Jump to content

Talk:List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses

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

Comment

[edit]
this is a much better way of doing a survivors piece. It still ought to have a intro paragraph since the page could be reached by the "random article" link from the wikipedia main page. The paragraph could just be a repeat of the summary section from the main article with a little more context of the aircraft itself.GraemeLeggett 08:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is lack of info, proper referencing etc. I didn't added that because I didn't wanted to work on this article right now, it's just a "technology demonstrator". Piotr Mikołajski 08:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead paragraph should form part of your technology demonstrator. GraemeLeggett 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Changes

[edit]

DELETE I am now strongly in favor of Deleting this article as it now stands - The intent of this seperate article was to complete document and list the survivors not a random selection according to some fanciful system Piotr has designated - This change has destroyed the intent and purpose of this sub. I am also demanding that the original list be returned.Davegnz 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several other editors agree with this new format. Please discuss at WT:AIRCRAFT. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dave, but the problem here is with your intent. Though I know you meant well, Wikipedia simply isn't the place to completely document and list all the survivors, even of a notable aircraft like the B-29. I can easily see the justification of all the ones which have a significant history (and no, flying in WWII isn't a default significant history - after all, we don't list all the human survivors of that war, either), and all those preserved in museums. More than that, though, you might want to consider your approach. You've been responding as if these lists are your personal property, going even so far as to try to pull them from the Project. That simply isn't way things are done here, and I'm sorry if you weren't clear on that. At the bottom of every edit screen is a "Please Note" section, and the second item there says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I know this experience has probably left a bitter taste in your mouth, which is regrettable, but you need to realize that when you come into an environment where teamwork is the key to truly great things, you need to be willing to concede some, even though you might not think it's the best thing, or the direction things start going isn't what you "intended" the article to be. I've certainly had to give in on issues, and I think everyone here has. AKRadecki 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that the Wiki is the perfect place to list all survivors of significant historic types. After all, the list will generally get shorter over time for the planes of fame that are out of general use (P-51s might be an exception though...) I have been listing preserved C-130 Hercules on the C-130 page, and I might add that Lockheed Constellation populations are now pretty much finite. Having the Wiki be a reference on preserved aircraft, as opposed to listing all operational models (good luck on listing all surviving Dakotas!), seems like a reasonable paragraph/list in articles about the type.

But then, I'm a serial number fiend, and like exact identifications...

For what it's worth...

Mark Sublette 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a nice article on Fifi from the Wall Street Journal from October 19, 2010 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575549962220663520.html?KEYWORDS=Fifi Highflier (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Highflier[reply]

Name

[edit]

I know Dave really disagrees with our naming conventions, but that disagreement aside, the name of this article really should be changed to drop the Boeing, so that it will be consistent with the main article. I'm happy to do the move, but I wanted to give notice first. AKRadecki 22:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should also be named in accordance with most naming convetions for lists. I will look into it later but i doknow it exists. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be List of B-29 Superfortress survivors. AKRadecki 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved to List of surviving B-29 Superfortresses, because 'survivors' implies some agency that I don't want to assign to an inanimate object. Just being bold here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. AKRadecki 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. When I first saw the AFD for the article under the old name (not being familiar with other articles of this type), I had no idea what the article was about. Surviving members of B-29 crews? People who survived crashes or accidents involving B-29s? Now it's clear. PubliusFL 00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that title is much better now. - BillCJ 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table Format

[edit]

If we're going to list so much information on each entry, the table format is not a good idea. Not trying to be difficult here, but tables work best for just one or two lines per entry. - BillCJ 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bill. BTW - table format is more difficult to keep and expand, especially for less experienced users. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 07:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, tables are superior for cases like the less noted survivors. It presents the information in a consistent, controlled way. GraemeLeggett 09:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well... it really depends ;o) When I get more info about particular aircraft, I'll move it from the table to the upper section. Piotr Mikołajski 09:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the compromise of the text and table format. Thank you team! I was frustrated with Chris(Talk) on the pure table format as I am a little too close to TSq54 and could not see this excellant compromise. Kudos! I will re-focus my efforts on our av-projects after our holiday weekend. Maybe we all can take a short break from Wiki for a couple of days and comtemplate on the men and women who flew and restored these suvivors for our great nation on Memorial Day. We owe it to them. LanceBarber 17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the dual format too. Much more workable and readable. - BillCJ 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plane names

[edit]

