Talk:Lockheed P-2 Neptune

Variants subsection
I'm confused and rather than revert I'll start a discussion. The way the variant subsection has been set up is akin to how it exists in other pages, is easier to read and presents just as little or as much information as it does now. Now there is no order what so ever to the listing, and no division, makes it a confusing list that doesn't really tell you anything. Furthermore the way it existed before saves space. -- Thatguy96 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Listing of versions can't show development process, we have Design and development section for this part. Variants can only show different versions of aircraft and we are doing that by listing all of them in alhpanumeric order.
 * Syntax  *version  is much harder to read for both editors and users. Syntax  ;version  makes both things much clearer and easier to read. This syntax makes articles a little bit shorter too because articles take less space in database, especially when list of version is really long. Last but not least more "displayed space" is advantage because from usability point of view this subsection is easier to read. New articles uses that syntax, please look at Curtiss Hawk and Talk:Curtiss Hawk. I'm just preparing official guides for formatting and I'll post it in few next days on WikiProject Aircraft pages. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 19:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I would disagree very much with your interpretation of what should be the official formatting guides. What we have now is a variants list that is out of order that would not match up chronologically or logically to any "design and development" page that would be constructed.  It is confusing at least to me because its just a laundry list of variant with no clue as to how it would even fit in to a  design and development overview.  I don't see how the previous set up for the variants section showed a development process, it merely reflected which variants were subvariants of what basic model.  You haven't modified the associated information at all.  I'm just confused, because with a variant list like the one you'll have here, which spans four services and two countries will be quite confusing even if in alphabetic order, because it won't follow how it will likely appear in the text.  The way it was set up before offered a quick reference and was just as easy to find the variants within it.  You could also make it more visibly readable in your opinion in this format.  Lastly, the Curtiss Hawk page is just a list, and doesn't have a design and development portion, how does this fit in with what we're talking about?  That format makes sense for an overall reference list, but not for an article like this.  -- Thatguy96 20:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It seem the best place for this discussion is the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content page, with a notice of the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft.


 * Most of the variants list on the aircraft pages I regularly contribute to (upwards of 800) use the type of list Piotr is advocating. It's not confusing to those who understnad the US DOD designation systems, and is in fact very orderly. THis enalbes readers to find a particular variant which tey are looking for very quicKly. The Other sections (History/Design/ development/etc) are usually in chronological order, while Operators is a brief summary of the users of particular types. THis format works well for most articles (there are of course exception, as ech type is different, with a different history and usage), but for this page, Piotr's suggestions are within content guidelines, and thus the project's consensus.


 * As to Piotr's proposals for official guides to formatting, I would welcome some discussion on them in the Project. THere are several conflicting ways of making lists, and until now, no one way is preferred by the Project. I actually prefer  *version  to Syntax  ;version  for ease of usage, flexibility, and keeping ht text on the same line, but I understand Piotr's reasons for his preferrences also. The issue definitley needs to be discussed in WP:AIR, and and some decisions made on which syntax the Project wants used, if any. As always, these would be guidelines, not policies, and they wouldn't HAVE to be followed, but if they do become the Project consensus, there would have to be discussuin and concensus on individual pages to use other formats. - BillCJ 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've posted large explanation with examples on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content and I'll be glad to continue discussion there. Please remember that my proposal is not made because I like this kind of code writing. In professional life I'm web usability specialist and I'm trying to make life of editors and readers easier. White space can be very useful, especially when your eyes look at computer monitor 10 or even 14 hours daily. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Variants" subsection is intended to be an at-a-glance summary. I try to list the variants in the chronological order. That way the section can be read top to bottom with a brief summary of the evolution of the aircraft. As a caveat, in aircraft that use "Mark" or "letter" designations, I list the variants strictly in the alphabetical order since a higher Mark or Letter usually indicates the higher evolved variant, even if the chronology is disrupted (it is very confusing to read the list that goes A, B, C, G, E, F, J, D). I also list the sub-sub-variants in alphabetical order (i.e. Fruitbat F-42BT would be listed after F-42B even if it was developed chronologically after F-42C). The reason for this is that the main sub-variants (A, B, C) tend to represent the most significant increments in design while the second letter/number sub-subvariants are just iterations. With peri-1962 US aircraft, I use the name that was first assigned to the aircraft. E.g. YP-84A, P-84B (F-84B), F-84C. - Emt147 Burninate!  00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

California Dept of Forestry P-2
I don't see it mentioned in the article but there are some great photos of it 'bombing' the fire on Mt. Diablo (Sept 2013) in northern California. The plane is listed in the "Cal Fire" brochure "Firefighting Aircraft Recognition Guide". How would one find out whatever "variant" it is in order to add the plane to the list in the article? The booklet is online at http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/AviationGuide_FINAL_webbooklet.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.126.7 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lockheed P-2 Neptune. 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 http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20110709162543/http%3A//www%2Ehistory%2Enavy%2Emil/avh%2Dvol2/chap3%2D5%2Epdf to http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-vol2/chap3-5.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161222183634/http://armyaviationmuseum.org/index.php/museum/aircraft-collection/2-uncategorised/64-fixed-wing to http://www.armyaviationmuseum.org/index.php/museum/aircraft-collection/2-uncategorised/64-fixed-wing
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430182607/http://www.theqam.org/ to http://www.theqam.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Another survivor?
I noticed on Google Maps imagery of Moffett Field, there's a P-2 Neptune sitting next to the large airship hangar. The tail number seems to be 128393, but I didn't find it on this article. This is strange. Does anyone know more about this plane? Its positioning suggests it isn't on static display.

The imagery seems to be from 2018 as well. Here's the link: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4148944,-122.0518808,58a,35y,232.5h,60.6t/data=!3m1!1e3

HMS Sheffield
Not sure Nigel-ish, if your added source, relates to my removal of uncited detail (I cannot read it), but there are sources around that say the target was the carriers, and that Sheffield was just in the way (doing it protecting job), and was not the intended target when the mission started. The deleted text did imply that the Lockheed assisted in the sinking of Sheffield, which implies to me that Sheffield was the target. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sheffield was the target, or at least the group of ships that contained Sheffield, and a Neptune played a key role in the attack, detecting a group of 4 warships ~85 miles of Port Stanley and staying on station for almost 3 hours, allowing the attack by Super Etendards to be launched. The Neptune kept its distance, never getting closer than 60 miles. The two later attacks (on 25 May that sank Atlantic Conveyor and on 30 May, that hit nothing) were aimed at the carriers but did not have the assistance of Neptunes, but instead relied on air search radars on the Falklands to give a rough idea of where the carriers were operating.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. You have a better overview of what happened so I will leave it you or others to clarify, or not to change, the current wording. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Crew positions
What are the crew position names in the P2? 70.95.113.231 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)