| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing B-54 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Suggested merger
editSuggest this be merged with the B-50, since it was a proposed variant that was never completed. --Colputt 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree. I came here specificially for the B-54. That's because I'm interested in the engineering, rather than in the USAF procurment program. There were defense contracts and the B-54 was named, marketed, engineered and flown: it's just that the USAF never bought any. The B-54 had anti-skid braking, and may have been the first Boeing design to have that. B-54 was near the end-point of development of the B-29, but they aren't the same aircraft. For me, just having the listing is valuable, even when it says that there isn't much to say. Why should I have to search through a B-50 (or B29/50/54) article to find that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Years later, I would say it's obvious that the articles should be merged. There is almost no information here that is not included in the B-50 article. 2600:1000:B110:7E6:C021:4D14:27FC:B67 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Article issues
edit- I just read over the article and wonder:
- 1)- Why it was never merged per discussion?, and
- 2)- How it achieved a B-class rating with what seems to be fundamentally flawed and conflicting content?
- The B-54 was apparently cancelled in the production stage (not sure how far in) and never flew. The lead states: "The Boeing B-54 was an American strategic bomber" also with "the prototype was canceled before completion, and the aircraft was never flown."
- The wording and any definition would be that the plane "never" actually existed yet the article presents that it did------ but---- not really, and is presented on a list article, but was not actually a completed prototype or experimental aircraft. The definition of "prototype" would be A full scale working model so "the plans were scraped" or "the intended prototype was cancelled".
- There was discussions that this article be merged to Boeing B-50 Superfortress and that specifications are mostly (except intended added length, wing-span, and engines) the same so I am perplexed. It seems obvious the B-50 "might" deserve a B-class rating (I didn't evaluate it), but it is clear this article should not, and should be merged into a section with prose containing the specification differences. It is my opinion (shared by others) that not everything that has a few references actually deserves an article. Otr500 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: A suggestion (B-50 Superfortress) was also made to merge a long time back. Three editors there weighed in with all agreeing but one had some reservations because "they DID cut-metal for it.". Otr500 (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)