Talk:List of fighter aircraft/Archive 2

KAI FA-50
I've noticed that every time I change the KAI T-50 to the KAI FA-50, its changed back to the T-50. I would like to explain my reasoning why I believe the entry should be for the FA-50 and not the T-50 (even though currently they both occupy the same wikipedia page) and I also hope to hear why others may believe the T-50 should be used instead. My reasoning for using the FA-50 over the T-50 is that the only specific model of the T-50 family of aircraft that is purposely designed to be a fighter aircraft is the in development FA-50 project which is scheduled for its maiden flight in 2013. The basic T-50 variant is solely an advanced trainer aircraft while the TA-50 is a light attack and LIFT training aircraft. The FA-50 is a [b]variant[/b] of a trainer aircraft designed as a trainer, just as the Northrop F-5 is a fighter variant of the T-38 Talon trainer or the Panavia Tornado ADV is the dedicated fighter variant of the Panavia Tornado combat aircraft. The difference being is that the FA-50 doesn't have its own page yet because its still fairly early in its development from the existing T-50 airframe. As this is a list of fighter aircraft it is in my opinion that the fighter aircraft variant of the family of aircraft be listed over just listing the entire family of aircraft itself. Semi-Lobster (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Its been about a week so since nobody objects I'll make the small edit now. Semi-Lobster (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF
What happened to this article? It was in good order(by time/grouped in generations) last time it looked, some fool changed it to a simple list(by alphabet). Now it's a mishmash where nobody can't find anything. Somebody please revert it to the old, grouped list. This means, I'm practically begging YOU to make this right again,please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.217.97 (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh just be bold and add in a generation column so people can sort by that if they like. Hcobb (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You can sort the list by any column. If you're looking for a chronological list, sort it by First Flight, Introduction Date or Retirement Date.  If you really need the old version of the article,   You can use it any time you like.  SnottyWong  communicate 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the J-20's emergence there is really less to argue about concerning generations. 5th Gen fighters simply rely on stealth and have radar deflecting angles. Perhaps a generations column should be added. -Nem1yan (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * so long as you can find an authoriative source for each generation. But to some extent you will start to overburden the table. I'm on a widescreen and at normal zoon there's not a lot of room left. What does a column of generation add when the majority of the entries will probably be "none" being pre-jet age? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look through the archives of this talk page, you'll see that the main impetus for overhauling the article into tabular form was the perception that "generation" was an ambiguous term which wasn't useful for categorizing the aircraft. It's difficult to find a reliable source for each aircraft which tells us which generation it falls into, some aircraft have aspects from multiple generations, and there doesn't appear to be a clear definition (with which a majority of the fighter aircraft industry agrees) of what these generations are.  This article was actually nominated for deletion (see the discussion here) based on the fact that the "generation" concept wasn't useful or encyclopedic.  Adding that concept back into the table doesn't seem useful to me.  SnottyWong  babble 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the previous discussions on generations and participated in most of them. The argument over generations stemmed from the idea that the F-22 and F-35 shouldn't be grouped separately since their performance was not proven to outshine that of so-called 4.5 generation fighters.  However after the arrival of the J-20 and T-50 it has become very apparent that this new generation of fighters is indeed made up of aircraft that all focus on stealth.  The argument went away because aircraft can again be grouped according to design elements and era, and not necessarily performance.  Also there are articles on fighter generations already and giving people the option to group them that way isnt "unencyclopedic".  And the aircraft were all grouped according to generations before so the "pre-jet" age fighters will be grouped as they were then, there certainly isnt a reason to put "none".  -Nem1yan (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see by looking back at an early version that pre-jet fighters were grouped only according to era ( -1918, 1918-1939, 1939- ) not but design advancement with the exception that they were also subdivided according to biplane or monoplane (though biplane performance could be superior to monoplane). Would that be used again? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nem1yan, I understand your point but I personally still disagree that adding a generation column to the table would be useful. However, I don't own the article so if you can find a consensus that it would be useful, I wouldn't object to it being added.  My !vote, however, would be to oppose.  SnottyWong  verbalize 22:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose any use of generations which is why the article was changed recently, it would be a retrograde step to add it back in after all the hard work by Snottywong and others. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shall we have a separate list in each of the "X generation jet fighters" articles then?


