Talk:Lockheed AC-130

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lockheed AC-130 article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Plagiarism

This article seems to be mostly copied directly from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130.htm which is copyrighted text. Iridium77 08:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any text that's directly copied, but some that is only slightly re-worded. If this were a college term paper I'd say there's plagiarism, but I don't see copyright violations. -Will Beback · † · 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple of examples:

In Vietnam, gunships destroyed more than 10,000 trucks and were credited with many crucial close air support missions. During the Invasion of Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) in 1983, AC-130s suppressed enemy air defense systems and attacked ground forces enabling the successful assault of the Point Salines Airfield via airdrop and air land of friendly forces. The AC-130 aircrew earned the Lt. Gen. William H. Tunner Award for the mission.

During Vietnam, gunships destroyed more than 10,000 trucks and were credited with many life-saving close air support missions. AC-130s suppressed enemy air defense systems and attacked ground forces during Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada. This enabled the successful assault of Point Salines airfield via airdrop and airland of friendly forces.


These heavily-armed aircraft incorporate side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensors, navigation and fire control systems to provide targeted firepower or area saturation fire with the 40 mm cannons. The AC-130 can spend long periods flying over their target area at night and in adverse weather.

These heavily armed aircraft incorporate side-firing weapons integrated with sophisticated sensor, navigation and fire control systems to provide surgical firepower or area saturation during extended periods, at night and in adverse weather.

I simply do not believe that the text differs sufficiently to be considered a separate work. It needs to be rewritten, not tweaked a little here and there. Iridium77 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. -Will Beback · † · 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the factsheet from the US Air Force (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=71) you'll notice much of the globalsecurity.org is taken verbatim from the factsheet. I see nothing wrong with the quote. b24um 22:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J-based gunships

Are they talking about building new AC-130 models based on the new C-130J? Those are supposed to have more range, room, glass cockpits, and better engines. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at this time. The standard C-130 airframe accomplishes the needs of the Air Force and continues to be a usable platform.(No user name, Henley) 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biased discriptions

the article makes reference to "opperatives" responsible for bombings of US embassys. It seems to presume a lot to state this given the men involved have neither made public statements to this affect or received a fair trial. perhaps "alleged" opperatives and "allegedly responsible" would be more appropriate?

Osama Bin Laden in a videotape released following the attacks, claimed responsibility, and numerous people involved who are linked to Al-Quaeda and related groups have been arrested in connection with the bombings. It is the official US government line, and has been so mentioned in US government documentation. It may seem biased, but there seems to be some actual evidence on this one. -- Thatguy96 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to missunderstand me. I am not in any way talking about whether al-quaeda is guilty of attacks or not, rather that we simply can not make such statements given the men involved here have been denied the right to a fair trial or to make a statement regarding their guilt. do you see the problem? osama bin laden may have admitted the attacks and others may have been arrested, but we have no way of tieing that to these men?
At some point we should condense this section further - it gets more words per action than any other engagements. -Will Beback · † · 06:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current deployment

... uh, I dont think this sentance is really what is meant to be here? "The heat signature reduction components alone are a cause of consternation to aircraft mechanics and have become almost legendary among maintenance personnel for their inability to properly diffuse engine exhaust temperatures without warping or cracking." Nfitz 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a little tortuous, but why do you think it's not what's meant? What in particular is wrong with "inability"? (A more straightforward version would probably just be something like "The heat signature reduction components are very prone to warping and cracking", assuming I'm understanding the intent correctly. Alai 06:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Program development

There's absolutely nothing on the development of the AC-130 series, and tons on its service and deployment. I'm not well versed on the aircraft, and I don't have any books on the subject - could someone step up to the plate and write a section on the design, testing, and development of the various models? ericg ✈ 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing details about typical operation / constraints

AFAIR, the AC-130's guns have a very limited tilt range, requiring the aircraft to point it's left wing-tip towards the target. If my memory serves my right, this sort of "unusual behavior" should be noted in the article.

I also missed some "data" about typical altitues during attack runs. AFAIR, the AC-130 isn't quite as maneuverable as a cow (although slightly faster... :-)), so it flies at altitues out of reach of the excpect SAM fire. --217.91.92.94 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as we can find this information in reliable, open sources then it'd be interesting. However there may be information that isn't published in public sources that we don't need to include here. -Will Beback · † · 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
not sure how to link this info in, but there is an AP picture that shows the basics of AC-130 use: http://chronicle.augusta.com/iraq/graphics/weapons_ac130_gunship.gif I also implore people to NOT discuss the operational capabilities/limitations of the AC-130. Several of my friends fly these aircraft and their safety is NOT worth the risk of showing how much you know on the subject. see Security above (No user name, Henley) 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a nice pic, but its copyrighted, so we can not use it here. You could add an external link to it as a reference (or I could do it for you). I agree that all info here needs to be open source and verifiable, not personal 'knowledge'. Thats kind of the point of citing refs I guess! Patrick Berry 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please add the link for me; no idea how to do it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.17.129.22 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
In the AC-130A/E/H the gun mounts are fixed, and the gun tilt angle is never changed. the exception to this is the 105mm gun, as with the blast deflector mounted, it's tube would extend below the bottom of the landing gear, which necessitates cranking down the gun after take-off and cranking it back up prior to landing. Once the correct angle is set, the gun is not reset during flight. Remember, these aircraft were required to fly an "orbit" or "pylon turn" in order to engage a target.
The U-boat is a different matter as the gun mounts are not fixed. The key advantage of this is that the aircraft does not have to fly a fixed, predictable orbit when engating a target. It is also, for the first time, capable of engaging more than one target at a time.
I must also take issue with the sentence in this discussion: so it flies at altitudes out of reach of the excpect SAM fire. The AC-130 certainly does NOT operate at altitudes above SAM range, and RARELY operates at altitudes above most modern AAA range. Spectregunner 01:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As a person who currently flies on the guship I can say operating altitudes vary depending on threat assesments. Since altitudes are based on the threat of being shot at/shot down I won't be discussing what they are. Second, the gunship flies in a lefthand orbit, refered to as a pilon turn, however both H and U model guns (40 AND 105) are situated on trainable mounts, your info is out of date spectregunner. Lastly, the original idea of mounting larger and larger guns on the gunship was to allow it to climb higher to avoid an increasing threat from AAA and SAM systems. However current tactics are intended more for mobile AAA and man portable air defense systems. High caliber AAA and integrated air defense sytems would present far too great a risk for the gunship to enter with out an escort or prior assault. User:b24um 22:48, 3 January 2008

[edit] Popular culture

I really think this should be removed... not only is it not notable, but it's not even an AC-130 in the game, despite being called a "Spectre" Zaku Two 01:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC) - I disagree. I am favor of AC-130s getting the credit they deserve, and inclusion in a major film production certainly qualifies.

Mark Sublette 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be noted that an Ac130 was under the control of the player in Call of Duty 4: Modern Combat, although here the big guns are 110 mm.

General Zhadow, 13:15, 22. January 2008 (GMT)

I agree, they also provided NPC air support on one mission. 69.137.159.158 (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reese Jan. 08

Yeah, and to be honest the AC-130 was a lot more prominent in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare than it was in Transformers. It blew up a ton of stuff for the player and you could later control it for an entire mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.111.229 (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current events and service history

I pared down the longish paragraphs on service history because each operation seemed to have its own sentence stating that the AC-130 did ground attack or support, which is kind of redundant. There are links to each op, so people can go read in depth what happened if they want. With regards to the current events, it didn't make sense to have a whole paragraph for the Somalia attacks when all of the iraq and afghanistan war got one sentence. There is a link to an outside source if people want to know what happened. As it stands, the somalia operation gets lumped in with the other WOT ops.Patrick Berry 17:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing

Why is Boeing listed as a manufacturer of the AC-130? This is explained nowhere in the text at all. - BillCJ 03:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FABULOUS question and it should be explained somewhere or removedBQZip01 05:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Boeing is one of the contracted agencies that modifies the C-130 to an AC-130U. See http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm It is listed as one of the exteral links. How do we link this to the webpage to cite it? This information should be added once a production history segment is added. I have neither the time nor patience nor direct knowledge to write it in a time efficient manner.BQZip01 05:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be the answer, but it wasn't in any of my printed sources. I'll try to check out the link you gave this week, and write something up on it, though if someone beats me to it, I won't mind! - BillCJ 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay - I'm following this thought a bit late, but if it is the consensus of us editor-types that a production history is desired, I will be happy to provide same... Mark Sublette 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On the AC-130U, North American Rockwell (later acquired by Boeing) did the modifications.[1] The Air Force did the modifications on the first AC-130A (added that to article). I'm not sure about the later A and H models. I should add a little on the U model. -Fnlayson 02:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

To whomever made the most recent edits, please do us all a favor and get a screen name so we can converse and discuss the changes made. Figuring that most of the text was copied and pasted from another website, we need a source. Please provide it at your earliest convenience. BQZip01 14:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sole Operator

The AC-130 is not the only actively operated fixed wing gunship.


