Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

Verification of reference in Operators section

@Fnlayson, in this 2018 edit you referenced FlightGlobal's World Air Forces (as <ref name=WAF_2018>), but the link associated with it (or its archived version) doesn't contain information supporting the article text concerning quantities and types of C-17s in use by countries. Were you referring to a different printed version, and if so, could you possibly update the reference? TheFeds 20:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Flight International's World Air Forces does list the number of aircraft type of each nation's armed forces fleet. This has been made subscription content; an archived link may needed to be used. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What is this table, exactly?

A recent edit & reversion by other editors got me looking at the table in the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III#Production and deliveries section - and I think it needs some clarification, as there is no label on the table itself. Is this table production or deliveries or both? In any case - I believe it may not be accurate, as it is reflecting one or the other as recently as 2019 (un-cited), despite the last one being produced and delivered in 2015. I suspect that this table is for deliveries - although I find it unlikely that Boeing is sitting on a surplus of 17s for what is now 9 years since "being in talks with 5 other countries". Does anyone have any clarification for the table? I am also thinking about reorganizing the paragraph quoted to improve the timeline flow. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That table lists deliveries for each year. This was clear with the references labels there previously. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

So some refs were removed? 5 years of the numbers in the table come after the most recent ref publication date. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure. I did not add data to the table. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Understood. I will research it later today and see if I can get those numbers ref'ed. Thanks for your help and edits. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Long term it would probably be better to replace the table with some summary text, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Nickname (the Moose)

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.[1] 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."

• Barrie Barber (January 11, 2015). "Wright-Patt crew plays crucial Afghanistan role: As combat operations end, Ohio airmen make frequent, risky flights". Dayton Daily News. ISSN 0897-0920. ProQuest 1644372252. 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.
• David Roza (August 6, 2021). "Here's why the Air Force's workhorse C-17 is called 'the Moose'". Task & Purpose.

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)

Images position

@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 formatted like this? If the pattern is somehow repeated, I'm afraid it might soon look 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)