Wikipedia

Talk:List of surviving North American B-25 Mitchells

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:King Nine.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Background history

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Section keeps getting vandalises even though much of the information comes from the wiki page on the North American B-25 page - if BillCJ has a problem with this section, then left him post exactly what he feels is incorrect or contains wrong information (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dave, you really ought to consider backing off on this. We have an article on the aircraft, and that's the place for a long, detailed background explanation. This is a list of survivors, and the only material that should be here is the list of survivors. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
As per the official Wikipedia policy on verifiability, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source" and "any material lacking a reliable source may be removed." The section in question was challenged, and as it was entirely sourceless, it was removed. The accusation of vandalism is not supported by policy, and in fact the only rules I see broken here are WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, and WP:AGF --Kralizec! (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in process

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Category talk:Survivors (aircraft) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Questionable sources

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I respectfully question some of the methodology employed in this article. First, the only two sources presently cited:

1. The registry pages at Warbirds Resource Group (WRG) are extremely variable in respect of accurate and up-to-date information, depending on which aircraft type you are checking. Many of the pages are evidently plagiarised from old paper copies of Warbirds Directory (Goodall et al, 1989, 1992, etc), but with added typos and misunderstandings. There is no evidence of thorough updating from the 2008 CD edition of Warbirds Directory or any other reliable published source. Other pages are declared as sourced solely from Wikipedia!

2. The FAA Registry is cited presumably as evidence of the continued existence of an airframe - a false assumption. The civil aircraft registry primarily records that a registration was once assigned to an airframe on the declared information of an applicant. It contains many thousands of airframes long defunct. eg B-25s 44-31489 and 44-86786 both probably ceased to exist in about 1970, but remain visible on the register. The downloadable register contains dating information that backs up the "revoked" status and lack of dates on the website entries. Similarly, the ownership information is often out-of-date, reflecting only the owner who last contacted the FAA.

Redjacket3827 clearly has good intentions in trying to rationalize survivor sections and standalone pages, but I fear that resources and in-depth understanding are lacking. I also question the wisdom of creating separate sections for Airworthy, On display and Under restoration, since movements between the sections are inevitable for a subject aircraft type that justifies a standalone article. Surely a status code against each airframe would be more rational? PeterWD (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand your concerns Peter perhaps it may be better raised at the aircraft project talk page which has more visibility. Just a point on the breakdown between Airworthy/On display/Under Restoration was set up to allow readers to better find information on aircraft in a written format, some of the previous incarnations of these lists were full of codes, abbreviations and acronyms as per some well known warbird sources that was fine for warbird enthuisasts but has no meaning to the average reader. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I am glad people are looking into these pages and questioning the contents. It means people are still interested in WWII military aviation, which is great! As for the sources, most of the FAA listings I found were up to date, although there are a few (as you mentioned) that were pretty old. Those are usually in the restoration section, and a lot of those are either in storage or gone. But the FAA is currently in the process of updating their records and purging old ones. I try to match the FAA with WRG and usually they are sync, but a lot of info on WRG are over ten years old. On the display models, I actually went out to the museum webpages and verified a lot of them. As for the layout (airworthy,display,restoration), the only movements I usually see are from restoration to airworthy, and that is not that often. The previous layouts, as MilborneOne said, were not very intuitive and filled with a lot of information the average reader wouldn't know or undersand. My hope was by simplifying and updating the info, people would be more interested in this field (since when you do a search for, say, flying B-25s on a websearch engine, this is usually what comes up first. Redjacket3827 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
A point I forgot to mention was that people seeing aircraft in photos, at museums or at air events might need help in identifying which airframes they are, hence my preference in additionally listing the current most prominent identity or tail number, and perhaps also any painted name.
Anyway, as a good source of B-25 info, I recommend the book by Scott Thompson (1997) "B-25 Mitchell in Civil Service", otherwise see his pages on B-25s at http://www.aerovintage.com/b25bits.htm - IMHO infinitely more reliable than WRG. Thompson is a well-respected researcher of warbirds; his B-17 book "Final Cut" is now in its 4th edition (but not seen by me), and B-17 data is also to be found on his website. He wrote an A-26 book, now unavailable, but it suffered badly from lack of proof-reading and cross-checking, and he subsequently stopped listing A-26s. PeterWD (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of surviving North American B-25 Mitchells. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of surviving North American B-25 Mitchells. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_surviving_North_American_B-25_Mitchells&oldid=1198599230"