Talk:Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture

Merger
No reason why this little-more-than-a-stub page shouldn't be part of the main Harrier Jump Jet article. - Aerobird 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Except to keep all this cruft out of the main articles! - BillCJ 17:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons reference
Prey tell why I need to discuss the suggestion that we add the Simpsons reference to the article? General Wikipedia practice is that people add content directly, and if somebody has an issue they remove it and supply a reasonable comment. Do you mean the reference is not notable? I can't see your point. There is a HJJ in the episode. The characters make reference to it, particuarly with the comment that the leading aircraft of the USAF is British. (does the USAF have HJJ or is it only the USN?) Kransky 03:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did give you a reason. Twice. By the way, the Harrier has only been in the USMC. So along with not being particularly notable, it's not accurate. See WP:AIR Page content for mor more information. - BillCJ 04:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this entire issue is well worth discussing because WP:AIR Page content is difficult to interpret. My  stance would be that the iconic status of the HJJ is noteable in design and culture contexts, and not noteable in the aviation history and engineering context.  Indeed, to discuss if and how the HJJ is iconic, a list of its apperences in popular culture would be essential reference.  My vote, if there was to be one, would be to include the Simpsons reference.  Please let's discuss this further. PeterGrecian 10:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it is kind of contradictory to have a list of 'popular culture' references, and then remove anything that is "trivial".   I think you are mistaking the Wikipedia of "trivial" to mean "frivolous", and not "insigificant".    To me a trivial reference would be mentioning that, say, a film featured a glimpse of a HJJ parked at an airforce base, but nothing more was mentioned or involved the aircraft.    However in The Simpsons the aircraft was shown and referred to.   Thus it constitutes a reference in popular culture.    Its ironic reference to its British origins is also unique and noteworthy.    The fact that the HJJ was incorrectly designated USAF hardware is irrelevant to its exclusion.  And if you are only going to include films that aircraft spotters think sufficiently portray the HJJ I would hardly call that list 'popular culture'.  Kransky 02:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We all have differences on what is notable. I don't beleive a 10-second spot in the run of a 20-year cartoon sitcom is "especially notable". If it was featured in an entire eposode of the Simpsons, or was a running joke of over the course of a seson or several seasons, it might be different. The main example of what is "especially notable" is the F-14's appearence in Top Gun: It is not jsut one brief scene or mention, but is seen throught the movie in a significant way. That's the difference between being notable and being a punch line.

However, I don't want to be unreasonable either. If you can find a printed or online source beyond a fansite, something verifiable, with a few details on the mention, then I'd be OK with placing it in. - BillCJ 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your flexibility, and I recognise your concerns about the article being devalued with a proliferation of minor or inane references. There were several scenes featuring HJJ, but the episode was ultimately not about the aircraft. So I cannot satisfy your requirement on this point. If a second person supports your exclusion I will let the matter rest. A script of the episode can be read here: www.snpp.com/episodes/3F08.html Kransky 07:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensive?
Either make the article comprehensive or get rid of it all together. Drutt 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I take it you're objecting to some particular game being removed from the page. There is no requirement on Wikipedia for comprehensiveness, but there are policies on notability and verifiability. This page is here as a convinience to contain the pop-culture referneces for the four Harrier articles, as appearances often don't distinguish between the Harrier I, Sea Harrier, and Harrier II. It is not meant to cover ALL appearences ever, just the notable ones, per Wiki policy. - BillCJ 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Metal Gear Solid 2
I was wondering if any consideration had been given for adding the mention of the Harrier jet in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. It wasn't just a passing reference, but was seen several times throughout the main game and was also a boss that had to be shot down, so as I understand it (from the earlier discussion about the Simpsons reference) this wouldn't be a trivial note. Trisar 16:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Red Alert 2
I put Red alert 2 in, yet somone keeps changing it. The harrier jump jet is a key unit in this game and has serveral in game movies showing the aircraft. Why not include it in the article?


 * I keep deleting it. It's not notable, and we usually list on;t flight simes, not games. Please review WP:AIR/PC and Avoid trivia sections in articles for basic guidelines on pop-culture. Even though the guidelines deal with sections within other articles, the rules still applay to pop-culture articles. In addition, articles and entries are also jusdged on WP:Notability and no original research policies. - BillCJ 02:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)