Talk:Lockheed AC-130/Archive 2

Swap-out low res photo
editprotected I propose we swap out the low resolution edited photo for the high-res, factually correct original photo. PrometheusAvV (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Even if they weren't versions of the same picture, the latter one is better choice. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done --Rlandmann (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've found a nice one to add to the article. PrometheusAvV (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Where would you like this one to go? And with what caption? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
The reference to the PGM-38/U ammunition is in error. This ammunition is not in use on the AC-130 gunships. Also if the ammunition were in use it would be designated PGU-38/U not PGM-38/U. ATK did not succeed in fielding this ammo in the Air Force. Also, the M793 ammo is not used on the gunships, actually none of the Air Force cannon ammo is traced.--137.241.250.100 (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference (me, congizant engineer for Air Force 25mm and 40mm ammo)If you don't believe my credentials check the IP address location —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.241.250.100 (talk • contribs)
 * Don't remove other users's comments to add your own. Please be more careful in the future. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please add this information with an appropriate reliable reference and not your own personal experience. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this proposal for the reason that this section seems to run in contradiction to the previous "Upgrades" section where it states: "The 25 mm GAU-12/U and 40 mm Bofors are to be replaced with two Mk 44 Bushmaster II 30 mm cannons.[11]" If the weapons are being replaced, then ammunition that has been proposed would appear irrelavent.  It would make sense to include this in an article on the GAU-12, but not here.  Complicating matters is the dead link for the upgrade referrence.  In the very least, these two sections (upgrades and pgm-38...) should be "reworked" to support each other, rather then call attention to the PGM-38 section by compelling the reader to wonder why it's there.Nwilde (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See reference 10 in the armament section of the specifications. That link still works.  I'm not sure why the Strategy Pages article was used over the USAF article in the second instance. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

CoD4 inclusion

 * No census to keep COD4 mention. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see how many people believe it should be removed versus how many people think a CoD4 reference should stay. Note, this is simply a vote to make it more clear if there is or is not a consensus. — BQZip01 — talk 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is based on WP:Air/PC, WP:MILMOS and Notability policies, not just people's opinions. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sheer pedanticness on this issue is mindblowing! --60.234.50.2 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC) User:Nzhamstar??

