a contributor work: all times, made him a sort of moron-slave, that needs only to be whipped. Obviousely, GFDL in your POV works only to make decision over other works, never them are allowed to make their own decisions. Greetings.--Stefanomencarelli 19:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

By going back to basics and taking information from a reference in English about the UK aircraft, I think that have found a few problems with emphasis in the "United Kingdom" section that I guess might be partly because of subtle translation issues between languages from some of the Italian references, and partly because the Italian reference are not readily available to some English editors, and perhaps for other reasons too. The impact on British jobs on aircraft procurement was not included, so the relevance of the spey engine modification was lost. The rectangular box on the fin tip was somewhat unclear too, I feel. I have made some modifying edits in the UK section and added the English reference to the list. I guess that there might be many difficult-to-detect subtle problems on this page in the other sections too, of uncertain significance. I think that a lot of checking needs doing here, every section probably needs at least a days work. I am going to put the verify tag back as a header. Snowman (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I think we now have enough editor's opinions on the article to say that the consensus is that we should save it, work on it and improve it, rather than delete it or merge it with the F-4 article. Working on that basis I am going to pull the merger tags. - Ahunt 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with this article

I just removed the "Work in Progress" tag that had been on this article for five days. I am sure that probably dissuaded many people from working on it in the past while.

I have just read through the article and have to agree that there are lots of serious issues with it - it needs an awful lot of work as the remaining tags well identify.

I have been a writer for many years and I always keep in my mind who the "target audience" is for any piece of writing. In the case of this article I can't help thinking of some Grade 8 student working on a junior-high history project coming here for some information and perhaps photos as well for his report. I already feel sorry for him!

I thought that I could perhaps start a discussion here on this Friday night, knowing that many editors will be on Wikipedia over this November weekend and perhaps we can get a consensus on how to proceed with it.

Including the proposed merger with F-4 Phantom II listed above, these are some of the possible courses of action:

  • merge it with F-4 Phantom II (a read of that article shows that much of this info is there already)
  • delete it entirely and start over (as Bzuk somewhat half-heartedly suggested above)
  • sign up editors to do clean-ups of each section
  • find one gallant (or unemployed) editor to do a total re-write
  • ignore it and hope it doesn't get any worse
  • some other course of action that I haven't thought of

I would really like to hear from others who are watching this page to see if we can come up with a consensus plan. - Ahunt 01:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I support Bzuk's opinion to rewrite it all. This article is full of passive forms derived from a poor translation from Italian language (I am Italian too and I recognise the original grammar structure). As a beginning, I will try to fix bad spelling errors, but improving English standard is a more complicate issue. I prefer to see somebody else paving the way on this and then I will give a hand if needed and possible. Moreover, I am quite baffled by notes structure. I have previously seen source citation paragraphs being like ->this. Which way is correct one? If consensus will point to a different notes/reference paragraph structure, I volunteer for fixing it here and around. --EH101 16:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on this. That is one response in favour of editing the existing article! The reference on how to do citations is Wikipedia:Citing sources. It provides three methods, none of which are exactly like the method used here. The only problem I can see with the system used in this article is that it makes a very long list at the end due to all the repetition of teh same refs. If you have a look at Ultraflight Lazair you will see one that I did recently that compresses the space required for refs, especially multiple citations of the same ref.
I am hoping we will hear from some others and see if we can get a consensus as to what to do with the article. If others agree with what you have suggested - "divide and edit" - then we can divide up tasks and get on with it! - Ahunt 18:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Ultraflight Lazair style is like we use on it.wiki too. I first asked just in case, as one author spread that mode around, with no remarks on it. I will fix it here and on other aviation articles made by him. --EH101 18:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that the method in Ultraflight Lazair is the best way - just that it makes for a more compact reference section! If you want to convert the existing ones to that format, that would be great, however!

Hey your "first pass" on copy-editing this article looks great - you corrected lots of errors there. It won't hurt to fix up what is already there, regardless of what the final consensus is to do with the article. If the decision is to keep developing it or to merge it with the F-4 article then it will just be closer to those goals!

