Template talk:Active Irish Air Corps Aircraft

"Hangared" King Air

An editor recently removed the Beechcraft B200 from the Air Corps equipment list, and added it to the "retired" section. I might be wrong, but while the remaining Super King Air ("Fitz" with tail-number 240) is no longer on active service, it is still "on the books" so to speak. It was taken off active duty, and no longer used for MATS/training/etc, but it is hangared and engines are turned over every month. Unless can confirm a source that it's definitively been decommissioned/retired, I might re-add to the template with a note that it's removed from active service. Guliolopez (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of out of service Air Corps aircraft, including a Marchetti and an Allouette are stored in rotors running condition. It is likely the Air Corps is looking for a buyer for the Kingair and its unlikely it will be seen in Air Corps service again.--MFIreland • ^Talk 17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I notice that the King Air is no longer listed on the "fleet" page of the aircorps site, and the 2009 annual report does state that it was taken out of service. However, is there any source that you know of that might support the "not coming back" (retired) assertion? Guliolopez (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

Hi. A couple of changes have been made recently, and I would like to discuss them. To address any CON issues and possibly agree an approach to cover some of the problems I see:

Section Heading - A section heading had been added to the template. This would not be normal practice for templates. Templates are used in multiple pages (in different contexts), and so this section heading meant that some of the pages (for example List of aircraft of the Irish Air Corps and Modern vehicles of the Irish Army looked strange). Effectively there were duplicate headings. Unless there is a strong case for putting the heading "here", I don't think it should be in place.
Equipment names - The equipment names were abbreviated to just the equipment codes. I don't see the reason for this (for example, shortening "Britten-Norman" to "BN"). It would seem to obscure the meaning/understanding for the reader. (Yes, the user can "find out" what this code means on a successive page, but why would we make them do that? Why not use the common name here?)
Origin - My understanding of the "origin" column is that it might cover the origin (place of manufacture or similar) of the specific equipment listed here. If there are other opinions on this, delighted to hear them. Otherwise I would wonder whether it should be removed. (As possible FLAGCRUFT type issue).
Numbers - At least one row mentioned that there were "4" in service, but then the "notes" column indicated that there were an "additional 2". Unless I am mistaken, there are 4 of this type in use in total (rather than "4" and "additional 2"). Hence I've updated the "notes" section to ensure it's clear that it's "2+2=4". (Rather than an uncertain "4 - with maybe another 2(?)". If we think there's any remaining uncertainty here, maybe the two sub-variants should be split into their own "rows" (by type/use).

Happy to hear other opinions on these topics - so we can address under CON guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment names Your assuming the full company name will make the difference to the reader, and yet base off of WP:Manual of Style/Tables it states names should be succinct (concise). It's not uncommon to see aircraft designations only displayed ei;World Air Forces directory. We don't need to inundate the reader excessive names, that why we have wikilinks, to give them further information needed.

Origin last time I looked its define as "the first stage of existence" - Cessna is an American company the FR172J is a variant of the Cessna 172. Notes in the table state "license manufactured by Reims Aviation of France"
Numbers maybe best to split to relieve the confusion

Section Heading appears to be unintentional typo, so that fine

- FOX 52 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Thanks for your note.

