Talk:List of surviving examples of mass-produced aircraft

Rationale
I find it hard to work out what the inclusion criteria for this article is, so before I start adding ten-thousand Cessna 172s or the like can somebody explain, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are those 10,000 so notable they have articles or even mentions in articles? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind Cessnas - even Piper Cubs and their ilk would swamp the page. It looks like a mess, and if even a fraction of the warbirds (or even named aircraft) are added it will become unwieldy, while duplicating existing lists. Rfd?NiD.29 (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, which articles harbor this horde of notable Cubs? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it from this discussion, this list is one editor's idea to cut down the growing size of the List of individual aircraft, which they also created. The sheer number of individual aircraft which have proved notable enough to have their own article is proving larger and less manageable than perhaps was anticipated. There is also the large number of individual aircraft listed in the many "List of surviving [aircraft type]" articles given in the See Also section - should Wikipedia really be listing every individual old machine still in existence? I'd suggest that we merge these discussions somewhere and sort out the whole issue rather than tackling it piecemeal. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC) [Updated 11:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)]