Jump to content

Talk:List of surviving Avro Vulcans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

XM603 is a BiA

[edit]

XM603 is shown as being built in 1963 which seems odd. It is a B1A which were modified and upgraded from B1s. BY 1963 they had been building B2s for several years. 2.26.201.242 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XM603 is a B2. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably confused with XH503 which WAS a B1A--Petebutt (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Avro Vulcan XM655

[edit]
This has proven to be yet another complete waste of time, so going to try one last time with a general vote on the main Vulcan page, see Talk:Avro Vulcan#Which Vulcans should have their own articles?. Natural Ratio (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Avro Vulcan XM655 here. Or rather, I propose redirecting it, as there is nothing in the article that isn't already here in XM655's list entry. It was claimed by others in the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avro Vulcan XM655) that enough sources exist to write a proper article, but it appears that there is no desire on the part of anyone to actually put that work in, not even to do the first step and actually identify the sources they found, so that others might use them, if they're not going to. As I tried to point out in the Afd, this leaves Wikipedia in the imho absurd position that it apparently considers XH558 and XM655 notable as individual aircraft, but not the only other taxiable aircraft, XL426, or indeed any of the other now static survivors detailed here. The article on XM655 existed for 5 years without anyone bothering to add anything from independent sources, whereas XL426 has never had an article (bar a straight copy-paste). As a formerly flying survivor (2007-2015), XH588 is obviously a special case, having notability as a separate aircraft in spades. While others appear happy with the status quo, I do not want this situation to remain for another 5 years, because it cannot do anything other than confuse and bemuse uninformed readers (as it did me when I first arrived), so I'm willing to open myself up to another round of ridiculous accusations that I'm on some kind of anti-Vulcan crusade in order to straighten the situation out (even though I'm clearly, by a country mile, the only person here with any recent record of adding material to Wikipedia about Vulcans). Having experienced Wikipedia's tendency to let even yes/no discussions ramble without conclusion/resolution, I will be asking the AfD closer, Sandstein (talk · contribs), to formally adjudicate the result within a reasonable timeframe (not before 1 week, but not a year either). Alerts for the AfD participants below. Natural Ratio (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) (merge) :[reply]

(keep) :

  • Keep. I would add: this is a list article and it should not overbalance towards any particular list entries. The entry for XM655 was noticeably the longest so I cut it back. There is no room here for a proper merge. OTOH the article on XM655 has seen steady improvement over the years and there is no reason for this not to continue. Somebody complained that supporters of the article were not providing any new sources. Here is one: Tony Blackman; Vulcan Boys: From the Cold War to the Falklands: True Tales of the Iconic Delta V Bomber, Grub Street, 2014. Currently an Amazon #1 military bestseller. For a glimpse of XM655 in its depths, see this Google Books page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it not overbalance? Only three of these aircraft had any significant post-RAF use, the rest simply landing and being displayed as static exhibits. Similarly, some had eventful RAF careers, others no so much. It seems perverse to ignore these things to artificially impose some word limit to keep each entry the same size. I've seen no rule that says this is how lists should be. And your choice of what to remove and retain seems bizarre as well - why keep the information about air cadets, even if we are to assume it's true? And why remove information like date of transfer and intermediate owners, etc, when this is exactly what has been included in other sections? As for the source - if you look, you will see it also has details on XL426 too, as well as presumably all the other survivors (given what you linked to was a chapter on survivors). So the question remains, unless/until anyone can be be bothered to write up articles on the rest of these aircraft, either all of them, or all three taxiable aircraft, they why shouldn't they be included merely as entries on this list? Natural Ratio (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of surviving Avro Vulcans. 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) 16:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of surviving Avro Vulcans. 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) 19:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_surviving_Avro_Vulcans&oldid=1248545229"