 * You wouldnt object but you would vote to oppose it?? haha Either way is fine with me honestly. I only brought it up because I know the generations debate only started because the term "5th gen" seemed to suggest that the new American fighters were better than all others even when that was not necessarily the case (F-35 only outperforms Eurofighter in a few areas).  Now however there does indeed seem to be a new group of fighters based around the same concept of stealth (so a new generation), and since then there hasnt really been a discussion against it.  I would honestly rather see a list of fighters added to each generations' own article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1yan (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There used to be lists of aircraft in each fighter generation but to be honest the lists were very contentious and opinionated, constant edit wars over which aircraft belonged in which generation etc. etc. thats why everybody decided to ship them off to just a big list so they wouldn't much a up the generation page itself. If we were to try this again we should MAKE SURE what happened last time DOESN'T happen again Semi-Lobster (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Zachwarjri, 12 January 2011
i want to edit this page because of Hal tejas's Introduction-2010

thank you! Zachwarjri (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

✅. Thanks. Marcus Qwertyus   10:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Abandoned, Cancelled
(cur | prev) 04:59, 14 January 2012‎ GraemeLeggett (talk | contribs)‎ (60,162 bytes) (Undid revision 471286750 by Jirka.h23 (talk) list is inclusive of all types designed as fighters, suggest discussion on talkpage or WP:Aviation Aircraft taskforce) (undo) (cur | prev) 03:28, 14 January 2012‎ Jirka.h23 (talk | contribs)‎ (46,783 bytes) (Undid revision 471267816 by NiD.29 (talk) Read the title, abandoned are not notable fighter aircraft which are currently in service, or permanently retired, or future aircraft) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:56, 13 January 2012‎ NiD.29 (talk | contribs)‎ (60,162 bytes) (Undid revision 471131433 by Jirka.h23 (talk) abandonment of development does not mean they were not fighters and are therefore very much on topic) (undo)


 * The page is not named "List of fighter aircraft that entered service", nor is it "List of fighter aircraft I consider notable"

The page title IS "List of fighter aircraft" which is fully inclusive of all fighters regardless of whether they entered service or not. So long as someone, somewhere wrote something about the particular fighter OR there is a wikipedia page devoted to the aircraft it may be included. There are far too many commonly known fighters that were cancelled before entering service to do otherwise - the Avro Arrow for instance, which is known by all Canadians, regardless of interest in aviation. I am sure I could pick a nationality at random and find a similar type. Should they really be excised because it was cancelled after having been flown? Most references would include these types in any such list. On the other hand I would hesitate to include aircraft in development that haven't flown, but too many fanboys want them (and will keep re-adding them), and so long as any of them are present it makes no sense to be deleting real aircraft that were designed, built, and flown.
 * Please do not delete a full quarter of the contents of a page without so much as a comment or a query - considerable work that went into adding all those entries. (ps thanks for adding the Czech types - I was adding a bunch of 30s types trying to get a little balance with the excessive number of modern entries, and somehow missed those)  Cheers!NiD.29 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that it seems contrary that aircraft that flew are removed from the list while aircraft yet to be built are on it. That the 4 fighters that enter service are retained while 12 (preproduction) fighters built are omitted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Splitting the table isn't a good solution either since one of the advantages of the table is to see the contemporaries that didn't make it. Also it makes it likely that types will end up on the wrong table, or on both tables. The whole purpose of the status column is to allow all of them to be on one table. This page was split into seperate tables and that led to edit warring over what went where. Better to just have a single column entry that can be changed rather than having to move items between tables when there is a disagreement with status.NiD.29 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, i disagree that abandoned and canceled prototypes which some of them flew we can call them real fighter aircraft, they cant be drop to real fight, they are just only PROTOTYPES, i made good work and can assure you that none types end up on wrong table and theres none warring over what went where. The article is not named "List of fighter aircarft and prototypes". The whole purpose of this article is to have good view of Fighter aircraft, such prototypes can be hundreds and hundreds which are not yet included, again i suggest this sollution for better overview or the way can be to create a new page named "List of fighter aircarft prototypes" or "List of abandoned fighter aircarft".. (Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Once you start hiving off the prototypes and cancelled projects you then have to think what to do with those currently in development or still on paper. It's much more effective to have them all side by side. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well for those still in development, i think they should be in same content as the abandoned, because they are still not real developed fighters. Look for example here at Ford vehicles, concepts are separated as well.(Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC))


