Talk:Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants

Relevant discussion

There is a WikiProject Aircraft discussion relevant to this article here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent Changes to Article

I propose to return the "Operations" section for the Tomahawk variant from the old version of the article to the new version. I will try to break up the content to fit each of the subvariants (Tomahawk I, IIa and IIb LankhmarJoe (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe an "operations" section fits in a variants article, but I do think you could make a separate article about the P-40 in service. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 02:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

If lessons learned from said operational history led to changes in the Warhawk's design, then it might be good to incorporate it into the article. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 15:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

* The operations examples were put in to show both the inspiration for changes and if and when such problems were addressed by new variants. For example longitudinal stability was an issue with early Kittyhawk variants, with an attempted fix in the early P-40K being the implementation of the enlarged tail fin, and then more satisfactorily by lengthening the fuselage 29" in the later run P-40K and P-40F, and all subsequent variants such as L, M and N. Similar issues with engine power, altitude performance, ammunition storage, and weight were handled differently in each variant with differing results in combat. The main source for this can either be wartime documents (mainly available at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/) or pilot interviews. LankhmarJoe (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Operations is not really relevant to this article and should be in the main article, a variants article describes the development and types of variants. the actual operational use is not normally included. MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit disappointing as it seems to contradict what I was told earlier.

I'm going to try to explain my position in good faith, with as much clarity as possible. My model for the previous version was this article: Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament in terms of getting into specific detail and including stat blocks for each major variant. I also referenced these other Spitfire articles: Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants), Supermarine_Spitfire_(late_Merlin-powered_variants) and Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon-powered variants) as well as theFW 190 variants article and several others.

The reason I started this rewrite was to address the following four points:

1) This subject (the P-40) is receiving increased attention as new data has emerged in recent years increasing it's importance in the war.

2) There were considerable differences (more than initially recognized) between variants in terms of performance and use in widely different Theaters where tactics built around very different (almost opposite) characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of each variant. For example performance characteristics of Allison engined P-40s had almost no bearing on the operations of the five USAAF fighter groups deployed in the Mediterranean Theater with merlin engined variants.

3) The existing P-40 article is already a little bit too long and therefore somewhat confusing to read, which I believe is in part why it rates (and has rated for a long time) as "B Class". I would like to elevate it to Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare article level if possible.

When I noticed that other articles for significant aircraft such as the Spitfire had been split into sub-articles as above, I decided to flesh out the Variants page as a first step toward accomplishing this goal.

The "operations" section of the original article does NOT contain general operations history but only uses a few examples from flight operations to illustrate the differences in capability between variants. Other articles such as the Merlin engine Spitfire articles do the same thing but do not have "operations" sections, those section headers can be removed. Again in this I was attempting to follow patterns of other Wikipedia articles for military aircraft as a guideline - more detail as to the actually historically relevant traits of each variant, in an attempt to clarify relevant details.

The previous article though accurate, edited for spelling and grammar, sourced and referenced was replaced almost verbatim by content from an existing, published and copyrighted site and is I believe a copyright violation per Wikipedia guidelines.

This article since the revision began has been deleted and most recently replaced wholesale. It was implied to me that "most or all" of the previous version of the article could simply be put back into it. I would like to know how to proceed at this point. Should I continue to attempt to fix this article, should I put the data into a new article like "Allison Engined P-40 varaints" or "Merlin engined P-40 variants"? Or am I just going to be blocked from putting this content back into Wikipedia? I also noticed that both the P-40 Talk page and P-40 variants talk page have been recently archived which seems a bit odd to me. Have there been private discussions about this article that I am not privy to? Forgive me if I seem a little wary but a lot of odd things have been going on with this page. LankhmarJoe (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Almost all sources are or were copyrighted at some point, and unless the article is a word for word copy of a copyrighted source, the article is not a WP:CV. Unlike the Spitfire, the P-40 doesn't have enough variants to make multiple variants pages necessary. If you can put the operations as long as they led to development of a new variant or major sub-variant. Nothing weird is happening, major changes and archiving long happens every day, sometimes to the same page at arround the same time. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 14:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For reference the article prior to Nov 20 2018 is archived at User:ZLEA/sandbox/old Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants

