This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template 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 template 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
There are quite a few errors in the current helicopter tables, and the different ones are not on all the right pages. This combination (as well as expanded) one has many of those errors corrected, and can simplify having the right table on the right page. I primarily used [1][2] and[3] as well as related wikipedia pages. Thank you for your time. A75 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should add, it is incorrect to have the post-1962 designations without modified mission prefixes, and this is still smaller the the fighter template. A75 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure why you think it is incorrect to have post-1962 designation without modified mission prefixes I think it is confusing to the user. Is it possible to explain the logic that I have CH-46 on the list when I want to look for HH-46! and the simple H-46 caters for all possiblities! MilborneOne (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because it is technically incorrect; the post-1962 system effectively treats the various helicopter designations as if they were two-letter mission codes (other examples of this are the "TR-" in the TR-1 and the "AL-" in the YAL-1). Put simply, there is not and cannot be any such thing as a "H-46". And of course you are right; strictly adhering to this does decrease the ease of navigation of the template. If we keep working on it together, hopefully, we'll get it right soon! What do you think about the inclusion of the H-1 through H-6 redesignations on this template? --Rlandmann (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dont have a problem with the post-62 designation being listed - just the breaking up of the 1948 sequence and the inclusion of mission modifiers. The template is a navigation aid not an article I feel that if I want to look for HH-46 then I should just run down the number sequenced to H-46. At the moment you dont know where on the template to look and then get confused because it has CH-46! MilborneOne (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur with Milb1 on this. The R-1 through H-72 are one basic series used by several different forces. Breaking them up is unnecessary and confusing. And I am opposed to including the H-1 through H-6 here, as they are a different series. Let's just stick with the KISS principle here, and return it to RL's original format. Also, if there is no such thing as the "H-46", then there can be no such thing as a "V-22". - BillCJ (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur that R-1 through UH-72 should be represented as a single, unbroken series; and weakly agree that plain "H-" designations be used (but am sympathetic to the other side; V-22 notwithstanding). A75, I'll ask you again to consider that the primary purpose of these navboxes is... navigation: getting from one H- number to the next one forwards or backwards. Anything that interferes with that purpose should be avoided if at all possible, even if it means making slight oversimplifications from time to time.
The one thing that A75 has been able to convince me of, though, is that the AH-1/UH-1 to OH-6 designations should be included on this template as well; and are probably best viewed as a repurposing of the equivalent old numbers in the sequence. There have been other examples of this: T-1 Seastar→T-1 Jayhawk, XV-8 Fleep→AV-8 Harrier spring to mind.
On another subject, does anyone have any thoughts on including links to preceding/following templates? I can see the utility of them, but am inclined to think of it as more clutter: I'd rather see them go, but don't have a strong preference. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as navigation goes, I think we can manage getting the numbers back together. The MM prefixes are a must for helicopters[[4]], but this is not the case with other sequences! The other thing throwing us off is that the H sequence was not reset like the fighter sequence (F-) (A, B, C, F and O were reset to the number one)[[5]]. The best point I see here though, is that this is really about navigation, and I have been sold on trying to keep sequence together (1-72). However, there is a difference between doing what is convenient, and having incorrect information- there is obligation to use the right names. For instance, if your looking for the MH-60 rather then the HH-60, having the correct modified mission labels actually allows seperate links (in other words, we need more modified mission links not less). I will take another whack at the table, I think we may just be able to work this out! Cheers. A75 (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I finally got 1-72 together and 1-6 with a label that works (hopefully). One thing about the MM labels. Keep in mind that H- is a 'aircraft type' while things like F- and C- are 'basic mission' labels(the aircraft type is assumed). This is why the H need a mission prefix and ones with basic mission don't. However, there a lot official exceptions in the system such as the aformentioned V-22, which normally would not be without a mission prefix. A75 17:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(shuffle left) You keep saying that mission modifiers are a must for helicopters alone but it still not clear why you think that. It is not intuitive to click on a link for CH-46 when you are looking for HH-46, just like to be convinced why as this is not coming over in A75s comments. I would suggest that if multi-articles exist for one designation then that is a role for a dab page not the template. Remember this is just a navigation template it is not an article on the