 * By all means create a separate page for abandoned aircraft but this page must still include them. Just because their development was eventually abandoned does not mean they were not "real" fighters or were incapable of being used as such - indeed most of these were armed. The concept car is a poor analogy - the Avro Arrow was built on a production line that would have incorporated the few changes needed for the operational version. A concept car OTOH is neither capable of being used as a normal car, nor can it be mass produced without significant changes. Many prototypes were combat ready - the Heinkel factory was defended by aircraft whose development had been abandoned. Neither the YF-22 nor the X-35 were more than a concept car with wings, but current practice is no guide to historical practice. And some types are important because they were abandoned.
 * Heinkel He 280 was the first jet fighter - status? Abandoned in favour of Me 262.
 * Bell P-59 Airacomet was the first American jet fighter - status? Abandoned as too slow.
 * Gloster E.1/44 was the first single engine jet fighter - status? Abandoned as not needed.
 * Saunders-Roe SR.53 mixed rocket/jet interceptor abandoned at a major junction in UK aviation history.
 * Avro CF-105 Arrow jet interceptor whose abandonment destroyed the Canadian aviation industry.
 * Aero Ae 02 was the first Czech fighter - status? Abandoned in favour of Avia BH.3.
 * Avia B-135 a Czech monoplane fighter abandoned when Czechoslovakia was invaded by Germany.
 * Dayton-Wright XPS-1 was the first retractable gear monoplane fighter - status? Abandoned as too slow.
 * Canadian Car and Foundry FDB-1 possibly the last biplane fighter developed - status? Abandoned as obsolete.
 * The assigned category for some types is arguable - the Bell Airacuda was either cancelled or retired - it served briefly but never got past prototypes, while the Bell P-59 Airacomet was mass produced but wasn't used by any fighter squadron. These are of much greater historical importance than some sub variant of someone else's design that happened to be built in some third world country regardless of how proud they are of it (rightly so), and of immensely greater importance than a project that hasn't gotten to a mockup yet and which may never fly. I would be more inclined to include these than the Aero L-159 which is a warmed over trainer which would be outclassed by contemporary "real" fighters such as the F-16 or Su-27. I am not suggesting removing types whose claims can be contested but the opposite. If it was intended to shoot other aircraft down, then it belongs - indeed I would like to add a category for "paper airplane" for all the napkinwaffe aircraft and the current deluge of paper projects that haven't (and may never) make it to metal. I dislike the label "abandoned" but no alternative is sufficiently concise - "retired prototype" seems too lengthy.NiD.29 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it is difficult to give a succinct summary of the fate of a particular design while maximising the number of common terms. For many British designs in the pre-War period it was case that it was one of several designs competing for the one order. The design that measured up best to the specification went into service, the others retained for development work or as a transport hack. During the war, a worthy design might be ordered then cancelled due to some other pressing strategic need. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * While attempting to bring some sort of consistency to the page I tweaked the categories so they are:
 * * Project - hasn't been completed. Does not include abandoned projects or Napkinwaffe.
 * * Prototype - has flown or will do so soon, but has not entered squadron service, AND development is ongoing.
 * * Abandoned - at least 1 example completed, and may have been built in series but development ended without a service entry.
 * * Operational - currently in squadron service somewhere.
 * * Retired - no longer operational, but was in squadron service.
 * This has the advantage of allowing all entries to fall on a single line (In Development was always split and looked bad), and choices are generally clear-cut reducing (hopefully) for the tendency for people to make up categories that duplicate existing ones.
 * I changed the display of company names to make them follow the usual presentation rather than the page name (retaining the link, and in numerous cases fixing poorly chosen links).NiD.29 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I give up, iam not too good in english for such dialogs. So its up to you boys, but i think that after there will appear twice or more such prototypes or projects, you will see that this article is not much transparent;-) (Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