Ongoing Changes to Article

I tried, I really did. I think this is going to go to the Admins now. We'll let them decide. LankhmarJoe (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No need to overreact, you did good, but all that info you put in is not relevant to the first P-40 variant. The major operators section does not belong in this article, it belongs in the main P-40 article. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 15:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@ZLEA: there were substantially different operators for each major Variant and that actually is relevant.LankhmarJoe (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of us are not admins, but thank you for bringing this to our attention once again. First of all, I find it difficult to follow exactly what has been added or removed because these reverts are so large. If you guys could make smaller edits and then canvass opinions here, then we could all see more clearly where the disagreements lie.

As LankhmarJoe points out, articles such as the List of Focke-Wulf Fw 190 variants do contain a certain amount of operational material, so I think it would be helpful if ZLEA could give us some more detail on why they believe so much of it was inappropriate here. I do agree that a major operators section as such is inappropriate, but that was only a small proportion of the material reverted.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Ok first can you resolve for me a discrepancy which I find baffling? Namely why is it that I am following what I believed to be normal collaborative processes in notifying other editors here before any major changes, whereas ZLEA is summarily deleting huge amounts of content without any notification or discussion at all? Is there some reason why this is OK? It seems to be a double standard. This is essentially a structural problem blocking collaboration on the wiki and I think is actually the real issue, not so much the specific content. User ZLEA appears to believe he owns the article. LankhmarJoe (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Second - ZLEAs version of the article is basically what you see under the article here Curtiss_P-40_Warhawk_variants now with some content that I had added mixed in, but basically a list of variants and subvariants with terse descriptions. The original version you can see here User:LankhmarJoe/sandbox. Basically one is a list the other is text description with more detail. Rather than a mix of the two approaches based on collaboration one user - ZLEA - is arbitrarily deciding how to edit the entire thing. LankhmarJoe (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example of a paragraph I removed:

On November 22, 1941 there was a significant engagement in which the Tomahawk was put to a hard test by the Bf 109F. At 1540 nine Tomahawks of No. 112 Squadron RAF were joined by thirteen Tomahawks of No. 3 Squadron RAAF for an offensive sweep over the Tobruk-El Adem area. At roughly 1600 hours they were intercepted near Bir Hacheim by 20 Bf 109Fs attacking from 3,000 feet above . During the subsequent hour long engagement, which took place near two German airfields, JG 27 fighters landed and refueled to rejoin the fight. In the melee DAF fighters claimed three Bf 109s shot down and four "probables", while JG 27 claimed 11 P-40s . The actual losses were 6 Bf 109F-4s and 7 Tomahawk IIbs shot down and 1 badly damaged (the aircraft of future RAAF Ace Bobby Gibbes) . In the aftermath of the bloody fight both sides were shaken. The Germans believed they had come out ahead but felt the losses were unacceptable , and therefore made the decision not to dogfight the Tomahawk with the Bf 109F in the future , and instead to rely on 'boom and zoom' tactics, which while effective, imposed certain Tactical limitations.

This doesn't appear to have contributed to the development of the P-40, but instead to a tactical decision.

• This section illustrates both the design limitations and merits in combat with the aircraft's chief rival in the most important Theater it was used. The purpose is to make clear why subsequent variants were later modified as they were. I don't see any pressing reason why it should be removed. The change in Tactics was on the Luftwaffe side. LankhmarJoe (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, now I see how it's relevant, and it could be incorporated into an introduction for the Hawk 87 section. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example of another paragraph I moved to the P-40E section:

P-40's were more powerful, faster-flying aircraft than the primary and advanced trainers most early-War Allied pilots were familiar with, and transition training was often inadequate or neglected altogether in the early years of the war. The landing gear was also more narrow and not as strong as in fixed gear aircraft (like the Gladiator) or on some Commonwealth fighters such as the Hurricane. As a result novice pilots had a hard time adjusting to the new fighter and there were many accidents on landing and takeoff in the early years of the war, with both Tomahawk and Kittyhawk types. As training improved these problems subsided.