The Columbian Air Force still operates some of the AC-47 aircraft it was provided in 1988. Reference http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_169.shtml and http://www.hilltoptimes.com/archive/20000803/Commentary/.

Spectregunner 21:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Night Firing Image

I would like to discuss the image and the caption.

First, the caption is misleading because it suggests that the photo is taken during a mission when in fact was taken during training (Note the presence of fuel tanks on the wing pylons and all of the aircraft lighting. AC-130 gunsuhips do not fly with external fuel tanks during combat missions, and they do not fly with their light on, with the exception of the "canned beacon" on the topmost part of the fuselage.

Second, the image has clearly been photoshopped/edited. Note perfect symmetry of the muzzle blast and the uniform underwing flashes in red.

If a better image is needed, feel free to take some from my photo gallery at www.gunships.org. There are better sourced USAF photos there, and better photos that are sourced to other owners.

Spectregunner 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links -- a minor issue

I would like to take minor issue with the link: AC-130A aircraft names, tail numbers and current locations (if applicable), also from the Spectre Association website.

Yes, that is the link, and that is where it came from, however, that material is actually taken (an earlier version, used with permission) from content on my website, specifically: http://www.gunships.org/birds.html

Spectregunner 22:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Having the spectre-association.org page in the External links doesn't directly say anything about your web page. -Fnlayson 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That is not what I am saying. I am pointing out that the page links to an out of date copy of that information on the Spectre Association page, and that the original content (which is also more current) can be found on my website. I have absolutely no issues with the Spectre Association -- if I did I would not have told them that they could use any content they wished from my website.

[edit] Proposed addition

Proposed insertion in Service History as a new second paragraph:

One of the first seven AC-130A aircraft deployed was aircraft 53-3129, named First Lady. This aircraft had the distinction of also being the first production C-130 built. It had its nose shot off in Vietnam when a 37mm shell destroyed everything below the crew deck. In 1975, after the conclusion of US involvement in the hostilities in Indochina, it was transferred to the Air Force Reserve, where it served with the 711th Special Operations Squadron of the 19th Special Operations Wing. In 1980 the aircraft was upgraded from the original three-bladed propellers to the quieter four-bladed propellers and was eventually retired in late 1995. The retirement also marked an end to the Air Force Reserve flying the AC-130A. The aircraft now sits on display in the final Air Force Reserve configuration with grey paint, black markings, the four-bladed Hamilton Standard props at the USAF Armament Museum at Eglin AFB, Florida USA.

The source for this content is twofold. Some comes from http://www.gunships.org/birds.html (my website) and some from a USAF press release on the retirement of the aircraft (which is also reproduced on my website at http://www.gunships.org/1stlady.html)

I can also provide two public domain USAF photos of the First Lady. They are posted at: http://www.gunships.org/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=32&pos=0 is a photo taken over the water firing range off the coast of Florida and http://www.gunships.org/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=32&pos=3 is an early photo taken either in Vietnam or Thailand in the original configuration in the original camouflage paint job. I can upload better resolution images.

(Forgive me if I am doing this incorrectly, I am relatively new to this project and I am opting to be a bit conservative in seeking comment before making significant changes. I haven't found a comfortable spot yet between being bold in editing and seeking consensus on other than straightforward edits. I'm also trying to to use this page to promote my website. Please be gentle.) :)

Spectregunner 06:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture, This statement does not need a reference

There, I referenced the movie (really redundant). This is like saying "In 2003, Jack Smith wrote a book entitled My Life where opined on the cover, 'the best things in life are really ,really free.'" and then referencing the book. Why?!? This is a self-referencing statement. Referencing the book in this instance only adds unneeded bytes to the page. Per wikipedia policy, content must be verifiable. This statement passes that requirement. — BQZip01 — talk 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BillZ BQZ, no one is arguing if it's in the movie, but rather if the "appearance" is "especially notable" (see WP:AIR/PC and WP:MILHIST guidelines, as noted in the hidden disclaimer). The Transformers movie in particular is a subject of great debate in a number of aircraft articles. I can't look right now, but I will check the references to see if they establish notability. If not, the appearance should be removed. - BillCJ 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Your sentence about the "turning point of the movie" is drawing conclusion and was not a slam dunk as you try to imply above. Considering it's a very rare appearance for an AC-130, I say keep it if it is close. -Fnlayson 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it to read as a turning point, not necessarily the turning point.
Interesting tidbit: they were taping this at Holloman AFB and wanted an AC-130 to do some live shots for the movie. I was working in the 16th Special Operations Wing as a Group Executive Officer at the time the request came from the production company. There was an AC-130 already heading to Nellis AFB from Hurlburt Field and Holloman was right along the way. I wrote the memo and fast-tracked it through the appropriate chain to get approval. Two days later, the AC-130 and its crew were in the movie, so I have a little self-interest in getting this in. :-) — BQZip01 — talk 01:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Tell that stroy to a USAF PR person or news outlet, and if they print it, we can add it as a source! (Seriously!) - BillCJ 01:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I can be of help. Their is an acid test of notability for popular culture. The acid test is if a person will associate the object or in this case aircraft with the movie. For example, most people when they hear "Walther PPK" will talk about James Bond, or the F-14 Tomcat and the movie Top Gun (film). One thing to remember though is that the object may be important to the movie, but the movie may not be important to the object.--LWF 01:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of movies with an AC-130 in it (this is the only one I can think of where it was actually featured in any way), I think it is pretty notable. — BQZip01 — talk 03:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Same with me. This is the only fictional appearance for the AC-130 that I can come up with. I've seen it some documentary footage and an episode of Future Weapons but that's it. -Fnlayson 04:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I was the sensor operator on both TDY's and I don't think it's really worth meantioning either. There really wasn't much about it. We orbited for a while around 2k ft while the chase plane flew around us. After we landed we checked into the hotel and went to the bar. I say "THE bar" because that's all the description you'd need to find it. There we met Michael Bay, told him Pearl Harbor sucked and my EWO almost got his ass kicked by Tyrese Gibson. All in all it was unimpressive as far as TDYs go for Spectre. B24UM 2327 CST, 13 Feb 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.26.122 (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Great "war story", but I know that your TDYs are usually much more than a photo op, so the comparison isn't really apples to apples. I agree the usage of the AC-130 was nothing special tactically (if you guys can't maintain an orbit while some hollywood cameraman burns some rolls of film, who can?), but the presence is certainly noteworthy IMHO. As I said before, I'll go with consensus on this one. BTW, looking to get back to hurby pretty soon...I hope. — BQZip01 — talk 06:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)



I think you should include the fact that it features in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Many people will associate the AC-130 gunship with Call of Duty 4.

[edit] Losses

I have reverted the editing out of the seven Spectre losses, and applied Chris Hobson's "Vietnam Air Losses" reference for all the SEA shoot-downs. I personally believe that the loss data is a valid part of this article. Mark Sublette 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 23:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gunship programs

The AC-47D "Spooky" was Gunship I.[2]. According to the museum pages, AC-130 was gunship II,[3] and AC-119 was Gunship III.[4] -Fnlayson 00:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

- Your sources - my bad! -

Mark Sublette 01:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • LOL! Like I added those links for nothing... -Fnlayson 01:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hell - as a committed historian and journalist, I always bow to better intel. "Yours is the superior intellect." - Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan.

Mark Sublette 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wing area

With a wingspan of 132.6 feet a wing area of ~550 would imply the wing is only ~4 feet in depth...clearly THAT isn't right...even a Cessna 172 is deeper than that. It also lines up with the C-130 page. — BQZip01 — talk 04:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction

These words are not notable and read below...

Please do not add the many minor appearances of the aircraft. This section is only for major cultural appearances where the aircraft plays a MAJOR part in the story line, or has an "especially notable" role in what is listed. A verifiable source proving the appearance's notability may be required. Random cruft, including ALL Ace Combat, Video Game appearances, Transformers toyline appearances, Battlefield, and Metal Gear Solid appearances, and ALL anime/cartoon/fiction lookalike speculation, WILL BE removed.

An AC-130 was used in the 2007 movie "Transformers" in the first scene depicting the defeat of the Decepticon Scorponok. This scene featured the AC-130's 105 mm howitzer APFSDS shells and was a turning point in the movie when the humans started to successfully fight back.