Please leave a note when you are done and perhaps I will take a run through it on Sunday and see if I can make it any better and more comprehensible. - Ahunt 20:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a different suggestion: as it seems we are only two on this, we can work simultaneously, simply sharing the article. I will start revising from the bottom and you can start from the top (Australia). One day we will eventually meet in the middle like tunnel diggers. Anyway, as I wrote before, looking at you at work could help me in understanding revising techniques.--EH101 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

True - I haven't heard from anyone else yet on this article. I like your suggestion! I will have some time starting tomorrow morning to work on it so I will go section by section from the top, as you suggested. I should be at it around 1300Z or so! - Ahunt 22:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, you're not alone; I'll spare some time to look in and do what I can to help. I made a brief start a while back but I'm afraid my enthusiasm waned when it seemed that I was alone, and particularly when some of my corrections were reverted. I don't properly understand some of the passages and may make some interpretation errors, so please keep me on the right track while I at least try to make sense of the grammar. --Red Sunset 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey that is great - we need all the help we can get on this one! I have a couple of hours here to work on this on a Sunday morning. As EH101 suggested I will start at the top and work down. To avoid edit conflicts I will take the sections off line and do them in Gedit and then post them one at a time again, so the changes will look instantaneous! Please feel free to re-edit anything I have gone through - it can only get better with more help!

With all of us at this, perhaps we can get this into shape by the end of the weekend. I will also write an intro, since the article doesn't currently have one. I guess the last thing to do after we are all happy with it will be to remove the tags and then put a link on the F-4 page. I am getting a feeling that the consensus is to save this article, so let's work in that direction until we hear from anyone else.

One question for you both: What do you think about the lengthy lists of serial numbers? Do we need these or are they "unencyclopedic"? - Ahunt 13:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I have reworked the Australian, Egyptian, German and Greek sections so far. I am going to take a break for a bit here. I haven't tackled reformating the references yet - probably leave that until last. It has taken longer than I had thought it would to edit each section - it was more messy than I had thought it was at first read-through. I do think this is doable, though, and I will keep running through the sections as we have discussed. - Ahunt 18:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Great work Alan! It's not as simple as it looks at first sight, and requires some interpretation and understanding as you will have noticed having reworked some of my own edits which were based on the existing information only. IMHO there is enough info here for the page to be saved rather than merge it into the main F-4 article, which is already lengthy and doesn't need the extra weight. And as for the lists of serial numbers - don't like 'em and don't think we need 'em. --Red Sunset 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry Adam...got the wrong name, many apologies. You wanna' see what I do with Nimbus227 (LOL) --Red Sunset 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
To preserve the info, could the serial numbers go in lists on a linked page? Snowman 18:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think that they are worth a dedicated page Snowman? --Red Sunset 20:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I generally make suggestions that I think are viable. There is a page "List of B-17 Flying Fortress serial numbers". Snowman 23:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure about the page name; if it is about non-U.S. then perhaps this should go in the page name. ie "The aircraft in non-U.S. service". A lot of external links in the page text need to be brought to in-line citations. Snowman 19:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I right now fixed notes structure using citation templates. There were some errors and now the actual source situation is more clear. I do support concept of deleting s/n which are near to a copyviol IMHO.--EH101 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys have been doing lots of work on this while I was working on the Iranian section! It is starting to look good! Yup it is hard work doing detailed editing, because the original text is often very difficult to understand. If I can get the basic idea I re-write it, if I can't make sense of it I have to cut it! I agree the serial numbers just clutter up the article and so I have been cutting them. I am probably going to take a break before I tackle the next section, to let you guys continue to work there! - Ahunt 21:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Sunset: Thanks for your edits on the Iranian section. I was staring at it too long - your edits have definitely improved my re-write!

Also I think Snowman may have a point - the article title isn't ideal. Let's see if we can come up with a better one! I would like to propose "F-4 Phantom II in International Service" - Ahunt 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes is sound like a football page. In think "international" is the wrong word, and in any case only proper nouns are capitalised in a heading. Are you going to bring U.S. service here too? Is this page in U.S. English? Snowman 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think "F-4 Phantom II service" would be ideal. Obviously, for naming it this way, a dedicated section with U.S. service should be added, extracted from main article, which will have obviously an appropriate outgoing link. Relevant to article comprehension as I have knowledge of Italian way to build sentences, I am able to understand the whole, and I could help for too hard to understand written parts.--EH101 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Alan...er Alek...er sorry, Adam! Either "international" or "non-U.S. sevice" are suitable IMHO, and are both tidier than the original title, but I lean slightly towards "non-U.S." If we bring American service into the equation, we're going to end up with what's likely to be a larger article than the F-4 page itself; and after all, this article was a split-off from that page. It's complicated enough, lets not make it worse. On the subject of the spelling format; although I'm happy to use U.S. English per the subject nationality, as U.S. service isn't currently included in the article I'd be happier to use standard English reflecting the UK as a user of the F-4. --Red Sunset 23:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
International most often describes interaction between nations, which I think would not be right in the page name. Some of the article is about nations acting separately or independently. Snowman 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that it needs a new name, we just need to agree on what that would be! I prefer to make it a "positive" name rather than something like "non-US service" - that really says "what it isn't", rather than "what it is".

