Talk:Gulfstream IV

Article name

What the hell do we call this article now? The G IV became the G300 and then G350, and the related G IV-SP became the G400 and then G450. They all are related and don't differ all that much except for range. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any easy way to do it short of splitting the articles up. However, here are some options:

1. Gulfstream G300/G400 - preferred if these are still in production
2. Gulfstream G350/G450 - preferred if these are the only ones in production
3. Gulfstream IV family
4. Gulfstream G300/G400 family
5. Gulfstream G350/G450 family

- BillCJ 20:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Article name 2

The article should be named Gulfstream IV as the GIV is the basis of the later models. The GIV was simply re-introduced as G300 and later as a G400 due to small differences in avionics packages and engine improvements. The G300 did not become the G350 nor did the G400 become the G450. The G350 is simply a shorter range G450 with not all of the bells and whistles standard. The G450 is not the direct descendant of a GIV as it is the incorporation of the GV into a modified GIV airframe. Therefore the 350 and 450 should be listed under a separate article. I tried a fix but I am not sure how to properly move a page and the pages got changed back to original. I’m told I can't copy and paste. Tell me how to fix it and I will.--Mavin 101 18:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft article names are usually a very arbitrary and contentious thing on Wikipedia. THe Wiki Aircraft project (WP:AIR) has guidelines for how to name article at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft).

The basic premise is:

For article titles, use the most common unambiguous name. A central tenet of wikipedia naming conventions is to give articles names that will have the greatest chance of being directly linked to within an edit window of another article. Alternative names should be listed in bold type on or near the first line of the article.

Non-controversial moves can be made using the move tab at the top of the article page, but this will not work if the article is in use, such as for a redirect page. In such cases, an administrator would have to make the move. FOr controversial moves, it is best to take a poll, and gain a consensus for the move first. At this point, it should be obvious your moves are controversial.

I was was part of a small group of editors who set about improving the Gulfstream aircraft pages earlier in the year. THere is still alot to be done, but great improvements have been made, and I still have a few new pages to finish up. WHat to name the articles was a dificult decision, but in the end, we went with the in-production names for the current models, and including their predecessors with them. I am actually in favor of using multiple names, such as Gulfstream G500/G550, but the current consensus in WP:AIR is to use the simplest name. That is why I have recently moved that article to the simpler Gulfstream G500 name, even though it's not my first preference. I am willing to take up the issue again with the project, and see if we can get it allowed in these cases, as I do believe it's necessary here for clarity.

Last week, I actually considered splitting off the GV to its own page, but hadn't got around to discussing it as yet. One thing it keep in mind when spliting up articles is whether there is enough possible content to make a good article. If not, it's probably best to keep related aircraft together. However, there is no hard-and-fast rule on this, and it really is a case-by-case issue.

Finally, I've got the impression you are connected with Gulfstream in some way. If so, please read WIki's Conflict of Interest policy, as well as the Attribution policy. You still be required to use outside verifiable sources, but inside knowledge will be helpful in spotting outright errors. If you do work for Gulfstream, it be useful to see if you can get some better pics released for public use, as we can always use more.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. - BillCJ 19:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd go for 1 combined article G450 covering GiV, C-20, G300... G450 or 2 articles with one on GIV/C-20 and a 2nd on G300, 350 ... 450 derivatives. -Fnlayson 23:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a combined artical, I just want to be clear on putting togeather related topics. GIV, G400, G300, C-20 are all the same thing. G350/G450 are Related to each other but not the rest.--Mavin 101 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I'd suggest you contact the webmaster for Gulfstream's site, and have them correct this page. It states:

:::The large-cabin, long-range Gulfstream G450 business jet, which was introduced at the 2003 National Business Aviation Association’s annual meeting, is an entire aircraft upgrade of an already outstanding business jet, the Gulfstream GIV/GIV-SP/G400.

So if Gulfstream considers the G450 an upgrade, that's a good enough source for us to use. - BillCJ 01:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good. Derivative forms are related like parent and offspring. Each version/variant will get its own part/section to cover differences/changes. -Fnlayson 02:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He's already created the Gulfstream G350/G450 page, so I say let's just leave it there. We can have this page moved the correct way to Gulfstream IV, since that's the historical name. I had originally wanted separate pages for the new and old versions, discussed on the GUlfstream Corp page, but Alan went ahead and combined them when he revised the Gulfstream pages. I don't have a problem splitting off the GV/C-37A variants either. As to using the double names, Jeff, I think we should bring this up on WP:AIR, and see if we can get a consensus to allow it, and for the G500/G550. Rlandmann moved the G100/150 to G100, among other articles, so I just tried to get ahead of him in moving the G400/450 to G400, and G500/550 to G500. That's a case of following the consensus even when you don't like or agree with it, something we experienced Wiki editors have to do to keep the peace. - BillCJ 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, why take the G300 and G400 out of the title line? Only the G350/G450 are on the separate page. - BillCJ 03:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I thought this article was going to be renamed to GIV. And the later versions would go in the new article. So, you wanted to keep those 2 here then. Revert it back or something then.. -Fnlayson 03:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

