Talk:Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor/Archive 3

message: I added a subsection to cover the F-22's airframe.  The changes from the YF-22 to F-22 are there now.  Another subsection just for that seems like oversectioning.  I plan to add some description of the airframe's basic features.  I don't see the chines mentioned.  Also, the airframe uses a lot of composite skins and titanium. -Fnlayson 03:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airframe 

message: F-22 Raptor's makers knew for 10 years of corrosion problem, which is costing millions to fix at Hill.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.117.88 (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrosion problem 

message: Without explanation, the article can't be edited by anonymous IP's (I would sign in, but I've forgotten my password, and don't feel like looking it up at the moment).  I wanted to remove the fact check for the "100th F-22 delivered in [August] 2007" and add this citation: http://www.f-16.net/news_article2489.html  70.243.231.144 15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't comment here as I was unaware that the article is protected but it may very well be as there was a contentious issue that arose concerning the F-22/Typhoon and it may have received some type of sprotect protection to limit the edits to established editors (not saying that anons could not provide valuable information but that is the standard route in the first level of protection is to limit the number of editors...). FWIW Bzuk 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it was temporarily soft-protected, with the reason given as "edit warring by IPs", with an expiry time of 27 Oct. Parsecboy 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I s-protected it on 10/7 because of the problems with the Wikzilla socks/IPs, which were directly related to the Typhoon edit war. Since it's close to the 27th, I've gone ahead an unprotected it...IPs can edit again, but if an edit war breaks out, I'll not hesitate to s-protect again. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't anon IP's edit the article? 

message: I've been considering this for a while now, but should the "Comparisons" section be deleted? Now I'm not trying to cause trouble or anything, I'm merely suggesting that, since this section is apparently upsetting some people and if the section was deleted, perhaps this could help improve the article's quality. RaptorR3d 00:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support removal of the comparison section - perhaps it will make more sense to add it again later, but there really is not too much public data about the F-22 slight envelope or flight characteristics right now.  Also, I believe the comparison section was removed from the Typhoon section as it was too controversial; no one seemed to come to a consensus about what was NPOV. Nicholas SL Smith 00:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: THe section is definitely contentios, and is not a usual feature in aircraft airticles on Wikipedia. Concur with deletion. - BillCJ 00:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. Go ahead and nuke it. Parsecboy 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought, why not make it as a sub-article? FWIW Bzuk 03:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * A separate comparison(s) article could turn into a speculation mess worse than 4th generation jet fighter before long. -Fnlayson 03:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose some modern fighter aircraft comparison article may be a good thing - but I don't see how this information could stand alone.  It seems best to allow readers to compare one article to another to compare aircraft.  If we begin duplicating information, we may loose consistency. Also, I agree with Fnlayson, on other fighter pages such as the Typhoon, these sections turn into "pissing matches" between fans of respective jets.  I can see the value of it - but it was be very difficult to keep on topic and accurate.  Nicholas SL Smith 03:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed the sort of section that begs for fanwars. There is some good info in it, though, which should be migrated elsewhere before cutting the rest. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, unless there are any objections, then the comparisons shall be deleted for now. RaptorR3d 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * OK.  Provide some description of your edit in the edit summary box in the future. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, I'll try to remember that next time. RaptorR3d 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of your personal views, Wikipedia operates by consensus to decide contentious issues. Register your vote and give the process time to develop a consensus from interested parties. My suggestion to you is to offer an alternative: perhaps creating a separate sub-article? working with others? taking a new direction? FWIW Bzuk 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The above IP is another sock-puppet of User:WIkzilla. It's easy to tell. Until he changes his behavior, it's best to just ingore his opinions till he moves on. - BillCJ 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SIGH. Article is s-protected once again thanks to Wikzilla's IP attack. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 13:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: On that note, is there any reason for the "The US Airforce Claims it cannot be matched by any projcted aircraft" in the introduction of the article? I'll admit, while I do support the F-22, I feel that that statement is really not necessary for the article. Any other thoughts? RaptorR3d 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * I had moved that to Comparisons, but a couple IPs keep adding it back to the lead.  That probably should be moved, but I'm not sure about where.  The bottom on the Characteristics sections seems like a decent spot. -Fnlayson 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Claims of the USAF aren't pertinent to the aircraft.  I claim it can't fly the Incredible Hulk into orbit, but I shouldn't and wont add it to the article. Nicholas SL Smith 00:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's fine for the intro ... and the USAF did put a huge amount of (taxpayer) money into developing it to be so. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll submit to that - as long as it doesn't mislead to anyone or look like it is portraying a fact.  Nicholas SL Smith 02:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's wrong and doesnt belong in here at all. The statement is a fairly dumb one. Claiming that no past nor future plane can match it is a marketing statement and does not belong here if it's so obviously wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile1 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between "projected" and "future". Projected fighters are those such as MiG 1.44 or the Sukhoi PAK FA. It's not a marketing statement; the F22 wasn't built by the Airforce; it's merely the primary operator. Parsecboy 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Comparisons Section? 