That is fiction look a like appearance is fictional due to Transformers is a fictional movie.(TougHHead 06:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

An AC-130 was actually used for filming - that's not fiction, and that is waht is mentioned. Please take a deep breath, and understand what is actually meant by "fictional look-alikes", rather than running around half-cocked because editors believe your additions haven't been notable. It's not personal, so please stop trying to stir up trouble. Thanks. - BillCJ 07:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I am doubtfull about the use of "APFSDS" with the 105 howitzer. Secondly the AC-130 plays a major roll in Call of duty 4 supporting SAS operatives behind enemy lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.43.94 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture (take 2)

If you are going to mention that movie, you might as well mention how you get to use one of these aircraft in call of duty 4. Contralya 02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Appearing in a video game does not mean it is culturally signficant. No need to mention everytime something shows up in a movie or video game. Apparently the transformers reference is notable because an actuall AC-130 was used in filming. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
In Call of Duty 4, I would argue that the AC-130 plays a fairly prominant role, rather than just makes an appearance. An entire mission is devoted to the AC-130 in the game, where the player plays as the AC-130's gun crew to support ground troops with the 25mm vulcan and the bofors. The point of view is from a black and white IR screen within the AC-130, giving a fairly "authentic" experience to the player. I think that this is sufficiently notable to warrent inclusion. - Fearless Son 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the IR sensors are run by a sensor operator, not the gunners, so the realism is a little off. Beyond that, how is it culturally significant? — BQZip01 — talk 06:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
In the game, you ARE the sensor operator - the gunners talk to you over the comms. This will make for one hell of a highlight reel, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.64.11 (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And where are your Reliable, Verifiable sources to attest to its cultural significance? - BillCJ 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Um, it's Call of Duty? Like it or not, it's a major series of video games. Yeah, it's not necessarily completely realistic, nor is it what old-salt avionics types might consider noteworthy, but it's a very decent simulation of how the US Air Force uses them in real life. If you're suggesting that Infinity Ward managed to replicate the experience of gunning from an AC-130 with absolutely no input from the USAF then I'd suggest you read up on how modern video games are produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.249.149 (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a CoD4 forum somewhere that's linking to this page? We're getting a spate of anon edits.--Mmx1 20:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder that myself. Might be time to ask an admin for a one- or two-week semi-protect. - BillCJ 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This does not help WoW forum thread on COD4 -Fnlayson 00:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to cite Transformers as an example, then you HAVE to include CoD 4. If your criteria for judging whether something is worthwile to add is its part in the plot, then CoD 4 should be included. It plays an even bigger role than in Transformers. Nowhere on the page is there even a picture of what the screens even look like, yet CoD 4 allows you to actually BE in CONTROL of the gunner controls. If your criteria is realism, then I don't think any person would authorize the use of the 105mm when friendlies were so close. If your criteria is how much of an apperance the AC 130 makes, then I would say 90% of movie goers had no thought whatsoever about the military hardware involved during that scene, yet 99% of the people who have seen and controlled the AC130 in CoD4 would have thought about the plane and would want to know about it, which is why I searched for this on wikipedia. Vice versa, Im sure people would like information about something that lets you hear and simulate an AC130 ground attack, as opposed to simply knowing that the plane appeared in some movie. maybe it doesnt fit under popculture or should be under trivia. talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.205.43 (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree to an extent; this isn't like Ace Combat where dozens of types of aircraft appear, the AC-130 plays a distinct, important role that has made it much more well-known. I think that the increased interest in this page (albeit problematic) just goes to show that. ZakuTalk 03:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The difference between the Transformers film (not the cartoons or comics, mind you) and CoD4 is that actual USAF C-130s were used in the filming. That's what makes the movie appearance notable, tho marginally so. Is the Transformers appearance culturally significant? I don't think that's been proven yet either. However, I have no problem deleting the entire section, as I don' like the Pop-culture section anyway, as they aren't really about the aircraft. It's just a way that some gamers delude themselves into thinking they are actually contributing to the article, when it's really just unimportant fluff. - BillCJ (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The constant attempts to add minor pop culture sh*t just cracks me up! Mark Sublette (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk)

I've got this article on my watch list and I've lost track of how many times (seemingly different) editors have sought to add a reference to the game. While the movie is popular so is the game. I just don't see a good reason to include one but not the other. I've seen the move and the plane is only on-screen for moments. I haven't seen the game but I hear it has a major "part". I suggest that we either delete them both or include them both. My preference is for deleting them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually would like ALL pop culture removed from aircraft articles, so I'm with you on deleting both from here. However, the general consensus in Wikipedia is to allow some items, within certain limits such as notability. Notability is proven/attested to by reliable sources, which the Transformers item has, but the CD4 (yes,I know the gamers write it as "CoD 4", but I'm not a gamer!) does not, and I sincerely doubt it can. The USAF and others have made a big deal of the Transformers film using real aircraft, and the "big deal" is exactly what "notability" involves. So as long as pop culture items are allowed on the page, the Transformers mention qualifies. But if someone were to hold a poll to remove all the pop culture mentions, I'd definitely support it! - BillCJ (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Transformers appearance is also a rare appearance of an AC-130 gunship in film. C-130 are common in film, but the gunship is not. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The AC-130 IS a major theme in call of duty 4. I wouldn't have known there was such a plane if I had never played the game Foreeye (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no it isn't, it is included in one level and in the call of duty article im fairly certain i added the only mention of a AC-130 today in the Call of duty 4 article. The Ac-130 isnt a major theme infantry combat, ICBMs, and coups are major themes of the game the Ac-130 is not. BonesBrigade 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to be too condescending Foreeye, but your limited knowledge on the subject does not make this a significant occurrence. I personally own the game and have played it. As someone who has some experience in the AFSOC community, I must admit that it is pretty realistic in some respects (delay from trigger pull to impact, black & white thermal screen, etc.). That said, I don't think it is culturally significant, which is the standard here. The Transformers movie, IMHO, does impact the popular view of the gunships and was seen by millions worldwide. In the video game, you play a small role (actually you play small ROLES) in the gunship. Either way, the consensus at this time is to leave it out in this article. It certainly is appropriate as a link in the Call of Duty 4 article. — BQZip01 — talk 23:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over pop culture references

