Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

Qatari livery

As the section now mentions, one of the Qatar Emiri Air Force C-17s doesn’t fly in military markings, but in those of state-owned Qatar Airways. The source cited on this topic makes a point of underscoring that it is fully owned and operated by the Air Force. I, too, think the qualifier fully is important to quickly rule out that it is lent to Qatar airways from time to time or otherwise somehow be connected to Qatar Airways, and bears the livery for this reason. Quite simply, the C17 flies in the livery of an airline that is an entirely separate entity, with which it has no legal connection, a “false flag” so to speak, which is quite unique worldwide. As some air forces operate airlines, with their own livery, and other air forces charter civilian airplanes, and yet elsewhere airlines, I’m sure, have chartered military airplanes on rare occasions, I think it’s well worth using 5 letters to emphasize that none of these scenarios is the case. As two other editors (one of whom made a false claim) do not agree, I need support on this. --Alterrabe (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the word you're insisting on using in the article text, "fully", doesn't even occur in the cited source, This Airforce C17 Wears The Qatar Airways Livery – Here’s Why, thus your claim is unsourced. Also, I don't know if the site meets Wikipedia's standards as a Reliable Source, but that needs to be addressed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before we rely on it to make legal claims, when it actually makes them of course. BilCat (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you’re right. I apologize. I had read several articles on the issue, before editing, and somehow mixed the sources up. The very specific language and legal issues struck me as noteworthy, but as a quick search can’t retrace my steps, I’m not going to invest the time to try to do all the research a second time. Cheers.Alterrabe (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Verification of reference in Operators section

@Fnlayson, in this 2018 edit you referenced FlightGlobal's World Air Forces (as <ref name=WAF_2018>), but the link associated with it (or its archived version) doesn't contain information supporting the article text concerning quantities and types of C-17s in use by countries. Were you referring to a different printed version, and if so, could you possibly update the reference? TheFeds 20:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Flight International's World Air Forces does list the number of aircraft type of each nation's armed forces fleet. This has been made subscription content; an archived link may needed to be used. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What is this table, exactly?

A recent edit & reversion by other editors got me looking at the table in the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III#Production and deliveries section - and I think it needs some clarification, as there is no label on the table itself. Is this table production or deliveries or both? In any case - I believe it may not be accurate, as it is reflecting one or the other as recently as 2019 (un-cited), despite the last one being produced and delivered in 2015. I suspect that this table is for deliveries - although I find it unlikely that Boeing is sitting on a surplus of 17s for what is now 9 years since "being in talks with 5 other countries". Does anyone have any clarification for the table? I am also thinking about reorganizing the paragraph quoted to improve the timeline flow. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That table lists deliveries for each year. This was clear with the references labels there previously. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

So some refs were removed? 5 years of the numbers in the table come after the most recent ref publication date. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. I did not add data to the table. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Understood. I will research it later today and see if I can get those numbers ref'ed. Thanks for your help and edits. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Long term it would probably be better to replace the table with some summary text, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Nickname (the Moose)

Flight crews, according to Task & Purpose, call the C-17 "the Moose" for the sound that the pressure relief vents make when ground refueling sounding like a female moose in heat.[1] Unless it already is and I missed it, can this be incorporated into the opening paragraph similar to how "Viper" is on the F-16 page? TheNomad416 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has a similar one, and I found several magazine-like and news-like sources.

How's this? @TheNomad416

"Flight crews call the C-17 "the Moose", because during ground refuelling, the pressure relief vents make a sound like the call of a female moose in heat."

• Barrie Barber (January 11, 2015). "Wright-Patt crew plays crucial Afghanistan role: As combat operations end, Ohio airmen make frequent, risky flights". Dayton Daily News. ISSN 0897-0920. ProQuest 1644372252. After a seven-hour flight that began from Ramstein Air Base in Germany, the "Moose" as the C-17 is nicknamed, is thirsty. The plane makes the sound of a moose call as fuel pushes out air inside the tanks.
• David Roza (August 6, 2021). "Here's why the Air Force's workhorse C-17 is called 'the Moose'". Task & Purpose.

Komonzia (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That looks good. I'm thinking the end of the first paragraph is the best place to put it since it's the shortest. But I'm having trouble getting it to format. I've tried copying and pasting it, but the source links just appear as a big block of text. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. TheNomad416 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I have copied the wikitext source code over now. Komonzia (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• An article's Lead is a place to summarize all major content, not introduce trivia type info. The Operational history would be a more appropriate section for this. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't agree that alternative names shouldn't be in the lead. Usually that's where they are placed. Komonzia (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  The whole explanation doesn't need to be in the lead. If this truly is a common nickname, then it should go somewhere in the lead, sourced to the main sourced used in the body. Usually, the nickname needs to be common outside the military too, such as with "Huey", "Viper", etc, to warrant mention in the lead. At this point, it seems to be on a par with " Fat Amy" in being uncommon outside the military. BilCat (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)