Keep CoD4 reference

 * 1) The material on the video game has been added dozens of times by apparently different users. The material is harmless and obviously many folks would like to see it in the article. I don't particularly care, but I hate to see folks wasting their time fighting against something that's harmless at worst and which may actually be helpful. Keeping it out doesn't improve the article. By comparison, I get 71,800 ghits for [AC-130] alone, 44,300 ghits for [AC-130 "Call of Duty"], 7,250 ghits for [AC-130 transformers]. So the crude "ghits" reading is that the game reference is mentioned on the Web several times more often than the movie reference.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep - COD4 was a very popular video game and sold very well. I hate to say this, but anonymous edits do count for something to.  People are adding content they feel should be included, and they aren't being vandals.  Heck, when I first saw this page I was going to add the COD4 mention myself - until I found the page was hard protected.  Speaking of - a semi-prot - yes.  But a full-prot? No.  I think thats a little extreme, should be downgraded. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the admin who protected it, I'll just point out my reasons. I agree with you that this is a content dispute, not vandalism, and protection policy demands that semi-protection must not be used to settle content disputes. If I felt that the anons were vandalising the page, then semi-protection would be an option. Furthermore, for whatever reasons, the dispute here is mostly between registered editors wanting to keep the reference out, and anons wanting to add it in. Protection policy specifically disallows semi-protection under circumstances such as these (since it could be construed to unfairly privilege registered users). --Rlandmann (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuff. You are, of course, correct. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I'd like to point out that COD4 is the #3 on the best selling 360 games for 2007 here, it has sold 1.5mil+ copies, and is expected to outsell halo 3 here.  While its impossible to directly compare a major motion picture and a video game - Transformers is noted because its a blockbuster movie - COD4 seems darn close as video games go to being a "blockbuster". --ShakataGaNai (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because a topic is notable does not mean every single component is notable. The Transformers mention is heavily backed up by articles and is notable in its own right as per WP:WEIGHT. The presence of an AC-130 in COD4 is trivia. Would you also include every single firearm that appears in the game on their respective articles? -- Scottie_theNerd  16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep I think that if some users want to restrict the pop-culture references to avoid adding every sighting, then the CoD4 reference is MUCH more deserving to stay than the Transformers one. I think that CoD4 is just about the only game(certainly of any recent ones) where you can fly an AC-130U. Owning the game, I can say that it is probably the mission that is the most fun. I know personal experiences don't mean much on wikipedia, but I was dissapointed when I say that there was only the Transformers blurb in the popular culture section. It is just as deserving, if not more, than the Transformers, and I can assure you that no one who own a copy of CoD4 would disagree. Erik212 (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not fly an AC-130 in COD4, and this argument is about the relevance of COD4 in respect to the AC-130 article, not about how great COD4 or its AC-130 gunner mission is. And if it matters to you, I own the game and I disagree with keeping the note on the article. -- Scottie_theNerd  16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you do fly an AC-130 Gunship in Call of Duty 4. I have a Video up dictating that Mission, which is right here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldking666 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actualy no you dont, your a thermal imager operator i belive. You fly ON a AC-130 in call of duty 4. There is a differnce. Bones Brigade  02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is, you're ON an AC-130U, which is a subject of the current article. Erik212 (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are the thermal imaging TV operator which, even if that position does not, fires all the guns(2 25mm gating gus,2 bofors cannons, and 1 105mm cannon which is odd because I did not see that configuration on the list) as firesupport for troops below. It is, in my opinion, a much larger reference than the transformers one and deserves to be there.Psycholian (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- That brings the notability issue back into play. So you're on it, and this is the AC-130 article.  That's not a convincing argument in my mind for mentioning it.  From the video linked, while fun, it appears to be a dressed up rail shooter sequence, so from a game design standpoint is pretty old hat.  That the level design was blatantly lifted from widely circulated footage from Afghanistan presents the only valid argument for inclusion, and even then the notability of this is debatable.  Of course the Call of Duty games are known for their ability to life from popular media (see the Enemy at the Gates and Saving Private Ryan-esque sequences in the original game), and this shows a transition to lifting from publicly available real life footage.  Notability isn't defined as how many google hits or how many references in popular culture or how many gamers come to wikipedia for some odd reason hoping that it will be mentioned in this article (Why does it even matter on that level?  Wouldn't you want to come here and look the other way around, and not worry that your favorite game isn't linked in an article about the real life aircraft?).  The notability of the transformers connection comes from the publicity surrounding the fact that the US military decided to provide real support to the production of the movie, meaning that a real AC-130 was used for those shots.  The military actually deciding to get involved in a major motion picture is notable in my mind.  That you play a rail shooter level in CoD4 is not. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep - If you want to remove the Call of Duty 4 reference, might as well remove the Call of Duty 2 reference in the Pointe du Hoc article while we're at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.84.94 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and propose that on the Pointe du Hoc article. I would argue against it: media interpretations and portrayals of historical events are typically notable enough for mention. The inclusion of one aircraft in a single mission in a game is trivial compared to the re-creation of a military operation. Mentioning that "Call of Duty 4 has a AC-130" is as trivial as "Call of Duty has a T-34 tank in it" or "Call of Duty: United Offensive has a B-17 in it". You might also note that COD4 has M1 Abrams tanks in it; M4 carbine SOPMOD and even a nuclear bomb. It's true, they are part of the game, but including them as popular culture references goes against WP:NPOV because they do no represent a significant portion of their respective topics. If there was an entire game based on controlling an AC-130 gunship, that would be a clear indication of notability. -- Scottie_theNerd  11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd also like to point out that if this detail flies, all 50 aircraft in Ace Combat 5 would also be subject to addition to each individual article as popular culture, which would seem highly unnecessary. Instead, Ace Combat 5 articles link to the appropriate aircraft from their article, as the reverse point mentioned is not important.  We could also relate this to a pencil.  Let's say a pencil appeared in CoD4.  Writing about CoD4 in popular culture would seem quite odd, given the importance, but if the pencil were important in the main game, such as if it theoretically saved the world from destruction, then it would feature a prominent sub article, as well as a link to the pencil article, but not vice versa. Compassghost (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe  Scottie_theNerd  and Compassghost are using reductio ad absurdum logic.  Sure you can argue that if you allow this AC-130 article to reference CoD4, then every reference to every gun, aircraft, etc. in every major video game should be included as well.  Of course, this has not occurred because in the minds of the the general public, not every reference is notable.  The reason why those other references don't get mentioned is because every other period game has a T-34 tank or a M1A1 tank.  But CoD4 is the first game (at least, major game)to let simulate an AC130.  The fact that is not a major part of the game does not mean that the event itself is not notable in being a seminal event.  The fact that this page had to be locked because multiple, independent people wanted the inclusion of the fact speaks volumes about its importance in the public eye.  To keep Wikipedia truly anti-elitist, it should be up to the majority of the public, even if anonymous, not just its users.  --- Bubbachuck (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep. This is a silly argument.  It does absolutely no harm to have it listed in a pop culture section if in fact the article is going to have one.  Since pop-culture sections are a part of WP, and they ain't going anywhere (common knowledge) it might as well be included here, including the COD4 reference.  Right now the entire article has been locked down because of this debate, therefore limiting its growth and contribution.  I really don't care if the COD4 reference is there or not, but even if the material was removed, its going to show back up again.  Meanwhile, the lock is preventing contributions.  End this debate and unlock the article already, should have never been locked to begin with.  COD4 info is going to be there, like it or not, and maybe it should because it has popularized this aircraft.  It has made people (particularly young folks) interested in it, and that's great news!    -- Trippz (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think there's been a fair amount of arguments to suggest that it will in fact cause harm, and set a precedent of inundating non-notable appearances of anything within media, something that led to popular culture sections in various weapon and aircraft articles because fans tried to add in instances they for whatever reason wanted to see. The popular culture section in the Minigun article for instance was bigger than the information about the actual weapon.  I still find it interesting that gamers come here and go to the AC-130 page and are upset that CoD4 is not mentioned on it.  I would think those people you mention who are more curious now would be sated by going to the CoD4 article or just reading the AC-130 article.  It seems unreasonable to me to change this precedent just for them and the consensus at least at the current point seems to agree.  -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the popular culture reference for Transformers necessary, either? I mean, it's not like it was an actual transforming object.  It was just a plane that got a few minutes of screen time.  The F-117 in Executive Decision got more screen time than this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compassghost (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The way its currently in there? No.  If it was a description of the publicity surrounding the US government decision to provide real technical assistance to the movie then yes.  I would wholeheartedly agree in removing the transformer's reference in its current form or rewriting it to show its notability and relevance. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is, that for the time being, I think that this particular reference will continue to be placed into the article by well meaning people. Even if the the Pop-Culture section is removed there is a good chance someone will decide to drop it into the article anyway, somehow feeling they are contributing.  