Hi all - I've locked this page until some kind of consensus can be built about what pop culture references (if any) should be included in this article. Anonymous editors (those without accounts here) are still free to contribute to the discussion (but it would be better if you create an account (Why?)) This constant to-and-fro'ing is not very constructive and we need to see some firm agreement between the contributors to this article about what it should or should not contain. --Rlandmann (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear given it's anon's who've been adding and a litany of registered and regular aviation editors who've reverted these edits. Ixnay on the CoD4. --Mmx1 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps; but like it or not, anons have a right to edit here too. This process is intended to get both sides talking and see if there might be some position that's acceptable to most people, "anons" and registered editors alike. Of course, if they're not willing to participate in constructive discussion and consensus-building, that tells us something too. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What does it tell you? Because personally, my unwillingness to participate in constructive discussion is really apathy. Is it worth a discussion to me? No. I tried adding a little contribution, but honestly it was a crazy fluke I came back and saw the discussion page. Most anonymous editors won't discuss, because they see something small, change it, and move on. No need to review the discussion every single time for them/me. And to me, that tells me something about this issue - that alot of people see this inclusion, and think that it's an oversight. If their friend asked them to name appearances of the plane in pop culture, they'd cite CoD4. That tells me something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.3.106 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It tells me you want something included, but aren't willing to discuss it with anyone else and reach a consensus. This really isn't any better than edit warring.
As for the CoD 4 inclusion, it is the first time I've seen a game of any kind include an opportunity to fire from a gunship. If this is true, then it could merit some mention. Any subsequent inclusions should be mentioned in the format, "CoD 4 was the first game to prominently feature an AC-130 gunship, and other games, including X, Y , and Z, followed suit [anything more than three is unnecessary and the citation then should be changed to "other games followed suit."]. That said, I don't think it needs to be included and am willing to go with consensus here, whatever that may be. — BQZip01 — talk 07:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is how I see it. CoD 4 is very popular right now and a lot of people are playing it and coming here afterwards to learn about the interesting aircraft featured. One of the easiest contributions to make is a in pop culture section and Wikipedia used to be full of them so some people see the lack there of on this page as a problem and add the reference. This is why the ref keeps getting put back in. I don't see this as an indication that the CoD reference is notable, when CoD 4 isn't the hotest game on the shelves I have a feeling that the problem will go away. CoD 4 is not focused on AC-130s it is just a part of the game. Link to AC-130 from the CoD 4 page but not visa versa. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I too don't think it's a noteable appearance as the AC-130 does not play a major role in this game. We can't list every game that has this or that aircraft available for a mission or just flying around. Please also read the WP:Air pop culture general policy. --Denniss (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with the last couple of editors, Also, pop-culture guidelines are pre-existing in both MILIHIST and WP:AIR. My attempts and those of others here have been to conform the article TO the guidelines. THat's the pre-existing consensus. I really can't see how this is a "content dispute" in that sense. Some IP users have discussed the situation here, but none have been able to sway the already-established consensus on the issue, and few have really tried. As to the comment If their friend asked them to name appearances of the plane in pop culture, they'd cite CoD4.I'd put it another way: If their friends mentioned the AC-130, they would reply, "Oh, I played that on CD4!" I honestly doubt many people would come to the AC-130 page looking for what game it was played it, but I can definitely see the reverse being true. ANd that's how it should be. - BillCJ (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with BQzip it's worth a mention. The level "Death from above" in the CoD4MW was very effective in terms of setting the atmosphere of what looked like a reel coming straight from military archives. Thats what makes people keep Editing it. maybe other games will feature more of this since so many people thought it is "ground breaking". As for the Transformers, well I wasn't interested in looking it up as much as when I played it in the Game. Advisor (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's be careful in categorizing what I said. I said I'd go with consensus, not that it should be mentioned. It must meet certain criteria IAW WP:CONSENSUS. — BQZip01 — talk 18:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Understood. BTW I remembered another game that feature what seams to be a futuristic version of the spectre, Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour. Not that I'm suggesting it should be included. I don't think it should actually. But this would go in favor of the people who don't want to include COD4:MW Ref as this will open a whole new door, and someone will demand another reference and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advisor (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Besides the AC130 gunship being playable in Command and Conquer Generals and COD4, both of these games are pre-dated by MANY combat flight simulators which feature them as non-playable friendlies/enemies, as well as Desert Combat, which allowed 5 people to fly in a single AC130, one piloting, and 4 firing the various weapons. But really, none of that crap belongs in an encyclopedia. When a game solely about the ac130 gunship is made, then that is notable enough to add. Anons, stop adding crap, and admins unlock the damn page.64.230.4.137 (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's been a while since anyone has added anything to the discussion, and there seems to be a pretty clear consensus to leave the CoD material out, so I'm unprotecting the page as requested. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that a consensus can be assumed when editors keep adding it. The popular sentiment seems to be to include a mention. It's only a few editors on this talk page who are opposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 21:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How insulting! Comparing drive-by IPs crufters to long-term editors who are working to abide by policy is utterly ridiculous. Let me be clear: IP users do have the right to participate in discussion, but only one or two have. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, and as an admin you should know better than that. Vandalism is popular on many pages; are you supporting vandalism now too? Both are against policy, but are popular. - BillCJ (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding content in good faith is not vandalism. We've made an arbitrary decision that movie cruft is allowed but game cruft is forbidden. Half the edits to this article seem to be about that game. More than half of the comments to this talk page are over whether to add it or delete it. I just see any good reason to go to such lengths to avoid mentioning the game. Include a sentence or two about the game would not harm the article at all, would result in a more stable article, and would quiet the endless debates here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding unsourced non-notable content ALWAYS harms an article, otherwise it wouldn't be against policy. Try spinning this info off to a sub-page, and see how long it lasts before it's AFDed! And I wasn't comparing cruft to vandalism, but popularity of things against policy. If you don't like the policy on notability, get it changed. Until then, cruft doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - BillCJ (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I can understand your what's the harm point. That's the way I see things a lot. Letting this game can open up the door for more and more stuff though. I'll abide by what the consensus is though. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What stuff? There aren't dozens of mentions of the AC-130 in popular culture. Compared to an F-16 or a B-2 this is a relatively obscure aircraft. I don't think the article will be flooded just because one more major cultural reference is added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, probably not for the AC-130, but true for many articles on fighters and such. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the rub: this isn't a major cultural refernce. ANd I promise you this: It won't solve the problem, because other editors will remove it, regardless of the concensus. We've seen this on the F-15 page when 3 Transformers were allowed. I abided by the consensus to keep it there too, but eventually we got the consensus changed to remove it. The best course is to follow existing policy, and enforce it. That isn't always fun or popular, but it is what an admin is supposed to do. - BillCJ (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Transformers isn't a major cultural reference either - it's a few seconds of screen time. If that reference weren't included there wouldn't be a "popular culture" section and editors would make the logical assumption that references in popular culture are part of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me be clear, Will: I know the policices governing content such as this are subject to interpretation. We both have every right to our interpretations. However, guidelines have been developed by WPAIR and MILHIST to help avoid situations like this, based on content policy. Notices are posted in the article, very lenghty ones, asking for those wishing to add contnet to duscuss it first. Almost none of the IPs adding COD4 do that. How is that constructive? Should we allow those who don't even have the courtesy to follow requests to add content anyway, and treat them as constructive users? I don't believe so. Of course, part of the reason they don't follow instructions is that gamers are functionally illiterate! (J/k, but it sure seems that way!) Anyway, again, I'll follow the consensus, whatever it is. - BillCJ (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the guidelines you've listed that calls for including a few seconds of screen time but excluding a segment of a video game. Which text in particular are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not in the guidelines; it's in WP:N: The Transformers film appearances has souces regarding it's notability as a rare film appearance, and the use of real aircraft supplied by the USAF. But, I don't have a problem with that being taken out either. I'm not for any pop-culture appearances whatsoever, because they aren't actually about the aircraft. But we had to compromise and let it in, because they supplied sources proving notability. No you want us to let one in without any sources proving notability, but because it's popular, and on the assumption there aren't anymore games with the AC-130. I hope your right. Experience tells me you're not, and that your solution will cause more problems than you're attempting to solve. Anyway, I think we're both aware of the other's position, and we're not going to get any further arguing this out. I'm done here. - BillCJ (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CoD4 inclusion

Well, let's see how many people believe it should be removed versus how many people think a CoD4 reference should stay. Note, this is simply a vote to make it more clear if there is or is not a consensus. — BQZip01 — talk 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is based on WP:Air/PC, WP:MILMOS and Wikipedia:Notability policies, not just people's opinions. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A user has requested comment on science or mathematics for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCsci list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