• This issue, landing problems with new pilots, was first encountered on the Tomahawk / Hawk 81 Variants so it belongs in the Hawk-81 section. LankhmarJoe (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• There is also a more general issue here of general data about the main variant and data relevant to the subvariants. In the case of the Tomahawk / Hawk 81 there is a considerable amount of data which is unique to all Tomahawk types, and a much smaller subset which is specific to subvariants. For example, all Tomahawks had two 0.5 in nose guns, Mk IIb had self sealing fuel tanks while Mk I did not. The general information for the type can be in a more 'general' section as seen in other variant wikis for various other aircraft. LankhmarJoe (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• There was never a trainer version of the Hawk 81, and the problems were carried over into the Kittyhawks, and some sub-variants would make sense to include in the development, such as the P-40F-5, K-10, N-5 and R-1/2. These sub-variants had changes that remedied major problems, such as stability, field of vision, and a shortage of Merlin engines. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes subvariants addressed various problems, what does that have to do with your removal of the section on landing difficulties from the Tomahawk variant? LankhmarJoe (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• The Kittyhawk had the same problems, and it wasn't until the trainers came along that the problem was rectified. I never removed it, I moved it to the P-40E section. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 01:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

However, I did slightly reword it to fit the section:

P-40's were more a powerful, faster-flying aircraft than the primary and advanced trainers most pre-war and early-war Allied pilots were familiar with, and transition training was often inadequate or neglected altogether in the early years of the war. The landing gear was also more narrow and not as strong as in fixed gear aircraft (like the Gladiator) or on some other retractable gear fighters such as the Hurricane. As a result novice pilots had a hard time adjusting to the new fighter and there were many accidents on landing and takeoff in the early years of the war, with both Tomahawk and Kittyhawk types. Therefore, two P-40Es were fitted with a second seat to be used as trainer aircraft under the designation P-40ES. With these aircraft and improved training techniques these problems subsided.

As you can see, the paragraph does not belong in the P-40 section or the Tomahawk section in general. I did find a relevant place for it in the P-40E section, as the E model was the first to be converted into a trainer. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 18:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• This issue, landing problems with new pilots, was first encountered on the Tomahawk / Hawk 81 Variants so it belongs in the Hawk-81 section. LankhmarJoe (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• See my comment above. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd like to try to explain my reasoning for the approach I took with the original article. This probably applies to other aircraft so hopefully it is of some use to WikiProject Aircraft more generally.* LankhmarJoe (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This aircraft was in heavy use in four Theaters in every part of the world and from 1941 - 1945. However only the first few months of it's use- by the AVG ('Flying Tigers') and US forces in China are usually mentioned in most synopsis. One way that I improved the main P-40 wiki years ago was by commentary by Australian, American and Soviet pilots thus fleshing out the picture so to speak. Statistics blocks for performance, armament etc. are almost always given for one of two variants - most as in the main Curtiss P-40 Warhawk wiki show the early war P-40E, a few the end of the War (but comparatively little used)P-40N. This effectively eliminates the most active variants of the aircraft in the mid-war years. The F and L variants used a very different (Rolls Royce 'Merlin' instead of Allison engine). These merlin engined variants equipped 14 of the 15 USAAF P-40 squadrons operating in the Mediterranean Theater - the first US Fighter groups to face the Luftwaffe. They had a completely different combat history than the earlier types and different performance - most significantly a critical altitude of 20,000 feet vs. 12,000 for the P-40E. They were also two and a half feet longer and usually had four guns instead of six. They were substantially *different* in other words both in terms of design and performance. LankhmarJoe (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just a bit of trivia (that hopefully explains the need to list the sub-variants), the P-40F and the first P-40L sub-variant had six guns, not four. Also, the first sub-variant of the P-40F was largely the same length as the E. When you focus mainly on the mass-production variants, the reader will most likely not know about the other variants. An example is the P-40J, conceived to eliminate the problem of high alt performance. It was cancelled due to the fact that the intended engine was reserved for P-38 production, and no prototypes were built. This led to Curtiss using the Rolls Royce Merlin instead, which required a complete redesign of the nose.