Article Size excessive, trimming needed
Page size and thus load times are getting excessive so some trimming may be required. "Manufacturer(s)" is the least useful despite its bulk. Maybe it was added when links for aircraft lacked the company name but it is redundant and doesn't offer any means of comparison. Unless there are good arguments for keeping it, I'll remove it.
 * References for most entires will be added from Green & Swanborough's "The Complete Book of Fighters - An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Every Fighter Aircraft Built and Flown" - which will further increase the size of the page.NiD.29 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Would a hatchet job on the flags and country links speed things up?GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not as much - and the flags allow grouping by nationality without even more text (the USSR, Czechoslovakia and France and a bunch of minor countries rely on the short form flag tag which uses less characters than writing the names) - there should be some savings though. Not sure about resources used for redirects though. I am testing these out in a sandbox - link to be added here when I am done. NiD.29 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The original page was 167,505 bytes - removing flags lowered it to 160,275 bytes but removing just manufacturers lowered it to 126,321 bytes.NiD.29 (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to trim the page a bit further as it is still overly large - service entry and retirement dates are somewhat redundant (and data heavy) - we need first flight to provide era, but further detail isn't required, especially with status, and many of retirement dates are impossible to nail down precisely. Wondering also if future (as yet unbuilt) projects shouldn't be spun off into a separate table or even page (ie List of unbuilt fighter aircraft), since we are already ignoring past unbuilt projects.NiD.29 (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * removing the two redundant columns reduced it by 13,000 bytes, could still be trimmed further - thinking of reducing first flight to just the year. comments?NiD.29 (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How much of a time to load - as opposed to straight byte count - do you get by eliminating templates? And now that I look at the code, dropping to year only would avoid all the calls to template:dts for a start. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point - wasn't thinking of that angle but it is probably significant.NiD.29 (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Trimmed the date field down and now the page has shrunk to a more respectable 100k from 160k, just lots of references now needed...NiD.29 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig35/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of fighter aircraft. 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/20101120180632/http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/index_mil_e.html to http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/index_mil_e.html

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) 12:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

List format
Following this discussion on the Aviation WikiProject talk page, this list is to be reformatted to the "general" format as specified at WP:AVILIST. Note that the general format now retains the count of numbers built. If you have any objections to the format in principle, please raise them in the linked discussion. If you believe that this list should be an exception, please seek a local consensus on this talk page. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Role column
The Notes column contains a good many references to the type of fighter - night, light, heavy, interceptor, etc. Would a Role column be a useful addition to accommodate these? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

