Talk:Aircraft in fiction/Archive 1

Unsourced text
There is a lot of unsourced text in this artcle. I suspect that the reason much of it is unsourced is because the aircraft identifications are at best conjectural or most likely WP:OR (i.e. "I saw the movie and that was an F-15" sort of thing) or because the appearances are non-notable, in that they haven't been written up in reliable third party references that can be cited here. I propose cleaning up all the unsourced text as required by WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding sources would be preferable to deleting information, so if anyone can provide sources, it would help. Mathewignash (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if you would like to give a chance to find sources, we can fact tag and wait a while and see if sources turn up. - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, lacking any objections I will add tags to show where we have to find refs. The other issue, as outlined in one of the heading tags is that, even if referenced, there is still a lot of stuff here that is non-notable in that we need to "explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivia references". - Ahunt (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have gone through the article, copy-edited it and have also removed the copy-edit tag. Now I think we have to turn our attention to the two remaining issues of unsourced/unsourcable text and they fact that much of what is here, even if it is sourced is non-encyclopedic trivia. As the remaining tag says, we need to "explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivia references". In my mind the question is once the unsourced text and trivia are removed will we have anything left for an article or would it be better to go to WP:AfD to see if the article can be improved or deleted? - Ahunt (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One or two observations (four actually): (1) This 'article' is actually more a list than an article (2) If it is to stay, in whatever form, each entry needs to have a verifiable source citation e.g. The Vulcan entry, which just contains the bald statement that it appeared in the film "Thunderball" (3) Do games count as fiction? Do films? Doesn't 'fiction' imply the written word? (4) Is the content of this article really the sort of thing that anyone would want to look up in an encyclopedia? To play devil's advocate, maybe it is just the sort of thing that needs to be here, so that WP can earn the epithet "encyclopedic"! --TraceyR (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Answers: (1) No. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. Yes. No. (4) Yes. Mathewignash (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not really in favour of deleting the article as I think it can be fixed up to the point where it is worthwhile and meets Wikipedia's standards. I think then we have some agreement that it should stay but the text needs to be properly sourced or removed. I say that for two reasons 1. WP:V requires sources and 2. If there are no sources then it definitely isn't notable enough for inclusion, although the converse is not necessarily true. To address User:TraceyR's question about "fiction" I think we should include all non-real world uses here, including games, toys, books and films. I think we have a good consensus here to move forward and improve the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) We seem to be accumulating a lot of speculative and unsourced text in this article again. If we want to retain this article we really need to find refs for things like "In the game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, the "Hydra" jet is based on the Harrier." and "In the video game Mercenaries 2, the Liberator helicopter is based on the Pave Low." or else remove them. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay lacking objections and sources I will do a clean-up of unsourced text. - Ahunt (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Mathewignash: Thanks for finding those refs and adding in the text. The article is definitely looking much better now, well referenced at least! - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

AN-500 in the film 2012
If it's a fictional jet, should it be moved into Fictional aircraft? Mathewignash (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My best information is that the aircraft in the film is 1. An animation, not film of an actual aircraft, 2. called an AN-500, not an An-225, 3. has some resemblance to the AN-225, but has features that the 225 does not have, like extra doors. To me it doesn't sound like it is the AN-225, but a fictional aircraft that some people who have seen the movie think is a 225. I am still waiting to see a reliable third party ref that says it is a 225 and not a fictional aircraft. Lacking a ref, I agree that it should be moved to Fictional aircraft. - Ahunt (talk)


 * Lacking any refs I have just gone ahead and removed this. - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Go-Bots
This article contains a number of ref and unref go-bots sentences that just seem to show that these characters exist, but not how they contribute to popular culture or are otherwise notable. Is there any argument in favour of keeping them? - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just that they were a popular TV series and toy line that introduced kids to these many lines of REAL aircraft in a fictional setting. While the show was aimed at small kids, the toy line was designed by a group at Bandai who took particulat pride in making incredibly accurate replicas of the vehicles, so they are particularly wonderful diecast models of the aircraft. I can provide references for all the unreferenced ones if that's needed. Mathewignash (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that would be a start, but this article isn't just a list of toys that look like aircraft, the entries have to indicate how they are notable or significant from a cultural perspective as well. The key thing is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As that policy says: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." We have to show more than that these toys exist, so what we really need are refs that show their significance, rather than just describing them. - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, best I could probably offer were quotes saying the gobots themselves were notable, than mentioning that particular gobots became notable aircraft. I'm trying to find as much info as I can in ENGLISH, as the original toy design was in Japanese by Bandai. Mathewignash (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That does sound like the sort of information we are looking for! Some of the sections are pretty bare, like: "The evil Gobot character Zero turns into an A6M Zero." We really need to address the reader who reads that and says "so what, why is that important?" - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there are some good lessons in the Articles for deletion/Helicopters in popular culture discussion. That article was deleted because it was just a list of media appearances and, as the closing admin said: "However, a list of appearances in media is not appropriate." If we want to keep this article then we can learn from that deletion and make this article more than just a list of media appearances. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a character in a popular kids show who becomes a partcular plan is simply a "media appearance". For instance if there was an episode of Gobots TV show where we see a F-15 that's minor and not worth mentioning. If the STAR of the Gobots TV show turns into an F-15, that's a bit more important. Mathewignash (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll briefly dive in here. In my opinion, the place to refer to a toy that looks like an airplane (or that is even modeled on an airplane) is in that article's page. In this case there is the Gobots article, which has a list of Gobots in it, with what they are modeled on. The source for some of these citations example appears to be a fan site that is reviewing the toys, probably not a reliable source. I think things like shouldn't be included in this article if it hopes to survive AfD. I will caveat my statement with this: In the case that toy/character was modeled after a specific aircraft for a specific reason (for example, if a character was modeled after the SR-71 because it's the fastest character in its universe or something), that might be notable enough to include here, as it is related by trait, not by aesthetics. Just my thoughts. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that input - I think that is useful in our ongoing discussion to come up with an inclusion criteria see below. Feel free to add to that thread as well if you have more ideas on what should and shouldn't be here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree on both sourcing and content. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about fact tags
In the wikipedia entry for Terminator Salvation they say in the plot that they the humans pilot A-10s. It doesn't need a citation because they even call them A-10s in the movie, and you don't need to site a source when simply writing a plot from a film, the primary source of the film itself is enough. So why would I need to site a source here stating the exact same fact? Mathewignash (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As per WP:V everything challenged or likely to be challenged needs to cite a source. As per WP:CIRCULAR you can't cite a Wikipedia article as a source for a Wikipedia article, but you can cite an original reference. The main reason for carefully sourcing everything in this article is to make sure that it doesn't get cluttered up with opinions and fancruft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it likey to be challanged that A-10s appear in the film? They do appear, they are named in the film. In this case the source of the original article is the primary source. How do I site the dialog of a film as a source? If there is a way to do that let me know. Mathewignash (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks fine, really. There is a formal template that can be used to cite a movie at Citation templates. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have completed formatting all the bare refs in the article. Hopefully new refs can be formatted by whomever inserts them! - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources and content
When I first read this article, all I could think was that someone wanted to write an article about Gobots and Transformers. Of all the hundreds or movies and TV shows that not only feature aircraft, but center on them, most of this is about animated robots. I could easily name 25 notable movies that an aircraft is either the focal point or a very important part of the story line and they are missing. Why? Because this is about Gobots and Transformers and not about "aircraft in fiction". How could Air Force One not even be thought of, but a Gobot named Zero makes it? How can there be 2 paragraphs about the F-15 and not mention Iron Eagles? Executive Decision was centered around a 747 and a F-117 was pivitol in the movie. Top Gun? Flyboys? Con Air? Pearl Harbor? We're not talking about obscure indie films here. That doesn't even start taking into account films like US Marshals (where a flight and the crash were major plot points) or TV shows like Magnum PI where a Hughes 500D was a regularly featured part of the show.

