Talk:Lists of military aircraft of the United States

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that this article be split into two articles, with one covering 1919 and 1924 USAAS sequence and the other covering the 1962 Tri-service sequence (the relatively short 1956 US Army sequence is already covered on the sequence's main article). The current list is extremely long, and covers all but one major US military designation system. For sequences that were continued from where they left off after 1962 (such as the original transport, trainer, and helicopter sequences), the post-1962 designations would be included in the Tri-service article. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Carguychris (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - better to have this list be a list of the other existing articles as in List of military aircraft of the United Kingdom rather than double up on existing articles - you already have List of military aircraft of the United States (1909–1919). You could also consider lists more like List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force which actually carry further information. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article should become a list of lists, but not in the same way as List of military aircraft of the United Kingdom. The problem I have with your proposal is that the British use a name-based designation system (with the exception of a few undesignated aircraft using manufacturer designations) which makes splitting lists by branch convenient and easy. American designations, on the other hand, are numerical sequences. Many designation systems (especially the 1962 Tri-service system) are shared between branches, which is inconvenient if we want to split by branch rather than system. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support The Article should be divided into two articles, with pre and post unified systems. It would be easier to navigate, and for future additions to the tri-service system. It should not be divided by branch post-1962, because that would be stupid, as it's the whole point of the tri-service designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.213.170 (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I would suggest that the actual list could be usefully split into two new articles, but that this page could be retained and transclude the two halves, to offer a single comprehensive list without having to maintain the same information twice. There is Wikitext markup which can be used to identify the parts of the separate pages to be transcluded and those not to be, so that all three pages can present a clean and functional appearance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - wolf 17:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support the split, but I agree with the proposal to split, but I have a problem with the use of the term "Military". This system was used by the Army through 1947, and by the Air Force afterwards, but not by the Navy until the joint system, and "Military" implies usage by all services. In addition, the Army used its own system in the 1950s. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"Comment - the article would be shorter if it didn't double list aircraft under every different designation it carried rather than eg once by common name with alternate designations after.GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry to miss this discussion, this was a weak consensus for such a dramatic change to a decades old article. The new format of seperate lists, seems to have introduced factual and readability issues. A75 (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? - ZLEA _T\^C 16:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I find it awkward to shift between different lists to see aircraft that were part of similar periods, for example the B-52. The second point, that some aircraft are designated under the current system, even if their number started under a previous system. Take for example the B-52J, which is new designation even though the "52" was originally arrived at under an earlier setup. Maybe in the end it will turn out better at some point, the previous page was getting a bit long after all. That page had been updated for two decades so it had a lot of corrections and was easy to search a single page. A75 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion at Talk:List of U.S. DoD aircraft designations#Rework since the issues are heavily related. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

OK see you there, thank you. A75 (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)