Talk:List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses

Comment

this is a much better way of doing a survivors piece. It still ought to have a intro paragraph since the page could be reached by the "random article" link from the wikipedia main page. The paragraph could just be a repeat of the summary section from the main article with a little more context of the aircraft itself.GraemeLeggett 08:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is lack of info, proper referencing etc. I didn't added that because I didn't wanted to work on this article right now, it's just a "technology demonstrator". Piotr Mikołajski 08:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead paragraph should form part of your technology demonstrator. GraemeLeggett 09:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Changes

DELETE I am now strongly in favor of Deleting this article as it now stands - The intent of this seperate article was to complete document and list the survivors not a random selection according to some fanciful system Piotr has designated - This change has destroyed the intent and purpose of this sub. I am also demanding that the original list be returned.Davegnz 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Several other editors agree with this new format. Please discuss at WT:AIRCRAFT. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Dave, but the problem here is with your intent. Though I know you meant well, Wikipedia simply isn't the place to completely document and list all the survivors, even of a notable aircraft like the B-29. I can easily see the justification of all the ones which have a significant history (and no, flying in WWII isn't a default significant history - after all, we don't list all the human survivors of that war, either), and all those preserved in museums. More than that, though, you might want to consider your approach. You've been responding as if these lists are your personal property, going even so far as to try to pull them from the Project. That simply isn't way things are done here, and I'm sorry if you weren't clear on that. At the bottom of every edit screen is a "Please Note" section, and the second item there says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I know this experience has probably left a bitter taste in your mouth, which is regrettable, but you need to realize that when you come into an environment where teamwork is the key to truly great things, you need to be willing to concede some, even though you might not think it's the best thing, or the direction things start going isn't what you "intended" the article to be. I've certainly had to give in on issues, and I think everyone here has. AKRadecki 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

I know Dave really disagrees with our naming conventions, but that disagreement aside, the name of this article really should be changed to drop the Boeing, so that it will be consistent with the main article. I'm happy to do the move, but I wanted to give notice first. AKRadecki 22:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should also be named in accordance with most naming convetions for lists. I will look into it later but i doknow it exists. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be List of B-29 Superfortress survivors. AKRadecki 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved to List of surviving B-29 Superfortresses, because 'survivors' implies some agency that I don't want to assign to an inanimate object. Just being bold here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. AKRadecki 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)