If you don't like the word "International", then how about "F-4 Phantom II Export Aircraft"?

I agree that we should not bring in US use - that would make the article huge and gut the F-4 Phantom II article. Just my thoughts, let's keep discussing these items as we go! - Ahunt 02:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK! I got your concerns against lenght if U.S. service would be merged. I agree with you not to do it. Relevant to the name, I think "F-4 Phantom II export aircraft" is the most used and probably appropriate technical name (but without capital letters). --EH101 06:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Other suggestions
  • 1. "F-4 Phantom II exported aircraft"
  • 2. "F-4 Phantom II aircraft exported from the U.S."
  • 3. "F-4 Phantom II aircraft sold by the U.S."

If the word "export" is going to be used I think that it should be in the past tense and also say where it was exported from. So I think 2 would be better. Snowman 09:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a few other possible name choices:
  • 4. F-4 Phantom in worldwide service
  • 5. F-4 Phantom operators

FWIW, a proviso would be given that U.S. operational use is covered in the main article. Bzuk 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

I have changed non-proper nouns to lower case. Change it back if this is incorrect. Snowman 10:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, just "fat-fingered" typing. FWIW [:¬∆ Bzuk 10:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My votes in order of preference from the suggestions so far would go to 5, 4 and 2. Perhaps a brief mention of the U.S. operation could be included for completion and with a "see main page" signpost. Snowman 10:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, Bzuk 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

How about a really concise title like "F-4 Phantom exports"? It is short and doesn't require any explanation that US service Phantoms are in the other article. - Ahunt 12:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting suggestion, but I think that it is not as good as some of the other suggestions. The page sections indicate that it is about the operators. Awaiting for a consensus to form. I have changed one letter to lower case, because headings should have non-proper nouns in lower case. "F-4 Phantom operators" is also concise. Snowman 12:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

All good points! I really don't mind which new title we choose, but it needs to be a bit shorter and more precise than the current one! - Ahunt 13:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Snowman and Bzuk have both indicated that they favour changing the article title to F-4 Phantom operators I will also vote for that new name, with the proviso that the current words (or something similar) stay at the top to explain the scope of the article: This article is about the use of the F-4 Phantom in non-U.S. service. For other information on the aircraft see the main article F-4 Phantom II.

I think we should get on and rename the article soon. One of the tags on the article is that it isn't linked from many other articles. Once we get a new name for it I will be happy to find appropriate places to link to it from so we can remove that tag! - Ahunt 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I can change the name of the page, but under no obligation that any words will be kept on the page. I think that you can not put any conditions on the words on a new page, as this depends on future edits and consensuses. I agree that the page name should be decided soon and perhaps Red will vote this evening. Snowman 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay - I can see your point. I just want to make sure that the scope is spelled out. No sweat - count me in for F-4 Phantom operators. Your timeline there sounds realistic, as we do want to hear from Red Sunset and EH101 too. I will leave it to you to "call it" when you feel that you have a consensus and make the move at that point. - Ahunt 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can move a page and you do not have to wait for me to move the page, but for this planned page move I think that we could wait a few more hours for other contributers to add to the discussion. It seems that the current scope of the page is intended to be mainly non-U.S. service, but I do not know how the page will evolve. I wonder if Red or EH would vote for a more specific and perhaps a longer page name. Snowman 17:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we are both on the same wavelength here - I think we should hear from those two before the move. It is possible that the scope may change in time, but if the article name becomes inappropriate at that point then it can be changed again. I did realize that any one can change a page name (I have moved several aviation pages) but since you seemed to be interested in the name issue and collecting consensus on it I thought I would leave it to you to do that part of the project! As EH101 and I discussed above on the 10th I have been trying to spend my time copy-editing each section from top to bottom - Spain is next! - Ahunt 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting for my vote guys! So without further ado; in first place is F-4 Phantom operators, being a concise title which would also encompass U.S. service if necessary at a later point; with second place going to F-4 Phantom in worldwide service. --Red Sunset 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow - I am impressed! The whole crew here has done an amazing job on this article over the last couple of days! The work isn't finished yet, but it sure looks a whole lot better than it did on Friday. I think it is good enough to remove some of the myriad of tags that were on it. I have left the "ref" and "links" tags for now. Once we get the name figured out I am happy to fix the lack of links to the article and I can see that several people are working on the ref problem.

