Talk:Fourth-generation fighter

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Su-27 Family[edit]

Shouldn't some of the su-27 family of aircraft receive their own comparison table rows? I'm aware some variants are not very divergent from the original air frame, but some make indisputable upgrades to either the engines or fuselage modifications that they are distinct enough from the original, much how the super hornet or the strike eagle are their own aircraft.

Renrue (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

J-10a zhas.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of types[edit]

@Zafarhamza261: Please stop changing the article while we discuss this. I'll post more info in a minute or so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the recent edit comment "Steeppillow is making wrong edits. I dont know why is he erasing all my and other people's efforts":

Firstly, you should not add unsourced information. See the Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines such as WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:BURDEN.
Secondly, half-baked fan lists are not helpful. If lists of types are to be included, we need consensus agreement on a good reason and a sensible strategy.
Thirdly, for a wider view of the issues with articles such as this one, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Fifth and other fighter generations. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that you can respect our editing conflict resolution guideline on the Be bold - Revert - Discuss procedure. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And why did u delete 1st 2nd 3rd generation fighter aircraft articles Zafarhamza261 (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey u are the only one who does not agree with this. Everyone else does and by the way the list is pretty accurate Zafarhamza261 (Talk) 4:15, 13 January 2021

This is not about you and me, it is about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am following the consensus of the Aircraft WikiProject. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the information can be sourced one. U also deleted entire articles such as 3rd generation and 2nd generation fighter aircraft Zafarhamza261 (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject discussion agreed to cut all such lists back, unless they were agreed and verifiable. This is not the case here. Moreover, these lists are hopelessly corrupted with flags and other rubbish. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zafarhamza261: please follow the WikiProject discussion as explained by Steelpillow, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've chopped the table as an arbitrary comparison since many different types of "fighter" compared and the "4th Gen" status uncertain. That leaves a list of aircraft which need to have their Fourth-generation-ness confirmed by reliable sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per consensus the unsourced comparison tables need to go. At very best it was WP:OR, at worst WP:FANCRUFT. Really should be moved to a fan site. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

The remaining lists are unsourced. As explained (and sourced) in the Jet fighter generations article there are no universally agreed criteria for 4th and 4.5 generation types, with different sources giving different examples and sometimes contradicting each other. What justification can there be for keeping lists which can never be verified? Would it not be better to focus on the important examples which can be verified, and not try to listify them? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Remove. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just delete the entire article then because flags do matter. It shows the origin of the aircraft. Zafarhamza261 (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:POINT before you get blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zafarhamza261: We are only doing here what we are told to do. If you wish to add national flags, then you need to overturn the community consensus at MOS:FLAGS and, following that, the project consensus at WP:AVILIST. The place to open that discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. The community can then discuss your request and review its decision. We here are powerless to make that change. Note that the blue text in this post provides links for you to follow and learn how Wikipedia works. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 February 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth generation fighter → Fourth-generation fighter – Correct hyphenation as per MOS:HYPHEN. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Comment. Per this archived WikiProject discussion, usage without the hyphen is more common. WP:COMMONNAME is Wikipedia policy, MOS:HYPHEN is only a guideline. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Update] But see also this parallel discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The Google Ngrams seem to indicate that the hyphenated adjective form is more prevalent in sources.[1]. Not to mention that not having the hyphen is grammatically incorrect, which is why MOS:HYPHEN exists. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but why did you have to do multiple independent RM discussions on the same question? See comments at Talk:Fifth generation fighter. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was my bad, I forgot to use the multiple page move template, and by the time I realized it was too late. If anybody has an idea of how to fix this please feel free. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.