As you can see, using the Merlin wasn't Curtiss's first choice, as the improved Allison would have been easier to incorporate. The reader would not know this if the J variant was left out. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Actually that is incorrect, there are a whole host of reasons why they couldn't put the V-1710F5 or F10 series engines from the P-38 into a P-40, namely the very large size of the turbocharger not to mention the intercooler etc. You clearly have a superficial knowledge of the subject and I don't want to descend into the minutae. I never said you couldn't post about the J variant or any other experimental or provisional variant, even ones that were never built. I commented that I don't think they should be given the same weight in the article as the production variants but I don't care that much. It's beside the point. If you look at other variants pages no all of the text is contained within each subtype section, some of the data is in other sections which apply to multiple subtypes in a given variant. It's not always either / or - you are trying to force the creation of a new rigid standard where it did not exist before. LankhmarJoe (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• If the P-40J was developed, Curtiss probably would have found a way around the problem. Seversky found a way to incorporate a larger engine and a supercharger into their P-35, resulting in the P-43. No source I can find about the J model says that was a problem. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 01:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• The P-43 which was much bigger than a P-40, still wasn't viable as a fighter, in part because " the turbo-supercharger proved unreliable " (from the wiki) it oevolved into the P-47 which weighed 12,000 lbs. Almost twice as much as a P-40 in other words, the main issue being the very large size of the turbocharger. Have you ever looked at a P-47 or a P-38? All of this is academic anyway! I never said you needed to remove the reference to the experimental versions, did I? Why do you keep going on about that? You are the only one here who has been deleting content. LankhmarJoe (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The K variant was the most important type for the Russians, with at least four Soviet double aces flying the aircraft. It was also one of the most important variants for the 23rd Fighter Group in Burma. The D variant was the most important for the RAF in the crucial early years of the Desert War. And so on. The variants most important to the war effort are generally left out of the history of the aircraft and all discussion of it's history. As a result the same mistakes get repeated over and over.

• I wouldn't call the K the most important for the Russians, as it makes up a majority of what the US and RAF supplied. All supplied variants were largely used for the same types of missions, and not one was more important than the other. The K had the most colorful history than any other variant in Russian service. If all variants were produced and given a chance to fight, most likely they would be just as important and would have equally colorful histories. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• If by "colorful" you meant more victory claims and a lower ratio of combat losses I would agree- the main reason being the higher rated V-1710-73 engine which gave 300-500 hp more than the first Kittyhawks. I don't see how any of this is pertinent to the debate though except for the fact that your new version of the article has a lot less detail about these differences. LankhmarJoe (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ever considered that maybe that was because the Russian pilots had superior skills than the Germans and Finns? Besides, most of the Finn's aircraft were inferior to the Hawk 87 in general, and the Germans were not used to the Russian winter, and P-40s were more easily winterized than the Bf 109. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 01:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• That would be an outlier position for which you would want to provide evidence. I personally don't have that much opinion on the quality of the pilots, the issue here is that one type (P-40K) performed better than another (P-40E and C) in a particular place (Russia). That is why this particular variant deserves some extra attention, which was my original point that you seem to have lost track of. If you want to discuss general history I would recommend a place like ww2aircraft.net rather than the talk page on a wikiepedia article. LankhmarJoe (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have worked on the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk wiki for 15 years and hoped to improve it's quality, but that article is already too long to include additional data about different variants. Noticing that some other WW2 fighter wikis had ancillary wiki pages I followed these as a model for the page on P-40 variants. I believe this is a similar problem for many other fighter types that saw extensive use during the war and had many substantially different variants. For example P-38F and P-38L had very different capabilities. A simple list of production totals and minor changes does little to inform the reader. My understanding is that wikipedia articles start out with a lot of content in one place and then as they grow typically get subdivided into more specific detail pages.

• Your understanding is usually correct, but in some cases a re-write is needed to improve the article. While you did a terrific job writing the original article, but the structure was bad, similar variants were being treated as one.