I also wanted to let the team here know that I have finished my copy-edit run though from the top of the article. I just posted the new Turkish section. Nigel Ish and Red Sunset have been doing a great job on the UK section, so I don't think it needs as much attention now. - Ahunt 23:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added links to this article from List of units using the F-4 Phantom, List of U.S. Navy F-4 Phantom II units and F-4 Phantom II variants. I will change the tags on this article to reflect that we have some links out there now. Incidently List of units using the F-4 Phantom and F-4 Phantom II variants also have a fair amount of overlap with this article and F-4 Phantom II as well. Perhaps some clean-up is required? - Ahunt 18:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus voting on title change

  1. F-4 Phantom exports
  2. F-4 Phantom II exported aircraft
  3. F-4 Phantom II aircraft exported from the U.S.
  4. F-4 Phantom II aircraft sold by the U.S.
  5. F-4 Phantom in worldwide service Second choice votes only: Red Sunset, Snowman and Bzuk
  6. F-4 Phantom operators First choice votes only: Red Sunset, Ahunt, Snowman, Bzuk, MilborneOne and EH101

Still time to vote, waiting for anyone else who is interested in editing this article to have a say. FWIW Bzuk 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

I think we can safely state at this point that we have a consensus of the editors working on this article to change the name to F-4 Phantom operators! - Ahunt 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved as per above. Snowman 15:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that all the suggested names for this article had merit and might be searched for by users, so I have created redirect pages for all of them to this article. - Ahunt 12:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Was an incorrect name chosen owing the complexity of the voting system?

One simple question: Should the name be 1 or 2?

  • 1. F-4 Phantom operators
  • 2. F-4 Phantom II operators

I am voting for 2. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking 2 is more correct. I would not oppose a change. --Red Sunset (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As per Red Sunset comments. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds okay to me - Ahunt (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A Vote for #2: A bit of semantics here because there really was no other aircraft other than F-4 Phantom and Phantom II was a company designation to differentiate from the earlier McDonnell FH-1 Phantom, but it is the correct designation and the main article is so identified, so my vote goes there as well. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
Page moved and redirects fixed. Snowman (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Questions

Just looking at helping tidy up the UK section, some of it appears to be a badly written version of the text in the main article. Is it the intention to remove or cut-back the text in the main article as it might be better to use or copy over some of the text rather than re-write and end up with the same result! Other question concerns operators - other aircraft articles have a tabulated list of squadrons which is missing or mixed in with the article should we use the standard list style for operators?. Thanks MilborneOne 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. Being a "featured article" there might be some objection to us cutting text out of F-4 Phantom II, but the section that overlaps with this article could be trimmed to reduce the overlap.
As far as the list of operators/units goes I think the one at UH-1 Iroquois might be a useful model, although it would be a shorter list in this article. - Ahunt 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
OK I have added unit information to the page in a standard format to see what others think. I have tweaked some of the UK entry to make more sense and add more info. MilborneOne 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
MilborneOne, don't forget to vote in the section above for your choice of a new title. Bzuk 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] An aside

After all your good work, fellas, I reread the F-4 Phantom article "main page" and found so much similarity that... oh well, we're already proceeding down the road to fixing this sub-article... Bzuk 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

How is this problem of duplication going to be solved? Snowman 15:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We did touch on this a bit earlier - the only possibilities are to leave the F-4 Phantom II article as it is, or to shave down the overlapping info to bare bones in that article and then send people here. As I mentioned before here, you may get some resistance to the latter idea from editors on that page as it is a formerly featured article.- Ahunt 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A third answer would be to merge the pages, if the article lengths permit. Snowman 18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes a lot of excellent work, and I must say that it's been a pleasure to work within a team of such capable editors, with a special mention going to Ahunt who along with EH101 have been hard at it from the start. Now, in response to Bill and Snowman; the way I see it is that this article should be made as complete as possible, and when it reaches a sufficient standard of quality, the US usage could be copied over from the main F-4 page leaving summarised basic info relating to each country in the "operators" section there. This would then be the main F-4 operators article with no mass duplication. WDYT? If this plan works out, and we stick to listing countries in alphabetical order, ironically the US would be at the bottom of the list! --Red Sunset 18:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Red Sunset on both counts - I believe that is the best way to proceed on the future of this article. It has to be done incrementally as the quality of this article improves. I also think that this whole editorial team has done amazing work on this article in the past five days - everyone take a bow! - Ahunt 18:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Red Sunset. Just noticed that List of units using the F-4 Phantom duplicates some of the information on this page! - Perhaps this article is a good example of what can be done as a team effort using the multitude of editorial talents and references available. Pleasure to be involved. MilborneOne 18:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to concur as to the quality of the work and although I have mainly observed from the sidelines as it may have represented a conflict of interest to get fullsomely involved, I too noted that the fine editorial staff that was assembled is much the same group that has been behind revisions of other aviation articles. I am trying so hard not to mention anything prejudicial that I am biting my tongue at this point, but consider my comments as nothing other than praise for a collaborative effort that is in the best traditions of teamwork. FWIW, these pithy comments are "stream of consciousness" and really not well-thought out at all, but you may gather what my intentions were. Bzuk 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
It was extremely interesting to cooperate with you all and to see several talented wikipedians at work. I hard printed some copies of the article along time, just to mark with a pen differences and study at them in order to keep this work as a personal reference for copy-editing in the future. Thanks to all. Relevant to the article, now I think a hunt for specific variants pictures should be done starting from Iranian ones, which probably are more rare. --EH101 22:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicated with "List of units using the F-4 Phantom"