Secondly, the majority of these sources are questionable at best. I'm going to consult the RS Noticeboard first, but I can't see sites like Counter-X or TFU.info passing WP:RS. 29 of the 50 sources are questionable. This article is a travesty. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments on the article as it is now. Certainly there is a lot missing that should be added - so if you have sources for those items you name please do add them!


 * The other thing you should probably understand is where this article came from. There is a good history at Talk:F-15 Eagle which is worth reading along with the current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft and archived discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_25. Essentially this article was a compromise between the Go-bots and transformers fans and the people writing aircraft type articles as a place to put all the "pop culture content" so that it didn't overwhelm aircraft type articles, especially ones like F-15 Eagle. The article may well be a "travesty", but if it were deleted it would draw all that go-bots and transformers "content" back into those aircraft type articles, which as described on the Talk:F-15 Eagle page would not be a good thing. Personally I think fixing this article up is the "least worst solution" to the more global problem that this article is intended to address. - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to support the comments from Ahunt but this is a new article and has plenty of room for expansion, it may well needs sections for different subjects like film and books as it expands. Just needs some work, although I agree about your point about reliable sources and efforts have been made to make sure references are added for each entry. Any help you can give with references/citation or adding content would be appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see this article as a travesty, it is a work in progress sure, but it does exactly what it sets out to do - provide a place for pop culture reference to aircraft in an article that wasn't the article for the aircraft itself. Mathewignash (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem that I see is that this list is not defined. There is no real criteria for inclusion aside from being an aircraft in fiction. No definable criteria. That makes the list never-ending and diminishes its usefulness. For example, I picked 5 movies at random off my shelf. SWAT has a couple of helicopters in it. We Were Soldier has helicopters playing a central point to the plot and shows at least half a dozen different fixed wing aircraft. Rocky 4 shows a Soviet passenger aircraft. Die Hard 2 shows numerous aircraft and a couple are important to the plot and Troy doesn't have any aircraft. 5 films at random, all notable films, and 4 have aircraft in them. At least 2 of those have aircraft being important to plot points. The criteria of simply being aircraft in film is to vague for a list. I understand the desire to keep Gobot etc references out of articles about the real aircraft. But creating a dumping ground for poorly sourced trivia shouldn't be the answer. A number of aircraft, like the F-15, F-14, UH-1, UH-64, Zero fighter, Mi-25 etc have had enough appearences etc. that they could probably support articles of their own. (Then again, I'm not sure if there was ever a Gobot that turned into a UH-1.) This could be a useful article. It could be fun to read and work on. But it needs defined criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea! Please propose a criteria and let's see if we can come up with a consensus on it! - Ahunt (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I would disagree that an appearence in a game is appearing in fiction. Movies, TV, books (not comic books, real books). Nothing more. Second, I'd suggest that the aircraft have to be a real one. By that, I mean it is a real F-22, not a robot that disguises itself as a F-22. You can't really argue that it is a F-22 if it has different capabilities, is impervious to weapons that would normally kill it and changes into a giant robot. If disguising something makes it really that thing, after this past Halloween, I'm not a Jedi knight. Plus, in the case of Transformers, they can change their disguise, therefore you really can't claim they are a F-22. Dreadwing has been a Mig-29 and a hydrofoil. Which one is he? He obviously can't really be both. If that is the case, we should call this "Things that looked like aircraft in fiction". Also eliminate the "it sort of looks like this aircraft" notion. Third, I'd suggest that the aircraft be an important part of the storyline or a plot point. For example, F4U Corsairs were central to the show Black Sheep Squadron and should be included, but the C-47 that brought supplies once in a while were not that important and should not be included. Like I said, Rocky 4 shows a Soviet transport plane. It is "in fiction", but has no importance whatsoever to the story, so it is not notable. But the Hind helicopter in Rambo 3 was central to the plot. That's a start. I know the devil is in the details. Deciding what makes something important to the plot/story or not involves some discussion. Some things, like the F-14's in Top Gun or the UH-60's in Blackhawk Down are obvious. Some, like the Adam A500 in Miami Vice would be open to debate and some, like the business jet (I forget which kind) that brought Bruce Wayne home in Batman Begins probably shouldn't be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note, I am holding off on the AfD and trying to see what can be done here because I do sympathize with the desire to keep pop culture references out of some of the more encyclopedic articles. But this article can't shouldn't stay are is. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay that is a good start. I see where you are going with this - ensure notability by limiting it to truly seminal appearances. That does make sense, but that also means that all the toys and video game appearances would be deleted from here as not-on-subject and not notable. As always I am afraid that they will all end up back in the aircraft type articles, so what should we do with them - have a section in this article for them or split them into a new article or some other solution? I don't think just deleting them from Wikipedia will ultimately make the encyclopedia a better place, if only because the amount of time spend policing aircraft type articles prevents some dedicated editors from writing new aircraft type articles. A good example of this is my own situation - I am spending time doing this when I have committed to finishing off the two stroke aero-engines. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate wanting to remove unsourced info, it seems to get removed VERY quickly on this page (No source? DELETED!). Shouldn't it be marked with a tag that it needs a source first, then given a couple days or so for someone to provide a source? Immediate removal without any talk seems a bit hasty. Mathewignash (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I admit I have been pretty zealous with WP:V, mostly because the unsourced stuff builds up quickly here. As you can see from above some other editors seem to think that much of the sourced text should be removed as non-notable and non-reliable refs, too. If you think I am being too hasty we could go to tagging and then save it up for a one a month clean up, but I am concerned that other editors (qv) will see a lot of unsourced text as reason to go ahead and nominate the article for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An IP editor has added back, once again, the MH-53 in Call of Duty, and, as before they have not cited a ref. As requested I have not removed it, but have just tagged it for now. - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I keep repeating, I'm going to see if this article can be saved. As it stands, I'd bet it would get deleted at AfD. I see the need for it (or at least how it actually helps other articles) and that's why I'm trying to work a solution. I've spent a lot of time in AfD discussion. I tend to !vote delete a lot. But once in a while, I save an article too. Based on my observations, 2 things save lists like this. First and foremost is a defined criteria for inclusion. This article has almost no criteria for inclusion. Second is reliable sourcing. Well over half the references used on this article currently are not from sources that pass WP:RS. I posed this question as the RSN and so far, nobody the commented has found any of the ones I questioned to be reliable, with the possible exception of concordesst.com. As for items like Gobots and Transformers, I believe they should go in the List of fictional aircraft. I explained above why they aren't appropriate for this list. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the uncited video game refs are building up rapidly once again. My intention is to do an end-of-the week clean out of uncited text at the end of the day today, so if you want it retained find a ref! - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay I have cleaned it up once again. - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Osprey?
Hey, didn't the American faction in Endwar use Ospreys for bringing in reinforcements? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they were in there. Tonysdg14 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they were also used by the enclave in fallout 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting a start
Ok, I added 11 new aircraft to the list and put reliable source references on a few more. Granted, some of the ones I added wouldn't fall into the proposed criteria of being a main "character" or important to a plot point, but I'm just trying to expand the aircraft right now. Sometimes it jogs someones memory, like it apparently did with the Dr. Strangelove reference. Good call there. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Reading your additions did make me think about other films, like Dr Strangelove. Looks like we are on the right track here, as more content and refs will likely trigger even more content and refs. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is my hope. I'm limiting myself to stuff that will pass WP:RS, which makes it difficult. Plenty of fan sites out there, but they won't fly (no pun intended). After this morning though, I want to see that IMAX movie I used for some of them. It sounds really cool. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It does sound like an interesting film! - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In looking for something else, I got reminded of Mephis Belle.....sheesh, can't believe I forgot it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This article nominated for AfD
User:Canterbury Tail has nominated this article for deletion. Interested editors are encouraged to participate in the debate at Articles for deletion/Aircraft in fiction. - Ahunt (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I made my pitch for keeping it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Me too - like you my initial inclination was to AfD it, but in reading how it came about and also in working on aircraft type articles, I became convinced that having this article is better for Wikipedia than not having it. - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like this article has been given a two week reprieve from the chopping block, let's see what we can do to make it better in that time. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Several comments have shown that this article is being actively worked on and many of the points are being actively address. As a result I'm withdrawing the nomination with the intention of allowing people to work on it for a couple of weeks. After that point it will be revisited to see if it has improved, or if it is still just a trivia list. Remember though when editing the article, that just because something has a reliable source, doesn't mean we should include it in Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail  talk  14:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is if everyone has been removing fictional appearances of aircraft from the aircraft pages and dumping them here. The data needs to go somewhere, either back on the original aircraft pages (which discourages trivia lists) or you put them here. Cowbert (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for condensed "Transformers" info
I know some people wanted to narry information on this page. I propose limiting the mention of character who disguise themselves as a particular model aircraft to a SINGLE sentence in each aircraft type. For instance instead of saying "character AAA becomes into a YY jet. Character BBB turns into a YY jet. Character BBB turns into a YY jet" we have a single sentence at the end of all other information on the aircraft saying "The fictional characters of AAA, BBB and CCC disguise themselves as a YY jet." Mathewignash (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be more inclined to go with that idea rather than the way it is now. I'd also eliminate one time disguises (if there are any). In other words, it it is normally a F-15, fine. If one time, for some reason, it disguised itself as a C-130, leave it out. Likewise, if something is a Corvette 74 episodes, then becomes a F-14 for one battle, leave it off. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability
Ok, now the tough part. What makes it notable enough to include? First, I'd say the fiction itself has to be notable. No redlinks etc. If the movie, TV show, book, etc. doesn't have a wikipedia article, let's hold off on using the aircraft in it. We have a tough time claiming the appearence is notable if the thing it appeared in hasn't been established as notable. Yes, that'll eliminate a few things one of us may think of, but it will help us survive an AfD too. If we can agree on this part, then let's tackle what makes the appearence notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that concept and would add that we need a ref for each insertion of text, even if it is the book (etc) itself. If the article is to survive we don't want to be shot down over lack of refs! - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will propose a modified version of what I said about the go-bots above (and this particularly applies to transformers/gobots)
