Template talk:Active Irish Air Corps Aircraft

"Hangared" King Air

 * (Copied from user talk page).

An editor recently removed the Beechcraft B200 from the Air Corps equipment list, and added it to the "retired" section. I might be wrong, but while the remaining Super King Air ("Fitz" with tail-number 240) is no longer on active service, it is still "on the books" so to speak. It was taken off active duty, and no longer used for MATS/training/etc, but it is hangared and engines are turned over every month. Unless can confirm a source that it's definitively been decommissioned/retired, I might re-add to the template with a note that it's removed from active service. Guliolopez (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A number of out of service Air Corps aircraft, including a Marchetti and an Allouette are stored in rotors running condition. It is likely the Air Corps is looking for a buyer for the Kingair and its unlikely it will be seen in Air Corps service again.-- MFIreland  • Talk  17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I notice that the King Air is no longer listed on the "fleet" page of the aircorps site, and the 2009 annual report does state that it was taken out of service. However, is there any source that you know of that might support the "not coming back" (retired) assertion? Guliolopez (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
Hi. A couple of changes have been made recently, and I would like to discuss them. To address any CON issues and possibly agree an approach to cover some of the problems I see: Happy to hear other opinions on these topics - so we can address under CON guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Section Heading - A section heading had been added to the template. This would not be normal practice for templates. Templates are used in multiple pages (in different contexts), and so this section heading meant that some of the pages (for example List of aircraft of the Irish Air Corps and Modern vehicles of the Irish Army looked strange). Effectively there were duplicate headings. Unless there is a strong case for putting the heading "here", I don't think it should be in place.
 * 2) Equipment names - The equipment names were abbreviated to just the equipment codes. I don't see the reason for this (for example, shortening "Britten-Norman" to "BN"). It would seem to obscure the meaning/understanding for the reader. (Yes, the user can "find out" what this code means on a successive page, but why would we make them do that? Why not use the common name here?)
 * 3) Origin - My understanding of the "origin" column is that it might cover the origin (place of manufacture or similar) of the specific equipment listed here. If there are other opinions on this, delighted to hear them. Otherwise I would wonder whether it should be removed. (As possible FLAGCRUFT type issue).
 * 4) Numbers - At least one row mentioned that there were "4" in service, but then the "notes" column indicated that there were an "additional 2". Unless I am mistaken, there are 4 of this type in use in total (rather than "4" and "additional 2"). Hence I've updated the "notes" section to ensure it's clear that it's "2+2=4". (Rather than an uncertain "4 - with maybe another 2(?)". If we think there's any remaining uncertainty here, maybe the two sub-variants should be split into their own "rows" (by type/use).


 * Equipment names Your assuming the full company name will make the difference to the reader, and yet base off of WP:Manual of Style/Tables it states names should be succinct (concise). It's not uncommon to see aircraft designations only displayed ei;World Air Forces directory. We don't need to inundate the reader excessive names, that why we have wikilinks, to give them further information needed.
 * Origin last time I looked its define as "the first stage of existence" - Cessna is an American company the FR172J is a variant of the Cessna 172. Notes in the table state "license manufactured by Reims Aviation of France" Numbers maybe best to split to relieve the confusion
 * Section Heading appears to be unintentional typo, so that fine
 * - FOX 52 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hiya. Thanks for your note.
 * Equipment names - I can see that the guidelines suggest that "column/row headings should be succinct and self-explanatory". I am not seeing the bit that says that table/cell content should be summarised or restricted. Can you help me see that bit? Or point me to the section? In any event, I would note that equivalent lists for other fleets use the unabbreviated common names. Including the UK list - which uses the full "Britten-Norman Defender" name - rather than a shortened "BN" style version. If you are still concerned about this, can you help me understand the purpose of shortening? Is it to keep the table small or prevent wrapping? (If that's the case, I wonder whether we should balance function over form).
 * Origin - I guess what we're talking about here is whether the origin ("the place it came from") should refer to either the "class" of aircraft, or the specific aircraft that is listed. The Cessnas in use by the IAC came from France. Cessna (the design) came from the US. At one point both countries were listed here to cover this. Frankly however I wonder whether this column adds any value to the reader. It seems to me to be a case of emphasising "nationality without good reason" - which falls under the WP:FLAGCRUFT guidelines.
 * Numbers - Personally I don't think there is confusion any more. We now say "4 in total / Two of type A / And two of type B". It was only confusing when we said that there were "4 in total / (Plus) two of type B". This - to my read - left a gap or risk in a reader's understanding. I don't think there's a gap anymore.
 * Section Head - OK.
 * Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to note that "origin" in aircraft articles indicates where the aircraft were built not the origin of the design, so in the case of the Reims Cessna it should be "France". MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case we should refer to the aircraft as Reims FR172 noting it's based off the Cessna 172 FOX 52 (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK I'm willing to forgo most changes, and have made one for the Reims FR172 keeping France as the origin, and shorting the notes to the EC135- hope that makes all happy FOX 52 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Style changes
I know I'm wasting my breath here, but if the (cough) anon would like to explain the rationale for these changes, then they might have some chance of being reviewed. Otherwise it's an exercise in futility. Guliolopez (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)