Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

message: Under Accidents and notable incidents, should we add the events of 16th August 2021, in Kabul, where a C-17 took off with 600+ passengers crammed into it, and a few hanging on from the outside - at least 2 of whom fell to their deaths after the flight took off.https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/p5ek9s/a_clear_video_of_men_falling_from_c17_they_were/ 202.153.82.31 (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not an accident and not a usual aviation incident either.  See the bottom of the U.S. Air Force section for coverage. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Also Reddit isn't a source. Ckruschke (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Kabul takeoff incident

message: Normally doesn't an aircraft that was already in production prior to a merger has the name of the pre-merger company in its article name? For example, McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, even though they're still in production by Boeing and Lockheed Martin, respectively. — Red XIV (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on a case by case basis, as there's no firm guideline one way or the other. - BilCat (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the article be "McDonnell Douglas C-17 Globemaster III"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Qatari livery  

message: @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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Verification of reference in Operators section 

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

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

text: *: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)
replies: text: * Long term it would probably be better to replace the table with some summary text, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this table, exactly?