Equipment names - I can see that the guidelines suggest that "column/row headings should be succinct and self-explanatory". I am not seeing the bit that says that table/cell content should be summarised or restricted. Can you help me see that bit? Or point me to the section? In any event, I would note that equivalent lists for other fleets use the unabbreviated common names. Including the UK list - which uses the full "Britten-Norman Defender" name - rather than a shortened "BN" style version. If you are still concerned about this, can you help me understand the purpose of shortening? Is it to keep the table small or prevent wrapping? (If that's the case, I wonder whether we should balance function over form).
Origin - I guess what we're talking about here is whether the origin ("the place it came from") should refer to either the "class" of aircraft, or the specific aircraft that is listed. The Cessnas in use by the IAC came from France. Cessna (the design) came from the US. At one point both countries were listed here to cover this. Frankly however I wonder whether this column adds any value to the reader. It seems to me to be a case of emphasising "nationality without good reason" - which falls under the WP:FLAGCRUFT guidelines.
Numbers - Personally I don't think there is confusion any more. We now say "4 in total / Two of type A / And two of type B". It was only confusing when we said that there were "4 in total / (Plus) two of type B". This - to my read - left a gap or risk in a reader's understanding. I don't think there's a gap anymore.
Section Head - OK.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that "origin" in aircraft articles indicates where the aircraft were built not the origin of the design, so in the case of the Reims Cessna it should be "France". MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we should refer to the aircraft as Reims FR172 noting it's based off the Cessna 172 FOX 52 (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm willing to forgo most changes, and have made one for the Reims FR172 keeping France as the origin, and shorting the notes to the EC135- hope that makes all happy FOX 52 (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Style changes

I know I'm wasting my breath here, but if the (cough) anon would like to explain the rationale for these changes, then they might have some chance of being reviewed. Otherwise it's an exercise in futility. Guliolopez (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

Hi. I propose to update/restore(?) this template to only include "active" Air Corps aircraft. I propose that because (a) that's the title of the template ("Active Irish Air Corps Aircraft"), (b) ordered aircraft/types may not be completed or introduced as proposed and (c) both articles that rely on this template assume and describe its contents on the expectation that that is what it contains.

(On point (c), I note that, in the Irish Air Corps article, this template table is included in a section titled "current inventory". And, in the List of aircraft of the Irish Air Corps title, the table is included in a section titled "active Irish military aircraft" where the preamble text reads Military aircraft currently in active service with the Irish Air Corps [...]. If the table includes types which are not current or active, then this context is not accurate.)

While, in the past, some rows have included text (in the "notes" column) that have referred to possible/future/replacement orders, it is only very recently that types (not yet or currently "active") have had their "own rows".

Thoughts welcome. Guliolopez (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm, my intent is to "move" the:

Twin Otter entry so that, rather than having its "own row", it would sit in the "note" column for the Defender.
Falcon 6X entry so that, rather than having a stand-alone row, it would set in the "note" column for the Learjet
[etc]

I propose this because, in addition to the reasons above, we now have a situation where 3 of the 11 rows in the table (27% of them) refer to aircraft which are not "active". And which, by rights, would have "0" in the "in service" column. Guliolopez (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with only including aircraft which have arrived in Baldonnel and are flying.

Firstly, other air force pages include ordered aircraft, like Norwegian and Finnish air forces, on separate lines. The Irish Air Corps looks as it does because it operates a small number of aircraft types, with single digits number of aircraft of each of those types. And it happens that at present some of those individual aircraft are being replaced by other individual aircraft. Perhaps other air forces have ordered aircraft which are not listed, but the maintainers of those pages are not interested in mentioning them. Which leads to point two.

Secondly, the Irish military pages have a small number of dedicated individuals who want to advertise positivity about the Irish Defence Forces. Considering how puny, under staffed, and under equipped, and under financed the Defence Forces are, it needs as much positivity as possible. If advertising "look these aircraft have been ordered" gives a feel good factor, that is better than being pedantic about whether this page should only have active aircraft or not. The caveat being, so long as we are advertising facts about aircraft or ships which have actually been ordered, and not wishful thinking. Finestat (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Thanks for your note. I don't agree with your conclusion. And have concerns about the arguments/rationale used to come to that conclusion. In terms of:

"other air force pages", and as you seem to note yourself, the Norwegian and Finnish pages/tables are not comparable. At all. Certainly not "like for like". The Norwegian "current aircraft" table, for example, has just ONE row related to an order (~12% or rows compared to 27% of rows here). And, at that, it's a reasonably substantial order (6 aircraft compared to onesie-twosies here). Similarly, the Finnish "aircraft" table also has just ONE row related to an order (~11% of rows compared to over double that here). And, again, relates to a substantial order (for 64 aircraft; Not at all comparable, for example, to an entire row dedicated here to the order of a single additional C-295). This argument is, in my opinion, flawed.
"feel good factor", and while I do not know who these "dedicated individuals who want to advertise positivity about the Irish Defence Forces" are that you speak of, it is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia to give this small group of editors (or even ALL editors or even ALL readers) a "feel good factor". About anything. This argument is not based on any Wikipedia policy - and, in fact, seems to be contradictory to several policies. Including WP:NOTADVOCACY. (Also, even if it WAS within project scope to give people a "feel good factor" about these orders, I would suggest that an outdated/lonely/fragmented entry about a 2023 order for an extra C-295 is hardly meeting that goal.)
"advertising", and while perhaps it is just a language/wording thing, it is not Wikipedia's goal/purpose to "advertise" anything. At all. This argument is entirely at odds with the WP:NOTADVERT policy.

Do you have any policy-based arguments to make? Guliolopez (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are now, relatively, even fewer "active aircraft" in this "active aircraft" template. With aircraft that do not yet exist (or are otherwise inactive) making up 40% of the template. 6 of 15 rows. Far exceeding the equivalent tables/lists for other nations. Where only materially relevant orders are listed. And even then as an exception - rather than a rule.

As above, absent policy-based or convention-based arguments to justify this situation, I am going to move these entries. From their "own" rows. To the "notes" column.

(The arguments made above [that all such orders warrant separate rows so that "individuals who want to advertise positivity about the Irish Defence Forces" can have "a feel good factor"] are far from convincing. Not being based on any policy. And, to my read, being directly counter to several policies. Including WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTADVOCACY. The other argument [that "the Finnish table includes one large $9-billion order of 64 F-35 stealth strike fighter aircraft, so the Irish table should mention a half-dozen small/fragmented orders" is also unconvincing. As clearly false equivalence.)

I'll be making this change later today. Guliolopez (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained why WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTADVOCACY justify your change. You are only arguing against my argument, and not arguing in favour of your own.

The H145 order is a valid reason why ordered aircraft should be listed. Every other air force which has ordered it also lists it in their list of current aircraft. Why shouldn't the Irish Air Corps.

It is pedantic to argue that as the template is named "active aircraft", then only flying aircraft should be listed. Perhaps the template should just be renamed?

There is likely to be another order next year to replace the AW139, and the PC-9 need replacing soon and someone will add those orders to this list and restarting this discussion again. Finestat (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. RE:

"why WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTADVOCACY justify your change". WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTADVOCACY justify my proposed summary because, as you have stated yourself, the driver for inclusion under their own rows (other than "some other similar tables also sometimes mention orders") was that the topic "needs as much positivity as possible" and there is a need to "advertise positivity about the Irish Defence Forces". If the reason for inclusion is based on this rationale, then WP:NOTADVOCACY applies.
"You are only arguing against my argument, and not arguing in favour of your own". This isn't a debate. It's a discussion. You can't "gotcha" me with some obscure debate logic that applies only to one part of a comment on WP:NOTPROMO. I have made (and supported) my "own argument". Which is that the inclusion of a half-dozen onsie-twosie orders is excessive, not reflective of how this table/template is used in the articles which transclude it, distracting to the material entries in this table, and not consistent with other similar tables.
"Perhaps the template should just be renamed". I don't see why. The Irish Air Corps article already has a "Aircraft orders" section. Separate from the "Current inventory" section which transcludes this table. And the List of aircraft of the Irish Air Corps title also has separate "current" and "retired" sections. Merging all of these together, so that "former", "current" and "future" aircraft all get munged together - in a MASSIVE and indiscriminate list - would be excessive. And hard to read. And, and I cannot state this more firmly, not consistent with the convention on other such articles/topics/titles.

GRMA. Guliolopez (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm (and per my proposal and most recent change), I am not necessarily "arguing" that orders should not be mentioned or included. At all. However, as noted repeatedly, they do not need (and there is no precedent in other similar tables for) every single order to have its own "row". Especially when redundant to (and duplicating of) stuff already covered in existing rows and the notes "column". Guliolopez (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]