Even if there is a consensus that it be removed (judging from this discussion there is not) its just going to show up again.  Meanwhile, why has the article has been locked over this?  The only reason I'm even writing this is not because of a like or dislike for COD4, but because I wanted to know why this article was locked.  As mentioned, this is a minor content issue and does not require a frozen page.  Who knows, maybe someone wants to put non-COD related info in, but can't.  As for precedent, it has already been made time and time again in WP.  Pop-culture section are everywhere, they aren't going anywhere, and frankly sometimes they are helpful, related to the subject, and interesting.  As far as I know there is nothing according to WP guidelines prohibiting them (discouraged is a more appropriate term, and more often attached to strictly trivia sections).  Project guidelines do not determine if Pop-C sections are permitted, for all I know there may be a "pop-culture project" out there.  My suggestion is to just allow the section, then after the hub-bub has passed (gamers are not known for their long attention spans before moving to the next game), then just remove the section if it is that big of a bother to some editors.  Place a disclaimer referencing this discussion and if it appears again, let it ride for a bit longer, then try a dump again.  There is no need to enter an edit war over a fairly trivial matter.  I don't think WP is going to grind to a halt because of Pop-c sections.  But more importantly, unlock the article and allow it to breathe.  It doesn't need to be mothered this much.  Think about it, these types of locks are far more harmful to this article and WP then a silly pop-c section, which depending upon your reading habits, you may already just bypass. Trippz (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you - if the article were to be unlocked, the CoD4 reference would be replaced very quickly (as happened last time it was unlocked) and then removed again just as quickly (again what happened last time). That's what an edit war is; hence the reason why I'm disinclined to unlock it until there's some mutually acceptable solution worked out (if that's even possible). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep - In Call of Duty 4 a full mission is devoted to the AC-130, and dialogue clearly indicates such, as does dialogue from the SAS ground team in the previous mission, when you're playing as infantry. Transformers doesn't identify the plane other than one of the marines calling for 'Spooky-Three-Two.' As far as relative importance goes it's appearance in CoD4 is far more significant than the three seconds of filming time that Spooky 3-2 gets in transformers. And to use some other guys point about CoD4 - The idea of saying that including the reference is silly because it's like; 'CoD4 Featured an AC-130', well consider it logically; 'Transformers featured an AC-130' sounds the same in essence - popular fiction using a fancy plance with a large gun. So given that relatively, the AC-130 was more important to CoD than it was to transformers, they should both be included, or both deleted. And contrary furthur to the AC-130 being a minor part of CoD4, it is actually quite significant, since it's what gets the SAS team out of Russia alive, the same team that locates and disables the nuke later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.107.1 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: - the distinction drawn by others (see above and below) is that a real AC-130 was used for the making of the Transformers film; as such, this appearance constitutes part of the operational history of the type (a minor part, of course). However, the same cannot be said to be true of the depiction of an AC-130 in CoD4. I'm not saying that I agree with that position; but I'm trying to clarify the issue somewhat. I guess the game equivalent would have been if it could be said that the USAF or Lockheed-Martin participated in creating the computer model that was used. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The distinction being drawn above is primarily in-universe and exaggerated. The AC-130 mission is not a "full" mission. It is a single level added to the end of a mission. The Transformers reference has clearly established notability and cites several articles to prove it -- and I imagine that more than three seconds of filming time were put into the AC-130's role (in comparison to screen time). The AC-130 is just one plane in a game that features dozens of locations, firearms and vehicles. The same would be true for Transformers if not for the fact that there are no less than four referenced articles. -- Scottie_theNerd  01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep with caveat for general "Pop Culture" disputes - The level with the AC-130 action figures significantly into the plot and theme of CoD4. It is not the main focus of a mission (a double standard some of you are asking for), but is a valid and notable reference. The game showcases advancements in warfighting, among which the AC-130 qualifies. It also demonstrates cooperation between two differing military branches: that of the special operations unit, and that of an air support crew. Great care was obviously taken to simulate the gunship's operating environment, from the weapons interface to the chatter among the crew. To my knowledge no comparable experience exists elsewhere in the entertainment world. —Nahum Reduta (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep: Pop culture can change fairly quickly, Wikipedia can change just as quickly. This is clearly notable, and is important information currently. If this article were being frozen for a hard bound or DVD version of WP it would be a less likely inclusion. WP evolves, just as an encyclopedia from the 1800s would contain many non-notable entries to today's reader, the Call of Duty 4 reference will likely not be notable 10 years from now. The necessity to combat pop-culture creep is also relevant. However this is a highly notable level from one the year's most popular games. Most every game reviewer has mentioned the AC 130 level, very few have mentioned levels involving a tank because the AC 130 level is considered fun and innovative. This appears to be a battle with too many people seeing black and white when what is needed are some shades of grey. Lastly, some users seem to be mentioning that anons are adding the content to the article and registered users are removing it. Who adds it is completely irrelevant to the discussion from a WP perspective. We can easily discern that these edits were not vandalism, and were made in good faith, therefore account status does not matter. If it does matter to someone here, I will add the info myself (this, of course, changes nothing but some people seem to think it matters). --BHC (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can see it being described as "fun" by game reviewers, but "innovative"? I watched the linked video and while I would agree that it would undoubtedly be fun to play that segment, its just a dressed up rail shooter.  That you have control over the FLIR as to whether its "white hot" or "black hot" and can select any of the three weapon systems isn't exactly innovative either.  I just feel like the standard for notability cannot be that its "fun" and from a game design standpoint its not very innovative in my mind. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's a fair enough point that it may not be innovative. That said, innovation is not a need for inclusion. But for whatever reason that the level is often mentioned it certainly is mentioned. As I mentioned before Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and for the time being this is notable enough for inclusion. I'm less worried about it on this article than I would be on another more esoteric one, it's clear that there are a number of people who care for and maintain this article, so I imagine when appropriate the information can be removed. Remember WP is made to be read today, we aren't writing the Bible. --BHC (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep: I went to this page after playing Cod4. That the junk movie Transformers is mentioned instead is an insulted. Fvdham (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep: It's just as valid an appearance as a 30-second spot in a film, despite User:Thatguy96's pop-culture jihad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.135.138.40 (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep: as per my comments above to User:4.246.84.94. I don't buy the fact that Transformers using a real AC-130 whereas CoD4 does not makes a difference.  Hollywood and the military pair up all the time.  Think of before there was CGI, movies had to use real fighter jets right?  Who is going to be providing the fighter jets used in Top Gun?  Other movies featuring aircraft that come to mind featuring military collaborations: Black Hawk Down and The Rock.  The fact that Transformers used a real AC-130 is not any more notable than CoD4 featuring an AC-130, moreso if it wasn't even the first time.  Since the AC-130 came out in the 1960's, I'm sure other movies have shown AC-130s and I'm sure that the military cooperated...how else are you going to film AC-130s??  I've read about cases where the military withdraws it's support if the movie shows it in an unfavorable light...more evidence of the mundane nature of the cooperation. -- Bubbachuck (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: You guys are being pretty gay about this saying its not significant. More people will have searched for a AC-130 gunship on wikipedia from it appearing in Call of Duty 4, than from transformers. Many people had not even heard of the AC-130 gunship until its appearance in Call of Duty. The fact that people are trying to discredit the significance Call of Duty has had on the awareness of the public of AC-130 is not on. You should be ashamed of yourself wikipedia. unsigned
 * 1) Keep : For what it's worth, I enjoyed both the Transformers movie and CoD4, but it was CoD4 that led me me to the Wikipedia article. As I got to the bottom, the lack of a reference to CoD4 struck me as a pretty glaring oversight, especially given that I saw Transformers pretty recently and never even realized there was an AC130 in it.  So I was about to edit the CoD4 reference in when I noticed the messages about this debate.  I'm firmly in the "keep" camp.  In CoD4 the AC130 is the focus of what's easily the most memorable and cinematic stage in the game.  I'm reading lots of irrelevent gameplay criticism, about the level being too linear and a "glorified rail shooter" and maybe there is validity to those complaints, but that has precisely zero impact on the fact that this by far the single most significant, lengthy, and detailed appearance of the AC130 in pop culture, in any format, ever.  Either include it or remove the entire section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.18.131 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep : I've read several articles in magazines that say that the AC-130 mission in CoD4 was extremely similar to actual footage of an AC-130 in combat. Also, in the game, prior to the mission, it gives some interesting system specifications of the plane itself. Plus, how many people are going to come to read the article out of curiosity about the plane, versus a cameo in an extremely popular video game. Not to mention versus actually being the gunner in it in the game, versus the movie when apparently it wasn't even mentioned by name. I've seen YouTube footage of planes firing at ground targets, and I think that the CoD4 mission hit the nail on the head most wonderfully. Finally, as previously mentioned, people will come to this article based on that videogame cameo. Why? Because it's popular culture. People are vastly more interested in popular culture then they are about military aircraft. If that's why they came, then we should keep the section. If anything else, it may just get them to read the rest of the article and actually learn something 216.8.140.119 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove CoD4 reference

