Talk:Radioplane RP-77

RP-77 vs RP-77D
The move to RP-77D, and the use of Infobox Weapon instead of Infobox Aircraft, were both proposed and discussed as part of the B-class assessment on the WP:MILHIST assessments page. And I don't think the page author moving the page himself within a day of creating it qualifies as a "undiscussed move". ;) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, it was discussed. My bad. It's a missile, but the article's creator called it an aircraft - be sure he corrects that! ;) - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * He certainly will. ;) And no worries! - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like an aircraft dont see why it should be classed as a weapon, as far as I am aware most drones on wikipedia are treated as aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * * quacks * The RP-77 is kinda borderline between "aircraft" and "missile", IMHO - similar 'aircraft' seem to have been earlier designated as aircraft, but later ones were given xQM-XX designations. This one straddled the borderline temporally (and the Army didn't resolve the issue by designating it as anything!). IMHO the Infobox Weapon, er, infobox looks better on the page than Infobox Aircrft in this case. I'm open to either, though. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Propellor drones anyway. Forgive me for being dense, but where do I find the previous discussion? Once I've read the discussions, I'll consider a move proposal, and discuss restoring the Aircraft infobox, if I feel that's still warranted. (Perhaps the old discussion will change my mind - I won't know till I've read it. I'd sure like to see the reasoning behind using RP-77D - we don't generally do that for aircraft or missiles.) - BilCat (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff (since assessments get cleared off the page in a hurry). - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as note so I dont forget the RP-77 bit is a radioplane model number rather than any military designation. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've read the assesment. I think the argument on the name is weak, especially since we usually use the main designation when the variants all use "variations" of it, both with missiles and aircraft. As to missile vs. aircraft, it's probably a matter of preference, as it is a bit of both. I still lean toward aircraft in its case, though it's not worth a big dispute (why I reverted myself - I'm trying to cut back on disputes!) - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the infobox either way; as for the name, if it's alright, then I'm fine with it being at the non-D page name. :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Most missiles are also technically 'aircraft'; Classification of the Radioplane RP-77 is very much up to opinion, the Radioplane fits the definition of an aeroplane and a missile (although it is not a weapon). I suggested using Template:Infobox weapon in B-class review because it looks cleaner and allows for more fields to be represented and displayed on a glance; although as a side-effect it does create some inconsistency with other articles on similar drone aircraft. Really I don't mind too much which template is used. What would really resolve the problem, would to be to create an a template as aircraft infobox component that include the details of Template:Aircraft specifications or Template:Aircraft specs. -- Aeonx (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)