[edit] Keep CoD4 reference

  1. The material on the video game has been added dozens of times by apparently different users. The material is harmless and obviously many folks would like to see it in the article. I don't particularly care, but I hate to see folks wasting their time fighting against something that's harmless at worst and which may actually be helpful. Keeping it out doesn't improve the article. By comparison, I get 71,800 ghits for [AC-130] alone, 44,300 ghits for [AC-130 "Call of Duty"], 7,250 ghits for [AC-130 transformers]. So the crude "ghits" reading is that the game reference is mentioned on the Web several times more often than the movie reference. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Keep - COD4 was a very popular video game and sold very well. I hate to say this, but anonymous edits do count for something to. People are adding content they feel should be included, and they aren't being vandals. Heck, when I first saw this page I was going to add the COD4 mention myself - until I found the page was hard protected. Speaking of - a semi-prot - yes. But a full-prot? No. I think thats a little extreme, should be downgraded. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: As the admin who protected it, I'll just point out my reasons. I agree with you that this is a content dispute, not vandalism, and protection policy demands that semi-protection must not be used to settle content disputes. If I felt that the anons were vandalising the page, then semi-protection would be an option. Furthermore, for whatever reasons, the dispute here is mostly between registered editors wanting to keep the reference out, and anons wanting to add it in. Protection policy specifically disallows semi-protection under circumstances such as these (since it could be construed to unfairly privilege registered users). --Rlandmann (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Fair 'nuff. You are, of course, correct. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Also I'd like to point out that COD4 is the #3 on the best selling 360 games for 2007 here, it has sold 1.5mil+ copies, and is expected to outsell halo 3 here. While its impossible to directly compare a major motion picture and a video game - Transformers is noted because its a blockbuster movie - COD4 seems darn close as video games go to being a "blockbuster". --ShakataGaNai (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    Just because a topic is notable does not mean every single component is notable. The Transformers mention is heavily backed up by articles and is notable in its own right as per WP:WEIGHT. The presence of an AC-130 in COD4 is trivia. Would you also include every single firearm that appears in the game on their respective articles? --Scottie_theNerd 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Keep I think that if some users want to restrict the pop-culture references to avoid adding every sighting, then the CoD4 reference is MUCH more deserving to stay than the Transformers one. I think that CoD4 is just about the only game(certainly of any recent ones) where you can fly an AC-130U. Owning the game, I can say that it is probably the mission that is the most fun. I know personal experiences don't mean much on wikipedia, but I was dissapointed when I say that there was only the Transformers blurb in the popular culture section. It is just as deserving, if not more, than the Transformers, and I can assure you that no one who own a copy of CoD4 would disagree. Erik212 (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    You do not fly an AC-130 in COD4, and this argument is about the relevance of COD4 in respect to the AC-130 article, not about how great COD4 or its AC-130 gunner mission is. And if it matters to you, I own the game and I disagree with keeping the note on the article. --Scottie_theNerd 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yes you do fly an AC-130 Gunship in Call of Duty 4. I have a Video up dictating that Mission, which is right here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldking666 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Actualy no you dont, your a thermal imager operator i belive. You fly ON a AC-130 in call of duty 4. There is a differnce. BonesBrigade 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    The point is, you're ON an AC-130U, which is a subject of the current article. Erik212 (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    You are the thermal imaging TV operator which, even if that position does not, fires all the guns(2 25mm gating gus,2 bofors cannons, and 1 105mm cannon which is odd because I did not see that configuration on the list) as firesupport for troops below. It is, in my opinion, a much larger reference than the transformers one and deserves to be there.Psycholian (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment- That brings the notability issue back into play. So you're on it, and this is the AC-130 article. That's not a convincing argument in my mind for mentioning it. From the video linked, while fun, it appears to be a dressed up rail shooter sequence, so from a game design standpoint is pretty old hat. That the level design was blatantly lifted from widely circulated footage from Afghanistan presents the only valid argument for inclusion, and even then the notability of this is debatable. Of course the Call of Duty games are known for their ability to life from popular media (see the Enemy at the Gates and Saving Private Ryan-esque sequences in the original game), and this shows a transition to lifting from publicly available real life footage. Notability isn't defined as how many google hits or how many references in popular culture or how many gamers come to wikipedia for some odd reason hoping that it will be mentioned in this article (Why does it even matter on that level? Wouldn't you want to come here and look the other way around, and not worry that your favorite game isn't linked in an article about the real life aircraft?). The notability of the transformers connection comes from the publicity surrounding the fact that the US military decided to provide real support to the production of the movie, meaning that a real AC-130 was used for those shots. The military actually deciding to get involved in a major motion picture is notable in my mind. That you play a rail shooter level in CoD4 is not. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Keep - If you want to remove the Call of Duty 4 reference, might as well remove the Call of Duty 2 reference in the Pointe du Hoc article while we're at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.84.94 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Go ahead and propose that on the Pointe du Hoc article. I would argue against it: media interpretations and portrayals of historical events are typically notable enough for mention. The inclusion of one aircraft in a single mission in a game is trivial compared to the re-creation of a military operation. Mentioning that "Call of Duty 4 has a AC-130" is as trivial as "Call of Duty has a T-34 tank in it" or "Call of Duty: United Offensive has a B-17 in it". You might also note that COD4 has M1 Abrams tanks in it; M4 carbine SOPMOD and even a nuclear bomb. It's true, they are part of the game, but including them as popular culture references goes against WP:NPOV because they do no represent a significant portion of their respective topics. If there was an entire game based on controlling an AC-130 gunship, that would be a clear indication of notability. --Scottie_theNerd 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - I'd also like to point out that if this detail flies, all 50 aircraft in Ace Combat 5 would also be subject to addition to each individual article as popular culture, which would seem highly unnecessary. Instead, Ace Combat 5 articles link to the appropriate aircraft from their article, as the reverse point mentioned is not important. We could also relate this to a pencil. Let's say a pencil appeared in CoD4. Writing about CoD4 in popular culture would seem quite odd, given the importance, but if the pencil were important in the main game, such as if it theoretically saved the world from destruction, then it would feature a prominent sub article, as well as a link to the pencil article, but not vice versa. Compassghost (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - I believe Scottie_theNerd and Compassghost are using reductio ad absurdum logic. Sure you can argue that if you allow this AC-130 article to reference CoD4, then every reference to every gun, aircraft, etc. in every major video game should be included as well. Of course, this has not occurred because in the minds of the the general public, not every reference is notable. The reason why those other references don't get mentioned is because every other period game has a T-34 tank or a M1A1 tank. But CoD4 is the first game (at least, major game)to let simulate an AC130. The fact that is not a major part of the game does not mean that the event itself is not notable in being a seminal event. The fact that this page had to be locked because multiple, independent people wanted the inclusion of the fact speaks volumes about its importance in the public eye. To keep Wikipedia truly anti-elitist, it should be up to the majority of the public, even if anonymous, not just its users. --- Bubbachuck (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Keep. This is a silly argument. It does absolutely no harm to have it listed in a pop culture section if in fact the article is going to have one. Since pop-culture sections are a part of WP, and they ain't going anywhere (common knowledge) it might as well be included here, including the COD4 reference. Right now the entire article has been locked down because of this debate, therefore limiting its growth and contribution. I really don't care if the COD4 reference is there or not, but even if the material was removed, its going to show back up again. Meanwhile, the lock is preventing contributions. End this debate and unlock the article already, should have never been locked to begin with. COD4 info is going to be there, like it or not, and maybe it should because it has popularized this aircraft. It has made people (particularly young folks) interested in it, and that's great news! -- Trippz (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - I think there's been a fair amount of arguments to suggest that it will in fact cause harm, and set a precedent of inundating non-notable appearances of anything within media, something that led to popular culture sections in various weapon and aircraft articles because fans tried to add in instances they for whatever reason wanted to see. The popular culture section in the Minigun article for instance was bigger than the information about the actual weapon. I still find it interesting that gamers come here and go to the AC-130 page and are upset that CoD4 is not mentioned on it. I would think those people you mention who are more curious now would be sated by going to the CoD4 article or just reading the AC-130 article. It seems unreasonable to me to change this precedent just for them and the consensus at least at the current point seems to agree. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Is the popular culture reference for Transformers necessary, either? I mean, it's not like it was an actual transforming object. It was just a plane that got a few minutes of screen time. The F-117 in Executive Decision got more screen time than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compassghost (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    The way its currently in there? No. If it was a description of the publicity surrounding the US government decision to provide real technical assistance to the movie then yes. I would wholeheartedly agree in removing the transformer's reference in its current form or rewriting it to show its notability and relevance. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    My point is, that for the time being, I think that this particular reference will continue to be placed into the article by well meaning people. Even if the the Pop-Culture section is removed there is a good chance someone will decide to drop it into the article anyway, somehow feeling they are contributing. Even if there is a consensus that it be removed (judging from this discussion there is not) its just going to show up again. Meanwhile, why has the article has been locked over this? The only reason I'm even writing this is not because of a like or dislike for COD4, but because I wanted to know why this article was locked. As mentioned, this is a minor content issue and does not require a frozen page. Who knows, maybe someone wants to put non-COD related info in, but can't. As for precedent, it has already been made time and time again in WP. Pop-culture section are everywhere, they aren't going anywhere, and frankly sometimes they are helpful, related to the subject, and interesting. As far as I know there is nothing according to WP guidelines prohibiting them (discouraged is a more appropriate term, and more often attached to strictly trivia sections). Project guidelines do not determine if Pop-C sections are permitted, for all I know there may be a "pop-culture project" out there. My suggestion is to just allow the section, then after the hub-bub has passed (gamers are not known for their long attention spans before moving to the next game), then just remove the section if it is that big of a bother to some editors. Place a disclaimer referencing this discussion and if it appears again, let it ride for a bit longer, then try a dump again. There is no need to enter an edit war over a fairly trivial matter. I don't think WP is going to grind to a halt because of Pop-c sections. But more importantly, unlock the article and allow it to breathe. It doesn't need to be mothered this much. Think about it, these types of locks are far more harmful to this article and WP then a silly pop-c section, which depending upon your reading habits, you may already just bypass. Trippz (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with you - if the article were to be unlocked, the CoD4 reference would be replaced very quickly (as happened last time it was unlocked) and then removed again just as quickly (again what happened last time). That's what an edit war is; hence the reason why I'm disinclined to unlock it until there's some mutually acceptable solution worked out (if that's even possible). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Keep - In Call of Duty 4 a full mission is devoted to the AC-130, and dialogue clearly indicates such, as does dialogue from the SAS ground team in the previous mission, when you're playing as infantry. Transformers doesn't identify the plane other than one of the marines calling for 'Spooky-Three-Two.' As far as relative importance goes it's appearance in CoD4 is far more significant than the three seconds of filming time that Spooky 3-2 gets in transformers. And to use some other guys point about CoD4 - The idea of saying that including the reference is silly because it's like; 'CoD4 Featured an AC-130', well consider it logically; 'Transformers featured an AC-130' sounds the same in essence - popular fiction using a fancy plance with a large gun. So given that relatively, the AC-130 was more important to CoD than it was to transformers, they should both be included, or both deleted. And contrary furthur to the AC-130 being a minor part of CoD4, it is actually quite significant, since it's what gets the SAS team out of Russia alive, the same team that locates and disables the nuke later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.107.1 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: - the distinction drawn by others (see above and below) is that a real AC-130 was used for the making of the Transformers film; as such, this appearance constitutes part of the operational history of the type (a minor part, of course). However, the same cannot be said to be true of the depiction of an AC-130 in CoD4. I'm not saying that I agree with that position; but I'm trying to clarify the issue somewhat. I guess the game equivalent would have been if it could be said that the USAF or Lockheed-Martin participated in creating the computer model that was used. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: The distinction being drawn above is primarily in-universe and exaggerated. The AC-130 mission is not a "full" mission. It is a single level added to the end of a mission. The Transformers reference has clearly established notability and cites several articles to prove it -- and I imagine that more than three seconds of filming time were put into the AC-130's role (in comparison to screen time). The AC-130 is just one plane in a game that features dozens of locations, firearms and vehicles. The same would be true for Transformers if not for the fact that there are no less than four referenced articles. --Scottie_theNerd 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Keep with caveat for general "Pop Culture" disputes - The level with the AC-130 action figures significantly into the plot and theme of CoD4. It is not the main focus of a mission (a double standard some of you are asking for), but is a valid and notable reference. The game showcases advancements in warfighting, among which the AC-130 qualifies. It also demonstrates cooperation between two differing military branches: that of the special operations unit, and that of an air support crew. Great care was obviously taken to simulate the gunship's operating environment, from the weapons interface to the chatter among the crew. To my knowledge no comparable experience exists elsewhere in the entertainment world. —Nahum Reduta (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Keep: Pop culture can change fairly quickly, Wikipedia can change just as quickly. This is clearly notable, and is important information currently. If this article were being frozen for a hard bound or DVD version of WP it would be a less likely inclusion. WP evolves, just as an encyclopedia from the 1800s would contain many non-notable entries to today's reader, the Call of Duty 4 reference will likely not be notable 10 years from now. The necessity to combat pop-culture creep is also relevant. However this is a highly notable level from one the year's most popular games. Most every game reviewer has mentioned the AC 130 level, very few have mentioned levels involving a tank because the AC 130 level is considered fun and innovative. This appears to be a battle with too many people seeing black and white when what is needed are some shades of grey. Lastly, some users seem to be mentioning that anons are adding the content to the article and registered users are removing it. Who adds it is completely irrelevant to the discussion from a WP perspective. We can easily discern that these edits were not vandalism, and were made in good faith, therefore account status does not matter. If it does matter to someone here, I will add the info myself (this, of course, changes nothing but some people seem to think it matters). --BHC (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I can see it being described as "fun" by game reviewers, but "innovative"? I watched the linked video and while I would agree that it would undoubtedly be fun to play that segment, its just a dressed up rail shooter. That you have control over the FLIR as to whether its "white hot" or "black hot" and can select any of the three weapon systems isn't exactly innovative either. I just feel like the standard for notability cannot be that its "fun" and from a game design standpoint its not very innovative in my mind. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: It's a fair enough point that it may not be innovative. That said, innovation is not a need for inclusion. But for whatever reason that the level is often mentioned it certainly is mentioned. As I mentioned before Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and for the time being this is notable enough for inclusion. I'm less worried about it on this article than I would be on another more esoteric one, it's clear that there are a number of people who care for and maintain this article, so I imagine when appropriate the information can be removed. Remember WP is made to be read today, we aren't writing the Bible. --BHC (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. Keep: I went to this page after playing Cod4. That the junk movie Transformers is mentioned instead is an insulted. Fvdham (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Keep: It's just as valid an appearance as a 30-second spot in a film, despite User:Thatguy96's pop-culture jihad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.135.138.40 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Keep: as per my comments above to User:4.246.84.94. I don't buy the fact that Transformers using a real AC-130 whereas CoD4 does not makes a difference. Hollywood and the military pair up all the time. Think of before there was CGI, movies had to use real fighter jets right? Who is going to be providing the fighter jets used in Top Gun? Other movies featuring aircraft that come to mind featuring military collaborations: Black Hawk Down and The Rock. The fact that Transformers used a real AC-130 is not any more notable than CoD4 featuring an AC-130, moreso if it wasn't even the first time. Since the AC-130 came out in the 1960's, I'm sure other movies have shown AC-130s and I'm sure that the military cooperated...how else are you going to film AC-130s?? I've read about cases where the military withdraws it's support if the movie shows it in an unfavorable light...more evidence of the mundane nature of the cooperation. -- Bubbachuck (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep You guys are being pretty gay about this saying its not significant. More people will have searched for a AC-130 gunship on wikipedia from it appearing in Call of Duty 4, than from transformers. Many people had not even heard of the AC-130 gunship until its appearance in Call of Duty. The fact that people are trying to discredit the significance Call of Duty has had on the awareness of the public of AC-130 is not on. You should be ashamed of yourself wikipedia.

