Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon at the Reference desk.

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 28, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 7, 2011 Good article nominee Listed April 24, 2011 Peer review Reviewed March 21, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 2, 2012, February 2, 2016, February 2, 2019, and February 2, 2024. Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States 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. 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 Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Aviation: Aircraft Aviation portal 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. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. This article is supported by the aircraft project. This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

To-do list for General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2011-06-04 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Shorten wording where main articles exist. Shorten/summarize long sections.

Future operators

Several editors have added a "Future operators" section for Ukraine. Bulgaria and Slovakia were also added in the most recent case. The addition of the section has repeatedly been reverted as there is no consensus to include such sections in military aircraft articles apart from the occasional "Potential operators" section. Since the number of attempts to add the section have risen over the last few days, it's probably worth having a formal discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BilCat, Poklane, and The Legacy. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operators with aircraft on firm order do not have to be separated as Future operators. A future user with a firm order is effectively an operator. WP:Air does not do this in any other aircraft article that I am aware of. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZLEA I concur with Fylayson. The Legacy (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About taiwan "invested" in the development of the F-16V

If all chinese sources and taiwanese media are excluded, are there any official sources (or other sources) that prove taiwan "invested" in the development of the F-16V? 14.199.160.12 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Chinese and Taiwanese sources be excluded? Taiwan News is not listed in WP:RSP as either reliable or unreliable, so there are currently no grounds to exclude it. If you believe that Taiwan News or any other source used in this article is unreliable, feel free to bring it up at WP:RSN. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity of F-16

We have the quantity built included in the "main" Info box. How about a quantity active? Certainly many older F-16 are NON operational is some form. Could the quantity built have any false high reports - perhaps from ungrades of existing airframes. Wfoj3 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheed Martin themselves stated in June 2018 that "4,604 F-16s have been procured by 28 customers around the world". It is highly unlikely that this figure is inflated by upgrades to existing airframes, as such upgrades do not result in a new manufacturer serial number. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should number of produced aircrafts need to be updated in 2024? That number from 2018 probably obsolete by now. I watched on YouTube yesterday that currently there is a long line of orders on F-16, so some nations does not want to wait long and order korean FA-50 block 20 instead.

Also If more that 4604 was produced and 2145 F-16s operational, then what happened with more than 2400 of F-16 that is not operational? Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slavic Positron Cannon: If you find a decently reliable source that indicates the current production total (and doesn't double-count refurbished airframes), you should add it to the article! As to your question about why some 2,400 F-16s aren't operational, if boils down to several factors: some airframes are get too worn out to ever fly again (metal fatigue is a dangerous thing), some F-16s have been written off for damages, and still others may be in deep storage due to obsolescence (some F-16s are around 50 years old). ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where would the Ukrainian F-16 loss fit?

Unsure of where the Ukrainian F-16 loss would fit best, operational history or notable accidents and incidents. I’ve added it into operational history for now, but might move it depending on what the investigation states or add it to both. Sterge08 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a combat related loss, then probably accidents section. However accidents for combat aircraft generally need to be significant or noteworty to be covered. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fnlayson is correct. If it's not a combat loss, then it usually goes in the "Accidents and incidents" section if it is noteworthy. Per WP:AIRCRASH:

Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent. They account for many more accidents and incidents than larger civil aircraft. Military aircraft accidents may be suitable for inclusion in the relevant List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. For accidents involving light aircraft (maximum gross weight of 12,500 lb (5,670 kg) or less) or any military aircraft the standard for inclusion is:

• The accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim), or
• The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft). - ZLEA _T\^C 23:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 June 2025

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon → F-16 Fighting Falcon
• General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon operational history → F-16 Fighting Falcon operational history
• General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon operators → F-16 Fighting Falcon operators
• General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants → F-16 Fighting Falcon variants

– The F-16 is manufactured by Lockheed Martin and not General Dynamics (since 1993). In no current sources is it referred to as a General Dynamics plane. Pats322 (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move - This article follows the manufacturer, designation, name convention per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), the proposed titles above have no manufacturer at all. General Dynamics is used as it is how the aircraft is commonly known per the Wikipedia guideline WP:COMMONNAME. There are many examples of types where the original design and manufacture company has been merged with another company but the name has not changed. The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet was last manufactured by Boeing (and by Northrop before that) as an example. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - The aircraft project moved many hundreds of articles to the MDN format in mid-2010, the discussion/consensus for this is contained in an archive talk page, this article was moved to the current title in July 2010. The title of this article has been discussed three times in its own talk page, here, here and here. Archive search boxes are provided at the head of articles with archives and should be used before making talk page posts, the subject has very likely been discussed before as most of our aircraft articles are 20 years old and well established (stable). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move - As mentioned, the articles follow a defined naming convention that includes the manufacturer name. --McSly (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pats322 (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Manufacturer is Lockheed Martin though[reply]

• Support - The naming convention does not override COMMONNAME and CONCISION. WP:TITLECON says "Where multiple titles are available, and where titles are equally usable in terms of recognizability, naturalness, preciseness, and conciseness, then the title to be used should be consistent with titles used for similar or related topics in Wikipedia." That is not the case here, as the proposed title is more concise and natural and just as precise. I would also support F-16. --JFHutson (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) and WP:COMMONNAME -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While I agree the aircraft naming conventions should be reevaluated for military aircraft that have both names and designations, it would not make sense to go against the current conventions for just the F-16 for WP:CONSISTENT reasons. A discussion at WT:NCAIR makes more sense. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I'm not necessarily opposed to the move to the shorter titles in principle, but we need to be consistent with other military aircraft. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty sure COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE both heavily favor this move. If the only thing stopping us is consistency with NCAIR, then this is a LOCALCON issue and NCAIR is wrong and needs fixing. Toadspike [Talk] 06:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, who woulda thunk it. The top discussion on WT:NCAIR is about exactly this, from 13 years ago. Toadspike [Talk] 06:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a topic at WT:NCAIR, though I disagree that we need to fix NCAIR first before moving this article. WP policy trumps naming conventions. - JFHutson (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:CONSISTENT (with other articles like Northrop B-2 Spirit and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, not NCAIR) weighs against the move. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't just pick one criterion, there are five WP:CRITERIA for article naming, and consistency is "to the extent it is practical." I doubt those two articles are well named either if WP:AT were applied correctly. --JFHutson (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  B-2 Spirit is currently made by Northrop and F-35 is currently made by Lockheed. That isn't the case with General Dynamics and the F-16. Pats322 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Common sense would dictate that when General Dynamics built it for 19 years, but Lockheed/LM has built it for 30 years and counting, that the latter would make more sense as the manufacturer. Please don't reply to this "but the naming convention...". The naming convention is a blunt instrument that leads to some silly outcomes, as in this case. We should be more nuanced, i.e. correct! Mark83 (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• And all of you quoting WP:COMMONNAME - there are more arguments against General Dynamics being included based on that section of policy, i.e. Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision. The only argument for based on this is Consistency, and I've made my views clear on that above. Mark83 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]