message: Hi everyone
I'm Nova13 from the german Wikipedia (userpage, discussion). I found some useful infos about the fuel capacity and the materials of the F-22. Here are the facts:
;Fuel capacity
+       	litres	gallons	pounds	kilograms
Internal	13,022	3,082  	20,635	9,360
External	10,012	2,368  	15,856	7,196
Total   	23,034	5,450  	36,481	16,556
;Materials
*Titanium: 40%
*Composites: 24%
*Aluminum: 15%
*Steel: 6%
*Other: 15%
Source: Tecnical Order 00-105E-9, 1 Feb. 2006, Rev. 11 Page 15/16
Feel free to integrate this information.
Feedback welcome!
--62.226.68.45 14:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have. It allows the F-22 to carry a greater load of fuel and/or weapons when stealth is not a factor, such as after the enemy's anti-air capability has been eliminated. I suspect that drop tanks could be used on the initial ingress to the target to extend range, then dropped before entering hostile space. - BillCJ 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * That makes sense.  I don't think my F-22 book mentions that or I haven't run across it yet.  The F-35 will probably have more of that. -Fnlayson 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My Frawley Military book states it has 4 hardpoints capabel of 5000 lbs each. THough I haven't found a direct reference to when it would carry external weapons, it would make no sense to build heavier wings that could structurally carry external stores if you knew you could never use them. - BillCJ 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel capacity / materials 

message: Hey who kepts deleting the facts that the jet was used by the US air Force in the popular cultures section?(TougHHead 00:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like everyone who comes across this statement. It's redundant, and has been reverted by a number of editors as plain "poorly written." FWIW Bzuk 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The F-22 has been featured in numerous books, such as Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor (1994). A lengthy mission by F-22s dominates the last part of the book and Fighter Wing (1995) where the F-22 features as a major new combat aircraft in Clancy's non-fiction book. Clive Cussler's Dark Watch (2005) has a F-22 in a secret mission to take out a Syrian foe. BTW, where did you get the information that citing books in popular culture is a computer crime? FWIW Bzuk 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TougHHead, please stop throwing a hissy fit. Some things are notable, some aren't. I've read most of those books and saw all those films when you were still in diapers. But I realize Wikipedia has rules, and I follow them. Notability is a policy, not a guideline, and we have to follow it; like it or not. THose books, games, films, and TV shows we all like and love have articles, and that is the proper place to mention what those films contain. So please, stop whining, and try to enjoy being able to contribute to making meaningful articles about the aircraft you love even better by focusing on the aircraft themselves. - BillCJ 05:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? Bzuk 06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? FWIW Bzuk 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think he;s nit-picking about the mention regarding the F-22's "prominent Hollywood debut". It appears TougH is trying to get back at editors like me who have been limiting the Pop culture appearences he's been adding by trying to take everything he thinks is equal to his items out. Only thing is, he's going about it bass-akwards, and may end up earning himself antoehr block for disruptive behaivor. Also, he doens't seem to realize that a lot of us aircraft aritcle editors actually don't want ANY pop culture netions in any of the articles, period/full-stop. However, we abide by the basic WIkipedia principle of following consensus, even when we disagree. That means THREE Transformers in the F-15 article, and flight sims in pop culture sections where applicable. - BillCJ 07:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond that, I believe something odd is going on here (now, that's an understatement given this is Wikipedia!). See:  where this argument is being drawn out in a similar fashion. FWIW, it seems some people have lot of time on their hands. Bzuk 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut it out

