 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Do were really need a template for the B-50 - originally designated the B-29D only given a name change because congress would not spend any more money on obsolete WWII designs (ie the B-29) plus the new USAF wanted to distance themselves from the USAAF aircraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegnz ( talk • contribs)
- Dave, I appreciate you enthusiasm. But as this isn't the B-50 template, I'm not sure why your comments are relevant here. If I'm missing something here, I apologize, but I'm also not aware OF a B-50 template, just the Template:B-29 family template.
- Now, if you mean you don't understand why the B-50 is listed separately on THIS template here, the reason is that the template lists the articles on the various models, not just the models. We don't usually list models without articles in these templates. Given that there is an article ON the B-50, it's entirely appropriate to list it here. If you want to merge the B-50 into the B-29, that's a different idea, and a bad one too. Yes, the B-50 itself stated as the B-29D, but the later models underwent many improvements. In addition, Most aviation publications cover the B-29 and B-50 separately, and so readers would expect Wiki to do the same. - BillCJ 16:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Do were really need a template for the B-50 - originally designated the B-29D only given a name change because congress would not spend any more money on obsolete WWII designs (ie the B-29) plus the new USAF wanted to distance themselves from the USAAF aircraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegnz ( talk • contribs)
- Dave, I appreciate you enthusiasm. But as this isn't the B-50 template, I'm not sure why your comments are relevant here. If I'm missing something here, I apologize, but I'm also not aware OF a B-50 template, just the Template:B-29 family template.
- Now, if you mean you don't understand why the B-50 is listed separately on THIS template here, the reason is that the template lists the articles on the various models, not just the models. We don't usually list models without articles in these templates. Given that there is an article ON the B-50, it's entirely appropriate to list it here. If you want to merge the B-50 into the B-29, that's a different idea, and a bad one too. Yes, the B-50 itself stated as the B-29D, but the later models underwent many improvements. In addition, Most aviation publications cover the B-29 and B-50 separately, and so readers would expect Wiki to do the same. - BillCJ 16:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)