Talk:List of most-produced aircraft

message: This list seriously needs citations of reference(s) used. Askari Mark | Talk 23:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While rewriting article, i used numbers from wiki articles, maybe better will be find them there. --Jklamo 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: According to the Polikarpov Po-2 Wiki, it is the most produced airplane at 40,000+
68.94.48.103 16:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages --Jklamo 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified the entry to reflect this. However, as I noted earlier, we need to do a better job of sourcing. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sourcing is important, but as i mentioned before, it will be better to request sources in corresponding articles than there. --Jklamo 17:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Po-2

message: Most An-2 were built in Poland.
:How many were built in each country? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AN-2

message: I have to agree with Askari Mark above that this list really needs references if it is to be at all credible. I have updated the numbers for the Cessna 172 based on a quote from Cessna this week, added an inline citation and started the reflist. Feel free to add similar refs for other aircraft production numbers. - Ahunt 15:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All production numbers in this article are taken from aicraft´s wikiarticles. I think it will be better to request or add references in these wikiarticles, rather than have 90 refs (!) here. --Jklamo 02:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, I think it would be useful to have those citations available in this article. If someone is looking at this page, they should be able to see the citations directly, and not have to navigate to another page in order to find them. Otherwise, the article is effectively citing Wikipedia as its source, which is undesirable according to WP:CIRCULAR. I'm going to be bold and bring citations into this article as time permits me to. --Nick Moss (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I added in the PA-28 and PA-32 in the table. Now, the latter is a stretched version of the former, and the former is full of rather varied aircraft. I figure it's reasonable to split along the PA-28 and PA-32 lines, though someone more knowledgeable about the various ins and outs of the family would know better. (C-172 flier myself)75.177.89.4 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Piper PA-28

message: Yak-1, 3 and 9 with all subvariants are essentially the same type of aircraft in a way all versions of Spitfire or Bf-109 are. Maybe it would be more accurate to put a sum of all these next to Yak-1 to 9 family.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.119.243 (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yak-9 

message: The MiG-21 and -17 were developed solely in the Soviet Union and their production numbers reflect those produced by the USSR and not by any other country. The PRC developed derivative aircraft of the -21 and -17 and it is inaccurate to list PRC as co-developer of these aircraft. List J-7 and J-5 separately if need be. --Incidious (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MiG-21 and -17 

message: I corrected an apparent typing error on the Spitfire total.  The number in Supermarine Spitfire agrees with several apparently dependable sites that I found on Google, and agrees with the previous number in this wikipage except for one digit (22,351 vs 20,351).  If somebody has more reliable data, he may correct this page, but should also correct the Spitfire page.  Thanks.Raymondwinn (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Spitfire total

message: Shouldn't the 150 and 152 totals be together? One is a modernized version of the other. Other aircraft on this is are similarly grouped together. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem reasonable to combine them since the FAA certified them as one type under one type certificate 3A19. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 150/152

message: The article has undergone some recent changes, which in my opinion are just AWFUL! The previous version was far simpler, and flags aren't to be used as decorations. I've reverted per WP:Bold/revert/discuss, so please discuss and gain a consensus before reverting back. Also, I've not attempted to restore the minor changes made during that time, as even normal tables are difficult for me to edit. There's no prejucice to updating those items, but I can't do it myself. - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree the flags made the article hard to read and are not really needed they are just being used for unwanted decoration. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks cleaner without the flags, I'm tempted to advance a similar position for List of fighter aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dispensing with the flags makes the page larger as the tags get replaced with a lot more characters - a major issue with the fighter aircraft page, and it helps force consistency where multiple names have been used, while providing a visual cue as to the nationality. Plus I think it looks better. If there is clutter, it is from having an overly large comments field that needs to be narrowed down to just the relevant information.NiD.29 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes reverted

message: I'm wondering if there is any need for the article to be in two sections, or if a single table would suffice? It was put into a single table in 2010, along with other changes which cluttered the article up, and when those changes were reverted, so was the single table. Thoughts? --Nick Moss (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A single table makes much more sense to me - when it was just a list, breaking it into sections made sense, but tables work better when all the data is together as it allows the sort function to work properly, it forces consistency, and the column widths don't need to be set to get each of the tables to look similar. I am all for merging them.NiD.29 (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for two sections? 

message: Why there isn't the Beech Bonanza (>17,000 produced according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Bonanza)???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.36.20.111 (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has stated a reason why the Bonanza should not be in the list, so I've added it.--Concord hioz (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beechcraft Bonanza?? 