Some info is also duplicated on "List of units using the F-4 Phantom". The units of UK squadrons does not include 64 squadron on that page. Snowman 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
64 Squadron was the shadow identity of 228 Operational Conversion Unit from 1970. The OCU aircraft carried a version of the 64 Squadron Scarab badge on the tails. Do we need both List of units and phantom operators, perhaps we should merge the unit info missing in this article from list of units and then delete ? MilborneOne 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So are the "64 Squadran" and the "228 Operational Conversion Unit from 1970" synonyms? -- Snowman (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
They could be considered as synonyms. Sometimes RAF operational conversion and other training units are allocated Shadow squadron identities. They keep alive the traditions and history of the squadron (including the use of the squadron markings on aircraft) and at transition to war would revert to an operational squadron, in this case 64 Squadron. Not sure it was done in the 70s but these squadrons usually use the term Reserve Squadron - for example the Tornado Weapons Conversion Unit is officially 15 (Reserve) Squadron RAF. Perhaps we should list it as 228 Operational Conversion Unit (64 Squadron). -- MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
So are they different names for the same unit depending on peace or war? -- Snowman (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes - but it also serves to keep the squadron's traditions and history alive during peacetime. -- MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serial numbers

Should the serial numbers be restored somewhere, perhaps in a table? Snowman 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that serial numbers are notable. If I remember this has been discussed on other aircraft types and Wikipedia is probably not really the place to list all 5,000 odd serial numbers. They are specialised websites that list serial numbers cant we just link to them. MilborneOne 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Each unit coat US$2.4 million when new. Snowman 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I can understand Snowman's reasoning that the serial numbers may be important to some readers, but as MilborneOne points out ser/no. lists rarely appear in articles. However, IMHO it's suitable to include one when referring to a particularly notable aircraft, whereas lists of ser/nos do look untidy on a page; but that's an excellent suggestion to link to a website instead. --Red Sunset 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think that a dedicated page would be needed, with headings and lists to show were particular aircraft were exported to, and perhaps their fate. Wikipedia is not a links farm, but aims to collect information on its own pages. I think that the information on serial numbers that was on this page should be available; and I thought that, if someone was interested enough to list them here, they might like to make a new page, at least of the exported ones. Any page can look untidy if the layout is incorrect, but I have no reason to believe that a dedicated page would be especially untidy. Snowman 22:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I have to disagree about serial numbers, if you list all 5,000 F-4s do we then do the same for every other aircraft type, 22,000 Spitfires, 15,000 P-51s etc. A slippery slope. MilborneOne 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be an enormous task to research and gather all of the necessary information just relating to the F-4. If you feel strongly about it Snowman, then of course you are perfectly entitled to create a dedicated page if you so wish, but I think that you would need to enlist the help of others to share the load. Perhaps a series of tables would keep it tidy. --Red Sunset 23:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the following list of serial numbers is copied in its original form from the early text (there were none given for some countries). --Red Sunset 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

S/n: 69-0304/0307, 69-7201/7217, 7219,20, 34 (F-4E-43-MC)

[edit] Egypt

Serial numbers included: 66-298/338 (F-4E-32-MC), 66-339/382, 67-208/219 (F-4E-33-MC), 67-220/282, 67-283/341 (F-4E-35-MC), 67-342/398(F-4E-36-MC).[5]

[edit] Israel

Serials: From 601- to 699 for Peache Echo I, II, III. 42 'Echo IV' had 202-242, Nickel Grass machines had 301-334. Blocks were: 32,33,35,36,37 (Nichel Grass),38,39,40,41 (Peache Echo I),42 (Peache Echo II) ,43 (P.Eacho III),44 (Peace Patch),45,48,49,50,51,52,53 (P.Echo IV),54,55,57,58,59,60,61,62,63 (P. Echo V).

