Template talk:Lockheed Martin aircraft

I have a feeling that I missed some of them. This is the list from the article on lockheed. Feel free to add any that I missed! Thanks - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Table of potential article titles for older civil Lockheeds
Added in relation to this discussion.

The numeric values show the number of works which contain a match for the exact phrase in a Google Books search (not a web search). (If the title has a year suffix, that is not included in the search phrase.) Highlighted bold cells show the phrase with the most matches for that aircraft type.

For the results marked with an asterisk (*), I only searched works published before 1950, in order to exclude the turboprop Electra and P-3 Orion.

Note that the results in the last row may include many false positives, since any mention of "Lockheed" followed by the corresponding number will match.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, we won't find any ghits for the types with year suffixes (perhaps we might?!), lets spin the dice. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I Dont think we want to use the date suffix when the Model number is a better disambiguator and a more likely search term. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be best to go with "Lockheed Model n name" for all of these aircraft, as BilCat has suggested. This would be consistent and unambiguous and would match Lockheed usage, even if it doesn't quite fit standard WikiProject Aircraft practice. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey. what happened here? The discussion seems to have stalled. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The bolded terms look right on the whole to me, though with the maritime Orion at P-3 Orion disambiguation is largely unecessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I still like the "Lockheed Model n name" format if we're not going to use the "L-". But of course I'll accept whatever style the consensus is to use. - BilCat (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After further thought, I agree with Bill. If we simply follow "most common name", we'll be in the situation of having articles about closely related aircraft that using different naming styles, which looks messy. The "Lockheed Model n name" format is consistent, complete, and follows Lockheed practice. Also most of the editors who commented on the project talk page seemed to agree with this format. Nimbus had doubts, but he now seems willing to accept whatever we decide. While it's true this format doesn't quite follow usual WikiProject Aircraft practice, the guideline does allow using both name and number if "it is clearly needed for some reason", and the desire to have a consistent article naming style for closely related aircraft, even though they happened to acquire inconsistent popular names, would seem to be a good enough reason. The popular names can be handled with redirects. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well stated, especially on the naming conventions. I am one that thinks we ought to follow them as much as possible, but this is certainly a case where execptions should be made. The "Company designation name" format is being used more and more on civil aircraft article titles, and it might be time to consider broadening the guidelines to allow their use more often. - BilCat (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with the Lockheed model name proposal. It would be nice to use the same format for all if required but we always have resistance if it changes the non-standard US military ones! MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why I specified civil aircraft! :) - BilCat (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not allowed to move Lockheed 12 to Lockheed Model 12 Electra Junior, because the latter is a redirect with a non-trivial edit history. MilborneOne, you're an admin; can you help, please? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a quite common occurance with moves. Milb1 should be able to do it sometime today, and if not, I can ask another admin to do it. We might want to list the other articles that need to be renamed, so it can all be done at once. Redirects should take care of the templates until they can be manually updated. - BilCat (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lockheed 12 done, we do need to change the direct links in the related templates. MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I had done that already for the Lockheed 12. I updated Template:Lockheed, Template:USAF transports, and Template:USN utility aircraft. Those were the only three templates I found with explicit links to the Lockheed 12, as opposed to transcluding other templates with such links. Did I miss something? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No sorry my mistake the What links here takes a time to update and was still showing re-directed links. MilborneOne (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Will this mean that the template under model numbers will go "9, 10, 12, 14" rather than L-9 L-10 etc? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I would assume, yes. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BilCat was right, all the other article moves need an admin's help as well:


 * Lockheed L-9 Orion to Lockheed Model 9 Orion
 * Lockheed L-10 Electra to Lockheed Model 10 Electra
 * Lockheed L-14 Super Electra to Lockheed Model 14 Super Electra
 * Lockheed L-18 Lodestar to Lockheed Model 18 Lodestar


 * Sorry I didn't report this sooner. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All moved as requested. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Template name
Just to be pedantic but this template should really be Template:Lockheed aircraft to match the others ! MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * True, then again we have Hawker Aircraft aircraft!! Standardisation is good as it lessens the confusion for new editors (and even existing ones!). It would be nice to find an article that needs a navbox and be able to have a very good guess at what the template format would be. I think I created some that are not the right format but they were gliders not aircraft, (I'll get my coat!) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done! This also helps deter the aircraft navboxes being "hijacked" to add other products, such as missiles, to the template. It's happened a couple of times, but nothing too intrusive. Template:Honda is an example of a template listing all of a company's products, but it originally created to list cars and motorcycles. - BilCat (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

U-2
According to Secret Projects forum the Basic Model Number for the U-2 is L-342, while the TDN is CL-351.

The -351 mark for the TDN is confirmed by Global Security (but not the L-342).

Scramble mentions TDN's CL-282 for the U-2A and CL-351 for the TR-1/U-2R variants (but again not the L-342).

I know there is quit some confusion on the Lockheed designations (not to mention the Lockheed-Georgia and Vega ones..), but before I change the template to L-342/CL-282/CL-351, are there reasons why I shouldn't? --Antheii (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Move P3, EP3, CP-140 and P7 to Maritime Patrol instead of transport
I would like to move from under L-188 Electra section to the Maritime patrol section and add a footnote to L-188 saying that it was developed into the others. Although the P3, etc. were developed from transport aircraft they are maritime patrol aircraft and are widely known as such. Please let me know if you have any issues. Gusfriend (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * P-3
 * EP-3
 * CP-140
 * P-7