Talk:List of displayed McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs

Article Scope

This article was spun off the main F-4 Phantom article to cover preserved aircraft, not operational ones (Covered in F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators and F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators. List of surviving ... is the standard WP:Aircraft name for these articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's still ridiculous. This is NOT a list of the surviving F-4s; it's a list of those preserved as exhibits, gate guardians etc. The title should make it clear that it is not a list of surviving F-4s, but only of F-4s on display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FergusM1970 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a rename (and in this case I agree that the "standard" title may be misleading) - I've mentioned this at WP:Aviation, so hopefully we can get a few more opinions.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Call it "F-4s on display." I'd say that "surviving" is perfectly suitable for obsolete aircraft, but as the F-4 still makes up a significant proportion of the world's fast jet fleet it just doesn't work. Unless, of course, you add the serving aircraft to the list of survivors. FergusM1970 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a spun-off section of an article it should follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content which calls for these sections to be called Aircraft on display. So perhaps this article should be moved to F-4 Phantoms on display, which would eliminate confusion about the intended scope of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

<<Shakes head and walks off muttering to himself.>> - BilCat (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the wiki guidelines for aircraft articles. Under "survivors" it says the following: "Survivors should be information on aircraft that have survived following the retirement of the aircraft type from normal military or commercial use." As the F-4 has NOT been retired from normal military use it is not appropriate useage. "Aircraft on display" seems correct. Can we all agree on this? FergusM1970 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That gudelien refers to aricraft articles themselves, not separate list articles. I really don't think the use of "surviving" is that confusing here,a nd is easily understood from the context of the list itself. There's no reason in my opinon to change the title of this article just because one user misunderstood the context, or wanted to make a nit-picky point. - BilCat (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing nit-picking about it: any list of surviving F-4s either has to include the 500+ operational examples or be a pointless farce. This list includes a tiny and, frankly, unimportant fraction of the F-4s that currently survive. Would you really argue that the 59 F-4Fs of Jg71 currently responsible for the air defence of half of Germany are less "surviving" than some stripped, engineless hulk parked at the gates of an airbase? This article should be titled "F-4s on display." FergusM1970 (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with Fergus here. Your claim that the actual meaning of the title is easily understood from the article is not a good argument. First of all it is not true – as a layman coming across this list I would assume it to be what it says it is and be left with the erroneous conclusion that the F-4 is no longer in service at all. Seriously, how can the word surviving not be confusing here? Why would anyone assume that actively serving aircraft are not included in that description? Secondly, the meaning of the title should be clear from the title, otherwise what is the bloody point of having them? AJCham 02:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. See below for explanation. Jojhutton (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

---

List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs → F-4 Phantom IIs on display — With BilCat as the only opposer it would appear there is consensus for this page to be moved. See discussion above and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. AJCham 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment why should this be restricted to static display aircraft, instead of all surviving examples which are mostly intact? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is a directory of museums with F-4's. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not an AFD discussion, so "Delete" isn't an option here. You'll have to file an AFD to discuss deletiing the article. - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:76.66.193.119 decided to WP:PROD the article anyway. I have removed the tag and requested he or she return here to discuss and gain consensus or take it to WP:AFD for a more formal deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do it anyway, I did it first. See the timestamps of the PROD and the subsequent comments on deletion. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD has been started. Step 2 missing. But WT:AFD informed of need to fix step 2. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The AfD closed as a keep, but several editors there supported a rename to F-4 Phantom IIs on display or List of F-4 Phantom IIs on display. -fnlayson (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As agreed in the AfD this article should be renamed to conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_on_display. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There appeared to be no real opposition to the requested page move. I also took the AFD discussion into consideration. There also appeared to be several alternative suggestions, but there appears to be no opposition to the requested name change.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

<after thought>. The page appears to be protected against page moves for some reason. I will get the attention of an admin.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

<After Thought revisited> An admin User:Uncle G, has taken care of the move request. Thanks goes o him.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Can I request another move please as it is less than 24 hours since it was moved! it should be McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II on display to line up with parent article. I would normally just move it as per aircraft article naming conventions but for some reason it is protected from moving so I though it polite to ask rather than just move it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess that your welcome to make another move request at WP:RM. I don't think that just moving the page on your own anyway, right after a move discussion was closed, when have been the best route to take. Best to go through the proper requests.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I raised it here because it has jsut been moved, dont think it needs a move request I just need to make sure nobody objects before I move it again. If it had not been recently moved it would have been renamed in due course due to the aircraft articles moving following a change in naming convention. I will give it some time and if nobody objects I will then move it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and move it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move 3

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 21:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

---

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs on display → List of surviving McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs — As per the above discussions, the decision against moving seems to have centered around the fact that the aircraft was operational at the time. However, no country now uses the Phantom operationally. The only remaining potential claimant to the title of operational Phantom are the QF-4s and they will essentially be retired by the end of the year. To quote from the above discussion: "Survivors should be information on aircraft that have survived following the retirement of the aircraft type from normal military or commercial use." Drones do not qualify as "normal use".

