Talk:De Havilland Vampire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

It would be nice if you included information about the De Havilland project and the origin of the aircraft's name. Alexandros 15:54, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bang seats

The article doesn't mention ejection seats. The T11s (and Venoms) had Martin-Baker bang seats, but did any variants of the single seat Vampires have them? Moriori 03:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Both single seat Vampire and Venom in the Swiss Air Force were modified with hot seats around 1967-68. --Towpilot 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I think no single seater Vampires (unlike Venoms) were ever fitted with ejection seats as standard. I'll dig around and see if I can substantiate that. If true, it deserves a mention. Moriori 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Neither Vampire or Venom, single or dual, had ejection seats as standard when they were new. All remaining aircraft of both in Swiss Air Force were modified as mention above, and it's my understanding that the same was done elsewhere those airplanes were still in military service, i.e. it became "standard".--Towpilot 07:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's not very clear.....

Two statements made in the section headed RAF service are a little confusing. Namely

  • "The FB 5 ....(had).... wings clipped back by 30 centimeters (1 foot), and longer-stroke main gear to handle greater takeoff weights and provide clearance for stores/weapons load (an external tank or 225 kilogram (500 pound) bomb outboard on each wing, and eight "3 inch" rocket projectiles ("RPs") stacked in pairs on four attachments inboard of the booms). "

But then, two paragraphs down, it says

  • "The RAF's Mk 5 was altered to extend the aircraft's role from a fighter to a ground-attack aircraft, the wings being clipped, strengthened and fitted with hard-points for bombs or rockets."

Same information in two different places? Or was it radically modified twice? Moriori 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, just a duplicated sentence. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which was first?

Both this article and the Supermarine Attacker (see also Hawker Sea Hawk claim first Fleet Air Arm service

So which was it?

Thoglette 06:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Attacker intro to service, 1951 (from the article), Sea Hawk intro to service, 1953 (from the article). Vampire carrier trials 1945 (Gunston), intro to service (from Fleet Air Arm article given as 'late 1940s'. Fairly safe to say it was the Vampire. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I thought that this section always followed the references, in this article it seems to have a new placing. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC).

You are right Bzuk ext links should be between refs and nav boxes - I have moved it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My error folks, I omitted to move the See also section after moving the External links to above the navboxes, humblest apologies! --Red Sunset 20:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
We really do need to agree on a standard for this across the project. I have been following the featured articles which have 'references', 'see also' with external links last. I believe MoS recommends EL last. I have changed quite a few articles to this layout. I have rarely seen 'references' after 'see also'. Just trying to get it right in the face of seemingly many different ways of doing it. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The standard (or project guideline) is Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content which has see also, references, ext links , navboxes, cats. (refer also to Template:Aerostart. MilborneOne (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
So we have a different standard for FA? I personally prefer the layout of ref, see also, EL, boxes. Seems to be more logical. I know this has been discussed on the project page. It's becoming a bit of a pain, with reversions and questioning all the time unfortunately. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Garry, to me, the references are source documents and the external links are merely an electronic version of a source document so I see them as complimentary and should be placed together which is the standard for nearly all the articles I have seen including the WP:Aviation Group and WP:Film Group in which I tend to hang out. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC).
I have been scratching my head over this, I know that many aircraft articles are formatted in the style that I tend to use. I think I have found the answer, there is an 'aircontent' template that is often used at the bottom of articles. Circa Feb 2006 if this was placed after references (as it had to be I assume) then you would have the order refs, see also, external links. The template has been altered many times as I can see from the talk page and I guess what has happened is that the older articles had headers placed in this format 'unmolested' and they are still like this (and I have followed them). It was bugging me as there had to be a reason for so many articles appearing in this layout. Slightly more enlightened now. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This template rather confusingly still contains the words 'see also' at the end when it actually means 'related content'. In wiki markup you get 'see also' followed by 'external links' when editing a whole page. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The standard order for these "supplementary sections", as given in the Manual of Style, Guide to layout, and indeed (starting this year) WP:AIR is: See also, References, and External links. "References" can be broken up into "Notes", "References" and/or "Bibliography" if necessary. (These text sections are then followed by navboxes, categories, and interwiki links, in that order)

Nimbus227 - your confusion may be stemming from the fact that the old WP:AIR standard was to put the "aircontent" template at the very end. Actually, the Guide to Layout says that the order of these sections doesn't matter, and indeed we had many articles "promoted" to FA with WP:AIR's idiosyncratic section ordering, which confirmed this. However, there have been so many fights and so many problems with this over the years, that we now fall in with the standard. There are still, no doubt, dozens or even hundreds of articles that need to be updated accordingly.

And Bzuk is right - if a website has been used as a reference in preparing an article, then it should appear in the References section; if it's being provided as "further reading", it goes under External links.

Hope this helps! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It does a bit, are we talking about the level two headers? I am currently editing F7U Cutlass, you can see that it is in the 'old' order, I have not changed the layout. It is missing an external link header which I was planning to add to the end. I'm clear on where EL's should go, had to pull loads out of the F-104 article after failed GA review. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes - level 2 headers; so the F7U article in this edit is perfect: See also, References. External links.
Is the confusion perhaps coming from the "see also" parameter within the aircontent template? That doesn't add another "see also" (3rd-level) heading; it actually just adds any general "see also" material to the top of the (L2) "See also" section. I've put a (stupid) example here cut down from the F7U article. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic! I've got it right. Request permission to use this as my 'yardstick' article! Yes, I think that 'see also' text in the template could be changed as it probably was 'throwing' me and other editors. Marvellous! Nimbus227 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you mean use the cut-down version? If so, please go ahead and move it into your own userspace - you're welcome! I'll see what I can do about getting the "see also" parameter renamed: should be easy for a bot. It used to create a level 3 heading called "See also", but that was when the level 2 heading above it was called "Related content". See? :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have just whizzed through and fixed most of the articles I have been involved with, one of them was the Spitfire. The text entered at the 'see also' line of the template (which is at the bottom) actually appears at the top (Australian?)! Much fun and we should be able to get on with adding facts and promoting some of these articles now. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Originally, "See also" was a level 3 heading under the "Related content" level 2 heading. When we decided to fall in with convention and needed to rename the level 2 heading "See also", the problem arose with what to do with the level 3 heading of the same name that now contained the most general links. Rather than create a virtually meaningless new level 3 heading like "general" or "other", these links were moved to the top of the new level 2 "See also" section without any level 3 heading at all. This is possible because the order that template inputs appear in within an article is completely irrelevant; it's their order within the template that determines their place in the output. That having been said, most new articles (Feb 08) onwards have their "see also" parameter at the top of Template:aircontent, if only to reduce editor confusion. The software doesn't care. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)