Talk:Lockheed C-130 Hercules

Operators
Just removed Hungary from the list - so far the country never owned or even operated any Hercules; some dolt added it almost 6 (!) years ago from IP 84.83.2.83 (Netherland): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_C-130_Hercules&oldid=620662973 HTKA.hu kamm (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

C-130 and Pakistan
I have deleted a part of the article based on a very unsustantiated claim that posed C-130 as destructor of 17 indian fighters and claimed it had anti-aircraft artillery on its ramp, a very ridicous claim as never been observed and surely never would work if you want still to use the ramp for bomb delivery. I would add, that 17 indian aircrafts is about 50% of the extimated pakistani air kills on the whole war. So it is outrageusly insane to kept this unreliable source in the C-130 page. It's better to not having it, rather than to have it with such lunatic claims. 62.11.3.98 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for heading over to the talk page after having your edit reverted. I understand that your edit was made in good faith, however it seems that the claim is backed by a WP:RELIABLE source. Do you mind showing a source of the total Pakistani air kills? This will help your claim that the existing reference is false. Thanks, Transcendental36 (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Grounding due to maintenance-caused cracks
According to https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/maintenance-caused-cracks-ground-hercs/, the process that was used during inspections for cracks has been found to cause cracks, leading to the grounding of about 20 percent of the fleet of C-130Hs. I think that's worth mentioning. I leave it to someone who knows more about aviation. Renerpho (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Basic information about the Hercules
Shouldn't the article say what the plane's operational parameters are? It doesn't appear to say what the plane's altitude is, speed, or range. If it is there and I have missed it, perhaps it should be more prominent in the article? Chuggsymalone (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of aircraft type articles on Wikipedia have a standard 'Specifications' section which is always near the bottom of the article. This link will take you to the section in this article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  14:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Globalising aerial firefighting section
Hi all, first ever talk page post, following my addition of the globalise section template in the aerial firefighting section of this article. Apologies in advance if I've done anything wrong - let me know if so.

I added the globalise section template to the aerial firefighting section as the writing is very US-centric. The text assumes that the reader is US-based.

Examples:


 * unclear abbreviation ("Walker, CA" instead of [eg] "Walker, California")
 * use of generic terms to refer to specific things ("Congress", instead of [eg] "US Congress")

The content is quite US-centric though I don't have adequate subject knowledge to determine whether that's appropriate. A restructure with better signposting and consideration of level of detail would be good, suggest overall structure along the lines of: This would be supported by any further information available about C-130s use in firefighting operations beyond the US/Australia. Jrowls (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * [1st paragraph] "In the US, [...]."
 * [2nd paragraph] "C-130s have also been used in firefighting operations in [...]."

Notability
Honest question, not intending to provoke arguments. As the article shows, there are many C-130 variants. Several were apparently notable enough to warrant articles of their own… But where is the cutoff line that determines "these" are notable, but "those" are not? Can someone help me understand? — TadgStirkland401  (TadgTalk) 03:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no clear cutoff line for notability, as many users have their own ideas of exactly where such a line should be drawn. We do have a general notability guideline, as well as many topic-specific essays such as WP:NAIR that serve to give users a better idea of what topics would and would not generally be considered notable.  Most aircraft types are considered notable enough to have their own articles, so long as they meet WP:GNG, while subtypes and variants generally are not.  There are exceptions, such as in the C-130's case where the primary article becomes too large and must be split.  Many aircraft articles are split into more broad topics, such as "variants", "operators", and/or "accidents and incidents".  An alternative( or in addition) to a "variants" article, especially in cases where there are too many variants to cover in appropriate detail in a single "variants" article, individual variants (or groups of variants) may have their own articles.
 * WP:NAIR, specifically the section on subtypes and variants, says "A subtype may be notable if its parent article requires splitting and it meets any one of the following criteria: (1) The aircraft has received a distinct designation from the national aviation authority or the armed forces of any nation.  (2) The aircraft has received a distinct model number from its builder or manufacturer.  Or (3) the aircraft is reported as a distinct subtype in reliable secondary sources."
 * I hope this helps. - ZLEA  T \ C 04:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That said, the fact that a C-130 variant does not have its own article does not necessarily mean that it is not notable. It might just mean that no one has bothered to create such an article yet. -  ZLEA  T \ C 04:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, . That was very helpful. —  TadgStirkland401  (TadgTalk) 17:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)