Talk:Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight/Archive 1

I LOVE SEA KNIGHTS
This page needs to be fixed and updated by someone who knows how to do that. I'm still new to wikipedia, and do not know how to do such things.24.60.124.8 13:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

CH-46A was SAR as well
The CH-46A was also used as a SAR aircraft. As late as 1981 it was in use at SOES, MCAS Cherry Point, NC. I worked in that squadron and maintained the electrical and avionics systems on the aircraft.Flybd5 00:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Translation
Took me a few hours but I've now finished the Spanish translation of this page. Flybd5 22:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

SAR photo
I believe the photo is not clear enough for article use. However, it could probably be posted at {commons|CH-46 Sea Knight}, which has a link in the article. - BillCJ 17:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't post it because it was a clear photo, I posted it because it is the only photo of the CH-46A SOES SAR birds I know of, and documents that the Corps had CH-46A's in SAR duty. The funny thing is, I've received messages from VMR-1 current personnel expressing amazement that the flight ramp looks exactly the same now as it did 25+ years go. Flybd5 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No matter the reason you posted it, I have to agree with Bill and say the photo is not clear enough to be used in the CH-46 article. It does not add anything to knowledge of the aircraft.  If you truly feel it is historically significant then post it in the VMR-1 article or maybe even MCAS Cherry Point.  The other photos used in this article are clear, large and or show the aircraft in one of it's roles.  A blurry photo of 2 birds on the tarmac adds nothing to a person's knowledge of the aircraft and really is not "that" historically significant.--Looper5920 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See Image use policy and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Subjective opinions are not relevant to whether an image deserves to be included in an article. That's clear Wikipedia policy. When I joined the editors on this article did not identify SAR as a CH-46A function. The VMR-1 article doesn't even mention SOES. Flybd5 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not asking that the article be deleted from Wikipedia, which is what the pages you link to discuss. In addition, they do not exclude image quality as a criteria, which is my primary reason for supporting its removal from the page. You admitted it was an old print, which is evident in the pic itself, and not merely anyone's opinion. I am not in favor of the image being deleted from Wikipedia, only that it be removed from the article. The article links to the COmmons page for the CH-46, which is a good place for an image of that quality (as far as I know anyway). - BillCJ 23:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if that's the case, the Bermuda regiment image falls under the same logic as you and Looper are proposing. That image is of the same or worse quality as the one I added, doesn't seem to add anything to a person's knowledge of the aircraft (by your standards) and is of even less historical significance because it shows nothing more than yet another of the thousands of practice TLZ landings Marine CH-46 aircraft made in Lejeune. Shall we move that as well by the same subjective standards you two wish to apply? Flybd5 00:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes--Looper5920 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we should not delete it because of any "subjective" standard. But it should still be deleted because even you could tell it was of poor quality. Thanks for catching that one. One of the drawbacks of "instant editing" is that one can tend to focus only on the recent additions, because they are easy to spot on the Different Edits pages. Bowever, some of the older stuff, especially text, can go unnoticed for a long time. Thanks for catching it. - BillCJ 00:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you both entirely missed my point. None of what you are proposing is in the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Quality of images was never meant to be the standard on which decisions would be made on whether pictures should be displayed or not. Subjective assessments of what adds or doesn't add to what a reader gets from an article is not supposed to be a criteria either. The Wikipedia policies I pointed out do not talk specifically about deleting images entirely, they are meant to be guidelines on images, period. Anyone could subjectively argue that none of the images in this article add anything to the knowledge, and anyone could argue that any of them do. Subjective editing based on personal opinion is NOT what Wikipedia is about. Flybd5 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right. Consensus is how things are done on wikipedia.  By using that criteria as well the picture should be removed.--Looper5920 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Two vs One is not consensus. You need to study the Wikipedia guidelines more closely. Perhaps we should make an invitation to the community to participate in this discussion in order to facilitate a true consensus decision that will work for all. Flybd5 14:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo for consideration
Photo of the CH-46's control panel for consideration. Not sure if it is worth posting on the page or not. I'll put it here. Use it if you think it is wortwhile.--Looper5920 10:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a CH-53E panel. The pedals say 'Sikorsky' and the panel has 3 sets of engine gauges.--Herbalicious 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a picture of a CH-53E and I think that it needs to be deleted because it shows 'secret squirrel' classified material in it. Chexmix53 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cost
Does anyone know how much one of these costs the government? I think that would be interesting to add to the article. Thanks, laurap414 15:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

CH-46 & Model 107
Sir, what is your intent by removing the Columbia Helicopters photos from the CH-46 page? You stated "we don't need 2 pics of CHC birds on the same pad." First, CHC is not Columbia Helicopters, they are two completly different companies. Second, we have two photos of CH-46s Sitting "on the same pad" aka the USS Saipan on the page. Third, the reason for the photo one is to provide a detail shot of the civil models of the CH-46 & CH-47. The second photo is to show the current configuration of the former Thai aircraft N187CH after Thailand was removed from the page as a user. Please respond. Thank you, Trashbag 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (Moved from user talk page by BillCJ)