 * Toys/Cartoon Standard
 * Any toy/cartoon character/etc. that disguises or otherwise "looks like" a particular aircraft is inherently non-notable. However, in the case that toy/character was modeled after a specific aircraft for a specific reason (for example, if a character was modeled after the SR-71 because it's the fastest character in its universe or something), that might be notable enough to include here, as it is related by trait, not by aesthetics.
 * There will be some pushback from the transformers diehards, but the fact is we have articles on wikipedia about transformers. Go look it up there. Just because there's a diecast transformers toy that looks kinda like an F-15 doesn't mean it's a notable mention in fiction. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm good with that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I would like to hear from some other editors on this, particularly User:Mathewignash who has done a lot of work on this area here. - Ahunt (talk)
 * I wouldn't remove anything before this gets settled. I have to be honest though, and Mathewignash might not be thrilled with it, the more Gobot/Transformer stuff that is here, the harder it will be to keep two weeks from now. I like the criteria Sidewinder proposed. It allows for entries that are significant, but excludes just throwing in every robot that took on the form of an aircraft. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The second part is about notability in general. Obviously if the movie, book etc is centered around an aircraft (ie Air Force One, Top Gun, Firebirds etc), then the main aircraft is making a notable appearence. What about the rest? I'd say if the aircraft is an important plot point or makes a significant impact (ie. without it, the story would be altered), that would be notable. Also, in the case of TV shows, if it is frequently recurring (like the 500 in Magnum PI), it would be notable. Simply making an appearence, would not be notable. Like I used as a previous example, the F4U's in Black Sheep Squadron, notable. The C-47 that brings supplies once in a while, not notable. Comments? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons I proposed limiting fictional characters who assume the form of an aircraft to ONE sentence is to combat the idea of notability. Sure it's not very notable, but in a list of Aircraft in fiction, have one single sentence saying "characters AAA, BBB and CCC" disguise themselves as this aircraft is a lot more justifiable than one sentence each. I went in on purpose and added a ton of single characters who turned into aircraft just to get those sections started. I expect those sections to fill in with more information as we compile more data. Those sections don't exist for characters like the Gobot Wrong Way to be highlighted, but so that section can get started. More people can add further info as it becomes available. Mathewignash (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I prefer the single sentence much more than the seperate entry method. But I'd strongly suggest only including those that use that aircraft as their primary thing. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but what I'm trying to avoid is the one that is a Corvette most of the time, but became a F-14 once. That's just not as notable as the robot that is a F-14 all the time and became a Corvette once. Follow me? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The 1 sentence thing seems alright. But remember this is not a list article, i.e. "List of aircraft in fiction".  So more prose may be in order for some appearances.  -Fnlayson (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There needs to be some level of notability required. An aircraft just appearing in a movie, book or whatever and not really doing anything should be included, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Name and order proposal
We might need a better way to order sections. Right now it's by the name used for the Wikipedia article in alphabetical order. Some aircraft are by model number, others by manufacturer name. Can we settle on one? Mathewignash (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What about having the main division being in type of fiction. First divide by film, tv, book. Then go alpha under that? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. This article is about AIRCRAFT in fiction, so I started it by dividing under AIRCRAFT, then fiction they appeared in. Of course I'm open to an idea if you had an example. Mathewignash (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything would be about aircraft. What I mean is like section 1 is aircraft in film, section 2 is aircraft in tv, section 3 is aircraft in print. Then, under each section, it to list them in alpha order. The only other way I can think of doing it is to list the fiction venue, then what appeared in it. Ex: "Top Gun featured A, B, C and D" aircraft. The only good thing I can see about that is for cross-over's like Clear and Present Danger, which was a book and a movie. That would make one entry for both. However, I think we're better off making the type of aircraft the entry before the venue. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like this idea. It needs to be organized by type of aircraft, not by the fiction it was in. If I'm at this article, I want to find out what film/books/etc. the F-14 was in. If I wanted to look at what aircraft were in Top Gun. I'd go to the article about that movie. It has to be organized by aircraft.
 * I think it should be divided into fixed and rotary wing aircraft as a first pass, then maybe military vs commercial, then alpha by type. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. A few questions: What do we do with cross-over aircraft? They 747 that is Air Force One is an air force aircraft, but most other uses is commercial. Do we go with the primary use? Or the UH-1? It's use now in fiction is a toss up since there is a civilian version and so many military ones are now in use by law enforcement etc. And do we streamline types? For example, the Hughes 500 is famous as the helicopter on Magnum PI, but also pretty notable as AH/MH-6 in Blackhawk Down. Which do we list it as? A 500 or a AH-6? Not being a PITA, just working out the details. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the challenges involved in categorization I think it may be best to leave it as is - ordered just by aircraft type. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Operation Red Flag
There are several aircraft listed here for their appearance in Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag. This is a documentary film, not fiction. The title of this article is "Aircraft in fiction", not "Aircraft in popular culture". Futhermore, I'm not convinced that an IMAX movie quite reaches "popular culture" status. I will remove these references if I do not see a response here. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, you're right. I had a brain lock. I had film in my head and forgot the fiction part. My bad. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see so much discussion in general here! In this specific case I have to agree, the film is not fiction! - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, ok, not a problem Niteshift. We can work through it as we notice them! -SidewinderX (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just got so giddy that there is anything in my head for a change that I forgot. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Think I got all of it. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Links back to this page from Aircraft pages
Should we propose all relivant aircraft pages have a link back to this one for their fictional appearances? This would help those pages, who constantly have to delete fictional appearances, as it would direct new editors to the correct page for this info. Mathewignash (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd vote yes. If one of the purposes we are going for is to help those articles, then it makes sense. I'm sure some of them might want to keep mentions of really important appearences, like Blackhawk Down in the UH-60 article or Top Gun in the F-14 article, as these movie appearences had significant impact on the general publics ideas and knowledge about those aircraft, but in general terms, the link back and the inclusion here should be a help to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have actually done that for any aircraft type articles that have an entry here, but it will need to be kept up as new ones are added. For an example see Sikorsky_MH-53. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Games? Fiction or not?
Yes, games are fiction in the sense that they are not real. But is that the fiction we are talking about? Yes, it's easy to argue that a game centered around a particular aircraft like the Janes Apache game) is significant, but then how do we handle the ones that aren't, like Blackhawks appearing in a Rainbow 6 game etc? Honestly, I'd just as soon exclude games from the list. It will be a tough fight, but inclusion, especially if that is the only entry for that aircraft type, will come off as crufty and give a hook for AfD's to hang their hat on. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess one way of dealing with this might be to split games off into Aircraft in games, but I am not sure that would be an improvement. Can we find a way to keep everything under this one title for neatness and to make it easier to police it? - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It might makes sense though, as one of the accusations made when this page was up for deletion was that it was impossibly broad to index every aircraft that appeared in every fiction. Do we split it up into Aircraft in games, Aircraft in films, Aircraft in Norwegian cookbooks... okay too specific. Mathewignash (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd really like to go with books, movies and TV only. Although one could argue that games are fiction and that if we split games off, then we should split off movies, books and TV, I'm kind of in favor of the "just say no" route. If Wikipedia is governed mainly by community consensus, let's reach a consensus among a number of experienced editors and present it as a united front. Yes, consensus can change and a year from now, we may have an entirely different article. But I'd propose that we just say no for now and deal with a possible change in consensus later on. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to decide this. 2 IP cotributors today, nothing but game entries (without refs). Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree this needs a consensus right away to move this forward. My proposal is that we keep books, movies, videos, games and toys in this article if only to avoid splitting into many more articles to police and that they should be sorted by aircraft type, not media type. Also that all entries must be referenced within a couple of days of being added or else removed. Disagreements? - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I reluctantly agree with reliably sourced entries about toys but I really still don't like the games idea. If it split off into a seperate article, I wouldn't lose a seconds sleep and, to be blunt, would probably never even read it, let alone work on it. I know what is at stake here, I see the same thing in articles about firearms, military etc. but I just have a hard time being comfortable with the games. At what point does a game stop being fiction and just be a game? Are video games fiction? Role playing games? Board games? The only way I see avoiding becoming a dumping ground for trivia to the point of being overrun and making the article useless is to be very strict on the reliable sourcing and only allow sources that definately pass WP:RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That was my thought - require refs for everything, which will put a natural limit on most of it, since there are no refs for much of the gamecruft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So tentatively it looks like we have a standard for inclusion here:
 * Real world aircraft (not fictional or made-up aircraft) that have roles in books, films, video games and as toys, provided refs are supplied
 * For fictional characters who assume the form of an aircraft - inclusion only as a one sentence summary.
 * All media types included under article subheadings by aircraft type with at least one link to the article about the aircraft type itself.
 * Aircraft type articles that have entries here should have Notable appearances in media sections that simply refer to this article, in a manner like Sikorsky_MH-53
 * How is that? - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have to keep games (which I still disagree with), I'd emphasize the need for reliable sources and I'd also add that fictional characters should be listed if that is their normal form, not a one time appearence. Otherwise, looks good. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it isn't ideal, but in the interests of compromise I think we can make it work. Okay, incorporating your suggestions here is the next draft:
 * Real world aircraft (not fictional or made-up aircraft) that have roles in books, films, video games and as toys, provided reliable refs are supplied
 * For fictional characters who assume the form of an aircraft - inclusion only as a one sentence summary and only for primary aircraft, not one-time configurations.
 * All media types included under article subheadings by aircraft type with at least one link to the article about the aircraft type itself.
 * Aircraft type articles that have entries here should have Notable appearances in media sections that simply refer to this article, in a manner like Sikorsky_MH-53
 * Any further thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not from me. Looks fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay lacking any further objections then I think we have a consensus for inclusion of items in this article:

(criteria moved to top of talk page) - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I have added a hidden comment at the top of the article summarizing this criteria and directing editors here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The change from "roles" to "significant roles" in the first bulleted item is basically requiring some notability, which was discussed in the Notability section above. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree - I didn't think it would be controversial, but I don't like to change things without consulting. I am wondering if the inclusion criteria box shouldn't be given a more prominent place on the talk page here though - like may be at the top? Right now it is hard to find amongst all this text. I am hoping giving it greater visibility will cut down the incidence of unreferenced text being added, but maybe I am just too optimistic in that regard? - Ahunt (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that significant was agreed on and just left off in oversight when it got moved to the instructions.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No sweat at all - we don't write articles on insignificant subjects! - Ahunt (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We basically agreed to it. So no problem at all. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture question/proposal
Right now, the article has a panel of a Transformers comic. Again, I don't want to sound like I'm just picking on the toys, but I feel like it kind of gives the immediate impression of the article being a toy/game pop culture piece. The rub is that a lot of the images of aircraft in fiction will copyrighted. So my idea is that we sort of agree on an aircraft that seems to be very popular in fiction (ie very frequently used) and find a free image of it. Like a UH-1 that "has appeared in dozens of films" or something of the sort. Comments? Ideas on what aircraft would be a likely candidate? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That fair-use image was originally far down the page in the F-15 section and there was nothing at the top, which made the article look dull at first glance, so I moved the image up and put it in a box. I have no objections if it is moved down to the F-15 section again and a general image used instead. - Ahunt (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you think would be a good aircraft for the top? What is one of the most iconic aircraft in fiction? I'm tempted to say Air Force One, which has been the subject of movies and books, as well as a major plot point for a lot more books, movies and TV shows. Any other suggestions? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How about an F-14 and a caption mentioning the film Top Gun? - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Does fair use allow a single screen cap from a movie? Get a shot of the F-14 in Topgun. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the current image is "fair use" - it has to be licenced on the image page, but it can be done. - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking skip the copyright crapola and just use a pic of a F-14 and caption it something like "Military aircraft, such as this F-14, frequently appear in fiction". No copyright arguments later, not tying it to a specific film, just aircraft in general. Plenty of free use F-14 pics if that's what we want to go with. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That was kind of what I was suggesting above. - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to move this along, since we all seem to agree, I have gone ahead and done that - please have a look and see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Real-world) aircraft in fiction?
If there is to be an article at all, shouldn't there really be two - "real aircraft in fiction" and "fictional aircraft"? Just thought I'd throw that one in and retire immediately! --TraceyR (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops! Have just seen that there already are two articles! --TraceyR (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We are 'way ahead of you on that one! - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback please
As you can see I have made some edits beginning to show the cultural impact of aircraft and aviation. Given that this article was meant to be a repository of 'fancruft', I would like some opinions on whether to continue with this, or whether I am at risk of taking this article in a direction that may be more appropriate to a different, shall we say "more serious", article. YSSYguy (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I think your additions are great and well-sourced to boot! I would like to see more of this sort of text in the aircraft sections of the article where available. There is great scope to show the impact of media, where the available refs allow. For instance did Top Gun increase US Navy recruiting? Did Captains of the Clouds increase BCATP volunteer enrollment? Have the Transformer movies impacted the number of people entering the fields of aviation or robotics or have they just increased toy sales? This article can cover a lot of ground. I think if it is to survive it has to move beyond being just a list of airplane appearances and gain the kind of meat that you have been able to add. - Ahunt (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also liked your additions. The additions to the lead have been very helpful. And yes, to the other question, some of the articles I have used as sources have mentioned the increase in Navy Recruitment. I hadn't thought about adding that, but it makes sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A possible topic to explore would be the ongoing relationship between the US military and Hollywood. When you look at a movie like Strategic Air Command (film), it would be a very different animal without the wholehearted support of the USAF, and I'm sure there are other examples as well (the article about SAC mentions three other movies). I suppose the military do this for PR purposes (perhaps bordering on out-and-out propaganda) as well as to aid recruiting - something worth trying to find sources for. YSSYguy (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of the articles I used as sources were about that very topic. How some of them either couldn't or wouldn't have been made without the support of the US military. You might want to take a look at them to see if they'd be useful. Time, Armed Forces Press Service , LA Times and the NY Times  all did articles specifically on the cooperation and a few of the others mentioned it. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to find some
I can't believe the difficulty I'm having finding references for some of these. Granted, I'm being particular about using sources that will pass WP:RS without difficulty, but come on...... I can't ones for the F-16 in Iron Eagle. How freakin hard should that be? Or the Hind helicopters that were central to the plot of Rambo 3 and pretty important in Red Dawn. Those are things everybody knows, but I can't find reliable sources that say it. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's very annoying, when sp,ething is SO obvious that no one mentions it in an article. Try google books, for instance here is a snipit from a book that mentions the Hind in the Rambo movie. http://books.google.com/books?cd=1&id=IwU9AAAAMAAJ&dq=Hind+rambo&q=Hind or here in GameAxis magazine: http://books.google.com/books?id=wOoDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA80&dq=Hind+rambo&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Hind%20rambo&f=falseMathewignash (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible mentions
The list of aircraft is pretty-heavily weighted in favour of combat aircraft and movies. I think we need to include more civil aircraft and military transports, and more non-movie entries. Some possibilities:

There are loads and loads of books and movies and TV shows of course, what I have mentioned is merely the tip of the iceberg. YSSYguy (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Television series Sky King, with a Cessna T-50 and 310; the website skyking.com lifts the WP article, so is obviously no good as a ref, and the WP article is pretty bare of refs.
 * Dale Brown's series of Old Dog books with their wealth of aircraft.
 * Nevil Shute's book Round the Bend - IIRC a DH Fox Moth and Percival Proctor feature prominently, plus some fictitious aircraft types. It also has some detail about Alan Cobham's flying circus in the days before WWII.
 * Ernest K. Gann's novel Island in the Sky - C-47? C-87? I don't quite remember, as the story was based on a real experience recounted in Fate is the Hunter and I haven't read either for several years now, plus there is the movie version to confuse things.
 * The World War I novel The Blue Max - I don't really remember this as I was only about 10 when I read it, but the WP article about the movie version talks about Pfalzes and SE-5s.
 * Flight of the Phoenix? After all it was a real aircraft that crashed to be turned into the Phoenix.
 * Sam 7 a novel about a DC-10 crashing on one of the main railway stations in London after being hit by a SAM-7 missile.
 * I remember reading a novel called KG-200 (obviously with some basis in fact) about the Germans using captured B-17s.
 * I vaguely recall a novel about El-Al(?) operating Concordes and a terrorist attack on them with one being blown up mid-air. Was it written by Nelson de Mille?
 * The movie Always?
 * The Bridges at Toko-Ri - I haven't read it so don't know anything about it.
 * There was an Australian TV series Big Sky (TV series) about an air charter company. The series used Airtex Aviation Piper Chieftains. The pilot was filmed in part on my family's sheep station in the Australian Outback; I got to ride in the cameraman's side-facing seat in a Jetranger with my legs dangling out over the skid :-)
 * Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising - one of the protagonists flies an F-117, another protagonist is a female USAF F-15 pilot. This could possibly give rise to some discussion of women now serving in the military.
 * Clive Cussler's Vixen 03 about a B-29 or B-50 that is lost in a lake with a nuke in the bomb bay.
 * Red Storm Rising is the only Clancy novel I don't have. There are number of aircraft that play prominent roles in his books and I'll work them in one novel at a time. I have been searching everywhere for a reference for MASH. The Bell helicopter in it borders on iconic, but I can't find a good reference. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While we are at it I enjoyed The Aeronauts as a lad, despite the ridiculous out of time dubbing! Real Dassault Mirage IIIs of the French Air Force were used if I remember correctly. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Which links to this apparent remake Sky Fighters. The way this article is developing would it be better/safer renamed as List of aircraft in fiction? At a push this would make available section linking from the 'see also' section of aircraft articles to replace the pop culture sections. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation tagged items
Thanks to the hard work of User:Niteshift36 carefully reviewing references for reliability we now have a number of entries that are tagged as "citation needed". While we are ensuring that all items in the text have reliable refs, I don't want to be over-zealous in cleaning these up before new refs can be found, but lacking any objections it is my intention to do a clean up of these on Friday, 29 Jan 10. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair. I notified Mathewignash about those sources a week ago, after checking at the RSN to make sure that those sources didn't pass. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am doing my best in what spare time I have to dig up more solid citations. I do understand that if we settle on a higher level of notability and require a rock solid citation for every sentence of this page, some things may end up getting removed until I can find that citation. I can live with that. I may put the removed ones on my talk page or something as a reminder to try to dig up a better reference so they can be re-added later with the better citation. It's for the best in the article to perhaps remove some things we can't get a good citation for right now. Mathewignash (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, thanks for your efforts there. I was going to do a clean up tomorrow. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination
This article has changed a lot over the last couple of weeks, and has an excellent introduction. However I still feel this is an unencyclopaedic article that will never be much more than a theoretically infinite list of where planes have appeared in works of fiction. Canterbury Tail  talk  18:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not true. We have already established criteria for inclusion if you read above... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I see that, however it's still at best a list of unencyclopaedic trivia no matter how well sourced. I can't propose it for deletion again though due to the excellent intro. If only that could be expanded to a full article, and the list removed. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This article serves well to suppliment the articles about the planes themselves, which are all being linked to the relivant sections of this article. That way if, for instance, a reader of Wikipedia, read an article on an aricraft, they get a link to this one in the section that tells them some major appearances of the aircraft in fiction. It's a very useful encyclopedia resource. As for it's size being theoretically infinite, that's no different than any other article... for instance an article on the development of zombie movies, there have been hundreds of those films, constantly make new ones - it's size it potentially infinite. You can't propose deletion just for that.Mathewignash (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not the size, but the fact that the criteria for inclusion means that the list is trivia. What is being created is a massive list of trivia as it currently stands. Canterbury Tail   talk  20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the fact that we are applying rigorous standards of referencing for absolutely everything means that each entry is Notable. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But just because it's referencable doesn't mean it's notable. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As some are finding out, it's not as easy to find reliable sources for stuff. That's going to cut the "infinite" list of entries down significantly. I'm a little busy right now, but I'm piecing together an additional section about the cooperation (or lack of cooperation) by the military with film makers. I've found a number of articles about the topic from sources like Time and the NY Times. The military cooperation appears notable, especially since it provides access to aircraft that are otherwise unavailable or too expensive to acquire by other means. That should help expand it a little more. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup required - reference duplication
There are instances of multiple different cites of the same reference. For example there are three different cites for Clancy's Debt of Honor, all different editions from different publishers. Obviously contributors have different editions on their bookshelves, how do we handle this? YSSYguy (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that can wait. Sum of all fears, for example, had at least 3 different paperback editions and a couple of hard cover ones. If someone has the time to go through and pick one edition and consolidate them, fine. But I just feel like there are more pressing tasks here right now. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is not neat, but they are all properly referenced to reliable sources, so I can live with the lack of neatness. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

KG 200
This novel, which is based upon fact, contains an appendix (p.314 in the Pan Books edition) listing "aircraft known to have been regularly flown by" KG 200. These are:
 * 1) B-17s (Flying Fortresses)
 * 2) B-24s (Liberators)
 * 3) Wellingtons
 * 4) Stirlings
 * 5) Spitfires
 * 6) Mosquitoes
 * 7) Beaufighters
 * 8) P-51 Mustangs
 * 9) Lockheed P-38 Lightnings
 * 10) Lockheed Hudsons
 * 11) Douglas DC-3s
 * 12) FW-200
 * S.,.75 (sic)
 * 1) JU-88
 * 2) JU-188
 * 3) JU-252
 * 4) JU-290
 * 5) HE-111
 * 6) Fieseler Storch
 * 7) DO-24
 * 8) HE-115
 * 9) JU-352
 * 10) AR-196
 * 11) AR-232
 * 12) Soviet Tupolev bombers
 * 13) Martins
 * 14) Petlyakov PE-2s
 * 15) SB-RKs
 * 16) Polikarpov I-16s

