Talk:Hawker Siddeley Harrier/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Trimming the Aircraft on display list

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

As investigated at the FAC, the consensus for this section is to have a short list of notable displays, not an indiscriminate listing of every possible exhibit. Thus, I propose to trim it to one display per nation or variant, not both.

By nation

AV-8A 158966 is on display at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
GR.1 XV278 is on display at the Luftwaffenmuseum der Bundeswehr, Gatow, Germany.
GR.3 XZ129 is on display at the Ashburton Aviation Museum, Ashburton, New Zealand.
GR.3 XW919 is on display at the Polish Aviation Museum, Kraków, Poland.
AV-8A 159233 is on display at the Imperial War Museum North, Manchester, United Kingdom.

By type

GR.1 XV278 is on display at the Luftwaffenmuseum der Bundeswehr, Gatow, Germany.
GR.3 XZ997 is on display at the Royal Air Force Museum, Hendon, United Kingdom.
T.4 XW934 is on display at the Farnborough Air Sciences Trust, Farnborough, Hampshire, United Kingdom.
Mk 52 G-VTOL is on display at the Brooklands Museum, Surrey, United Kingdom.
AV-8A 158966 is on display at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

That would be 5 entries for either list chosen. The current 17 entries (many of which are of the same type) are simply too much. Jappalang (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Dont agree, nothing in the "consensus" link allows a culling of entries, and seventeen aircraft is not to many, one editors opinion on a FAC review is not really consensus either - normal action with these lists if they are considered to large is to create a List of Hawker Siddeley Harriers on display or similar (see others in Category:Lists of surviving aircraft) MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have said "It was not the intention to list every surviving aircraft just those available to the public to see." in the linked discussion above. I am not sure why this proposal goes against what you yourself have argued. Seventeen is certainly many, "double figures-ish?" as suggested by TSRL. I have notified the Wikiproject concerned to expand the discussion. Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that the list is only those on public display it is not a list of every survivor, indeed with still operational aircraft we dont normally list anything more than the display aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Disagree that 17 in this article is too many. In a shorter article, 17 might give a disproportionate long section compared to the rest of the article. In this case, that does not seem to be the same. The list could be rewritten in a prose form and take up barely a paragraph. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I fail to get the encyclopaedic purpose behind having a long list of this (if the purpose is to list "every surviving aircraft ... available to the public to see", I think that would fall foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Regardless, I find Fnlayson's suggestion to make it a prose listing could be palatable in my view. Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: The locations in the United Kingdom are inconsistently staged. At times, England, then Scotland, then United Kingdom; just grouping it all under UK per above might be better. Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The list is not excessively long and the list is near the bottom of the article. The list could be limited to museum displays. That means removing the gate guard displays, but that's only about 2. The list could be converted to paragraphs, by nation or something like Jappalang mentioned above. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would find that more acceptable, especially if there is more information that could point to something noteworthy about these displays (to the common layman), e.g. still operational, original machine parts, battle damage retained, piloted by a famous ace, etc. Jappalang (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- It has been normal on aircraft articles that aircraft on public display are notable enough to be listed, perhaps this is an issue that should be raised at project level rather than on one article. Just a minor point the layout of the list doesnt conform to what we would normally do (which is to break it down by country) but I have left tweaking it while this discussion is open. MilborneOne (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Harry to the rescue

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sorry I wasn't a lot of help in the recent FAC. Per User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Aviation_articles, Harry has just offered to take the lead on copyediting aviation and biography articles for A-class and FAC ... quite a relief. Still, call on me any time if I can be of use. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

More help is good. That does not seem that relevant here now. There is no active review ongoing with this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hawker Siddeley Harrier. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hawker Siddeley Harrier. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

fate of retired aircraft in the U.S.

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any information about whether or not these planes will be part of the National Guard reserve, and how many? Cost expenditures - Congressional approval dates? Fleshing this out would be a good addition for the article. 50.111.22.12 (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The Harrier has been retired in US service for nearly 30 years, so I'm not sure what your talking about. - BilCat (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)