I'll keep going on about how I feel the experimental variants should not be left out and say that they are listed in the summary of variants in the main P-40 article. A reader that is interested in the XP-40Q will see the summary and see the link to this article, hoping that it will have all the information he or she would like to know. If any variant is listed in the summary, it should be focused on in this article. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You keep seeming to imply that I was removing minor variants, you have been the one removing large sections from the article. I have been adding the previously deleted content without deleting the new content. LankhmarJoe (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

My goal, in short, was to make the variants article instead of a run of the mill 'list class' article which is only slightly more informative than the Variants Section of the main wiki, into something more useful for readers. I believe some further detail is necessary to make clear the differences between variants and how those differences mattered in their actual use in combat. A basic list which barely differentiates between major combat types and experimental or even unmade types is -again- far less useful to the reader, IMO. LankhmarJoe (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thread from the Aircraft WikiProject

This very similar thread has been moved across from the Aircraft WikiProject talk page in order to keep all the content discussion in one place. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I focus on all the variants, production or not, as cutting one out defeats the purpose of a variants article. User:LankhmarJoe added content directly to the P-40 (the first production variant) section of the article. I just moved the content where relevant and removed the stuff that wasn't relevant. Not everything he added belongs in a variants article.

Before you accuse me of CV again, I suggest you read that link you keep posting and see what real CV is. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 15:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, the discussion was not about replacing the "original P-40 variants wiki" with copyrighted content, look at the above discussion and see for yourself. Technical info that is featured in the copyrighted source does not apply as CV, as almost all books about P-40 variants have the same info. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 15:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes but ZLEA you summarily deleted 90% of what I had added back to the wiki without so much as a discussion. You seem to imply above that I was removing content about the experimental etc. variants but I have not. I'm fine with including all that - it merits being in the article, what I did in fact was to simply merge the two data sets. You removed most of the content I had added.

The purpose of the rewrite was to separate the "Hawk 81A-1 / P-40B / P-40C / Tomahawk I / Tomahawk IIA and Tomahawk IIB" and other sections into individual variants. Copy/pasting content from the previous article into one variant's section will not do. The content must be separated with the variants.

According to whom? Who made you the arbiter of what goes into this article? LankhmarJoe (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It should be common sense, if a section is divided, its content should be divided with it. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 14:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggest we take the task one variant at a time, finding individual paragraphs and sentences relevant to the specific variant from the original article and adding them to the new one. It doesn't have to be pretty, but we can work on paragraph structure once the previous task is complete, then we start the process over again with the next variant. It will be hard work, and may take several months, but it is doable, and the final results will be much better than the original. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not have several months to redo what I already spent several months doing. There was no reason to take out the entire existing article and replace it with this new "List class" version in one fell swoop if your real goal was to simply add the minor and experimental variants. LankhmarJoe (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Just as a note, I will not revert any more of your edits unless I have good reason too. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 00:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Given your track record and the vagueness of what consists of "good reason" that is a pretty meaningless statement. LankhmarJoe (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Such as your recent removal of bibliography, as there is no reason to remove something that will be used in the final product, I reverted it. Good reason is if the reverted edit is unconstructive or ALL of it's content doesn't belong. Also, what track record? - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 01:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I took the bibliography out because it is from the original article - none of those books are being referenced in your version so what is the point of it? I deleted that without asking only because *I was the one who put it in to begin with*. Since you deleted 90% of what I added subsequently, I think this is just going to have to go to the community and if they can't untangle it, the admins. I have tried to work out compromise with you but it hasn't worked. This is taking up an enormous amount of my time. LankhmarJoe (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, sources listed in the old bibliography need either referencing in the main text or deleting. However we are a long way from that yet, so I would suggest that for now you guys keep only major reference works and any minor sources which you know have relevant but hard-to-find details. If you are unsure about a source it can conveniently be commented-out in the page code using the following container syntax:

<!-- * Details of possibly useful source here -->

Once its relevance has been established it can then be either restored or deleted as appropriate. If you want to note that a displayed source will soon be referenced, then you can add a similar invisible note to the page code, like this:

* Details of source here <!-- Please do not delete this source. It will soon be cited in the main text. -->

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Main list sub-headings and variants

There seems to be some argument about which variants should be given their own sub-headings and even which might not be worth including at all. First, all variants and modifications that are documented in reliable sources should be included. I don't know if it applies to the P-40 series but even some variants that never left the drawing-board can sometimes be significant enough to include. Second, are there still any disagreements about how to structure the list, or do you both think it is now OK as it is? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