 * 1) — BQZip01 —  talk
 * 2) It's just one choice in the game, not like an entire game/simulator on the AC-130. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) - BillCJ (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Remove -- it is not a notable component of COD4, consisting of only one short mission. Popular culture references should be significant in themselves rather than "This game has [plane] in it". -- Scottie_theNerd  06:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC) - Funnily enough, "This movie has [plane] in it," - sounds exactly the same.
 * 5) In regards to this, I had done the same thing for the DDX Project, a US Navy ship being developed, having appeared in two separate games.  As part of the clean-up process, the popular culture section was removed.  I agree with the fact that, unless it plays a major portion of the game, it should not be mentioned.  As it does not, it really isn't necessary.  Compassghost (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) The thing is Will, harmless information can actually be quite harmful. You see when you let seemingly small useless bits of information stay, it's sets a precedent saying "it's ok to stick anything here" and before you know it all our articles with be full of every game appearance of any plane (which will be unverified and full of OR) etc etc. Do you see what I mean? It'll lower our standards. On the other hand an encyclopaedia is meant to have information in it. However I feel COD4 doesn't feature this plane enough to warrant it's mention (I'd only warrant a AC-130 simulator). There's an interesting essay here about this sort of thing. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to reply, but this comment reeks of elitism. Many articles are already saturated with useless details, but this isn't one of them. It may not be a full mission, but the experience is unrivaled. This is not a matter of "one more weapon". Its role in battle is placed prominently in its proper context. And as a support craft, I don't expect a full simulation to ever be made beyond what is offered in CoD4. —Nahum Reduta (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It's unnecessary to add in a COD4 reference here. I share the same viewpoint as Scottie_theNerd. Micxiao (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete Yes, I changed my vote.  I'm getting to the opinion that most pop-culture references should go.  Especially when they are covered in other articles (in this case COD4).  Duplication is a waste of time and bytes.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  Talk 06:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete - As per my comments above. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Remove - I believe a similar precedent was already established to keep "in popular culture" references out of firearm articles, which may apply to military vehicles are well. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Remove, keeping such a non-notable appearance would open a can of worms. --Denniss (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Delete - had similar situation for the Chevy Corvette. Soon, the "in popular culture section" was so large that I moved it to its own article."  A number of months later, someone nominated it for AfD, where no real good reason could be found to keep it, and lots of reasons were found to delete it: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:TRIVIA, and falls into the category of "loosely linked and indiscriminate trivia".  In short, these types of listing don't really contribute to the understanding of a topic, and as someone in the above mentioned AfD said, "An encyclopedia is not the place to document each time [something] is seen..."&mdash; Mrand  T-C 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you also support the deletion of the brief appearance of the plane in a movie? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The only exception I can think of: if it was doing something especially unusual and notable in that movie that had never been done before, or if that is all the movie was about. In these cases, it would probably deserve a full sentence or two about it in the article (i.e., not part of a bulleted Trivia/In-pop-culture list - turn it into article text).&mdash; Mrand  T-C 22:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dammit! I find that I am of two minds, here. I have been logging C-130 history on the Wiki for years now, and I have watched the ebb and flow of this particular issue right along. One one hand, I have previously sided with the keep-it-out faction, and the comments by the Corvette Club historian (comments above) carry precedence, and resonance. But, on the other hand, is it really worth all of our time and effort to try to keep stamping out a reference that OBVIOUSLY a lot of anonymous, as opposed to vandalous, users would like to see there?  Perhaps we should look at popular opinion on this one, or, as we used to elect the king and queen of Bengal Ball at Clemson, "by acclamation". If the above-stated claim that this game is 3rd in popularity, that's no small potatoes in the video game world.  Let's be real, here.  As for incidental inclusion of random airplanes in articles - I immediately nominate the C-54 in the "Glen Miller Story" that Jimmy Stewart gets on.  Y' see wot kinda can of worms THAT would open up??  My two cents - Mark Sublette (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove - per all of the above.  Nothing looks worse in a very good article that video game crap.  Get rid of the movie reference while you are at it if you wish.--Looper5920 (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Remove.  Have the CoD4 & Transformers guys link to it from their respective pages and be done with it.  I own the game, watched the movie and fly the gunship.  Don't know if that carries any weight, but I feel neither article has any merit being on this page.  If you felt the need to add something at most I'd just link it to the movie and game pages with nothing else added. I'm with MRand, I consider the addition a waste of space which contributes absolutly nothing to the article. B24um (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Remove I also suggest that we delete the reference on the Transformers --BirdKr (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Remove - The AC-130 appeared in Call of Duty 4. The T-34 appeared in Call of Duty. There's no need to have the reference from Call of Duty here, any more than there is to have the reference on T-34. Instead, link AC-130 from Call of Duty 4. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the Transformer reference
While we're maintaining that Call of Duty 4 should not be mentioned, shall we remove the reference to Transformers also? If not, I'm wondering the reason behind the consensus to let it remain. --BirdKr (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus behind letting it stay was that it was an interesting example of government cooperation with a major motion picture. That being said, how its currently worded doesn't reflect that or make the point, so as I've already said, while I think it could be made to fit, in its current format it should be deleted just like the CoD4 reference. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the reason, then I won't mind that being referenced, but so far we having something of a mini-summary of the "heroic AC-130 using its gun to save humanity from robotic aliens" (sarcasm). --BirdKr (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a draft of the Pop Culture:

"The AC-130 was prominently featured in the movie Transformers. It was one of the instances in which the Department of Defense and Hollywood cooperated with each other for the production of a film for the interests and benefits of each party"

--BirdKr (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a fair description to me. -- Scottie_theNerd  08:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll call out the almighty "editprotected" tag.--BirdKr (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me -- Thatguy96 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should delete the Transformers mention too. The above !voting includes several opinions against it, even though it wasn't explicitly being debated. The DoD cooperates with many films, and as long as we include one popular culture item folks will keep wanting to insert others. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be the problem there? Does it not fufil the "notable" criteria that a government would cooperate in the production of a major motion picture?  Surely more so than the "Its fun" and "You get to [unrealistically] operate the weapon systems of an AC-130 in this game" in my mind.  I think including every instance of US government support in a motion picture in popular culture sections is more worthwhile than including every instance where a weapon system appears in a computer game.  Those popular culture sections would quickly dwarf articles, as happened in the Minigun article.
 * Furthermore if you go and actually read the commentary above the only concensus is among the AC-130 supporters that the CoD4 reference is somehow better because its got more google hits, or that either both should stay or both should go. Only one user has commented for the removal of the Transformers reference just because.  I don't call that concensus.  The inclusion of the reference is also defended by a number of people outright as being significantly different in terms of notability than the CoD4 refernece. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep both the transformer and cod4 references. I came here because i recognized the name. they are relevant atributions to the popular culture paragraph and taking them out would be pointless.tattat44
 * The government cooperates with numerous motion pictures, and has since before WWII. UNlike Top Gun in which the plane is a significant part of the movie, in this case the plane appears of mere moments. As for people voicing opinions against it, Mrand, B24um, BirdKr are among those I count off the top. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see where I ever said no one was voicing an opinion against it. You'll actually find me voicing an opinion against it in its current form.  It also may not be the center piece, but its probably the only motion picture to feature the aircraft, it was a direct product of US government cooperation, and the fact was reported in more than one articles.  We disagree on whether this qualifies as notability.  I say it does, you obviously disagree.  That's fine, but I can say there's a consensus on this just yet.  If the consensus says it should go, I'm also not going to continue this line of argument to get it reinstated. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent of the deletion of the Transformer reference after knowing the reason why it was mentioned. To me, it was the "behind-the-scenes" information that made the mention notable, not because it was shown on film. That said, I don't mind if the reference is erased entirely because from that article in the citaion, cooperation between DoD and Hollywood has been going on for some time so the AC-130 featuring in a movie is nothing special. If there's the possibility of the reference being deleted, then my vote is remove, if not, at least change the current statement.--BirdKr (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Rare appearance in film, part of critical point in film, an actual AC-130 used, USAF support. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove The article that is being cited implies that cooperation between the military and filmmakers is quite common. From that, the cooperation behind this movie is nothing special. --BirdKr (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove -- Cod4 is much more informative than Transformers and Cod4 isnt even in the article. 77.162.77.117 (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous discussion. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit The "mutually beneficial" crap so that it doesn't sound so patronizing. Ncalvin (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we keeping this? It did not feature a prominent role in th movie or even a minor one. I don't even remember seeing it when I saw the movie. Upon review I saw it had less than five minutes of airtime. This is my reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tattat44 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It was clearly not prominent even the refs say this more or less.

"Along with the F-22s, F-117 Nighthawks and the CV-22 Osprey are featured prominently throughout the movie. Also featured are the A-10 Thunderbolt II, C-17 Globemaster III, MH-53 Pave Low, HH-53 Super Jolly Green Giant, AC-130 Gunship, C-130 Hercules, MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle and Air Force One. "

"“The F-117s will be pictured prominently in the movie, both as static background and taxiing aircraft,” said Lieutenant Hodge, who has been a fan of Transformers since he was a child. “The CV-22 Osprey is scheduled to make its feature film debut in this movie, along with the F-22 Raptor.”

Also featured in the film will be the A-10 Thunderbolt II, AC-130 and C-130 Hercules, C-17 Globemaster III, MH-53 Pave Low, HH-60 Pave Hawk, MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle and Air Force One. The filming of the F-22, C-17, Predator and Air Force One will be done at another location. "

Notice how both sources specifically DOES NOT list the AC-130 in the "prominently " category. The third reference I believe is the movie itself.

The big show for the military was Osprey and Raptor. comment added by BeBoldInEdits (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 April 2009

development
The dilemma in this article is that most data and service records of individuals are still classified and all living United States participants are still restricted in their ability to comment.

The most basic attribution of the creation of the 'aircraft' is problematic because the airplane looks the same, has the same designations, with the same armament at the beginning of 1971 Vs end of Vietnam. When the airframe's effectiveness improves by a factor of 200, sounds like a different system that needs historical recognition. (Pave Pronto link gone?) Surprise Package was the new weapon system that is now implemented in all sidefireing gunships.

The attribution of the program to the RAF commander (non-American who is not restricted in commenting) seem historically insignificant as there were no significant changes in kill ratio's that can't be acounted for by the larger payload capibility of the ac-130 (more rounds to fire). There was great conflict in the implementation of the 'Pave Pronto' deployment, as evidenced by 'Surprise Package' being obtained not from active (new) stock but being re-deployed from Air National Guard stockpiles. The higher-ups faith in the potential of this upgrade is evidenced by 'Surprise Package' being the oldest active airframe in worldwide ANG stocks at the time of conversion.

The success of this complete evaluation of deflection characteristics (down to 1/4 of a ray of a degree in 3 dimensions) of airframe, gunmounts, and flight pitch and yaw produced a new weapon system with hundreds of kills per mission and much greater AA avoidance capabilities because it was no longer necessary to fly in a predictable path to gain targeting or sustain firing at a target.