According to what I've found out on Gulfstreams site, our friend is partially correct that the G350 and G450 are not that close to the G300/G400, but not as far as he claims. THe G300 is basically a G-IV, near as I can tell, and the G400 is the G-IVSP, with neither being changed all that much. Just seems to make sense to keep them here, for the time being anyway. THere is not much background in this article on the original G-IV itself, so I may try to add more info on it later. I don't have any publsihed sources on the G350/G450, so we'll probably have to rely on magazine articles and internet publications for more history/description than the Gulfstream site has. - BillCJ 03:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's fine. Previously I was expecting the G300 & G400 to go on the new page, like in a summary form. -Fnlayson 03:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Alan if he'd move this page to Gulfstream IV. We'll see what he says, tho he's been busy this week, and might not get to it till later in the week. - BillCJ 04:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, but there's a bunch of double redirects that need to be cleaned up. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I fixed some related double redirects (G350, G450, G300). -Fnlayson 13:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gulfstream G350/G450 text

The Gulfstream G450 is fairly short and has not gotten much activity. What about merging that to this article? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, no responses so far. So I propose merging Gulfstream G450 to this article. The G350 and G450 are versions of the G-IV with advances from the G500/550. Also the G450 article is short and is seeing little activity. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(See WP:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your entry using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Support according to the type certificate G450 and G350 are marketing names for the G-IV-X which for some reason is not mentioned in either article! MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support as stated above. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Any issues with this merge? I'm not seeing anything, but maybe I'm missing something. I plan copy the text and reference. And here's one article from Flight International that mentions G-IV-X. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since no objections, I'll start merging G350/G450 content here. -fnlayson (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, but fix the "Main page: G450" reference near the bottom, which is now circular -- it just comes back here. (Narcissistic? Self-referential?) -- Craig Goodrich 98.220.72.56 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

CIVIL OPERATORS

Why can't we add a list of civil operators (verifiable), let's say at least one from each continent? The.rud (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AIROPS. - BilCat (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"A mention may be made of particularly large fleet operators." I believe it is quite interesting to know where these jets are flying nowadays (e.g. operators and/or continents). So can I mention the biggest operators or the countries with the biggest number of jets of this type? "Particularly large" fleet for one business jet type means sometimes 4-5 a/c only... The.rud (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

4-5 aircraft is fine. If the oeprators have a WP article, and their use of the aircraft is properly sourced in those articles, then we don't need a ciatation. Citations will be needed for those who don't have WP article. See what you can find, and then if there aren't that many of them, perhaps under 10, then list all the ones with more than 4-5 aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. I wonder why other articles (e.g. British Aerospace 125) do mention 1-2 a/c operators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.rud (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The simple reason is that we just haven't gotten around to cleaning out the cruft in those other articles. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

INTRO

I think that "...a family of private jet aircraft..." sounds a bit amateurish. Gulfstream products or other similar products (say Bombardier jets) are called "business jets" and not "private jets". See here http://www.bombardier.com/en/aerospace/products/index, here http://www.gulfstream.com/products/ and here http://www.dassault.fr/en/filiale.php?docid=72. "Private jet" refers to something else. It does not refer to a type. The.rud (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it. - BilCat (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have tweaked it and added a link to business jet (which actually give private jet as a viable alternate). MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the C-20

Although the C-20G is a Gulfstream IV the picture shows a C-20D, which is a GIII. You can tell because a GIV has 6 windows and much larger engines. The image shows a GIII with 5 windows and the smaller engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.107.205.103 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean the image of a USAF C-20B 60201, I have removed it, well spotted. MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I assumed it was a D, i'm a navy guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.107.205.103 (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Crash History

I was a bit surprised not to see a section for crashes. The May 31, 2014 crash in Bedford Massachusetts sparked my interest. I would like to add the section to the article but know their will be those who oppose for political reasons. Feedback on how to proceed?--Wikipietime (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You may need to explain what "political reasons" has to do with it, the reason we dont have a section is that none of the Gulfstream crashes have been notable enough to include, I dont see anything in the Bedford crash that makes it notable either. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gulfstream IV. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704105551/http://www.pearlharborvisitorcenter.com/archives/The_Grey_Ghost.html to http://www.pearlharborvisitorcenter.com/archives/The_Grey_Ghost.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150618173711/http://www.observer.ug/component/content/article?id=2655%3Amuseveni-shs-88bn-jet-arrives to http://www.observer.ug/component/content/article?id=2655%3Amuseveni-shs-88bn-jet-arrives

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) 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)