First let me be clear - I do not now, and never have objected to the inclusion of minor, experimental, or even unbuilt types. I really don't care about that. The other editor repeatedly bringing that up as an issue is an intentional distraction in my opinion. I have said that I don't think they deserve the same weight, but I have not pruned any off or any such thing. That is not what has been happening here. ZLEA has been removing 50K of content and then scrambling or re-deleting it when it's been added back in, after previously agreeing not to on the talk page. LankhmarJoe (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Second - Actually I disagree on how to structure the list too though it isn't that high of a priority for me. LankhmarJoe (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It's currently in alphabetical order but I would put it in a functional order. For example later model P-40F and all P-40L were nearly identical, L just incorporated the field stripping normally done in the field at the factory level. Both were powered by the Merlin engine. The E and the K were very similar and were used in the same places at the same time (K replacing the E). They belong together. LankhmarJoe (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

However that is far down the list of problems in this debacle. LankhmarJoe (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The main problem right now in my opinion is that this person who is obviously unfamiliar with the history of the aircraft is deleting things and reverting edits at a whim with zero consultation to anyone, as if he owns the page. I would say he has claimed ownership of it. This has caused a huge waste of time for me and dramatically diminished the quality of the article. This user seems to be exploiting his knowledge of wikipedia processes to damage the article. LankhmarJoe (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Actually I said that I wouldn't revert your changes, second, I said that after I "deleted and scrambled" the content. You can't explain the development of many variants in a single variant's section. The variants aren't in alphabetical order, but are in the order they were produced/developed. The K appeared after the F but before the L, and if it weren't for the cancellation of the P-60 and the attack on Pearl Harbor, the K would have been the last variant and the L wouldn't exist. While yes, the E and K are similar, they are different enough to have their own sections. Perhaps you forgot, this is a list class article.

Also, what makes you think I have little knowledge of this aircraft?

Your statement "This has caused a huge waste of time for me" says that you want the original article to be kept because you did most of the work on it. That's a sign of WP:OWN. [/quote]

• I was referring to the hours spent in interminable conversations such as this one which do not seem to lead to any positive outcome. I would would say a greater sign of WP:OWN is deleting, re-arranging, and rewriting content without any discussion with any of the other editors. LankhmarJoe (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

If I'm obviously unfamiliar with the history of the aircraft, than why did I see the need to re-write it? - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 00:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Your decision to re-write the article has nothing to do with you knowing the subject matter let alone constituting proof that your new article had any more merit than the previous, in fact to the contrary. For one thing you already as much as admitted that you just copied that article from another published source (a rather old and dated one at that). The reason I think you have little knowledge of the aircraft is due to several naive statements you made elsewhere on this page. That is how I (correctly) guessed that you are very young. Most adults wouldn't be talk so aggressively about things when they were so obviously out of their depth. LankhmarJoe (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW In the "debate" above I am starting to think ZLEA has trouble remembering precisely what we were even discussing. Which makes this whole thing all the more frustrating. Wikipedia really needs to have better processes for this type of thing. LankhmarJoe (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• If I recall correctly, I converted the article into a list article and replaced your version of the article with the new one per community consensus. You were unhappy with this and reverted my changes, this started an edit war between you and the community.

  Lets be real, it started an edit war between you and one other person that I had previously had a disagreement with about the same article. Your original replacement was, I think, accepted by mistake because you snuck it through. You didn't even put any notification on this talk page about it, steelpillow did. Which should have been a sign that something was off. LankhmarJoe (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• I then offered to let you bring the new article to it's original standard, which you appeared to take as "You may return the original article one part at a time". I then tried to clarify what I meant and you stated that variants such as D/E and F/L belong bunched together in one section, and here we are. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 00:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ah no, you are having trouble following the discussion again. You and, so far, have only been in a dispute about the original content and your deletions thereof. My comment about E/K and F/L etc. were a direct response to Steelpillows query which you can read above. I also pointed out that I considered that issue to be low priority compared to your continued hijacking of the page. LankhmarJoe (talk)