To put it bluntly, previous versions of sidefiring airframes had to blanket a target area with rounds to gain a kill. Problematic because: 1)the maximum flight ammunition load of a c-130 would only allow for minutes of continuous fire based on mini, gattling, and bofor fire rates. Mission capabilities were essentially translated to less than 5 kills per flight before ammunition supply was exhausted, necessitating a return to base. 2) analog targeting computer (putting the crosshairs on target) required the pilot to fly in a steady circle around the target, so the targeting could then happen. This was ok as long as they weren't firing(black plane-dark sky), but as soon as the gunship fired and maintained fire, it lit up the side of the plane making a great predictive target (if u can lead it u can kill it) to enemy AA fire. Any ground fire AA would require a breaking off of the flight path and a restarting of the process.

This new weapon system was designed and deployed by Preyss,Albert E. and Willes,Richard E. into 'Surprise Package' at Wright Patterson AFB the summer of '71. This system, based on their work recounted in 'Snap Shoot Gunsight' rhttp://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0711391, allowed for placement of a single disabling round in a truck from 3 miles away while eliminating the necessity of a predictive flight path (significantly less ability to be targeted by AA). Bronze stars (silver stars were not available to 'transport' crews) and other awards were earned by flight crews that recorded over 400 kills and avoided over 10,000 rounds of AA (only counted if they had to move out of the way) in a single mission.

The overwhelming success of the system has to be measured by AirForce actions as there is no declassified documentation existing. ALL existing airframes were 'upgraded' to the new Surprise Package's weapon system platform. Many web sites recount the success of these weapons systems recounting tens of thousands of enemy trucks destroyed attempting to supply the Vietcong.

The current reality is that there is no such thing as 'high ground' anymore. These weapons systems have turned high ground into a death trap for any apposing force as they have been deployed in every US conflict since.

This is one of the most effective weapon system the the United States has when evaluated on a kills per mission basis. With restraints on data and people, how would one get documentation to provide such a history?SkiMuGiaPass (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We can only rely on published sources; unfortunately where documentation is impossible to come by (for the reasons you suggest) our coverage will necessarily be incomplete. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Basic stats can be found by contacting the History office at Hurlburt Field. They may have unclassified publications that could be used. Moreover, I've seen decorations that their citations could be used (gunships accounted for over 2000 KIAs during a specific one-year period. As a government document, this kind of reliable source would be ideal. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The best starting place (for information and for sources potentially in the bibliography) would probably be: Ballard, Jack S. Development of Fixed Wing Gunships, 1962-1972.  Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, 1982.  One should be able to find a copy freely available on the net. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

CoD4 and Transformers - another try
Well, no consensus seems to be forming between the different camps here; so let's take a step back:


 * To those who want to include a reference to CoD4, can you provide any citations to reliable sources that show that this depiction was significant in some way?


 * To those who want to include a reference to Transformers, can you provide any citations to reliable sources that show that this depiction was significant in some way?

Anyone? --Rlandmann (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I dislike the idea of youtube as a reference: the similarities of recent (within 5 years) footage and the gameplay / narration in the CoD4 are quite striking.
 * "Afghanistan" AC-130 footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6i3Pdm0jP4
 * CoD4 footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAscuD4loh8
 * One could argue the church vs. mosque, target vehicles, and "get that person" verbiage (~3:02 Afghanistan / ~1:15 CoD4)
 * Significance? I'm not as sure. 128.63.21.13 (talk)hybridtoast 19 March 2008


 * I think we should actually include all three: Transformers, COD4 and the Afghanistan video.MaxGrin (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment These two issues should be linked together because of their uncanny similarities. I can't understand why one is allowed in the article and the other is left out.  Is it the government collaboration with hollywood that makes it noteworthy?  Hardly worth mentioning.  The Defense Department's film liaison office is as old as the Pentagon itself. Phil Strub, who has run it for the past 16 years, says it was started in 1947 and existed in some form earlier.   Is it the three references that were provided?  One is to the movie website, and the two others are from the Air Force News Agency.  Hardly noteworthy.  To support the fact that the video game is noteworthy and valid, I submit this NY Times article, which eloquently makes the case for its relevance:  But there is one mission in the game that deserves to be in the pantheon of wartime storytelling, a level that chillingly, almost horrifically, reflects how modern technology has allowed both soldiers and civilians to detach from the reality of taking another human life. It is at once the most realistic scene and the mission that feels most like a video game, but only because for some modern soldiers, war really has come to resemble a video game.  Dustin782 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Dustin782

I think that CoD4 should be included there with Transformers, but since I'm a gamer, I'm functionally illiterate and am obviously a fool. Someone, somewhere along the way forgot that the whole strength of the wiki format was its embedded hyperlinking capabilities, and that the more links you forge between articles, the stronger and more cohesive the body of knowledge is on this site. Now we have a small group of editors whose chief interests include interpreting policy and maintaining their (subjective) paradigms preventing quite a large body of people from forging a legitimate link between two equally concrete pieces of information -- an article about one of the most advanced weapons systems in the history of mankind, and an article about one of the key works in the evolving art form of the digital narrative. This exclusionist idea will only weaken the site. Oh, and by the way, how about that population increase in African elements lately? Ncalvin (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this guy. Include a CoD4 reference. I was appalled that there was no mention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Sublette (talk • contribs)


 * It's my opinion that, if the transformers reference is worthy, then the CoD4 reference should be mentioned. Rollonover (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with this guy. Here is the proposed text:
 * The AC-130 was prominently featured in the video game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. The Department of Defense and the game developers cooperated with each other on the production of the game.
 * Now all we need is a verifiable, reliable source stating that this is true, and we're good to go! - BillCJ (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With a solid reference for the 2nd sentence, sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Call of duty can be included because of NY times reference, but it should not refer to the youtube video which on itself is rather insignificant when proving notability of call of duty spectre gunship usage. It just shows a possible inspiration (which is not confirmed I believe?) Mallerd (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can not believe that the Call of Duty 4 reference was removed based on a couple people voting it down because they don't like "video game crap".

End All: This level in particular was singled out in pretty much every audio podcast of this time. In particular I'm 92% certain (its been awhile) it was discussed on the Gamespot, Several 1UP/EGM (including the most popular game podcast of all time), and IGN along with several reviews (IGN review). In none of these did I ever hear someone talk about "the one level with the M-16" stop the slipery slope, absurdness, and strawman arguments. We are talking about all the major players in a massive medium. I heard very little talk about the appearance in Transformers except for when the dvd came out and people noticed it AFTER playing Call of Duty 4.

