Talk:List of aircraft of World War II

message: IS THE WESTLAND WHIRLWIND, A BIRITISH TWIN ENGINED FIGHTER? 77.99.221.223 (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just Added it to Fighter list. --XA-32 (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WHERE

message: Y'know, this plane... P-61_Black_Widow
:Just added a link in Fighters. Sbrawner 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the Black Widow? 

message: The Junkers Ju 52 seems to be missing --77.75.167.238 (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Junkers Ju-52

message: The wiki project aviation box has an error (obviously), it's hilarious because it lists the error as the class of page this talk page is for. On another note, why do some aircraft listed show flags, while others don't? It's a lot easier to identify what nations they belonged to by just looking at the flag than actually looking for the country name.Scotty Zebulon (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: LOL, and flag inconsistency

message: Today I made some minor changes to the article I'm sure I missed some but got what I saw. Superniper100 (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: You guys have really done an amazing job on this page recently, adding huge amounts of the new fighter. I just want to say thank you to whoever did this as it helps me greatly in my passion for world war two aircraft. --82.112.134.49 (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I found a severely underpopulated list and decided to expand it as I figured it would be a useful starting place -  there are still some additions to go (Manchuria, China, Indochine, France, etc) plus converting flags into names, and refs for the redlinks and obscure types. I honestly never thought there were so many biplanes used - nor how many types were used of all types.NiD.29 (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really amazing improvement guys, just saying thanks. 

message: The main article for the Ansaldo A.120 describes this aircraft as a monoplane, but it is under the biplanes section on this page. I'm not familiar with this aircraft, so I don't want to change it either way. --MDCore (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - fixed - it was in fact a parasol monoplane - a scaled up Dewoitine D.1 fighter (built by Ansaldo as the AC.2), with 2 seatsNiD.29 (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ansaldo A.120 

message: The intention with this column is to not list types whose only operator in the country of origin (since that duplicates the origin column and would add excessively to the page size), but to show the operators of types when there is more than one operator (when none are listed, only the country of origin operated the type). When more than one country, including the country of origin, operated a type, the country of origin still needs to be included because there are some types that were not being used by their country of origin, despite being used by others, such as the Grumman FF/Goblin which had been withdrawn by the US but was still operated by Canada. There are a number of such types (all obsolete) that continued to be used elsewhere after they were no longer saw use at home.NiD.29 (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  operators if different than the country of origin. 

message: I think that it will be an important addition, which is useful to identify service aircraft from prototypes or aircraft which were only produced in no significant numbers. And it will also be useful to compare aircraft production by country. I need authorization for adding this.
Thanks.
Nytsuga (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that number built will help as production may have been before/during/after the war so may not be relevant. If they were prototypes or low production then a note would be better although if they were not actually operational then perhaps they should not be on this list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should a 'number built' column be added? 

message: Hello, fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of aircraft of World War II. 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://archive.is/20130114071453/http://slovakaf.kpmzilina.sk/lietadla/zobor/zobor.sk.htm to http://slovakaf.kpmzilina.sk/lietadla/zobor/zobor.sk.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123214154/http://www.worldairforces.com/index.html to http://www.worldairforces.com/index.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) 10:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The list has a large number of prototypes and the like which didn't actually enter service or were involved in the war. A reader would expect the list to be those aircraft actually involved in war rather than just happened in the early 1940s. Propose we remove the ever long list of prototypes and the like that never actually entered service. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, many of them, despite not seeing production were still used for military purposes, and nearly every book listing aircraft of WW2 will include prototypes that went no-where. There is a reason they are listed separately, rather than in with the production aircraft, as someone looking to find it is was around in WW2 can see that it was (or was not) and that it had not entered service.  - NiD.29 (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Prototypes

message: It should be under Jet fighters and stuff 
Gloster Meteor
::Try doing a text search of the page - it was there. 
::Someone's butchered edit messed up the page so it didn't show correctly - oh, wait - that was you! Try reading the whole page in future before jumping to unwarranted conclusions, and it might just be a good idea to play around with the wikipedia elements in a sandbox before you try them live. - NiD.29 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Gloster Meteor 

message: This appears to only cover more major types used by combatants, and well-known prototypes, etc. But even going through a book like "Hamlyn's Concise Guide" you find dozens of minor aircraft types employed by the US in various training and liason services, each under their own USAAF or USN designation. To cover EVERY aircraft type used by all combatants, direct or indirect, it would have to be a much longer list.
64.223.91.164 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very incomplete 

message: I think this article would benefit from being split into separate articles by country or at least divided as such with separate sections for each nation. Mrkoiking1 (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Other articles exist for that eg List of aircraft of the French Air Force during World War II ,  List of aircraft of the United Kingdom in World War II, List of aircraft of Poland during World War II GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting article 

message: , since we're putting the aircraft in the first column, should the tables be alphabetized by aircraft? WRD2030 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In most respects they still are - the manufacturer's name being part of the alphabetical structure. - Supermarine Spitfire coming later in the list than Hawker Typhoon GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, thanks for the clarification. WRD2030 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetize the table 

message: , I've also noticed that some of the numbers in the 'number built' column are different from some of the aircraft pages in other languages. For example, the table lists approximately 100 Ju 388 aircraft built but the German language article for the aircraft lists 94. Should the tables rely on the other language pages for production numbers? WRD2030 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a source on another lang wiki that gives a value you can add that value with the source to the En Wiki article. But you should check the source too. And if the value is different but sourced in EnWiki, then both values remain. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, thanks again. WRD2030 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number built column 

message: , I've added a column to the 'Carrier-based naval bombers' table detailing the type of specific bomber. However, this might not be ideal since it creates visual inconsistencies among the tables. Would it be worth creating separate tables based on the subtypes or creating superscript notes in the 'aircraft' column? -Thanks,WRD2030 (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's time you went and read the WPAVATION project guidelines on lists. You can find it via the banner at top of this talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point me to a guide on lists with the WPAviation project? -Thanks WRD2030 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:AVLIST GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing me to this. WRD2030 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carrier-based naval bombers table 

message: My history teacher made a mistake in his ppt by saying the Doolittle Raid was done be B-52 not B-25J 50.254.94.97 (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-25J