Do the aircraft in this list, most of which aren't in the text, count as "aircraft mentioned in fiction"? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They would...if that was the focus of the article. The article is about notable appearences, not just mentions. I haven't read the book, so I'd have to rely on your judgement. Which aircraft were pivotal to the plot or played parts that, if they weren't there, would have altered the story. For example, if they used the captured B-17 to bomb something because their own aircraft wouldn't have the range. Or something that the story revolved around. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The plot centres on the use of captured B-17s to attack targets in the UK by tagging onto returning groups of Allied B-17s to avoid detection. Other aircraft (e.g. Stirlings, Beaufighters and Spitfires) are mentioned but do not play pivotal roles. --TraceyR (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting. I might have to add it to my list of books to read. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Update posted
Just to let everyone watching this page know: I have posted an update on the progress on this article on WikiProject Aircraft, in particular to encourage editors to move pop culture content from aircraft type articles to this one instead. I did want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has worked on this article so far, it has come a long way! Of course there is much left to be done, so stick around! - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been distracted a bit by side stuff. Hopefully I'll be able to jump back on this soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem - you have done tons on this article, but more is always appreciated when you can fit it in! - Ahunt (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Name and rank
I'd like to be clear on a couple of points before we all get moving lots more stuff from existing articles. I might have missed answers in the above discussion, but first where should the section go? In the aircraft in fiction article, the first two aircraft are the A-4 and the Adams 500. The former puts the section after the specs, but the latter has it after survivors, immediately before specs. I think I prefer this last, marginally; it's not a big deal, but it would be good to have a standard place. Second query is the name: we are recommending, if I've got it right that we use "Notable appearances in the media", but some editors have used "Aircraft in popular culture". The latter often correctly describes things, but involves (to some) a sort of value judgement. Where does Beethoven's (sadly lost) B-17th symphony fit in? One slight worry about the Notable title is in the use of "media", thus including newspapers, TV news, etc. I know its often hard to distinguish the contents of the Daily Wail from fiction, but presumably the U-2 article should not contain, under this heading, loads of stuff on the reporting of the Gary Powers flight. Maybe its too late to change, but Notable appearances in Fiction (given this article's title) seems to me to be better. Any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Our guidance document is WikiProject Aircraft/page content which specifies "Notable appearances in media" after the specs. "Aircraft in Popular Culture" was the old title in use prior to "Notable appearances in media". Essentially if it is non-fiction (ie really happened) then it should be in the body of the aircraft type article (like Gary Powers and the U-2). That separates out the fiction, which hopefully goes in this article. Hope that helps? - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have fixed up A-4 Skyhawk and Adam A500. If you find more articles that are not as per this consensus or WikiProject Aircraft/page content then please feel free to fix them or leave a note here! - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I fixed the B-25 in this way.TSRL (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good! - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Could I just take a moment to point out that we're concentrating on notable, referenced entries. If it is unsourced gamecruft, like "X helicopter is unlockable in Game z", I'd say don't bother moving it, just delete it when you replace the other stuff with the direct to this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

B-36
I agree about removing the documentaries - I should have been paying more attention. What do we do with them? A subheader under Notable apps... like ===Documentaries==?TSRL (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have missed something. Did we have documentary films on here? I didn't see any (after my screw up on one of them). Niteshift36 (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Only for a few minutes, when I absent mindedly transferred two, together with a feature film before Ahunt spotted and sorted. All's well.TSRL (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually because they are non-fiction (and therefore relatively cruft-proof) they can stay in the main aircraft type article! - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like you already did that - good going! - Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind. I found a really good reference for the filming of the movie and a particularly difficult shot from it, but I had to re-arrange the entry a little and prune some of the things that the source couldn't confirm. Also threw in a mention that Stewart was a real bomber pilot who was still in the Reserves at the time. He's actually a really interesting guy (retired as a general you know)Niteshift36 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah he was an interesting character even outside his movie roles! Your text looks fine! - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Avro Ashton
The only ref I've found so far for the film is not strong. The connection with the Comet is made at de Havilland Comet, the Aston site did mention the aircraft's involvement until I moved it here and there is our article, Cone of Silence (1960 film); but I can't see a reference in any of 'em!TSRL (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a better one! - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hadn't thought of Flight as a place for film reviews. Impressive.  I notice they don't use the C word, though they do refer to real life situations.  Cheers, TSRL (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't think of looking there either, it turned up on a highly parsed Google search! - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