1. I believe that by now Call of Duty 4 is massively popular.

wiki page: "By January 2008, Call of Duty 4 had sold more than seven million copies worldwide, and was the best-selling game of 2007.[72] On June 3, 2008, Infinity Ward reported that Call of Duty 4 had sold over 10 million units.[73]"

Transformers box office (from rotten tomatoes) 319,014,499. This puts the box office of transformers in line with the sales of call of duty 4 since its one of few games to maintain a high price. I'm sure transformers still made more money after crappy tie ins, dvds, etc.

2. Critical reception:

Metacritic:

Transformers:

61

Call of Duty 4:

xbox 360: 94 PS3: 94 PC: 92

Gamerankings:

Call of Duty 4:

xbox 360:      94.16% PS3:  	        93.65% PC:     	92.37%

Rottentomato:

Transformers:  57%

3. You can not miss the AC-130 in call of duty 4 if you play the single player campaign, unless you are sleeping.

4. Based on reception of the teaser of Modern Warfare 2 many many people are excited about the sequel, the transformers teaser was in the super bowl and probably had less people looking forward to seeing it.

5. As stated military cooperation very very common as stated many times here. As part of that cooperation motion pictures are almost always forces huge constraints on the movies since they are dependent on the support (i.e. they arn't going to go buy/rent their own ac-130). Common examples are that if you have US military support, all US military personal must be shown in a positive light. It is generally considered notable when a movie manages to NOT have military cooperation.

6. The will of tons of people has been quashed by few, clearly favoring a few vocal registered bullies, at the cost of several registered and unregistered users.

Unless I can get some good refutes to this point I'm putting the reference in or deleting the section (no point in having a section for one lame entry). Be Bold In Edits (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Already been plenty of posts on this already. See previous attempt at Talk:Lockheed AC-130/Archive 2. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats a pretty good defense, and here I was thinking the subject was "another try" and we thought it was the first try. Or the fact that I referenced those earlier conversations was a complete accident. I didn't get to take part in the first argument and COD 4 has continued to gain relevance over time since it have a much longer lifespan of popularity than the average video game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeBoldInEdits (talk • contribs) 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The popularity of CoD4 is totally irrelevant here. Short answer: There's no concensus to add that info to this article, and you aren't even attempting to build a concensus here, and insulting editors who disagree with you isn't going to persuade them to change their mind and support you. WP:BOLD does not apply when the consensus already exists to follow the existing guidelines, so adding the info to the article again will just get your reverted, and quite possibly blocked by an admin. Proceed at your own risk. - BillCJ (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well looks like someone else went and added the information and you reverted it. Seems that the CONSENSUS you speak of is the CONSENSUS of BillJ. The fact this is brought up seemingly constantly seems to imply that the appearance of COD4 is in peoples mind. Popularity is not the only reason given and to say its completely irrelevant is silly. If you wrote a book and only sold it to your mother it would certainly be less relevant then something that sold 10 Million or more copies. I hardly consider pointing out that someone didn't read my post before commenting on it is an insult. Especially when his post is trying to say that I hadn't done the due diligence to look at the previous discussion. Be Bold In Edits (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, explain to me again how POPULARITY has nothing to do with POPULAR culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeBoldInEdits (talk • contribs) 15:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Be Bold In Edits (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I just went through the archived "concensus" again and at least 2 votes are factualy wrong ("its only a choice in the game") its not a choice its a mission that you must play to finish the game.

At least half of them are NOT a vote againts COD4 inclusion, they are a vote against popular culture sections in general, that was not what the vote was supposed to be about.

And at least 2 of them are elitism against video games. Be Bold In Edits (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To be clear on what consensus is and how it is obtained in WikyWacky wonderland: consensus is the agreement by all participants to accept a decision. It is not a majority vote nor tally, and it requires acceptance. In order to clearly call for a Wiki consensus, the normal process is to set forward a question on the relevant talk page, and then ask for all interested parties to register comments, opinions or votes (bearing in mind that solicitation for votes is not to be in question). After a suitable period (usually a week), the record of the "string" is then determined. If, at that time, all interested parties agree to the consensus, so be it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Which I don't believe happened. It was clearly removed by cleaver manipulation. If the question had been framed "Remove COD4 reference" their would have been no concensus and it would have stayed. Instead they framed it as "Keep COD4 refererence" and said their was no concensus on it so they arn't going to keep it. Since no concensus has ever been reached on this subject I don't see how saying "this has already been discussed" is an argument.

I agree that poeple may not even notice the ac 130 in transformers if they don't have or played CoD 4 so can we just put it back, this is a stupid debate, how can transformers be more impotant than CoD 4 this is absolutely ubsurd. Be Bold In Edits (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Either keep both or delete both, don't pick favourites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.48.208 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say that now both are gone so unless someone puts them back this discussion is VOID. sO IF ANYONE WANTS TO PUT THEM BACK JUST SAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.48.208 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewording Transformers
We can at least all agree the Transformer reference should be changed to:


 * "The AC-130 was prominently featured in the movie Transformers. It was one of the instances in which the Department of Defense and Hollywood cooperated with each other for the production of a film for the interests and benefits of each party"

Right? As I read it, it was the last statement that made the appearance notable, not what it did in the movie. If no one objects, I'll request the admin to replace the current mention with that of above --BirdKr (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you made this suggestion over a week ago and no-one's objected to that wording, I've gone ahead and made the change. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken references
Ref 11 (about upgrade to 30mm cannon at strategypage.com) is broken. Use http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2006/200610105842.asp instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolaiplum (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

PGU-38/U section
I've commented it out instead of deleting it in order to discuss it and make the revert easier if we decide to keep it. In my opinion, this is not an article about 25mm ammunition so its specs are not necessary here. The PGU-38/U (not PGM-38/U, which doesn't agree with the AETDS designation system) could just as easily be mentioned briefly in the upgrades portion. A 25mm ammunition article would be much better suited to the specs and description of this round in my opinion -- Thatguy96 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AC-130A formation picture
I doubt the caption of this picture very much for a variety of reasons. Firstly, they are obviously not C-130A type aircraft. The A is quickly separate from later types by its three-blade propeller. All these aircraft have four-blade props, indicating C-130E/H types in the 1981 time frame. Secondly, the camouflage scheme by the end of the 1970s had switched to Gunship Gray from overall black, either of which would likely have been seen here. With the exception of the first AC-130A, I am not aware of any AC-130s to have a light gray/white underside. All tactical camouflage painted AC-130s had black undersides. Lastly, at this distance one would still have been able to make out larger sensors (such as the Black Crow, which would have been fitted in this time frame) and weapons, none of which are readily visible in this picture. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. That image was taken from a DoD archive and wasn't observed closely enough. Thanks for the correction. -- SpecialOpsGuy (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