[edit] Japan

JASDF aircraft have a four-digit serial with two-digit prefix, the second is the type number of the aircraft (7 for F-4s), and the first indicates the last digit of delivery year (ex 1977= 77)[6] Serials included in: 17-8301/8302, 17-8301/8302, 27-8303/8306, 37-8307/8310 (McDonnell F-4EJ-45-MC Phantom), 37-8311/8313 (F-4EJ-47-MC ), 47-6901/6905,57-6906/6914 (RF-4EJ-56/57-MC), 37-8314/8323,47-8324/8352, 57-8353/8376, 67-8377/8391, 77-8392/8403, 97-8416/8427, 87-8404/8415, 07-8428/8436, 17-8437/8440, (Mitsubishi F-4EJ Phantom).

Known losses: 8304 crashed 5/1/1973, 8307 (7/6/1979), 8309 (7/16/1986), 8310 (12/7/1978), 8325 , 8337 (8/15/1999), 8339(10/11/1997), 8343 (10/13/1982), 8346 (5/11/1998), 6910, 6911, 8358, 8363, 8364, 8370, 8379 (10/9/1998), 8382, 8385, 8396, 8405, 8410, 8430, 8432.

[edit] Spain

S/n included in: 64-738/817 (F-4C-23-MC ), 64-818/881 (F-4C-24-MC), 64-882/928 (F-4C-25-MC), 64-997/65-945 (RF-4C-20,22,23,24,25,26,28-MC). Known losses: 64-813, 857, 870, 881, 886, 894, 906.

[edit] South Korea

S/n comprised in: 64-929/937 (F-4D-24-MC), 64-938/963, (F-4D-24-MC), 64-964/980 (F-4D-25-MC),65-580/611 (F-4D-26-MC), 65-612/665 (F-4D-27-MC), 65-666/770 (F-4D-28-MC), 65-771/801, 66-226/283 (F-4D-29-MC), 66-7505/7650 ( F-4D-30-MC ), 66-7651/7774 (F-4D-31-MC ), 66-8699/8786 (F-4D-32-MC), 66-8787/8825 (F-4D-33-MC)

67-342/398 (F-4E-36-MC), 68-303/365 (F-4E-37-MC), 68-366/395 (F-4E-38-MC), 68-488/494(F-4E-40-MC), 76-493/511 (F-4E-64-MC ), 78-727/744 (F-4E-67-MC ). Not known RF-4C S/n.

[edit] Turkey

S/n comprised in: 66-284/297 (McDonnell F-4E-31-MC Phantom), 66-298/338 (F-4E-32-MC ), 66-339/382, 67-208/219 (F-4E-33-MC),67-220/282 (F-4E-34-MC ), 67-283/341 (F-4E-35-MC ), 67-342/398 (F-4E-36-MC ), 68-303/365 (F-4E-37-MC), 68-400/409 (F-4E-38-MC), 68-418/433 (F-4E-39-MC ), 68-438/451 (F-4E-39-MC ), 68-458/468, 68-473/483 (F-4E-40-MC ), 68-495/498 , 68-503/518, 68-526/538 (F-4E-41-MC ), 69-7579/7589), 73-1016/1027 (F-4E-45-MC ), 73-1028/1042 (F-4E-56-MC ), 73-1043/1055 (F-4E-57-MC ), 77-277/300(F-4E-58-MC) 77-301/308 (F-4E-65-MC ), 77-309/316(RF-4E-66-MC)

[edit] United Kingdom

S/n and batches:

F-4K:

  • XT595-XT596 YF-4K-26-MC
  • XT597-XT598 F-4K-27-MC
  • XT857-XT858 F-4K-30-MC
  • XT859-XT862 F-4K-31-MC
  • XT863-XT870 F-4K-32-MC
  • XT871-XT876 F-4K-33-MC
  • XV565-XV571 F-4K-34-MC
  • XV572-XV578 F-4K-35-MC
  • XV579-XV585 F-4K-36-MC
  • XV586-XV592 F-4K-37-MC
  • XV604-XV610 Cancelled

F-4M:

  • XT852-XT853 YF-4M-29-MC
  • XT891-XT895 F-4M-31-MC
  • XT896-XT906 F-4M-32-MC
  • XT907-XT914 F-4M-33-MC
  • XT915-XT928 transferred to next batch
  • XV393-XV398 F-4M-33-MC
  • XV399-XV417 F-4M-34-MC
  • XV418-XV436 F-4M-35-MC
  • XV437-XV442 F-4M-36-MC
  • XV460-XV475 F-4M-36-MC
  • XV476-XV495 F-4M-37-MC
  • XV496-XV501 F-4M-38-MC
  • XV520-XV551 Cancelled order

Ex-US Navy: 153768, 152773, 153783, 153785, 153795, 153803, 153850, 153809, 155510, 155529, 155574, 155734, 155755, 155868, 155894