message: Quote:
:"Wikipedia should be consistent."
I was guessing that there was a policy on this.  It was very easy to find.  You ALL are in violation of that policy.  Even the Admins.  Especially the Admins.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "statements in articles shouldn't contradict each other".
We have multiple articles, as has been CLEARLY pointed out above, that state that the Tu-4 was a variant of the B-29.  In order to conform with the Consistency requirement, we must either accept inclusion here, or remove all such statements from all of those other articles.--Concord hioz (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:Consistency

message: :"...follow the sources and see if we are accurately reflecting the sources, and if not, come and tell us because we'll be, you know... [laughs]  That's one of our core values is to accurately report on what sources say."
::::::::::::::--Jimmy Wales interview, PBS NewsHour (posted to YouTube on Jul 10, 2012)
Gotta wonder what Jimmy would say to an admin who repeatedly bans an editor whose efforts are toward getting an article to accurately reflect what the reliable sources say.--Concord hioz (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimmy Wales: Wikipedia core value is to accurately reflect what the sources say

message: Does anyone know whether the B-24 production total includes the PB4Y Privateer and/or the C-87 Liberator Express? Carguychris (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-24 total 

message: I propose the eliminate the "CM" designation being used for aircraft in the "civilian or military" column. So many aircraft are used for both purposes, but are designed/used mainly for one or the other. Almost every civilian model is at least examined for possible military use, and many surplus military models end up being sold off for civilian use, thus putting most aircraft arguably into the CM designation and rendering the "civilian or military" column effectively useless. As it is, models such as the Boeing 737 - built and used overwhelmingly for civilian purposes, are listed as a "CM" aircraft. This is a confusing, misleading, and unnecessarily complicated division for what should be a easily-sortable list. I propose to eliminate this unneeded ambiguity and just use common-sense to classify each model as to it's initially-designed purpose or most common use: either civilian or military.Bron6669 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I've no problem with removing column. The type and notes columns should be more than capable to indicate whether majority civil or military use for those instances where it's not obvious. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

text: The "civilian or military" column itself wouldn't be eliminated, just the acceptable designations within restricted to "c" or "m", with anything else being an unacceptable option.Bron6669 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I have changed all C/M column entries to read either "C" or "M" according to my best judgment. I have heavily weighted the designation according to the initial design intentions (civilian, or military tender). I do not know how to restrict the column to accept only those two designations so if somebody knows how please do so.Bron6669 (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limit to either "Civilian" or "Military" designation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of most-produced aircraft. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/aircraft/bomber/polikarpov-u-2-po-2.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924073936/http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/beechcraft/the-bonanza-hits-60-strong-and-fast to http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/pilot-reports/beechcraft/the-bonanza-hits-60-strong-and-fast
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/aircraft/fighter/polikarpov-i-16.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706065556/http://www.gama.aero/files/2007gamadatabookoutlook_pdf_498c889640.pdf to http://www.gama.aero/files/2007gamadatabookoutlook_pdf_498c889640.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170223125310/http://www.gama.aero/files/2016%20GAMA%20Databook_forWeb.pdf to http://www.gama.aero/files/2016%20GAMA%20Databook_forWeb.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon's Yakovlev Aircraft since 1920 (p. 104), total production of the Yak-12, including that of the Yak-12M and -12A in Poland is 4420. That puts it below the 5000 built criteria for the page. Even if you include the 325 PZL-101 Gowrons, that still only gives 4745 aircraft. Delete the entry?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The current entry is unsourced, so if that is our best ref, then, sure. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Yak-12

message: I removed the claim that the Bell 206 is the "most produced civilian helicopter" because the claim is uncited and dubious; the aircraft's roots are in a military contract competition, and a large number of 206s have been produced for the military as OH-58s. If a reliable published source indicates that civil production of the 206 still exceeds that of the Robinson R44, the claim can be reinstated. Carguychris (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See now your post. The most produced civilian helicopters is the Aerospatiale AS350, that is not on the list even if over 7000 aircraft are produced. Why you talked about R44? Wind of freedom (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a ref for that claim? See WP:PROVEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell 206 

message: This line may denote that aircraft are only piston engined monoplanes are aircraft, which is far from the truth. I understand that its trying to say most planes on the list are piston engined monoplanes, but it seems like an unneeded line  Forevernewyes (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unless noted, aircraft are piston engined monoplanes" 

message: This list seems to be missing the Luscombe 8, which according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luscombe_Aircraft Luscombe produced 5,867. Versaperm (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luscombe 8