Talk:List of X-planes

message: "X-plane projects are still underway as of 2004." Any updates? :) ----Unforgettableid | Talk to me 18:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone going to put the recently announced X-56A in the list? 94.197.208.227 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already there. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "X-plane projects are still underway as of 2004." 

message: Where does the X notion come from? Does some authority (e.g. NASA) designate new 'X' craft? Or do companies do it themslves, according to tradition? Either way, I think it should be explained in the article? --AndersFeder 21:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'X' is part of the Mission Design Series of U.S. aircraft designations, and is assigned by the U.S. Government. Companies can, of course, call their aircraft anything they want. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin? 

message: Since the content of  has changed to a link from a list, there doesn't seem to be a complete and (I'm feelin') convenient list of all the X-planes, or is there? If not, why don't we put it in this article or should we access X-plane/gallery every time? --marsian 15:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. I am returning the template. I think the gallery shoudl go in it as well. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no list? 

message: Who can import free of rights images yet here not available : X16, X39, X41, X42 ? I found images, but not free or rights. --Tangopaso (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of images

message: It seems to me this page would be better served being moved to List of X-Planes, as that's basically what it is - and wouldn't require too much work to be a very excellent list, as opposed to a stub-type article that happens to include a large list in the middle of it. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: Should there be a mention of other "X" designated planes? Stuff like the XB-70, XF, XP, etc. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not related.  X in those cases is a modifier meaning prototype version.  See 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system for more explanation. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Fynlasyon says, those are entirely different. Here, 'X' is used as a mission symbol - equiviliant of 'F' or 'B'. In those other types, 'X' is a mission modifier (equiviliant to, say, the 'U' in 'UC-103'). The other types are sometimes covered in List of experimental aircraft, as well. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  other X 

message: Note the comments on the current peer review.  Improve citation formatting is the main suggestion so far. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement suggestions 

message: The WP:AVILIST style guide bans images in aircraft lists by default. However it allows that local consensus can agree that a given article is a special case and can differ. Are the X-planes a special case? Images in the table certainly make it look prettier, but do they genuinely add to its functionality or do they just get in the way? If a consensus to keep them as a special case does not emerge in this discussion, they will be removed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is an enhancement and adds to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they work well, at least on a laptop. These are very unusual, I doubt that many people can match most numbers with even the general look of the plane, and the notes don't help. Sammy D III (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Images should be included where appropriate. AVILIST would seem to be at odds with the MOS. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You might like to take that up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. In particular, to point out what the MOS does regard as "appropriate" use in this context and how that differs from AVILIST. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Retain, most of the X-planes are very distinctive and a simple description doesn't convey that. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Retain images, they are of encyclopedic content, and what users want to see/read/use to identify the X-plane they want info on. WP:IAR on the MOS; it's not like it's a list of all ships of the same class (ie. Arleigh Burkes) , or ships that all look similar (ie. battleships), these do not look similar, and people use the look to identify the topic -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Can I suggest breaking out a couple more columns?
First, split the manufacturer/agency into separate columns for each. This should make it easer to see which is which and, perhaps ultimately, to sort on the primary or sponsoring agency.
Second, to split off the role or purpose from the notes. Again, this should make it easier to sort on a given research goal.
What do folks think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Be BOLD and go for it. You put a lot of work into articles and I'm sure your suggestions will only be an improvement. Cheers. -  theWOLFchild 20:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data columns 

message: A recent discussion at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May :File:Boeing X-50A.jpg decided to remove :File:Boeing X-50A.jpg on the grounds that this list should not contain images. But that discussion was never announced on this talk page, so the process is broken and I have restored it. I have also restored and updated the rationale on the file maintenance page, pointing it to this page where we formed a local consensus to include images and to WP:AVILIST where the ground rules for such local consensus are set out. If anybody seeks to argue the case, please do so here and not in some image-based discussion list where none of us here knows what is going on, thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of File:Boeing X-50A.jpg 

message: Substituted at 01:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of X-planes. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230143911/http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/getdoc/d25952ab-5881-4999-8593-6f7f196c8770/a_history_of_the_joint_strike_fighter_programme.aspx to http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/getdoc/d25952ab-5881-4999-8593-6f7f196c8770/a_history_of_the_joint_strike_fighter_programme.aspx
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) 02:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of X-planes. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605105552/http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123035661 to http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123035661
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031220121649/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/early_X_planes/Tech27.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/early_X_planes/Tech27.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928220628/http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/BROWSE/xplane.html to http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/BROWSE/xplane.html
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) 12:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The images in the list are pretty small, it is hard to see the key features of some aircraft. On the other hand, if they were all enlarged then the physical length of the table would increase correspondingly. Should they be enlarged a bit or are they about right as they are? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The photos are essentially thumbnails, so probably worth keeping, as any interested reader can quickly click on them to enlarge them. I do agree, though that they should be moved to the right side of the table, instead of being in the middle like that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Yes, we agreed some time ago that they were needed, but I am just wondering if they should be a bit bigger? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Now moved and enlarged a little. Oddly, this has upset my browser algorithm for adjusting column widths so I put in some code to partially override that. Does it look about right to you? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is looking just fine on Firefox 74 here, both at 1000 px width and 1366 px. Thanks for your work on it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image improvements 

message: X-plane currently redirects here. It is a more direct title and more likely to be typed in by readers. The article could also do with some more background adding, which would make the list a bit less dominant. Should it be moved over the redirect to X-plane? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now it is really a list article, so I would suggest expand it first until it really isn't a list article and then see about moving it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan. Thanks again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: If the X-58 and the XQ-58 are basically the same machine, should it not be properly listed? If they are not the same machine, we should not add a note that they are. Nor should we sit on a visibly uncertain and speculative fence, as we are doing now. Which way to go? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That the X-58 slot was apparently assigned to the XQ-58 is what cited sources state. That's why it's listed the way it is.  If we ever get official confirmation one way or the other, then we'll follow that. This is how the X-52 is handled, as sources state it was skipped to avoid confusion with the B-52. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as cited to date, one journalist deduces that it was. That is not enough. Can we have better sourcing than that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to look for for more, have at it. The DOD will come out with an explanation soon enough. Designationsystems.net make freedom of information act requests every year, and when he gets a reply, he posts it on his site. It's an SPS, but one respected by several notable published authors about US military aircraft. If other editors support it's removal, I'm.fine with that, but not having some kind of note there will just cause more confusion for our readers. At least there is a source of some kind. - BilCat (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-58 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The designation of General Atomic's entry to the USAF OBSS Porgram is the XQ-67A, and slots in following the X-66. This is in line with how the Kratos XQ-58 seems to have a slot reserved for it; should we insert an entry stating that 67 was skipped and likely points to the XQ-67, like how the XQ-58 is currently entered?
Here's the Warzone article on the aircraft:
https://www.twz.com/air/xq-67a-combat-drone-from-general-atomics-breaks-cover Omega LVIII (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a reliable source that explicitly states that the XQ-67 takes the place of the X-67 designation (as the source provided for the XQ-58 does), then yes, it should be inserted here. - ZLEA T\C 03:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Atomics XQ-67A