Keep For what it's worth, I enjoyed both the Transformers movie and CoD4, but it was CoD4 that led me me to the Wikipedia article. As I got to the bottom, the lack of a reference to CoD4 struck me as a pretty glaring oversight, especially given that I saw Transformers pretty recently and never even realized there was an AC130 in it. So I was about to edit the CoD4 reference in when I noticed the messages about this debate. I'm firmly in the "keep" camp. In CoD4 the AC130 is the focus of what's easily the most memorable and cinematic stage in the game. I'm reading lots of irrelevent gameplay criticism, about the level being too linear and a "glorified rail shooter" and maybe there is validity to those complaints, but that has precisely zero impact on the fact that this by far the single most significant, lengthy, and detailed appearance of the AC130 in pop culture, in any format, ever. Either include it or remove the entire section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.18.131 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove CoD4 reference

  1. — BQZip01 — talk
  2. It's just one choice in the game, not like an entire game/simulator on the AC-130. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. - BillCJ (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Remove -- it is not a notable component of COD4, consisting of only one short mission. Popular culture references should be significant in themselves rather than "This game has [plane] in it". --Scottie_theNerd 06:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC) - Funnily enough, "This movie has [plane] in it," - sounds exactly the same.
  5. In regards to this, I had done the same thing for the DDX Project, a US Navy ship being developed, having appeared in two separate games. As part of the clean-up process, the popular culture section was removed. I agree with the fact that, unless it plays a major portion of the game, it should not be mentioned. As it does not, it really isn't necessary. Compassghost (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. The thing is Will, harmless information can actually be quite harmful. You see when you let seemingly small useless bits of information stay, it's sets a precedent saying "it's ok to stick anything here" and before you know it all our articles with be full of every game appearance of any plane (which will be unverified and full of OR) etc etc. Do you see what I mean? It'll lower our standards. On the other hand an encyclopaedia is meant to have information in it. However I feel COD4 doesn't feature this plane enough to warrant it's mention (I'd only warrant a AC-130 simulator). There's an interesting essay here about this sort of thing. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
    No need to reply, but this comment reeks of elitism. Many articles are already saturated with useless details, but this isn't one of them. It may not be a full mission, but the experience is unrivaled. This is not a matter of "one more weapon". Its role in battle is placed prominently in its proper context. And as a support craft, I don't expect a full simulation to ever be made beyond what is offered in CoD4. —Nahum Reduta (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. It's unnecessary to add in a COD4 reference here. I share the same viewpoint as Scottie_theNerd. Micxiao (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Delete Yes, I changed my vote. I'm getting to the opinion that most pop-culture references should go. Especially when they are covered in other articles (in this case COD4). Duplication is a waste of time and bytes. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Delete - As per my comments above. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Remove - I believe a similar precedent was already established to keep "in popular culture" references out of firearm articles, which may apply to military vehicles are well. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Remove, keeping such a non-notable appearance would open a can of worms. --Denniss (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Delete - had similar situation for the Chevy Corvette. Soon, the "in popular culture section" was so large that I moved it to its own article." A number of months later, someone nominated it for AfD, where no real good reason could be found to keep it, and lots of reasons were found to delete it: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:TRIVIA, and falls into the category of "loosely linked and indiscriminate trivia". In short, these types of listing don't really contribute to the understanding of a topic, and as someone in the above mentioned AfD said, "An encyclopedia is not the place to document each time [something] is seen..."—Mrand T-C 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Would you also support the deletion of the brief appearance of the plane in a movie? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yes. The only exception I can think of: if it was doing something especially unusual and notable in that movie that had never been done before, or if that is all the movie was about. In these cases, it would probably deserve a full sentence or two about it in the article (i.e., not part of a bulleted Trivia/In-pop-culture list - turn it into article text).—Mrand T-C 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Dammit! I find that I am of two minds, here. I have been logging C-130 history on the Wiki for years now, and I have watched the ebb and flow of this particular issue right along. One one hand, I have previously sided with the keep-it-out faction, and the comments by the Corvette Club historian (comments above) carry precedence, and resonance. But, on the other hand, is it really worth all of our time and effort to try to keep stamping out a reference that OBVIOUSLY a lot of anonymous, as opposed to vandalous, users would like to see there? Perhaps we should look at popular opinion on this one, or, as we used to elect the king and queen of Bengal Ball at Clemson, "by acclamation". If the above-stated claim that this game is 3rd in popularity, that's no small potatoes in the video game world. Let's be real, here. As for incidental inclusion of random airplanes in articles - I immediately nominate the C-54 in the "Glen Miller Story" that Jimmy Stewart gets on. Y' see wot kinda can of worms THAT would open up?? My two cents - Mark Sublette (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Remove - per all of the above. Nothing looks worse in a very good article that video game crap. Get rid of the movie reference while you are at it if you wish.--Looper5920 (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Remove. Have the CoD4 & Transformers guys link to it from their respective pages and be done with it. I own the game, watched the movie and fly the gunship. Don't know if that carries any weight, but I feel neither article has any merit being on this page. If you felt the need to add something at most I'd just link it to the movie and game pages with nothing else added. I'm with MRand, I consider the addition a waste of space which contributes absolutly nothing to the article. B24um (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Remove I also suggest that we delete the reference on the Transformers--BirdKr (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swap-out low res photo