Individual aircraft names, like Fifi, are like ships' names, and are properly italicized, rather than put in quotes and/or bolded. I fixed this once, but somehow they got put back. I've fixed them again. AKRadecki 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. However some names are in quotes as painted, so that the name in article should be: "Nickname".--Buckboard 07:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

fate of 44-86402

[edit]

According to this, (I know, message boards are not reliable sources), that plane was scrapped in the 90's, after having been moved to a Ohio collector some years earlier. I found this by googling "44-86402". I could find no reference for the "Aircraft Industries Museum" in Louisville, Kentucky. Does the person who added this one have a source? --rogerd 17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No good source. Did find this info on Joe Baughers s/n search s/n search -- 86402 used as mothership for X-7/XQ-5 programs ... Also found an Aviation Museum of Kentucky...being developed but NO references to a B-29.... LanceBarber 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any evidence that this airframe still exists. I think we should remove it. I lived in Louisville from 1968 to 1978 and was a student pilot and Civil Air Patrol member during part of that time. I also visit occasionally. I think if such an aircraft existed in the area, I would have heard about it. Also, this Aviation Museum of Kentucky is in Lexington, KY, not Louisville (75 miles apart). --rogerd 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur to remove it. Others may find it, and can add it back in. LanceBarber 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

44-70039 on Bomber Glacier, Alaska

[edit]

Hello all, I saw this great photo on Airliners.net today and brought this poor bird back to my attention. 44-70039 crashed in 1957 and remains there to this day [1]. I don't know where or if we'd like to have it on this section. Technically it's not a "survivor." However it's a pretty famous wreckage. --Trashbag (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can use this in the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. Thanx for the tip! Mark Sublette (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Navy Superfortress was P2B, not PB-2. Mark Sublette (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in process

[edit]

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 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bocks Car

[edit]

Look at the nose art in the photo at Bocks Car. It is definitely two words.Petebutt (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses. 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) 16:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses. 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) 20:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses. 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) 23:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second B-29 at NMUSAF

[edit]

There is a second B-29 (fuselage only) at the NMUSAF, named "Command Decision", that flew during the Korean War. B-29 Walk-through Fuselage It is set up for visitors to walk through it. I don't know the serial number. --rogerd (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

42-94052 Star Dust

[edit]

Does anyone have a more accurate reference or set of coordinates for 42-94052? There is no reference for it and the current coordinates seems to just point to an open field. Bravoechonovember1 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential advertising

[edit]

I have noticed on the very last wreck listed it appears to be edited to advertise a scuba diving business. I don't know who put it there but I will look and see. 96.29.181.235 (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

I found that it was made by a user with the name of 2600:8801:1900:5ba:74e3:ba9e:4234:2dde and it is the only edit on their account so it is likely only there to advertise the buisness. I have reverted the edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.181.235 (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 June 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved, for insufficient support. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses → List of preserved Boeing B-29 Superfortresses – I would like to make a proposal of this being renamed to List of preserved Boeing B-29 Superfortresses since there could be some B-29s that were preserved but were scrapped during preservation. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – The scope of this article is on surviving B-29s that were not scrapped and are still "alive" so to speak, which includes stored aircraft, displayed aircraft and airworthy aircrafts. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically speaking, surviving sounds a lot like a term for organic beings and these are machines that are preserved. So thats why I think it should be renamed to List of preserved Boeing B-29 Superfortresses Airbus A320-100 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "surviving" can still be used for objects. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof? (Not a category of these, like a wikipedia article on the term "surviving" being applied for objects) Airbus A320-100 (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can use definitions in this case: Cambridge Dictionary which states "continuing to live or exist", the Merriam Webster which states "remaining after another or others have ceased existence, operation, or use", Vocabulary.com which states in its "Definitions of surviving", "adjective; still in existence", Collins Dictionary stating "2. continuing to exist". As you can see, surviving is not only limited to organic beings with examples given in the links. For example, from the Merriam Webster:
    "Among the most important surviving documents for any discussion of Tucker porcelain are two hand-drawn books in the library of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
    —Alice Cooney Frelinghuysen
    In Dallas, Terry Elkins, the campaign manager for Max Goldblatt, who in 1985 ran for mayor, came to believe, on the basis of a months-long study of the surviving records and materials of the election, that Goldblatt had been kept out of a runoff by manipulation of the computerized voting system.—Ronnie Dugger"
    I don't even think a wikipedia article exists on this topic but I feel like the given definitions do justify using surviving for objects. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_surviving_Boeing_B-29_Superfortresses&oldid=1231455953"