Hey that is great - glad that you catalogued them here. Not sure what we should do with them, but at least they are preserved! - Ahunt (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
With a little text and a few refs, could they make a new basic page? Snowman (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's always a possibility...are you volunteering Snowman? --Red Sunset (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Awaiting more opinions on the page suggestion. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's the other shoe! Do we need the listing of serial numbers at all? It is a gigantic list and there must be other sources available for such a comprehensive record of all the F-4s. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
Just the exported ones, like listed above. Snowman (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Clunk, and again, the need for that kind of a list is... ? FWIW, just playing "devil's advocate" as I have no real horses in the race, turtles in the pond, mosquitoes in the net, buffaloes on the range... oh, you know what I mean. Bzuk (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
Ok, main serial number list is elsewhere, ... currently. It is not one of my priorities, either. Snowman (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

As is to be expected when several editors are active in one place, inconsistencies are bound to occur due to variations in style and personal preferences. I'd like the team's opinion on the following differences that I've noticed before making any changes:

  • U.S. or US - I prefer US but is U.S. more correct?.
  • Bolding the first instance of an F-4 version in each section - I vote yes.
  • Linking dates and/or years - I don't see the point and so vote no.

--Red Sunset 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

US/YES/NO. MilborneOne 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There is actually a Wiki format spelling note about: U.S., USA, USAAC, USAAF and USAF – these are the correct conventions for spelling. As for dates and years, there was a considerable debate a while back (2006) in establishing under WP:AIR/PC guidelines, an acceptable format, with the consensus to use a "formal" date 13 November 2007 format to accommodate foreign users as well as to allow users with browser preferences set for date formats to read the dates in their preferred style. As to "bolding" the first mention of a variant/sub-variant, e.g. F-4E, that is also the convention established under WP:AIR/PC guidelines. Bzuk 23:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Bill, that answers the first two questions, but not whether we should link dates, especially if they're not particularly notable in any way. --Red Sunset 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The "rule," as such there is, is not to "wikilink" individual dates/years but that the first mention of the year in the infobox can have a year in aviation link, e.g. 31 August 1935. This issue was also determined through a consensus established under WP:AIR/PC guidelines. FWIW, note "rules" are what they are in Wikipedia. Bzuk 23:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
What about US Navy? Snowman 20:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
From the US Navy wiki page it seems that "U.S. Navy" is used. Snowman 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistency about using emboldened text in links.

  • Some of the links are emboldened in minor headings. Is this incorrect? Snowman 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Headings do not include wikilinks and it is not necessary to bold links as they are automatically highlighted in blue and stand out from the body of the text. Bzuk 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC).
Minor headings with wikilinks now un-emboldened. Snowman 15:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

On checking between this and the main F-4 article I noticed some date discrepancies in the "Israel" section:

  • According to the F-4 page the Kurnass 2000 aircraft first flew 11 August 1987 and entered service 5 February 1991, but on this page deliveries commenced 11 August 1987: a little confusing.
  • The F-4 page states that the first example was shot down 2 April 1970, whereas here it says 4 April 1970.

Anyone got further refs on these dates? --Red Sunset 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lake's Phantom Spirit in the Skies has first flight of Kurnass 2000 as 15 July 1987 and formally accepted 11 August 1987. It also has first F-4E shot down on the 2 April 1970 by an Egyptian MiG-21, an aircraft was also lost earlier (no date given) for mechanical failure and not enemy action. MilborneOne 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers MilborneOne. --Red Sunset 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of units using the F-4 Phantom

I have just made some suggestions concerning the List of units using the F-4 Phantom following improvement to this article. Comments welcome at Talk:List of units using the F-4 Phantom. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List or article

Is this page a list or is it an article? I brought this for discussion following the recent change to be listed with the Wikiproject:aircraft lists. I think that there are reasons for it to be classified as a list or as an article. Snowman (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers with Egypt

The info box gives us 46 F-4s operated by Egypt, but most sources state an initial first delivery of 35, later followed by another 7, and then 3 attrition replacements totalling 45. IMO the replacements statement should be ...er replaced, and the info box amended unless Fricker's numbers differ. Any comments? --Red Sunset 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fricker states 35 originals + 7 in 1988. It does not mention any additional attrition replacements.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-If the 3 replaced lost F-4s on a 1-1 basis, then the net effect would be 42 in service. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Just out of interest I note that all the list of serials for Egyptian F-4s list 35 from the 1980 delivery and three attrition replacements. Cant find any reference to the additional seven actually being supplied, Lake says they considered acquiring seven more but no mention of any actually being delivered! MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK then, based on the existing evidence the net result is a total of 42 in service, but 45 received (as we have refs for the additional 7 and serial numbers for the attrition replacements). I suggest changing the info box to 45 since the column is for the number of aircraft received, but then a mention of the attrition replacements will need to be reinstated. --Red Sunset 22:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Rethink; because we're using Nigel's ref, and pending a reputable written source for the attrition replacements (since Baugher and Goebel are now apparently not regarded as being suitable even as web sources – no comment), I'll change the info box to 42. If an acceptable ref can be found we can reinstate the attrition statement and alter the number to 45. --Red Sunset 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon Lakes Phantom - Spirit in the Skies page 209 mentions the three attrition replacements as 67-0328, 67-0332 and 67-0366. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks MilborneOne. Sorry for the delay in responding, having difficulties with the Internet this evening so it might take a while to implement the changes. Cheers. --Red Sunset 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging info