Furthermore, all of the other similar articles under the category Category:Lists of surviving military aircraft begin with "List of..." and the vast majority of those continue with the word "surviving" before moving on to the name of the aircraft itself. Therefore, for consistency's sake, this article should have it's name changed to "List of surviving McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs" - or at the very least, "List of preserved McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs". --Relisted. George Ho away from home (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC) —Noha307 (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose F-4's are still in service [1], and not just as drones. And even in private hands.[2] ; the JARGON usage of "surviving" would be unhelpful to the readership if this aircraft is still in service, which it is, since it still flies combat missions -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Comment - I don't see where in that link evidence is presented that F-4s are still in service in private hands. It only suggests that they are. The only example I am aware of is the one owned by the Collings Foundation. Furthermore, the FAA only lists one active F-4 on the registry - the aforementioned airframe. This does not constitute service based on the rule I included in the initial move request - it is not in "normal military or commercial use". I did forget about the Iranian examples though. In my defense, I was looking at the infobox on the main article. —Noha307 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - By consensus on WikiProject Aircraft we use the term "survivors" to indicate post military service aircraft that are still flying, whereas this is a list of aircraft on display in museums and as gate guardians. - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Opppose - To early to change to survivors as only the ones on display are notable, a survivors list would list aircraft used as maintenance airframes and those in storage which is probably to large a number to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Revised Request - Clearly I had forgotten about the Iranian F-4s. However, that only refutes one of my proposals. I would therefore propose that this page be moved in this manner: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs on display → List of preserved McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs. This would bring it into line with the other articles listed under Category:Lists of surviving military aircraft. It would seem that either the title of this page must be changed in this way, or the title of every other article on that page must be changed. (I just noticed that, due to formatting issues, the link to the category page did not appear in my initial move request. This significantly hurt my argument because a large portion of it rested on the content under this link. I apologize for the confusion.) —Noha307 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Preserved is really the same as on display apart from a few stored airframes owned by museums, the project currently uses two different types of remaining aircraft per WP:AIRMOS:

• Aircraft on display - Aircraft on display should be information on non-airworthy aircraft that are on permanent public display. It should not include partial aircraft or aircraft not viewable by the public. When a large number of aircraft are still preserved the list should be limited to the most prominent ones.
• Survivors - Survivors should be information on aircraft that have survived following the retirement of the aircraft type from normal military or commercial use. It should include airworthy aircraft and any non-airworthy aircraft not on public display but otherwise notable.

So this page is a child article for the "aircraft on display" scenario rather the the "survivors" so we dont need to introduce another type of article for "preserved". MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Okay, you have a point about "preserved". I'm pretty sure I took the idea from the article "List of preserved Douglas A-4 Skyhawks". However, if "preserved" is not one of the two accepted categories, doesn't that mean that the A-4 article I just mentioned should be moved in this manner: "List of preserved Douglas A-4 Skyhawks" → "List of displayed Douglas A-4 Skyhawks"?

Second, what I probably should have suggested was using the word "displayed" instead of "preserved". What do you have to say about moving the article in this manner: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs on display → List of displayed McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs? I know it may seem like I'm being pedantic by repeatedly suggesting new ideas when the previous one is shot down, but the bottom line is that we really need to have some consistency as to naming these articles. We currently have a category page with 4 different types of article titles for 2 different types of remaining aircraft (displayed & surviving). The nonconforming articles should be moved. (Strictly speaking, the lists of displayed military aircraft shouldn't really be in a category for lists of surviving military aircraft, but I think this can be ignored since there really does need to be a category that includes both surviving and displayed article lists.) —Noha307 (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The intention appears to be, to keep the Turkish F-4 Terminators in service until 2020 as planned.(Turkey plans transition to new jets)--KTo288 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now as there are still F-4s in active military service. However, the discussion should be reopened as and when the F-4 is retired fully from active military service, at which point I would change my vote to support. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of F4C #63-7556 at Jackson Barracks Museum, Louisiana

In 2005 Hurrican Katrina devastated the New Orleans, Louisiana area. The Jackson Barracks Military Museum was destroyed. Now in 2023 the museum has been rebuilt and most of the original artifacts, some a little worse for the experience, are now on display. This includes the McDonnell Douglas F4C Phantom II s/n 63-7556. Here is a link to video of that aircraft and other exhibits:

http://www.youtube.com/@Niko2100/videos

This aircraft should be included in the F4 Phantom II on Display page. 174.64.29.44 (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

In general home-made videos are not WP:RS. Do we have an actual reliable ref about this aircraft? - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think if you follow my About page on YouTube, you will find I am as a reliable ref as can be found.

Byron Como 174.64.29.44 (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Umm, we have a policy about that: WP:SPS. As that explains, a reliable source is not whether the author thinks they wrote something accurate, it is whether it has independent editorial oversight. Regardless, we need a better source to add this to make it properly verifiable. Sure this Phantom has been written up in a magazine or other source? - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You might want to check the holding for my book on worldcat.org. Apparently the Navy thinks my work is very accurate. 174.64.29.44 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what book you are referring to, but I managed to find a ref and re-added the entry. - Ahunt (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Always a pleasure. 174.64.29.44 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2023

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) BegbertBiggs (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

---

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs on display → List of displayed McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs – All other articles of this type in the Lists of surviving military aircraft category use the format "list of displayed/surviving [aircraft name]s". A previous move request years ago was objected to, but on the basis of changing "displayed" to "surviving", not wording. Noha307 (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Aviation has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Support: move to standard established by other articles of this type—for consistency. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Support; as above. Alansplodge (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support: this article is just another list-type article, and per WP:NCLL A common practice is to entitle list articles as List of ___. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2023 (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.

Cavanaugh Flight Museum F-4C 64-0777

The Cavanaugh Flight Museum closed permanently on 1 January 2024, and announced that its aircraft would be moved to North Texas Regional Airport in Denison, Texas, but did not disclose any plan to return the collection to public display. 64-0777 is technically on loan from the USAF like most other former USAF F-4s that remain in the country, and the USAF probably won't allow it to be moved to Denison to be stashed in a hangar or left on the ramp; in the absence of a plan to reopen the Cavanaugh in Denison, I suspect that the USAF will reclaim 64-0777 and move it elsewhere. If anyone has any verifiable information on the aircraft's fate, please comment or edit the article. Carguychris (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

References