List Rules
Why are people adding the projects having 0 prototypes? They must at least have a single prototype so they can be entered in list. So, please, don't add such content. Nomi6612 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest rereading the inclusion criteria. The list includes current projects, but not cancelled projects from the past (of which there would be too many, and the list would be overwhelmed with marginally notable unreferenced paper projects). Current projects exist, have work happening, are notable, and need to be included because people will be looking for them - and it isn't as if there are hundreds or thousands of them. If those current programs are cancelled, they get removed, but most of them will produce at the very least a flying prototype. Also, when updating the number built for new types, a reference is needed for the new number.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nomi6612 that unbuilt projects should not be included. An aircraft should have had at least one airworthy unit completed or almost completed before inclusion. The reasoning that "Current projects...need to be included because people will be looking for them" can be accommodated by creating a separate "Current Fighter Projects" list and making note of so in the introduction to this list.Bron6669 (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is there a basic trainer in the list? Do check HAL HTT. Projects are projects, they must ne removed. Why only indian projects in the list? Kindly pay attention and stop nationalistic vandalism. And sorry i forgot to add the reference for the number of the jet. Nomi6612 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Already gone - along with a couple of others the fanbois keep sneaking in. Current projects exist. Past projects do not.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Planning on adding an entry to the table? Read this first!
Thanks for adding to the table. In order to maintain the consistency of the table as well as its sorting functions, please be sure to read the following before adding any entries: If you have any questions about how a new table entry should look, please ask here. Thanks! Snotty Wong  soliloquize 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aircraft Name - This field should contain a link to the aircraft's article only. It should be a direct link to the article, not a redirect.
 * Country - This field should contain the country (or countries, if applicable) that developed the aircraft, and it must use the flagcountry template so that sorting by country will work consistently.
 * First Flight - This field contains the date of the first flight of the aircraft. If the month and day are available, they should be included.  This field must use the dts template in all cases.  The format is one of the following, depending on how much information is available:  YEAR-MONTH-DAY, YEAR-MONTH, or YEAR .  Any references should be added after the closing braces of the template (not inside the template).
 * Introduced and Retired - Both of these fields should contain only the year that the aircraft was introduced and retired. If the month and day are available, they should be excluded.  Do not use the dts template for either of these fields.
 * Manufacturer - This field contains the company or companies which manufactured the aircraft, preferably with a link to the article on that manufacturer, if available. If there are multiple manufacturers, they should be separated by commas (not line breaks).  If there are more than 3 manufacturers for an aircraft, it should be listed as "Various" with a footnote that lists all of the manufacturers (or, optionally it can be listed as the primary manufacturer with a note that lists the other manufacturers, so that sorting remains meaningful).  Look through the wikicode of the table for some examples of how that is done if you are unsure.
 * Number Built - This field contains the total number of aircraft that have been built, including prototypes. For proper sorting purposes, this field must use the nts template.  The format is , where NUMBER is only the bare number with no commas and no non-digit characters.  The template will add the appropriate commas while keeping the column sortable.  Any references should be added after the closing braces of the template (not inside the template).
 * Status - This field contains the current status of the aircraft. Please try not to make up your own status, but rather find an existing one which closely resembles the status of the aircraft.  That way, sorting the table by status will be meaningful.  If some aircraft are listed as "Retired" and others are listed as or "Cancelled" or "Scrapped", then even though their statuses are essentially the same, they will not sort together when the table is sorted by status.  Currently, the statuses being used are: Abandoned, In Development, In Service, Prototype, and Retired.
 * I just realized that maybe the table could use a 'Role' section or something along those lines, something to clarify the role the fighter aircraft was designed to perform (air-superiority, fighter-bomber, interceptor, multi-role, SEAD, Night fighter) etc. etc. Semi-Lobster (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * how about adding a new column called "costs" or "price" . I think it would be very informative to be able to sort the jets by their (maybe estimated) price tag. Pnzz7 (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have an entry to add, however I can't add it because this list doesn't seem to be working. I click on the table, which turns out to be a template, I click edit and it proceeds to freeze and never loads. I'm not sure how I'm meant to add an entry like that, but maybe you can somehow add it for me. The aircraft in question is the WM-23, a Hungarian WWII fighter. I made the article for it recently, here it is: Weiss Manfréd WM-23 Ezüst Nyíl
 * I would like someone to firstly get rid of the current entry (which doesn't have a link) for the WM-23, as this uses a different name. It is under the "M" section and it is: "Manfred Weiss WM-23". Secondly, I don't know what the vague "date" section refers to; when the design began? (1939 for the WM-23) when the first prototype was completed? (1940 for the WM-23) when the first flight occured? (1941 for the WM-23). Anyway the date displayed at the moment for the WM-23 is "1941". Thanks in advance Victory799 (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I created a link to the Weiss Manfréd WM-23 Ezüst Nyíl article - though why the company name is rendered that way when it's Manfréd Weissin English. Also seems different style to other aircraft from same company which are "Weiss WM-xx". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, I considered both ways of naming it but my reasoning is that Manfred Weiss would be shortened to MW, instead of WM, which is where the WM-23 gets its name from. It's essentially named "Weiss Manfred-23". This is because in Hungarian names are written last name first name instead of first name last name. Therefore it makes more sense to me to give it its Hungarian name, as we don't translate its nickname into silver arrow. And Weiss WM-23 just cuts the name apart, like calling the North American P-51 the "American P-51" or "North P-51" which is even worse. But thanks for adding the link, does it not freeze for you when editing the template? Victory799 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I didnt edit the template, I clicked on the redlink and added a redirect. 2) Visual editor performs poorly with lots of data within a template format, edit the source directly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh right, thanks for that. Victory799 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

In the list there are projects having 0 prototypes and even basic trainers from a single country, India. It is nationalistic vandalism which must be stopped. Nomi6612 (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)