Talk:List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules operators

Untitled
Have all units using C-130s configured for electronic/radio intercept been deliberately excluded from this list? I didn't note any unit providing a/c for USAFSS units listed. Just wondering. Glacierman 05:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Future operators
Hello, why India is marked as "current" operator, they didn't recived their c-130 yet. For example Poland is not marked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.196.226 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both India and Poland are in this list as they have aircraft on order, neither of them is marked as current (in fact the term current is not used in this article for any operator) just an explanation that they have aircraft on order. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The aircraft are currently in service and more have been ordered. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/iaf-requests-us-for-6-more-c130j-airlifters/197113-3.html

Jim Kotwani 22:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplyj (talk • contribs)

missing operators in the map mark in blue
can someone update the map of coutries in Blue .. there are some operators not up to date .. such as iraq... thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.3.80 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've created an updated map. If you think a map needs updating in the futur, put in a request at the graphic lab! Derfel73 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

South Korea introduction
This pictres says ROKAF used C-130 already in 1981, not since 1988. Any details? --SojerPL (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Lockheed C-130 Hercules operators. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100311220952/http://www.asagumo-news.com/news/201003/100304/10030406.htm to http://www.asagumo-news.com/news/201003/100304/10030406.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813222948/http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/100708ae_c130_qatar.html to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/100708ae_c130_qatar.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314151826/http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2529&thisSection=military to http://www.key.aero/view_news.asp?ID=2529&thisSection=military
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913041301/http://www.fau.com.uy/hercules.html to http://www.fau.com.uy/hercules.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013003845/http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/fat_albert.htm to http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/fat_albert.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Flag icons in section headings
It's not just that the flag icons are decorative; it also has to do with accessibility per MOS:ACCIM and MOS:DECOR. Images and flag icons added to section headings can create issues for visually impaired readers who use assistive devices or other means to "read" articles. There are also issues with respect internal linking between Wikipedia pages that may be created for other users due to the additional flag icon syntax in the section heading. Encyclopedically there's not much benefit in linking to a general article about a country from an article specific to the country's use of a certain type of plane; if such a link is considered to be necessary, however, then it can always be made more specific (e.g. to the article about the country's air force) and be added to the top of each section as a WP:HATNOTE (like main or further). Similarly, if a flag image is needed for visual identification (which doesn't usually seem to be the case per WP:AVISTYLE), a file of the flag can be added to each body of the section instead of inside the section heading itself. Finally, your revert also removed all of the bottom matter (categories, "References" section, "Sea also" section, etc.), and the top matter (e.g. the lead) from the article as well. Assuming that was just done in error, I've re-added that content as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I concur that flag icons are not to be used in headings. I've removed such flag inons on many locations, but I missed their usage here as the article isn't on my watchlist. I'm less firm on using flag icons in articles such as this one, as they are quite common in aircraft article Operators sections. Most non-English Wikipedia aircraft articles have tons of flag icons everywhere, including in infoboxes and see also sections, so the flag icons often creep back in when those articles' editors edit English Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't even like flag icons in sports-related articles where individuals or teams represent countries, but that will probably never end. Which, unfortunately, seems to give more visually oriented editors the idea that flag icons are allowed everywhere on Wikipedia, when they aren't primarily for accessibility reasons. BilCat (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok Whatever FOX 52 talk! — Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As a screen reader user they're not as bad as they could be because they have alt text, but they're ... still not the best. Not to mention the anchor/linking issues discussed above, etc. Graham 87 04:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the OP, the Manual of Style page linked to says that flags in section headings are a big no-no. We have absolutely no reason to treat this article as an exception. It's that simple, guys. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What Steelpillow said Lineagegeek (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Too much subsectioning
Single line subsections are not an Mos compliant style. Should be a bulleted list or similar. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced data
@Fox52 I was staggered by the enormous amounts of referenced data on units removed by this edit. Niger; Japan, Nigeria, etc etc. Why did you do this? Flight World Air Forces is useful, yes but you removed specific data on operating units for multiple countries, reducing the value of the list significantly.
 * I am on the point of reverting six months plus worth of edits, so that all the unit data you wantonly removed is readded.
 * Please explain your motivation.

Buckshot06 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)