Template talk:Boeing military aircraft

	Aviation: Aircraft Template‑class
Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation Template‑class

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force

I'm not sure where some of these should go.

• YAL-1 ·
• OC-135
   ·
• RC-135 Rivet Joint ·

• E-4 ·
• E-6
   ·
• E-10 MC2A

Where do observation aircraft go? Under Reconn? -Fnlayson 01:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes to Obser, and put YAL-1 per below. -

BillCJ 02:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Should the Y planes be put on a Prototype line? -Fnlayson 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could change "Experimental" to add Prototypes, and put those there (like YAL-1). -

BillCJ 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Yea! There a lot of planes listed. -Fnlayson 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the craft listed on Chrono order? If so, the YAL-1 should be last on the Experimental/Prototypes line. -Fnlayson 03:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use designation order on pages like this, but it depends alot on the product too. -

• Well there are a lot of the older planes that aren't listed numerically cause they have pre-'62 designations (KC-135, ?-137, etc). -Fnlayson 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This thing is awfully big. What would you think of going ahead and dividing it? I think it would allow us to spread each category out a bit, and still not bee too long. We could use

• Sounds alright. So fighters, bombers, & attack helos, would go to the combat group, right? Please bring it up on the Air page. Might get some help there. ;). -Fnlayson 03:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fighters, bombers, & attack helos, would go to the combat group - that's what I had in mind, yes. Do you mean bringing it up on WP:AIR before or after a split? (just to clarify) -

• I say ask before. See if anyone has a better idea. If there's not anything after a couple days go forward with the combat/transport & support split. That's my suggestion anyway. -Fnlayson 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - will ask. -

• Looks fine. The spliting method is clear and logical. They aren't even.. but oh well. Seems like the easiest thing would to copy the non-combat part here and rename this template to "Boeing military transport and support aircraft". -Fnlayson 04:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, copying it over was what I had in mind. It was very easy to copy this one twice to that page, and then just take out what I didn't need for each template. I tried as much as I could to move anything half-way combat related to that template. It also made it easy to compare them. THe one I'm kinda stuck on is the trainers list, as there's a basic trainer (PT-17 family), an advanced carrier trainer (T-45), and an awfully big navigation trainer (T-43). I'd like to have the T-45 on the combat page, but it may be too much of a stretch. Any thoughts?

Anyway, I've split them up, and will start to post on articles them during the day on Monday, hopefully. ANy help on that would be appreciated, as there's a LOT of articles to cover. But I'm not in too much of a hurry on that - we'll get done when we get done! -

Why is the CC-137 listed last on that line? I had it next to C-137, since they seem very similar, both being 707-based. -Fnlayson 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to list them by designation, as the CF uses it's own system. I keep forgetting everyone else wants to list them by time period. Sorry! We can move it back. -

BillCJ 15:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oh, I see what you mean. I guess it's one way or the other then. -Fnlayson 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's back after C-137. -

BillCJ 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Piston and jet makes for a good way to split them. Would rotorcraft be split by piston/turbine engines as well (probably not a real factor)? -Fnlayson 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. On rotorcraft, I don't think it's necessary here, esp as we haven't included the pre-Boeing Vertol piston engine helis by Piasecki and Vertol, and BV only made turbine models. It does brign up a good point, ans I don't think thee's a template for those models yet. We could make one for all the Piasecki/Vertol/BV modles, and remove the helicopters here. THe attack copters are slightly different, and were actyually under Boeing IDS, not BV/Boeing Helicopters. Just some ideas, don't know if we'd want to do it now though, or how. -

BillCJ 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Humm, the piston aircraft could probably all fit on 1 template. That'd mean 3 for Boeing military: "Boeing military piston aircraft", "Boeing Combat jets" and "Boeing support jets". But jets doesn't exactly cover helicopters. That could be in 4th one as you say. -Fnlayson 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I think we crossed a wire: I was referring to the "Transport" line in the support template, that it could be divided if it went to two lines, which I think it will. I think the whole support template is OK as it is, tho removing the helicoters would free up some room. -

• Oh! I thought you meant put piston aircraft on another template. Two lines for Transports is fine. Changed section label to match what you mean. -Fnlayson 00:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put together a test page for a Piaseki-Boeing helicopter template at

• That looks fine to me. I meant Splitting in the section header. My typing to so-so and goes to bad when rushing. -Fnlayson 04:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it was a typo, but was just trying to be light. I make enough typos myself that sure I can't fault anyone else! -
  BillCJ 05:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't want to have to "spit" up that line. ;) -Fnlayson 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should proposed only aircraft like the