 * Oops, I meant Columbia (CHI), not CHC (typo). The current pic of the Thai aircraft doesn't show that it was in THai service. I hadn't noticed that there were two Saipan pics, but by all means remove one of them, I won't object. Both CHI pics are really too dark to see much detail, at least on the older system I use. And finally, your addition of the last pic aused blank space in the text; it had to be moved anyway, and I didnt really see the point of having two mediocre views of the same pad in the article, when one will do. It doesn't matter to me which one, I just believe we don't need both pics. - BillCJ 20:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the conversations proceeding this one it appears that you have removed previous photographs from this site. According to Image use policy under Deleting Images you are to "contact (through their talk page) the user who uploaded the image, telling them of your concerns."  It appears again that you are using subjective standards to remove media from this site. To address your concerns: "The current pic of the Thai aircraft doesn't show that it was in THai service"  Reference #9 (next to Thailand) shows N187CH on its sheet.  If you wish more tractability I will edit the caption under the photo showing “N187CH, formerly of Royal Thai Government Lottery Office, and Office of Prime Minister” to draw the direct connection.  "Both CHI pics are really too dark to see much detail" Photo One is a shot performed on a cloudy day and is of size 2592x1944.  By clicking on the thumbnail from the site you will be able to see an expanded shot of this image to see enough detail to see the location of the fine between the static ports on the nose of the aircraft.  Photo Two is a shot performed in daylight and is of size 1600x1200.  Again, select the thumbnail from the site and you will see the expanded shot.  "And finally, your addition of the last pic aused blank space in the text; it had to be moved anyway"  If there was a blank space, then correct that.  Do not delete media from the site. --Trashbag 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That policy talks about deleting images from the servers/database, not from its placement in an article. --Born2flie 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do concur, however it does provide good precedence to the fact of opening lines of communications prior to deleting material. In regards to the stack up the photos the images can be easily re-layed (poor word selection I know...) using Picture_tutorial.  In reality a topic such as this it might be a prime time to start up a photo gallery. What are everyone's thought on this?--Trashbag 22:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if my removal of the page offended you, or otherwisebothered you. No offense was intended. I sometimes communicate on issues before taking action, and sometimes afterwards; it just depends on the issue.


 * In my opinion, the article had enough pics as it is. YOu disagree, that's fine; I hope we can reach a compromise on this. Since you read the above discussions, you should have noticed that some of the other editors emphasised what the pics contribute to the article as a whole. I really don't see that the second pic adds anything to the casual observer, as-is in the text, that the first one does not. As far as the THai issue is concered, what is needed is a good verifiable reference to cite which shows the This uses the aircraft. A pic caption is probably not the best place to try to prove that issue.


 * On the Gallery issue, as purely preference, I don't like them. I feel that is what the Commons page is for, and why we link to that site in the articles. Galleries are rarely used in WP:AIR project articles (I haven't asked why) as a general rule. To my knowledge, however, there is no project guideline against using them. If you can get several editors to support using a gallery here, then fine. That's how consensus works. I'll vote against it, but I won't delete it if the consensus is for it. - BillCJ 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where the shots are taken aside you must also consider that the three USMC shots of the bird show 3 completely different aspects and serve to show the reader what the Helo looks like from 3 very different angles. Just a thought.--Looper5920 11:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

XH-49
The List of military aircraft of the United States lists the XH-49 as being redesignated as the XCH-46B, but that model is not listed in the Variants section of this article. --Born2flie 22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Navy?
I think there should be more information regarding the US Navy's usage of the 46, maybe a picture of a Navy bird should be added as well. I feel that the general tone of the article is rather USMC-centric (maybe even biased?). Let's not forget that it was a Navy workhorse for 30+ years as well. True USMC has used it in greater numbers and for longer, but the importance of the 46 in Navy service cannot be underestimated or overlooked, which seems to be the trend with this article. Bm5481 05:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the oversights. If you have some reliable sources, feel free to and some info to the article, or list your sources here, and other editors can take a look at them. As to pictures, we may be able to find some Public domain images of Navy birds on the DOD image sites. I'll see if I can find any. - BillCJ 05:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I found a B/W pic of a Navy UH-46D on Commons, and have added it. - BillCJ 05:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good photo choice, as mail delivery was one of the many key roles of Navy 46s; I recall some squadrons had the USPS logo painted on the side of their Helos. I'll contribute some more to this article when I find time. 71.62.188.172 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

First flight
According to this it flew on 12 August 1958, not 22 April. Can anyone confirm either of these dates? Drutt (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That web page says the V-107 prototype flew on 12 August 1958 in one part and 22 April 1958 in a later part. I took the April date from "Whirlybirds, A History of the U.S. Helicopter Pioneers" (reference 1), which matched these web pages:   -Fnlayson (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)