AC-130 "spooks" ops
Is anyone able to cite a reference to the fact that the Spooks only operate at night time (or in daytime under extenuading circumstances) ? 70.75.51.202 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will neither confirm or deny that statement (and any inference drawn from that is your own), but a simple google search should yield appropriate documentation to support such a claim. — BQZip01 —  talk 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some related sensor info is in the AC-130 USAF fact sheet if you read closely. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just read a good book on Operation Anaconda (Not a good day to die), and it went into detailed descriptions of and the limitations of the Spooks. Was going to cite that book, but dont have detailed enough info from the book (pages, chap. etc.) to do that. A google search is pretty general and/or typically brings up a discussion group about this.

The Spooks definitely do operate at night, but that fact they do this almost exclusively is probably not common knowledge


 * 70.75.51.202 (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me help you with that...




 * You can cite it now. :) First AC-130 reference is on page 198 and continues from there... ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Spectre Gunship in Popular Culture
The following should be put into the Popular Culture section.(Feel free to rephrase it if you want to put it onto the article)

The Spectre Gunship can be found in the game Command and Conquer:Generals Zero Hour (expansion). The Gunship is portrayed inaccurately by a different looking | Swept Wing Aircraft, while the manual calls it an AC 130 Spectre Gunship. -- KelvinHO Wiknerd ( talk ) 10:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add, the Gunship in the game is a jet plane.-- KelvinHO Wiknerd ( talk ) 10:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If anything, this should not be referenced. It doesn't even portray the actual aircraft. See WP:CRUFT. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects." —well, wouldn't that say it? Anyway, it is still a reference towards the AC 130, as it is called the "Spectre Gunship" and the role of the two aircraft are similar.-- KelvinHO Wiknerd ( talk ) 07:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:Air does have a policy ragarding this stuff. Those appearances are only to include if the aircraft (not look-alikes) plays a major role. Thus a movie or a flight sim fully covering the AC_130 is a go, small appearances or look-alikes like in Transformaers or C&C is a no-go. --Denniss (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree with you Denniss I can't help but think that the "In Popular Culture" sections are a very important part to any article because they add value to any reader rather than just aircraft nuts (Sorry, didn't know the lingo for that). It'd be a shame to lose it altogether so I don't see the harm in just single sentence references.


 * I for one would like to know it's in some video games :) It's an amazing aircraft and whilst I know it doesn't provide much to people here for serious reasons, I just happened upon here whilst perusing interesting articles about weapons :D JamesR87 (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If sources can be cited, I'm now FOR including the game stuff - if for no other reason than that I am tired of the constant reversion war. If the gamers are adamant about the ref, so be it... Mark Sublette (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dont think so this is an article about real aircraft not representations, the gamers could always create their own article AC-130 Spectre Gunship represented in Games and Toys. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay -  I'm easy.  But I think we are never going to see the end of the cruft battle, just the same. Mark Sublette (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This deletion of every reference to the Spectre in popular culture is by far the worst example of Wikipedia open editing I've seen. There are people flying these aircraft, fighting and sometimes even dying and a bunch of people snug back home are saying that *any* reference to their deeds in popular culture "isnt good enough". These arent exactly the most widely lauded soldiers around, indeed many people have probably been completely ignorant of their role until one of these "insufficient" pop culture appearances. That latter fact alone should be sufficient to put anything military in a popular culture section. Also, considering Wikipedia is littered with popular cultur references far more obscure than anything here, the virulent policing of this article goes far beyond the pale.--WarpGhost (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WarpGhost, your note is appreciated, but I know MANY of the guys on the gunships and, in those pop culture appearances, it is certainly worth wikilinking to this page. The converse is not necessarily true. As for those "people flying these aircraft, fighting and sometimes even dying..." the last AC-130 lost to hostile fire was nearly 2 decades ago (and the last one non-combat related was 15 years ago). In total, we've lost 7 gunships. See List of C-130 Hercules crashes for more information. — BQZip01 —  talk 15:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the plane's appearance in Call of Duty 4 notable?- JustPhil 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. See the talk archive page: Talk:Lockheed AC-130/Archive 2. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A good rule of thumb is that an article should not have a pop culture section if it is not a pop culture subject. The world of pop culture does not ooze out to contaminate the real world although the bearers of cruft try. Pop culture sections might be appropriate in articles on movies, video games, actors, etc. who themselves are pop culture subjects. They are not appropriate elsewhere. Sometimes the use of the term is used erroneously in Wikipedia when Video documentary ( or something of that ilk ) would be more appropriate (example F-15). The entries are appropriate for the article but the section title is not and invites problems. Problems are best avoided here by not having a Pop culture section. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)</b>) 17:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rules of thumb not needed as current WP:Air project guidelines covers this. It essentially says pop culture entries have to be major/significant ones.  In any event your solution seems better than anything else we have tried... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Without conducting an actual survey I'd guess that at least half of the edits to the article are to add or delete references to COD4. As I proposed last year, it should either be included or the whole section should be deleted, because otherwise there will be endless edit warring over it. Hopefully the edit warring will quiet down with the "popular culture" section gone.   Will Beback    talk    21:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the helpful information Berean Hunter. I agree with this move, at least half negative votes in the COD4 "non-consensus" really seemed like votes against a pop culture section, and having only one piece in their makes no sense. As stated before the two major ones brought up both have articles that can link here and the page does not need to link back. Is their some way we can show concensus on the removal so we can show it to people in the future? Be Bold In Edits (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeking consensus
Pursuant to the above discussion and to be prudently procedural, the question is whether to Keep the Pop culture section (it can be restored) or choose to not maintain one in this article with Delete.


 * Delete. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 14:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Be Bold In Edits (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Leivick (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)