Talk:List of flying boats and floatplanes

message: I would expect these to be organized, first by country then by either manufacturer then year or model, or by year somehow.  Moved the early ones to the top of US section.  Do these ALL need to be listed, or only the common ones?  Or only the manufacturers?
:I notice that there are entries under the country heading 'Croatia' that list aircraft built in other countries (Canada, USA).  This does not appear to be consistent with the general structure of the article, which appears to only list aircraft under their country of manufacture.  I think that this Croatia entry should be removed, but I am hesitant to do it myself because I have not previously contributed to this article.  PanEuropean (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted, removed. MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is. However, if the category is to be as useful as this page then it needs to be broken into country-specific sub-categories and then the entries sorted by date. This is easy enough to do and once done, this page should be deleted I think.-Lommer | talk 19:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  organization 

message: I added two DH Beavers. This is a secondary application of this aircraft.
Leonard G. 02:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are floatplane variants included? 

message: The Air Tractor 802F can also be added to this list.  See www.firebossllc.com - the aircraft is now flying fire fighting missions in Minnesota through the MNDNR.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.30.164 (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New amphib to ad 

message: This has been discussed elsewhere (probably on WT:AIR), though I don't recall when exaclty. Anyway, I've decided to be bold and correct the title to better represent the article's content, as flying boats ARE seaplanes (though not floatplanes, which is probably what was confused here). Amphibious aircraft are generally defined separately from full-time seaplanes, though the difference is offten just whether or not the aircraft is fitted with wheels. Even so, I believce the new title is more comprehensive and accurate. - BillCJ (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - to be clear though, it is not necessarily wheels per-se, but that the undercarriage can be used to land and take off from land - a number of seaplanes carry beaching gear, but not landing gear, and several have been equipped with skiis. - NiD.29 (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This class if aircraft is usually described in reliable sources as flying boats and floatplanes or, in some locales, as flying boats and seaplanes.= (e.g. ). They are invariably taken to include amphibians, which are seldom explicitly mentioned in the title. Because of its ambiguity, I'd suggest that "seaplane" is best avoided and that we rename this page "List of Flying Boats and Floatplanes". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: New name

message: I'm curious what qualifies a plane to be on this list. I've flown quiet a few sea planes but none of them are on this list. Is this only military sea planes or is there some other criteria? Otherwise the list seems a bit random to me because it seems far from complete. Perhaps these are planes that *ONLY* are sea planes vs. those that are converted under an STC.--66.60.137.134 (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - the list just isn't complete - I have added a bunch more but if there are any you think should be included feel free either to add them, or mention them here. NiD.29 (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Speaking without authority, and without any official background, I can see no reason for not mentioning projects that did not materialise. The important point is that we bring supported information, i.e. our facts must rest on solid references. There are plenty of articles about projects that never worked out. And anyway: if you bring in something _definitely_not_ qualifying, you may be sure some puritan will remove it as quick as anything! Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Saunders-Roe Duchess got quite far in design terms.  More importantly it illustrates that some thought there were legs in flying boats even in the jet age. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your feedback! I'm working on the P7M wikiarticle and expect to release it soon. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: What qualifies?

message: Saw this ? in Aviation Week magazine: thinking it was Swedish because coastal patrol for smuggling (they use submarines for that too). It was touted as having extreme range for longer patrol time. inboard wing sections had wide anhedral section ending in floats then dihedral wing section of narrower width. Had T tail with single engine at intersection of T. The article noted the wing was designed to take advantage of "ground effect". It had no "step", the inner wing and floats creating an air cushion. It was at military prototype stage. I'll keep looking.
Shjacks45 (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure Ground effect vehicles are considered to be aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird Missing Plane? 

message: Walsh Brothers Flying Boats is mentioned both in the paragraphs on Australia and New Zealand. I can find no link with Australia, but perhaps I am unaware of some information? Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the article mentions any connection with Australia. MilborneOne (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you certainly are bolder than myself, thanks for quick and (I think) adequate action! Kudos! Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walsh Brothers: nationality? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of seaplanes and amphibious 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120724013848/http://independentaircraft.com/home/ to http://independentaircraft.com/home
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) 08:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Template:Avilisthead is widely used for aircraft lists, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Avilisthead. If we are going to abandon it for the sake of some visual editor or other, that needs consensus. Maybe the template can be fixed for compatibility? Has such a discussion taken place yet? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, I checked out the WP:Visual editor. First off, it's only in beta, so any incompatibilities should be reported to the developers and NOT used as a reason to change Wikipedia's content. Second, if you know your Template:Avilisthead options, the visual editor adds it just fine. Just select parameter name 1 (as in "1") and enter the desired option value in the next field (here, it's "general"). But Visual Editor only deals in whole tables and you can't use it to kick off a table with a template. When I then added a row in the code editor, it worked fine. But the visual editor thought I had added it to a template parameter value or something, and barfed when I wanted to add another. So that is what needs reporting to the VE developers. Feel free, I hate such things and have no interest in making it work. And be warned, this kind of issue has dogged attempts at a visual editor for as long as I have been here, so you may well get a "use the code editor for that bit then, it's only a click away" type answer. But if they get back to you and ask for code changes to the template, then fine I'll take a look at what they ask. But until then, any attempted fixes are pointless. Not sure if all this helps, but it's the best I can offer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not Beta, not for years "On English Wikipedia, it is enabled by default for new users". The replacement of the Avilist template with the code means it still adheres to the format agreed in the WP:Aviation Project - it just isn't using the avilisthead template to do it. For editing tables, for me VisualEditor is much more effective than hunting backwards and forwards through a labyrinth of double pipes, more so when the pipes are horizontal || || || || || || rather than distributed vertically. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: PerWP:VE; "Enable VisualEditor. Log in, go to preferences (top right) -> editing tab, uncheck uncheck Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta." Perhaps you'd like to get that updated. As for discussing the use of Template:Avilisthead, see my original remarks; this is not the place to do it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template issue