{{editprotected}} I propose we swap out the low resolution edited photo for the high-res, factually correct original photo.

Smoke visible from gatling gun during twilight operation.(current one)
Smoke visible from gatling gun during twilight operation.(current one)
Smoke visible from a gatling gun during twilight operation. (higher res)
Smoke visible from a gatling gun during twilight operation. (higher res)

PrometheusAvV (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Sure. Even if they weren't versions of the same picture, the latter one is better choice. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Done --Rlandmann (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
An AC-130 fires its flares off.
An AC-130 fires its flares off.

Also, I've found a nice one to add to the article. PrometheusAvV (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Where would you like this one to go? And with what caption? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

The reference to the PGM-38/U ammunition is in error. This ammunition is not in use on the AC-130 gunships. Also if the ammunition were in use it would be designated PGU-38/U not PGM-38/U. ATK did not succeed in fielding this ammo in the Air Force. Also, the M793 ammo is not used on the gunships, actually none of the Air Force cannon ammo is traced.--137.241.250.100 (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference (me, congizant engineer for Air Force 25mm and 40mm ammo)If you don't believe my credentials check the IP address location —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.241.250.100 (talk • contribs)

I agree with this proposal for the reason that this section seems to run in contradiction to the previous "Upgrades" section where it states: "The 25 mm GAU-12/U and 40 mm Bofors are to be replaced with two Mk 44 Bushmaster II 30 mm cannons.[11]" If the weapons are being replaced, then ammunition that has been proposed would appear irrelavent. It would make sense to include this in an article on the GAU-12, but not here. Complicating matters is the dead link for the upgrade referrence. In the very least, these two sections (upgrades and pgm-38...) should be "reworked" to support each other, rather then call attention to the PGM-38 section by compelling the reader to wonder why it's there.Nwilde (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
See reference 10 in the armament section of the specifications. That link still works. I'm not sure why the Strategy Pages article was used over the USAF article in the second instance. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of the Transformer reference

While we're maintaining that Call of Duty 4 should not be mentioned, shall we remove the reference to Transformers also? If not, I'm wondering the reason behind the consensus to let it remain. --BirdKr (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The consensus behind letting it stay was that it was an interesting example of government cooperation with a major motion picture. That being said, how its currently worded doesn't reflect that or make the point, so as I've already said, while I think it could be made to fit, in its current format it should be deleted just like the CoD4 reference. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If that's the reason, then I won't mind that being referenced, but so far we having something of a mini-summary of the "heroic AC-130 using its gun to save humanity from robotic aliens" (sarcasm). --BirdKr (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a draft of the Pop Culture:

"The AC-130 was prominently featured in the movie Transformers. It was one of the instances in which the Department of Defense and Hollywood cooperated with each other for the production of a film for the interests and benefits of each party"[1]

--BirdKr (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair description to me. --Scottie_theNerd 08:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll call out the almighty "editprotected" tag.--BirdKr (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me -- Thatguy96 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should delete the Transformers mention too. The above !voting includes several opinions against it, even though it wasn't explicitly being debated. The DoD cooperates with many films, and as long as we include one popular culture item folks will keep wanting to insert others. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What would be the problem there? Does it not fufil the "notable" criteria that a government would cooperate in the production of a major motion picture? Surely more so than the "Its fun" and "You get to [unrealistically] operate the weapon systems of an AC-130 in this game" in my mind. I think including every instance of US government support in a motion picture in popular culture sections is more worthwhile than including every instance where a weapon system appears in a computer game. Those popular culture sections would quickly dwarf articles, as happened in the Minigun article.
Furthermore if you go and actually read the commentary above the only concensus is among the AC-130 supporters that the CoD4 reference is somehow better because its got more google hits, or that either both should stay or both should go. Only one user has commented for the removal of the Transformers reference just because. I don't call that concensus. The inclusion of the reference is also defended by a number of people outright as being significantly different in terms of notability than the CoD4 refernece. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep both the transformer and cod4 references. I came here because i recognized the name. they are relevant atributions to the popular culture paragraph and taking them out would be pointless.tattat44

The government cooperates with numerous motion pictures, and has since before WWII. UNlike Top Gun in which the plane is a significant part of the movie, in this case the plane appears of mere moments. As for people voicing opinions against it, Mrand, B24um, BirdKr are among those I count off the top. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see where I ever said no one was voicing an opinion against it. You'll actually find me voicing an opinion against it in its current form. It also may not be the center piece, but its probably the only motion picture to feature the aircraft, it was a direct product of US government cooperation, and the fact was reported in more than one articles. We disagree on whether this qualifies as notability. I say it does, you obviously disagree. That's fine, but I can say there's a consensus on this just yet. If the consensus says it should go, I'm also not going to continue this line of argument to get it reinstated. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent of the deletion of the Transformer reference after knowing the reason why it was mentioned. To me, it was the "behind-the-scenes" information that made the mention notable, not because it was shown on film. That said, I don't mind if the reference is erased entirely because from that article in the citaion, cooperation between DoD and Hollywood has been going on for some time so the AC-130 featuring in a movie is nothing special. If there's the possibility of the reference being deleted, then my vote is remove, if not, at least change the current statement.--BirdKr (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Rare appearance in film, part of critical point in film, an actual AC-130 used, USAF support. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove The article that is being cited implies that cooperation between the military and filmmakers is quite common. From that, the cooperation behind this movie is nothing special. --BirdKr (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove -- Cod4 is much more informative than Transformers and Cod4 isnt even in the article. 77.162.77.117 (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 21:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Edit The "mutually beneficial" crap so that it doesn't sound so patronizing. Ncalvin (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] development

The dilemma in this article is that most data and service records of individuals are still classified and all living United States participants are still restricted in their ability to comment.

The most basic attribution of the creation of the 'aircraft' is problematic because the airplane looks the same, has the same designations, with the same armament at the beginning of 1971 Vs end of Vietnam. When the airframe's effectiveness improves by a factor of 200, sounds like a different system that needs historical recognition. (Pave Pronto link gone?) Surprise Package was the new weapon system that is now implemented in all sidefireing gunships.

The attribution of the program to the RAF commander (non-American who is not restricted in commenting) seem historically insignificant as there were no significant changes in kill ratio's that can't be acounted for by the larger payload capibility of the ac-130 (more rounds to fire). There was great conflict in the implementation of the 'Pave Pronto' deployment, as evidenced by 'Surprise Package' being obtained not from active (new) stock but being re-deployed from Air National Guard stockpiles. The higher-ups faith in the potential of this upgrade is evidenced by 'Surprise Package' being the oldest active airframe in worldwide ANG stocks at the time of conversion.