I've merged the US info from List of units using the F-4 Phantom to F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators. I believe all the non-US units left in the units article are listed in this article. Could someone double check that? After that's checked, I plan to make "List of units using the F-4 Phantom" redirect to "F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators", since it appears there were more US units than non-US ones. If that doesn't seem fair or you have a better idea, please reply. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are merging the articles, then there is are wiki guidelines to follow. This is to make sure that the editing history is not lost. It is fairly easy, but there is more to it that making one page a redirect. Snowman (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yea, I know how to do it. That wasn't what I'm asking. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It says that you do a full cut and paste first and then to the editing. I think that you are doing the editing and then doing the full cut and paste; see Help:Merging and moving pages. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. I edited the articles some for format before doing any copying. But I've copied blocks directly from the List article and saved. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the non-US units left in the "List of units" article, and transferred the small amount of information that was lacking into the "F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators" article. --Red Sunset 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I didn't think there'd be much, but wanted to check first. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
How about redirecting to a dab page (if that's the correct term) linked to both the U.S. and the non-U.S. operators articles, if that's not a silly idea? --Red Sunset 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think a disambigious page applies in this case. I don't see what good a page with 2 links in it would be. I just just put it up for deletion instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. It has to be kept with the edit history in tact. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I merge pages with a full cut and paste and then add the correct page tags and edit summaries exactly as it says on the wiki help page. Then the post-merge editing and tidy up can be done. It is because the edit histories have to be retained, which is a legal requirement of the copyleft. You end up with the source page having a special tag which is a bit like a redirect. I do not think that you need a dab page there. Snowman (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you like me to do this merge? I can not do the post-merge tidy up though. It is late here now, so it is less confusing to strike this out now. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Your partial page merge is fine. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming??

Why was this article moved without any discussion? There is supposed to be 2 articles on operators; US and non-US. This name does not work with that. Also, it is not a list. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Should not have been moved - it is not a list but an article about Phantom operators (and has been agreed only non-us) - not the same thing. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Op Nickel Grass

The statement "U.S. President Richard Nixon authorized the delivery of 36 ex-USAF F-4s under Operation Nickel Grass, from USAF 4 and 401 TFW. Some US-owned jets were flown directly from Mediterranean Fleet carriers to Israel, still carrying their original markings." has been added by User:72.0.180.2 on several occasions. It was removed twice by me and one other editor for being unsourced and a contentious enough statement to be challenged under Wikipedia:Verifiability which says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

The IP editor restored text for a third time and cited the following refs:

I have removed these bad refs and fact tagged the statement. I have been unable to find a ref to support the statement and in fact a couple of books I have on 1973 Yom Kippur War do not mention F-4s being delivered in US markings. In my opinion this statement is a serious enough charge against the US government in supplying arms to Israel that it needs a reliable source to back it up. The insults and personal attacks that User:72.0.180.2 has left in his edit summaries are no substitute for cited references.

Incidentally the Wikipedia article on Operation Nickel Grass also mentions incidents generally similar to the ones entered in this article, saying:

Consequently, 36 F-4 Phantom jet fighters were sold to Israel under Nickel Grass. They were flown to Lod, where American pilots were swapped for their Israeli counterparts. After the replacement of USAF insignia with IAF insignia if needed, the planes were refueled and ordered to the front, often taking to the air within hours of having arrived. Interestingly, some aircraft came directly from the USAFE fleet and operated in USAF camouflage, but with Israeli insignia.

However there is no ref cited in that article either. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User map problem

Since this article is about "non-U.S. operators", it shouldn't include the U.S. as well. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good point! I wonder how the green U.S. splodge can be removed from the map? --Red Sunset 19:15, May 2008 (UTC)
I've left a request on the creator's talk page on Commons. --Red Sunset 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 65 inline cites is plenty

I am removing the olde cites needed tag which I think doesn't seem accurate. Tag individual sections or sentences at this point but not the whole article. Or at least thats my opinion. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)