subject and most readers would probably not understand mission modifiers anyway! The H system was reset in 1962 they just ignored it! MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry another example the H-19 at the moment has H-19/UH-19 although SH-19, CH-19 and HH-19 were all used, in my opinion just H-19 would be clearer. MilborneOne (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, the H- system was not reset, only A, B, C, F and O were actually reset to the number one. What makes it confusing is that they have not held themselves to leaving those MDS reset (e.g. the HC-144, F-117, etc.). I can see the logic of letting prefix-less H letters allow disambiguation, but it just misleads people about the MDS. There is just no getting around it. I think one compromise, is just have the prefix links for those have there own pages. For instance, we can have links to AH-1 and UH-1, but not worry about MH-1 until it has its own page. Linking to the AH-1 without the prefixes is also rather hard, and if people can find CH-46 from H-46, they can find HH-46 from CH-46. The other thing is with something like the V-22, the Department of Defense chose to make an exception, but this is just an encyclopedia and we have obligation not improvise new names for things. Cheers. A75 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry but if the Helicopters were not reset where does the H-1 sequence from 1962 come from! but it is agreed that both should be in this template so it really is not an issue. I think your idea about using mission modifiers if they have different articles is not unreasonable. But if it has one article I still think it should be H-99 otherwise which one is right all other prefixes are valid! and if you have seen some of the arguments on article naming that can get into a prolonged discussion! Again this is a navigation template not an article about the designation system. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know we have solved the issue, but here is another 2 cents on reset: A, B, C, F and O were indeed the ones that were reset, based on what the DoD decided with the designation system. The re-use of 1-6 was because of 1962 redesignations (which went along with the other USAF, Army, and Navy redes.), even though when one observes, it looks like they did anyway. I think this difference stems from trying to figure out what they did from the MDS, versus looking at the rules and edicts they made that gave rise to those MDS (check out [[6]] or [[7]])
Thanks for explaining the navigation idea behind the template-I get it. The issue for me now is I think it will actually make navigation easier to have the prefix. For instance, someone looking for the Apache is used to seeing AH-64, not H-64 (or RAH-66, not H-66), or they can navigate to the UH-1 or the AH-1 directly, all of which are very standardized names for these aircraft. A75 (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK I dont have a problems with the examples you quote!! I dont think the reset issue is a problem as we have decided that both sequences will appear. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well thats is just great then. Cheers! A75 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But note I still think that aircraft with multiple prefixes like the H-46 should be H-46. But I will wait for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah I see, you mean to remove the prefix for some. Ok, well I still prefer using the main 2 letter codes for all of them for three main reason. One, the link navigation will be the same either way, but with MM it makes the template consistent (no having to choose which gets prefixes). Next, using the mission prefix for the aircraft is technically correct for a given aircraft. Finally, the use of the prefixes is highly standardized among aviation literature even when multiple types are mentioned. A75 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have to say that I'm agreeing with A75 on this one; and this usage is consistent with our other templates that have a vehicle type as part of the designation, all of which include the mission prefix: G-, Q-, V-, and Z- --Rlandmann (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I dont have a problem with the single use examples more concerned with the likes of the H-46 I presume you want to change it to CH-46/HH-46/RH-46/UH-46 or another example H-43/UH-43/OH-43/TH-43/HH-43/QH-43. MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe we could let the CH-46 dab out the other types(almost like the H-46 would have), unless they have there own page (e.g. UH-60 and MH-60) and we add another link. So AH-1 and UH-1 but not EH-1 unless it gets own page. The Vertol template took a similar course Template:Boeing Vertol. I had wanted to add design letters that had there own page such as the CH-53E and the SuperCobra as well, but quite frankly I am pretty with the template even as it stands now. A75 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've studiously avoided subtypes in templates (and most lists, and most "see also" sections); again, the primary goal is navigation from H-x to H-y; once at H-y, there should be prominent links to the H-yB if that's what the reader is looking for (and if we have an article on it!) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose design letters would be a bit much ;). A75 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A version of the MD 900 Explorer was used by the Coast Guard as the MH-90 Enforcer.[8] Since the CG's MH-65 Dolphin is included on this template, I edited it to also include the Explorer. Hopefully I did it right and didn't mess anything up, but if I did, it wasn't intentional. Spartan198 (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