So, LankhmarJoe, the best way to avoid timewasting and fruitless arguments is not to engage in them. In this thread, stick to the content issue of ordering the sub-variants and pay more respect to our policy on no personal attacks. ZLEA you may also need better self-control in order not to be drawn in, no experienced editor will be fooled by one-sided criticism. So far I have gathered that there are some minor differences of opinion over whether to order chronologically or by technical similarities. Normally, there will be established "families" based around a common airframe version or production stream. Periodically a significant engineering redesign will kick off a new family. May I suggest that you both follow this route for now and group variants within each family? Whether the article remains list-class is secondary to whether it is useful. If that is acceptable to you both, then I will feel able to move on to the next issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I find this extremely insulting, you seem to be implying that I'm picking on this kid, when quite to the contrary I have been incredibly patient. You now seem to be suggesting that some kind of painstaking process taking months, that I'm apparently supposed to spend hundreds of hours engaging with this other editor in order to essentially do what could have been done in 5 minutes. This, in a nutshell, is why Wikipedia is stuck in a marginal and mediocre level of quality that it will probably never rise above. Process and adherence to byzantine Wikipedia rules is all that matters - accuracy of data and presentation do not. I have already spent too much time on this, I hereby wash my hands of repairing the damage done to this article. This is volunteer work and I pay my own way in life, I'm neither retired nor a child still being taken care of by my parents. It's quite clear that the work I put into fixing this page is not valued here, fair enough. Somebody else can take up the torch.

My only final question to you Steelpillow is, will it continue to be allowed for this child to remove 'citation needed' tags? The only thing I think I can do here is point out some of the errors on the page in the hope that someone else will deal with it, but ZLEA summarily removed all of the tags I had previously added. I'm going to ask you another direct question even though you ignored my last several: is that normal Wikipedia practice? If so I'll just skip bothering with that either. LankhmarJoe (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

That rant illustrates my point rather well, I think. You obviously do not appreciate my efforts here, so I will leave you to it. Goodbye. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right on one thing, I don't appreciate your "efforts" here. You are the one who approved this mess to begin with, all you have done since was present a false impression of a responsible process to fix it when in reality you were just wasting my time. LankhmarJoe (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of your citation needed tags were replaced by citations, some of them from the original article. Some of them appeared to be used as if you didn't know how to make editor's notes. I may have been wrong about some of them, and if I was, you may always re-add them or cite them yourself.

He was not the only person to approve the changes, and you are the only one to have any sort of problem with the changes. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 19:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violation

There have been persistent allegations of copyvio on this article. I asked here for specific examples but have yet to be offered any. Please either give specific examples or stop making unfounded allegations. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Do your own legwork. "Cheers" LankhmarJoe (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Joe, wadr, if you are making allegations of anything, whether it's copyvio or whatever, the onus is on you to support those allegations, usually by way of diff. Steelpillow was entirely correct in asking you that, and considering he wasn't in any way rude to you, you really have no call to be rude to him. Now, can you point out the content that you believe is a copyvio? - wolf 19:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild You will have to forgive me for my candor and writing this in the language of a normal person talking to another human being in the real world rather than couching it in the cautious and equivocal language normal for wikipedia.