P-40
A number of unsourced P-40 entries were moved from the P-40 article. I had a couple of questions. First, the Reagan film is technically fiction in that it didn't really happen, but it was made as a training film, not to be fictional entertainment. Should we keep it? Also, the pic brought over is from the film Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow. I know the film had fictional variants of real 1940's aircraft, but is this an appropriate pic to use (it barely shows the plane anyway). I was thinking about using an actual picture of a Flying Tigers aircraft since 2 of the entries are about the Flying Tigers. Lastly, the Miller play does talk about the P-40, but, as a stage play, we never actually see one. Keep it or not? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just confirmed that the P-40 in the Sky Captain movie was a fictional variant of the real one (one that flies more then 200 mph faster than the real one). I removed the pic since that isn't a real aircraft. It would be more appropriate for List of fictional aircraft. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wondered about the Reagan film, but thought perhaps it counted as fiction, i.e. not true, whilst perhaps not entertaining either. Happy either way. The pic came with the other text when I moved it across, but there is no reference in the text to that film.  Also according to Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow the film only involves the use of a "modified" P-40, which sounds marginal. Think I'd dump it.  On pics generally, I'd suggest we keep close to the the fictional material e.g. clips, posters book jackets rather than the aircraft themselves, which cam be seen in their own articles.  Like Niteshift36, I was also unsure about the centrality of the P-40 to "All my Sons".  In a sense it's only P-40 (Allison) cylinder heads that appear, certainly no aircraft. Since the header is notable appearances, and no P-40 does, maybe the answer is no, and no stage plays can be in this article.  But novels, where the aircraft is, as in a play, in the reader's head, are included. So a subtler question is : would a US audience resonate to P-40 as a British one might to Spitfire, or perhaps more closely Hurricane, as an honest, reliable iconic product of country, utterly reliable and hence more shocking when knowingly degraded? Is that cause for inclusion, or stuff for the All My Sons arty art critics?  Again, happy either way.TSRL (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My two cents: I'd dump the "All My Sons" entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Dam Busters" fiction?
In what sense is the film of the Dam Busters (and therefore the role of the Avro Lancaster in it) fictional? --TraceyR (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a fictionalized account of a true event, just like Blackhawk Down or Tora! Tora! Tora! It is not a documentary. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the article about the film, you'll see an entire section on the historical inaccuracies. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Every cinematic account of a true event is of necessity fictionalised to some extent. It's a bit strict to claim that everything which isn't a documentary is therefore fiction. It wasn't so fictionalised that the names of the main characters were changed: Guy Gibson, Barnes Wallis etc were in the film. These were real events, with real (named) people and in which real aircraft took part; they are not fictional in the sense of this article.--TraceyR (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting problem and User:TraceyR brings up a good point above. Perhaps we need to come to some sort of consensus about how fictionalized something has to be to cross the line from non-fiction to fiction. Not sure if that is even possible. - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Using that logic Tombstone isn't fiction because it used the real names for main characters, depicted real events with real named people and in which the real firearms depicted were used in. Patton no longer fiction because it depicts numerous real people without changing their names, depicted numerous real events with real (named) people in them and depicting real tanks, planes etc. Tora! Tora! Tora!? Midway? Braveheart? Glory? The Ten Commandments? How many examples from what era of history do you want? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ahunt that it could be difficult to decide where to draw the line, but I'm reasonable sure that it would be somewhere between "The Dam Busters" and "The Ten Commandments". The former was a fairly faithful dramatisation of a real event within living memory; maybe some of the protagonists even acted as consultants on the film. Perhaps the presence in a film of a boilerplate disclaimer about it not depicting real persons and/or events would be a criterion to use. If present, it is fiction and can be included here, otherwise not. BTW I don't remember seeing any aircraft in "Braveheart" - perhaps I dropped off for a while. ;) --TraceyR (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The example about Braveheart (or Tombstone) wasn't about aircraft, it was how if you apply your specious reasoning to many movies, they wouldn't be fiction. Again, Patton was a WW2 movie and numerous characters from it were still alive when the films were made. Same with Tora, Tora, Tora and Midway. We Were Soldiers not only fulfills all of your above criteria, but we know that Hal Moore, Bruce Crandall and Joe Galloway were advisors. Yet everyone knows it it is a work of fiction based on a real event. Same with Blackhawk Down, which used a lot of factual stuff and was based on a factual book, but also fictionalized characters that played key parts in the movie. The movie is fiction. Everyone knows it is fiction. I can show reliable sources that call it fiction. Can you show one that calls it non-fiction? Just because it is BASED on a real event doesn't make the film less a work of fiction. Hell, if you read the sources, you'll see that the film pretty much invented the bureacratic battle that took place in the first half of the film. I'm sorry, but this is an absurd thing to be debating. I guess Fat Man and Little Boy is non-fiction too. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that it is absurd to debate this issue. The 'entire section on the historical inaccuracies' which you cite in the article about the film begins with the sentence "The film is accurate historically with only a few minor exceptions" - isn't this conclusive? Had it been a fictional account, there would be no need for such a section. Furthermore it is based on two books, both of them factual accounts, one of them by the man who led the attack. Perhaps it would be useful to compare and contrast "The Dam Busters" with Len Deighton's "Bomber", the one a factual acount, the other fiction. The former has no place here, the latter most certainly has. --TraceyR (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's far from conclusive. Many films could make the same claim. Again, We Were Soldiers was based on a factual account written by 2 people who were there, depicted in the movie and were advisors to the film. Yet it's still fiction, despite how the real Galloway and Moore demanded accuracy. This is a fictional film. A film can be historically accurate without being factually accuarate. The main history parts stay true to the events, but the rest of the stuff gets the movie treatment. Plus, we know there were inaccuracies because some parts were still classified at the time the film was made and they had to take guesses at it. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may weigh in, the people who wrote the script could not possibly have known what Barnes Wallis or Guy Gibson or anyone else thought or said or did at any given time on any given day, unless every character portrayed in the film gave an interview and told the scriptwriters such information, which of course they didn't. Regardless of the fact that the film is based on real people and actual events, fundamentally it is a work of fiction. YSSYguy (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "We Were Soldiers", like "Bomber", went to great lengths to achieve a high degrees of accuracy in depicting how things would have being in the type of (fictional) action they depict. They did not claim to be dramatising events which actually took place - that's part of what makes them fictional. In the case of "The Dam Busters", the claim that the film "is accurate historically with only a few minor exception" is not one made by the film-maker but by Wikipedia. If the criterion is accepted that every word spoken has to be historically accurate, then only a documentary would qualify and every dramatisation of documented events would be fiction. This is not the generally accepted view; don't forget that the film-makers had eye-witness accounts to go on and these may well have given clues as to thoughts and words of those involved. Not so for Braveheart etc. Wikipedia itself contains this distinction: "The historical drama is a film genre in which stories are based upon historical events and famous persons. Some historical dramas attempt to accurately portray a historical event or biography, to the degree that the available historical research will allow. Other historical dramas are fictionalized tales that are based on an actual person and their deeds, such as Braveheart,...". I'm arguing that "The Dam Busters" attempts to "accurately portray a historical event"; the fact that it contains some imagined dialogue etc does not detract from the accurate potrayal of the historical event. --TraceyR (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First, Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that it is "accurate historically with only a few minor exceptions". Wikipedia isn't a primary source. Wikipedia reports that someone else made the claim. Second, apparently you haven't done much background research on "We Were Soldiers". Dam Busters does strive to be historically accurate. Nobody disputes that. But it is still a fictional account of a real event, like Patton, Blackhawk Down, Tora, Tora, Tora, Midway. Apollo 13 was still fiction, despite the accuracy and involvement of people who were there. JFK is still fiction, despite the use of the Zapruder footage and the involvement of real players (like Jim Garrison). Tuskegee Airmen is still fiction. There are a ton of movies that have similar portrayals. I've shown that I'm willing to compromise on things, but I can't see anything to convince me to change my position. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that many would share your opinion about "Apollo 13" being fictional; perhaps we use the word differently. A good place might be to achieve some sort of consensus on that before going any further. We also need to make sure that different WP articles maintain some degree of mutual consistency. If this article claims (by inference) that the film is fictional (without a reference to back up that statement), where does that leave the other articles cited? Just a thought. --TraceyR (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about how other articles define or don't define it. It's simple, the movie is fiction. The degree of historical or technical accuracy is immaterial to the basic fact that it is fiction. You want sources? Ok, start with this one, a book one the movie itself: . Not a lot of pages are available, but pay attention to page 103, where he starts addressing the topic of "fictional". Especially too page 104, where he clearly calls it a fictionalization. He discusses who benefitted by touting the accuracy etc. He also talks about how the scene involving the death of the dog (which was a memorable part of the movie) was altered to be more dramatic. Other parts mention how critics did refer to it as "could almost be called a documentary" and how it didn't add fictional detail for dramatic purposes. Nobody disputes that the film strove to be as accurate as possible. But it is still a work of fiction. "Historically accurate" and "fiction" are not mutually exclusive. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Until an agreement is reached on what fiction means in this contect there is no point in continuing this 'discussion'. Simply stating that it is fiction (three times in the previous contribution) gets us nowhere. Even the source you refer to includes mention of another source ("Today's Cinema") which states that the film "could almost be called a documentary, in that it is a scrupulously factual, unvarnished account of an actual event". The author's note at the end of the book you cite concedes that "accuracy was both aimed at and claimed for the finished film". Whether that accuracy was achieved is irrelevant for this discussion; the film aimed to accurate, not to be a fictional account. If the film's omission of someone being injured when a dog was run over is a decisive argument for its being fictional, then there can't be much else in favour! --TraceyR (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh.....the source said it could ALMOST be called a documentary. I even quoted it (but you act like you discovered something I missed). Do you know why it says "almost"? Yeah, because it's not a documentary. Who cares how many times I called it fiction? You've shown no source calling it a non-fiction film. All you've done it try to make an issue about how accurate it was (but I'll skip counting how many times you've repeated the same argument). So it was accurate, that doesn't make it non-fiction. Until you can understand that historic accuracy and fiction aren't mutually exclusive, you're right, this is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Accuracy is the issue here, since we both agree that the events depicted in the filmed actually happened. Please explain (without being impolite) the difference between something (Exhibit A) which is 100% historically accurate (events, dates, times, places, aircraft flown, weapons used, places bombed, dog's names, death etc) and fictional and something else (Exhibit B) which is just as accurate about the same data and factual. It seems as though you insist that anything other than a documentary which is correct in every detail (even down to the way the dog died) is fictional. To put it another way: The other source stated "it is a scrupulously factual, unvarnished account of an actual event", but since it was only "almost" a documentary you conclude that it is fiction. Very harsh! Perhaps your distinction between historical accuracy and fiction is equally false, since a fictional work can be accurate in terms of detail but deal with events which are not factual. In the case of this film it deals with real, factual events in a an accurate way - some leeway must be permitted (e.g. imagined dialogue) in making it suitable for the general public. This was the point being made by some of the people quoted in the book. This doesn't make it fictional in the generally accepted meaning of the word. But perhaps you side with Humpty Dumpty there. :) --TraceyR (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Without being impolite? Then you continue on dripping with sarcasm? Forget it. You are determined to take a movie that has been classified as historical, but still fiction, for 50 years and redefining the word with your own personal criteria. Why? I have no clue. I have no idea why it bothers you so much, but I am not going to continue this back and forth with you. We've already heard from one other editor who agrees that it is fiction, I'll wait and hear what others have to say. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since my earlier suggestion for a definition upon which to base this discussion was not taken up, I'll put on record what the Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th ed., 1998, 1692 pages) definition of "fiction" is; perhaps this will take some of the heat out of the discussion:
 * 1) An invented idea or statement
 * 2) Literature (esp. novels) describing imaginary events and people
 * 3) A conventionally accepted falsehood
 * 4) The act of process of inventing imaginary things

Two other definitions from the same source might be useful:

Documentary
 * 1) Providing a factual record or report
 * 2) A documentary film etc.

