Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III#IMPROPER REVERSIONS

Flight crews, according to Task & Purpose, call the C-17 "the Moose" for the sound that the pressure relief vents make when ground refueling sounding like a female moose in heat.[https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-c-17-moose-jet/] Unless it already is and I missed it, can this be incorporated into the opening paragraph similar to how "Viper" is on the F-16 page? TheNomad416 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

:Definitely. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress has a similar one, and I found several magazine-like and news-like sources.

:How's this? @TheNomad416

::"Flight crews call the C-17 "the Moose", because during ground refuelling, the pressure relief vents make a sound like the call of a female moose in heat."

:* {{cite newspaper |author=Barrie Barber |date=January 11, 2015 |title=Wright-Patt crew plays crucial Afghanistan role: As combat operations end, Ohio airmen make frequent, risky flights |work=Dayton Daily News |issn=08970920 |url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/wright-patt-crew-plays-crucial-afghanistan-role/docview/1644372252/se-2 | id={{proquest|1644372252}} |quote=After a seven-hour flight that began from Ramstein Air Base in Germany, the "Moose" as the C-17 is nicknamed, is thirsty. The plane makes the sound of a moose call as fuel pushes out air inside the tanks.}}

:* {{cite magazine |url=https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-c-17-moose-jet/ |title=Here’s why the Air Force’s workhorse C-17 is called ‘the Moose’ |author=David Roza |work=Task & Purpose |date=August 6, 2021}}

:Komonzia (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

::That looks good. I'm thinking the end of the first paragraph is the best place to put it since it's the shortest. But I'm having trouble getting it to format. I've tried copying and pasting it, but the source links just appear as a big block of text. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. TheNomad416 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:::I have copied the wikitext source code over now. Komonzia (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:::* An article's Lead is a place to summarize all major content, not introduce trivia type info. The Operational history would be a more appropriate section for this. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:::*:I don't agree that alternative names shouldn't be in the lead. Usually that's where they are placed. Komonzia (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:::*::The whole explanation doesn't need to be in the lead. If this truly is a common nickname, then it should go somewhere in the lead, sourced to the main sourced used in the body. Usually, the nickname needs to be common outside the military too, such as with "Huey", "Viper", etc, to warrant mention in the lead. At this point, it seems to be on a par with " Fat Amy" in being uncommon outside the military. BilCat (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fnlayson. This might be a very minor & redundant topic to discuss (so forgive me if it does sound like one) but don't you think that over here, the text looks a bit misaligned and sort of distracting? Wouldn't it be better if it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III&diff=prev&oldid=1284794300#Indian_Air_Force formatted like this]? If the pattern is somehow repeated, I'm afraid it might soon look [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_737&oldid=1249894764#737-400 like this] (Scroll down in the link). I'm not saying that the place where you put that image is sort of bad, I'm just saying where I think the best position for the image is. What do you think? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

: No, not to me. MOS:IMAGES says to not place images directly side by side which sandwich text between them. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Wasn't aware of this. Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

In Edit 1294435077, User Fnlayson changed what I had put there

Boeing, which merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, continued to make the C-17. Between McDonnell Douglas and successor Boeing, the C-17 was manufactured for more than two decades.

to

McDonnell Douglas and Boeing, which merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, manufactured the C-17 for more than two decades.

I have 2 problems with Fnlayson's wording

1. It reads like BOTH McDonnell Douglas and Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas
2. It misses the idea of succession of ownership. One period under McDonnell Douglas. A subsequent period under Boeing.

I do not want to get into a Change/Counter-change battle. I will not change Fnlayson's edit without some agreement from this Talk Page. But I think that Fnlayson made the C-17 article worse.

{{ Break | 2 }} 71.162.197.46 (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

: I corrected/clarified the wording to "McDonnell Douglas and later Boeing after it merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, manufactured the C-17 for more than two decades." -Fnlayson (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::OK. Thanks.

::{{ Break | 1 }} 71.162.197.46 (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion the type should simply be categorised as 'Strategic airlifter'. Any strategic airlifter can be utilised for tactical missions but highlighting this dual capability in this classification doesn't make any sense, specially in the infobox, it's akin to Calling an intercontinental range Missile an 'intermediate & intercontinental Missile' just because it can be used for intermediate strikes. The primary designation should reflect its core capability. Same goes for Il-76.

My opinion will only make sense if type or role for any system is categorised based on its normal or maximum hardware capabilities instead of how or for what users are using it.Dl ff (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)