This entire thing has been a huge waste of time and let me be abundantly clear: I am not a happy camper. I hold steelpillow and one other user - and Wikipedia itself, responsible for this debacle, not the adolescent Wikipedia editor who did the actual damage - they are the ones who allowed him to destroy the page after an obviously very cursory and superficial check on Nov 20. A page with 60 references is replaced by a page with 4. No I am not going to go and find line for line 'proof' of the "copyvio" because I have no evidence that if I did so it would make ANY difference whatsoever. By my understanding most of what the other editor has done such as repeatedly deleting and scrambling content without any prior discussion here is against the rules, and yet nothing was done about it nor was were my repeated queries about it ever addressed. The other editor, who admitted he is underage, and for whom this is clearly quite literally a game, already as much as admitted the "copyvio" anyway in other conversations here and on the various other wiki pages. LankhmarJoe (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have spent something like two weeks explaining the problems here in good faith, in the forlorn hope that somebody rational would read it and act accordingly and have been met with (very polite) obfuscation and further chaos. I think both you and steepillow have done a very nice and reasonable job of following Wikipedia procedures and patiently explaining the rules, and simultaneously, a very BAD job of actually ensuring that the Wikipedia article is accurate or of any merit. It is absolutely incredible the amount of time that it has been suggested to me I ought to spend rectifying somebody else's mistake (i.e. months), and it also seems rather smug to make the assumption that I should do so. There really seems to be some confusion here of (inconsistently and almost randomly enforced) Wikipedia rules with natural law or logic. You have quite cheerfully and politely let process trump outcomes, and as a result this article like so many other Wikipedia pages is probably going to remain substandard year after year. The reason is that what matters in "editing" these things is knowledge of process and time to engage in this farce rather than knowledge of the actual subject of the article. Good luck getting guys like ZLEA to bring this article up to a high standard. I will *definitely* never edit it again. I doubt I'll ever edit Wikipedia again as this entire ridiculous experience has made it all too painfully obvious what a waste of time it is trying to fix it. Feel free to delete everything I ever wrote on Wikipedia. I was already 90% convinced it was a waste of time and now I am 100% convinced. This is my last comment on this subject, or to any of you who have been involved in this. LankhmarJoe (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I never admitted to being underage or to having committed copyvio. There is no minimum age, and I only asked you to stop accusing me of copyvio without proof. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 20:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

If you have no proof that I committed copyvio, then please stop accusing me. If you look at the article or any of my changes, you will see that I have not broken any of the guidelines. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 19:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow...

...what happened? A couple days ago you two were all set to work together on this article and now it's back to fighting. I gotta say, it's hard to follow this talk page. Either someone is not signing posts or is using different levels of WP:INDENT on different paragraphs of same post, making it look like different posts from different users. ZLEA is posting a half dozen replies at once and LankhmarJoe is not using the WP:PREVIEW function to check his comments before saving, so there's a half dozen edits at a time with a the corrections/additions.

Neither of you should be adding content or removing the other's content without discussing and agreeing on the changes here first. ZLEA, that should not be a restriction imposed on Joe only. But Joe, you if you're going to make accusations, like "OWN", you have to back them up with H:DIFFs.

Maybe the of you should work on the article in your own sandboxes. Take your time, add or change whatever you like without any interference from the other, or anyone else. When you both have final versions you're happy with, compare them and see how far apart you are with your visions of how the article should look. Maybe the two versions are close enough to be blended, or maybe you'll end up with two completely different versions, and as such, two different articles. One a List of P-40 Warhawk variants and the other a History of the P-40 Warhawk... or something else along those lines. One more of list article, the other more of a prose piece. (I dunno... Steelpillow, thoughts?)

Anyway, it's just an idea. But anything is better than constant talk page fighting and article disruption. - wolf 20:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll work on it in my sandbox. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 20:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thewolfchild. My experience has been that LankhmarJoe is OK as long as you agree with them. But when I dared disagree, phew did I get a load of ****. ZLEA may be a bit heavy-handed and inexperienced but at least listens and is willing to admit mistakes and repair any damage they cause. All the personal attacks above here comes from LankhmarJoe, while ZLEA just gets drawn into defending themself.

My suggestion to ZLEA would be, don't bother with a sandbox, just keep on with the article as you see fit (subject to the usual policies). I got into this because LankhmarJoe had ticked all the boxes for a permanent block and I tried to save them from themself. I will not save their ass a second time. If they cause excessive disruption then get back to the Project, or me or Wolf or whoever. But Wolf may still feel different?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Steelpillow. Actually no, I agree with you 100%, and if Joe keeps going the way he is, with the array of personal attacks, then he should be blocked. People don't deserve to be abused just for trying to help out. I saw this dispute brewing and thought I'd try to steer it in a different direction though, and hopefully reduce some of the disruption to the page as well as the hostility. While it doesn't justify the personal attacks, I see where some of Joe's frustration is coming from. I was hoping to find a forward for him where he can avoid conflict and continue working on the article (on his version at least). Meh... it's just advice. Either they follow it or they don't. Cheers - wolf 22:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)