Drama-documentary
 * 1) A film (esp. for television) based on or dramatising real events

In the light of these definitions and in the interests of accuracy it should be easier to decide how to categorise "The Dam Busters" film. It obviously isn't covered by any of the above definitions of "fiction". Input, anyone?--TraceyR (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet when it was nominated for the BAFTA awards, it wasn't in the documentary class, where, had it been eligible, it would have stood a better chance of winning an award. I have an idea. Get the movie. Look at the cover. Does it say fiction? Yes. They know more about their own film that you do. Here's another idea. Spend some time looking up examples to expand this article instead of continuing this one man crusade. Might want to stop your pointy edits with the word fiction too. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So which of the definitions of fiction given above does it satisfy? Also, would you please tell us what the film cover says? The description I found says "... Thrilling action and riveting suspense are combined in the true-life drama of this heroic exploit, heightened with actual newsreels of the legendary raid." (my emphasis). Thanks.--TraceyR (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And my cover says "fiction" on it too. You know what? I'm done with this discussion with you. The movie is fiction. It didn't qualify as a documentary for awards. I provided a source that calls it fiction. We've found ones that call it "ALMOST" a documentary, but "almost" doesn't quite get there, now does it? You haven't provided a single reliable source that calls the film non-fiction. All you can rely on is trying to play the dictionary game. Thus far, you are the only person this entry seems to bother. I've opposed removing it. Another editor has opposed removing it. If you want to remove it, start a RfC about it and get some support. But further discussion with you is clearly pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The only thing we seem to have established it that you consider anything which is not a documentary to be fiction and that nyou are not prepared to discuss this point. I'm not sure that the rest of the world shares this restricted definition. I'm concerned with the accuracy of Wikipedia, but since this article is actually trivial, the harm this inaccuracy will cause is limited. --TraceyR (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Baiting with sarcasm, falsehoods and insults with strawman arguments do nothing to encourage continue constructive discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you seem determined to misunderstand my attempts to sort this thing out. Your personal perception of what (you think) I'm trying to do is way off the mark. What you call "playing the dictionary game" is a genuine attempt to focus on what I see as the core of the discussion. No falsehoods, no insults, no baiting. Things have gone too far, so let's just agree to differ. --TraceyR (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Classifying movies different than what their makers do seems to be getting into original research, unless references specifically state the same for each movie. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That was the idea behind the suggestion that films containing a disclaimer about the persons or events portayed being fictional. A request to post the text from the film/DVD cover was also ignored. To reply to your point, the makers of a film may make unjustified claims for their work; other sources are more likely to be objective. --TraceyR (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Musical notes?
The article is called Aircraft in fiction, though we argue about the meaning of the last word. However, several of these sections were originally under Popular Culture and one (only, I think) has musical references. This is Aircraft in fiction; one of the pieces is a Steve Earle song, the other an orchestral piece by Martinů, who is not "Popular" in the usual sense. I'm inclined to take them and their refs back to the P-47 article under something like Thunderbolts in music. Make sense? I don't want to open a cruft door here, but I doubt, though I'm not strong on pop or folk music that there are not many such celebrations. Though there is a "Dambusters" March"!TSRL (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * True we have never discussed music before and it isn't in our inclusion criteria (qv) at present. I would say that the Steve Earle song makes such a minor mention of the P-47 that is is below the level of even trivia - the song isn't about a P-47, it is just an incidental single mention. The song is actually about the Vietnam War. The Dambusters March on the other hand is really a squadron song, more than an aircraft type song as it has no lyrics and therefore doesn't mention the Lancaster. - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When I mentioned the Dambusters' March, I should have added ;) and pointed to the section above! I'll leave the P-47 music stuff for a little while than move it back unless anyone objects.TSRL (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm. Is music fiction or not? Not sure I know how I feel about that. If we do decide it is fiction, I'd say the orchestral piece would probably be notable. What other war plane has been the subject of a piece like that? The Earle song, not so notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Spitfire has its own tune as well Spitfire Prelude and Fugue. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I suspect that WW2 probably ended that trend. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any about modern jets. So having only a couple of times that it happened makes it seem more important. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Dambusters March and the Spitfire Prelude and Fugue are notable (got 'em both here at home) and are unique enough that we could include them here. Are they fiction? Not sure about that, more of a tribute than anything. I don't think they are fiction any more than a painting of a Spitfire is fiction. I don't think other songs that make some passing mention of an aircraft type though are notable enough for inclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, my original mention of the Dambusters was to lighten the tone of the argument above! I'd not thought of including it, for there is nothing about Lancasters in the title (are the Dambusters the flyers or their machines)? But there is a difference between the Coates and Walton pieces, both film music or extracted from film scores, and the Martinů piece, which as far as I know is stand alone writing. Thinking about it, didn't the Walton/Spitfire piece come from a documentary, accompanying assembly? So that is different again from the other two.  Messier and messier.


 * Since you mention it, where do we stand on pictures: I was thinking about Roy Lichtenstein's comic style images "POW"? I'm still inclined to take the view that, since music and pictures etc are not usually termed fiction and they are rare, they could stay with their aircraft.TSRL (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Blue Öyster Cult had a song about the Me 262, FWIW --Rlandmann (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Aerofiles
This may be of interest http://www.aerofiles.com/film.html MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling that a goldmine might well be an understatement! - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks great. I'm not entirely sure we could use it as a RS (may or may not pass), but it's damn sure a good guide to use as a roadmap to look for other stuff. If we want to use it as a source, we might want to run is past the RSN, just to see if we can get some support on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Aerofiles has been used as a sole source for many aircraft type articles and has proven itself to be be pretty reliable in practice. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. If it's already been settled, that's great. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the list of staff and contributors leaves me with no doubt that it's a RS. Staff include Walter J. Boyne, William T. Larkin (founder of the American Aviation Historical Society and first editor of their Journal), Dennis Parks (Curator Emeritus of the Museum of Flight in Seattle), and Dr. Raymond L. Puffer (historian for the Air Force Flight Center, Edwards AFB). The late, great Peter M. Bowers was previously a staffer. I think we can trust the site. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I read it before I even commented. It's an impressive list. Just wasn't sure if anyone had ever used it before. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

P-38
I've moved material from P-38 Lightning, originally without refs. Not sure if the Yamamoto film is supposed to be fictional, but I've left it with the others for now. My ref for von R is weak - most reviews don't mention the P-38, which is maybe saying is role is not central, just a starter. Couldn't find refs for the redlinks, both of them short and available with some documentaries on DVD. Maybe someone with a copy can comment on the Yamamoto.TSRL (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry - had to remove www.absoluteastronomy.com as a ref - if you check the bottom of their page it is a mirror of Wikipedia! see WP:CIRCULAR. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops! I new it was weak, but ... TSRL (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * At four minutes in duration, I reckon Yamamoto shot down is most likely a news reel. I think it should be removed. YSSYguy (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're probably right. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)