message: ::::I was here a while ago and thought the pop culture section was a bit odd - but even more bizarre was the erroneous mention of Transformers. It was clearly The Hulk. Duh.;)Happysomeone 00:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the instructions on the main page, I'll put off the proposed change above for a short period of time so others can review it. Here's an independent source that verifies the small but significant role played by the F-22 - A role significant enough that it struck me as odd it wasn't mentioned. The jets appear twice, for about 2 to 3 minutes of the film. They try to kill "The Hulk" both times in extended sequences. A quote from one of the pilots in the first scene: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/quotes Happysomeone 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notably the F-22 pilot, actor Randy Neville, is credited: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/fullcredits Happysomeone 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, look here for the mention of the other significant scene. It's about halfway down the page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/triviaHappysomeone 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * It's still a minor role and non-notable.  More links won't change that. -Fnlayson 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: then I suggest the entry simply read "The F-22 played a major role... Transformers," instead of using "first prominent Hollywood debut" which is POV, misleading and inaccurate. Happysomeone 01:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * Those have the same basic meaning.  Prominent is an approximate synonym for major. -Fnlayson 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the link. With due respect, the first definition of prominent, "1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable:" seems to agree with my assertion: several minutes of F-22 footage in a motion picture ("The Hulk") for the first time is conspicuous and particularly noticeable, therefore "notable."Happysomeone 02:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * Or "leading, important, or well-known". -Fnlayson 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah! Sorry, I was trying to follow the older comments but it seems much has happened since I was here last. I could understand if part of the guidelines required use of actual or "real" aircraft to constitute playing a notable of "significant" role. But as you know, this issue has come up repeatedly. I still maintain it is POV, misleading and inaccurate to make the statement "first prominent Hollywood debut" without mentioning both. Barring that, the entry should be removed. If there is a running vote tally for removal, please add me to it.Happysomeone 02:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi everyone, great discussion about a contentious topic. I think the points made by all parties have clearly exhibited the best of wiki discouse – reasoned, polite and well-intentioned. Congrats and as for the topic, probably the consensus-driven soultions still appear to be the best course. FWIW Bzuk 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hulk - Again, again, again ... 

message: If you can't put the F-22 Raptor in Flight Sims, Hulk nor Iron Man and only in Transformers that means neither the other jets including the F-35 Lightning II.(TougHHead 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please frame your comments in clear and cogent arguments. I can't understand what the hay you are getting at? I wonder if others have the same impression? FWIW Bzuk 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *Something like listing the Transformers stuff is not fair because the other stuff isn't listed.  An all or none thing.  I think.  But major flight simulators can be listed.  -Fnlayson 01:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: He's saying that if we don't allow the items he like on the F-22 page, he's going to try to remove similar items on other pages on that basis alone, even if it's disruptive. Clearly, Tough either doesn't understnad how consensus works on Wikipedia. Consensus at the page level is not precedent - if you want a consensus to apply to more than one page, you have to discuss it at the Project or Wiki-wide level. But going around to every aircraft page with a pop-culture section and trying to make it conform to the consensus here is disruptive, especially since it appears that Tough is doing this out of spite, not good-faith. - BillCJ 01:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd suggest you read WP:POINT and WP:DICK. What you are doing and suggesting is disruptive, and is against the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I gather from your talk page that you exhibited similar behavior on Wikia. I would hope that a person who is older than 35, as you claim to be, would be capalbe of growth, and learn better how to deal with people in a productive manner. Maybe you think that because you're anonymous, it doesn't matter how you behave. If you are really over 35, then you're not one of these typical late-teen/early-20s fanboy gamers we usually get here. I've said before that you show promise, and I meant it, and you then resorted to vandalism. I still think you're capable of better behavior than what you're exhibiting, but you have to choose to behave better. Please make the right choice. You won't have too many more chances. - BillCJ 05:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop Culture

message: There really needs to be a separate section on criticism of this program, as criticism is coming from both sides of the political aisle, unlike earlier fighter programs. The main point should be the argument in politics on whether the aircraft is necessary at all. This is the first fighter program in modern history that I can recall that has had significant criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats. Then you've got the price issue, the limited quantities that the issue forces, and the already-noted quality issues. This is an aircraft that's been in development since the late 80's, and still doesn't have the bugs worked out. Some of that is because of redesign issues, but that should be part of the criticism argument as well. DesScorp 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Now you can call the F-22 operational, though some did it already 3 years ago, read : 
"An advanced stealth fighter jet in development since the 1980s has been declared fully operational, nearly three years after the first F- 22A Raptor arrived at Langley Air Force Base.""US Air Force: Raptor Stealth Fighter Jet Fully Operational"
(added now to latest)--Financialmodel (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-22 Fully Operational, 12 dec 2007