The success of this complete evaluation of deflection characteristics (down to 1/4 of a ray of a degree in 3 dimensions) of airframe, gunmounts, and flight pitch and yaw produced a new weapon system with hundreds of kills per mission and much greater AA avoidance capabilities because it was no longer necessary to fly in a predictable path to gain targeting or sustain firing at a target.

To put it bluntly, previous versions of sidefiring airframes had to blanket a target area with rounds to gain a kill. Problematic because: 1)the maximum flight ammunition load of a c-130 would only allow for minutes of continuous fire based on mini, gattling, and bofor fire rates. Mission capabilities were essentially translated to less than 5 kills per flight before ammunition supply was exhausted, necessitating a return to base. 2) analog targeting computer (putting the crosshairs on target) required the pilot to fly in a steady circle around the target, so the targeting could then happen. This was ok as long as they weren't firing(black plane-dark sky), but as soon as the gunship fired and maintained fire, it lit up the side of the plane making a great predictive target (if u can lead it u can kill it) to enemy AA fire. Any ground fire AA would require a breaking off of the flight path and a restarting of the process.

This new weapon system was designed and deployed by Preyss,Albert E. and Willes,Richard E. into 'Surprise Package' at Wright Patterson AFB the summer of '71. This system, based on their work recounted in 'Snap Shoot Gunsight' rhttp://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0711391, allowed for placement of a single disabling round in a truck from 3 miles away while eliminating the necessity of a predictive flight path (significantly less ability to be targeted by AA). Bronze stars (silver stars were not available to 'transport' crews) and other awards were earned by flight crews that recorded over 400 kills and avoided over 10,000 rounds of AA (only counted if they had to move out of the way) in a single mission.

The overwhelming success of the system has to be measured by AirForce actions as there is no declassified documentation existing. ALL existing airframes were 'upgraded' to the new Surprise Package's weapon system platform. Many web sites recount the success of these weapons systems recounting tens of thousands of enemy trucks destroyed attempting to supply the Vietcong.

The current reality is that there is no such thing as 'high ground' anymore. These weapons systems have turned high ground into a death trap for any apposing force as they have been deployed in every US conflict since.

This is one of the most effective weapon system the the United States has when evaluated on a kills per mission basis. With restraints on data and people, how would one get documentation to provide such a history?SkiMuGiaPass (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We can only rely on published sources; unfortunately where documentation is impossible to come by (for the reasons you suggest) our coverage will necessarily be incomplete. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Basic stats can be found by contacting the History office at Hurlburt Field. They may have unclassified publications that could be used. Moreover, I've seen decorations that their citations could be used (gunships accounted for over 2000 KIAs during a specific one-year period. As a government document, this kind of reliable source would be ideal. — BQZip01 — talk 04:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The best starting place (for information and for sources potentially in the bibliography) would probably be: Ballard, Jack S. Development of Fixed Wing Gunships, 1962-1972. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, 1982. One should be able to find a copy freely available on the net. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CoD4 and Transformers - another try

Well, no consensus seems to be forming between the different camps here; so let's take a step back:

  • To those who want to include a reference to CoD4, can you provide any citations to reliable sources that show that this depiction was significant in some way?
  • To those who want to include a reference to Transformers, can you provide any citations to reliable sources that show that this depiction was significant in some way?

Anyone? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

    • As much as I dislike the idea of youtube as a reference: the similarities of recent (within 5 years) footage and the gameplay / narration in the CoD4 are quite striking.
    • One could argue the church vs. mosque, target vehicles, and "get that person" verbiage (~3:02 Afghanistan / ~1:15 CoD4)
    • Significance? I'm not as sure. 128.63.21.13 (talk)hybridtoast 19 March 2008
I think we should actually include all three: Transformers, COD4 and the Afghanistan video.~~MaxGrin (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment These two issues should be linked together because of their uncanny similarities. I can't understand why one is allowed in the article and the other is left out. Is it the government collaboration with hollywood that makes it noteworthy? Hardly worth mentioning. The Defense Department's film liaison office is as old as the Pentagon itself. Phil Strub, who has run it for the past 16 years, says it was started in 1947 and existed in some form earlier. [5] Is it the three references that were provided? One is to the movie website, and the two others are from the Air Force News Agency. Hardly noteworthy. To support the fact that the video game is noteworthy and valid, I submit this NY Times article, which eloquently makes the case for its relevance: But there is one mission in the game that deserves to be in the pantheon of wartime storytelling, a level that chillingly, almost horrifically, reflects how modern technology has allowed both soldiers and civilians to detach from the reality of taking another human life. It is at once the most realistic scene and the mission that feels most like a video game, but only because for some modern soldiers, war really has come to resemble a video game. [6] Dustin782 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Dustin782

I think that CoD4 should be included there with Transformers, but since I'm a gamer, I'm functionally illiterate and am obviously a fool. Someone, somewhere along the way forgot that the whole strength of the wiki format was its embedded hyperlinking capabilities, and that the more links you forge between articles, the stronger and more cohesive the body of knowledge is on this site. Now we have a small group of editors whose chief interests include interpreting policy and maintaining their (subjective) paradigms preventing quite a large body of people from forging a legitimate link between two equally concrete pieces of information -- an article about one of the most advanced weapons systems in the history of mankind, and an article about one of the key works in the evolving art form of the digital narrative. This exclusionist idea will only weaken the site. Oh, and by the way, how about that population increase in African elements lately? Ncalvin (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

                                    I have to agree with this guy. Include a CoD4 reference. I was appalled that there was no mention

[edit] Rewording Transformers

We can at least all agree the Transformer reference should be changed to:

"The AC-130 was prominently featured in the movie Transformers. It was one of the instances in which the Department of Defense and Hollywood cooperated with each other for the production of a film for the interests and benefits of each party"[2]

Right? As I read it, it was the last statement that made the appearance notable, not what it did in the movie. If no one objects, I'll request the admin to replace the current mention with that of above --BirdKr (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you made this suggestion over a week ago and no-one's objected to that wording, I've gone ahead and made the change. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spectre Gunship in Popular Culture

The following should be put into the Popular Culture section.(Feel free to rephrase it if you want to put it onto the article)

The Spectre Gunship can be found in the game Command and Conquer:Generals Zero Hour (expansion). The Gunship is portrayed inaccurately by a different looking Swept Wing Aircraft, while the manual calls it an AC 130 Spectre Gunship. --KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 10:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, the Gunship in the game is a jet plane.--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 10:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If anything, this should not be referenced. It doesn't even portray the actual aircraft. See WP:CRUFT. — BQZip01 — talk 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects." —well, wouldn't that say it? Anyway, it is still a reference towards the AC 130, as it is called the "Spectre Gunship" and the role of the two aircraft are similar.--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 07:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Air does have a policy ragarding this stuff. Those appearances are only to include if the aircraft (not look-alikes) plays a major role. Thus a movie or a flight sim fully covering the AC_130 is a go, small appearances or look-alikes like in Transformaers or C&C is a no-go. --Denniss (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken references

Ref 11 (about upgrade to 30mm cannon at strategypage.com) is broken. Use http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2006/200610105842.asp instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaiplum (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PGU-38/U section

I've commented it out instead of deleting it in order to discuss it and make the revert easier if we decide to keep it. In my opinion, this is not an article about 25mm ammunition so its specs are not necessary here. The PGU-38/U (not PGM-38/U, which doesn't agree with the AETDS designation system) could just as easily be mentioned briefly in the upgrades portion. A 25mm ammunition article would be much better suited to the specs and description of this round in my opinion -- Thatguy96 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Comparable aircraft"... A-10?

Hi, I disagree that the A-10 Thunderbolt II is in the same category and can be compared to the AC-130, as the two planes are totally different in size, characterisitics, and tactics/mission. It can also be seen the A-10's wikiarticle (see A-10 Thunderbolt II#See also ), where the AC-130 is NOT in the list of "comparable aircraft".
Maybe I'm wrong, but to me sounds like saying that the Fairey Battle (light WW2 bomber) and the Avro Lancaster (heavy WW2 bomber) are also "comparable".
So unless there is "reasonable", valid opposition, I'll remove the A-10 from this section in the next few days.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The criteria per Template talk:Aircontent and WP:Air/PC are aircraft that are of similar role, era, and capability. Size is a consideration but not a main one. Listings don't have to be mutual. An aircraft can be comparable to another but not vice versa due to additional roles one has for example. The A-10 performs similar ground attack missions as the AC-130 so that's why it is listed. That does not mean the AC-130 can perform all the A-10's missions though. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)