Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants

Type Versions?

It would be nice to see some discussion of the relationship between the variants and the type version identifiers, as given here:

info

I know *I* get confused... 70.250.176.223 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've reworked the information I have somewhat to produce the table below. 70.251.33.92 (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Have included additional information from this page

Would probably be best to merge this info with List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators. 70.251.150.167 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Block(s)	MDS Designation	Type/Version	Customer(s)
01	YF-16 (Prototype)	60	USAF
01	F-16A	61	USAF
01	F-16A	6D	RNLAF
01	F-16A	6F	RDAF
01	F-16A	6H	Belgian Air Component
01	F-16A	6K	RNoAF
01	F-16B	62	USAF
01	F-16B	6E	RNLAF
01	F-16B	6G	RDAF
01	F-16B	6J	Belgian Air Component
01	F-16B	6L	RNoAF
05	F-16A	61	USAF
05	F-16A	6D	RNLAF
05	F-16A	6F	RDAF
05	F-16A	6H	Belgian Air Component
05	F-16A	6K	RNoAF
05	F-16A	6V	IAF (originally intended for Iran)
05	F-16B	62	USAF
05	F-16B	6E	RNLAF
05	F-16B	6G	RDAF
05	F-16B	6J	Belgian Air Component
05	F-16B	6L	RNoAF
05	F-16B	6W	IAF (originally intended for Iran)
05	F-16B	62	Aeronautica Militare
10	F-16A	61	USAF
10	F-16A	6D	RNLAF
10	F-16A	6F	RDAF
10	F-16A	6H	Belgian Air Component
10	F-16A	6K	RNoAF
10	F-16A	6V	IAF (originally intended for Iran)
10	F-16A	61	Aeronautica Militare
10	F-16B	62	USAF
10	F-16B	6E	RNLAF
10	F-16B	6G	RDAF
10	F-16B	6J	Belgian Air Component
10	F-16B	6L	RNoAF
10	F-16B	6W	IAF (originally intended for Iran)
10	F-16B	62	Aeronautica Militare
15	F-16A	1A	Indonesian Air Force
15	F-16A	27	RSAF
15	F-16A	2J	RTAF
15	F-16A	5G	PAF
15	F-16A	61	USAF
15	F-16A	6D	RNLAF
15	F-16A	6F	RDAF
15	F-16A	6H	Belgian Air Component
15	F-16A	6K	RNoAF
15	F-16A	6V	IAF (originally intended for Iran)
15	F-16A	9E	EAF
15	F-16A	9P	FAV
15	F-16A	AA	PoAF
15	F-16A	DG	PAF(embargoed)
15	F-16A	HN	RTAF
15	F-16A	61	Aeronautica Militare
15	F-16A	6H	RJAF
15	F-16B	1B	Indonesian Air Force
15	F-16B	28	RSAF
15	F-16B	2K	RTAF
15	F-16B	5H	PAF
15	F-16B	62	USAF
15	F-16B	6E	RNLAF
15	F-16B	6G	RDAF
15	F-16B	6J	Belgian Air Component
15	F-16B	6L	RNoAF
15	F-16B	6W	IAF (originally intended for Iran)
15	F-16B	9F	EAF
15	F-16B	9Q	FAV
15	F-16B	AB	PoAF
15	F-16B	DH	PAF(embargoed)
15	F-16B	HP	RTAF
15	F-16B	62	Aeronautica Militare
15	F-16B	6J	RJAF
20	F-16A	TA	ROCAF
20	F-16B	TB	ROCAF
25	F-16C	5C	USAF
25	F-16D	5D	USAF
30	F-16C	1V	NASA
30	F-16C	2Y	HAF
30	F-16C	4J	IAF
30	F-16C	4R	TuAF
30	F-16C	5C	USAF
30	F-16D	2Z	HAF
30	F-16D	4K	IAF
30	F-16D	4S	TuAF
30	F-16D	5D	USAF
30	F-16N	3M	USN
30	TF-16N	3N	USN
32	F-16C	4G	EAF
32	F-16C	5A	ROKAF
32	F-16C	5C	USAF
32	F-16D	4H	EAF
32	F-16D	5B	ROKAF
32	F-16D	5D	USAF
40	F-16C	1C	USAF
40	F-16C	4R	TuAF
40	F-16C	AC	RBAF
40	F-16C	BC	EAF
40	F-16C	CJ	IAF
40	F-16D	1D	USAF
40	F-16D	4S	TuAF
40	F-16D	AD	RBAF
40	F-16D	BD	EAF
40	F-16D	CK	IAF
42	F-16C	1C	USAF
42	F-16D	1D	USAF
50	F-16C	CC	USAF
50	F-16C	HC	TuAF
50	F-16C	TC	HAF
50	F-16C	Unknown	RAFO
50	F-16C	VL	FACH
50	F-16D	CD	USAF
50	F-16D	HD	TuAF
50	F-16D	TD	HAF
50	F-16D	Unknown	RAFO
50	F-16D	VM	FACH
52	F-16C	CC	USAF
52	F-16C	DA	RSAF
52	F-16C	KC	ROKAF
52	F-16C	JC	Polish Air Force
52	F-16D	CD	USAF
52	F-16D	DB	RSAF
52	F-16D	KD	ROKAF
52	F-16D	JD	Polish Air Force
52+	F-16C	XK	HAF
52+	F-16D	RD	RSAF
52+	F-16D	XM	HAF
52+	F-16D	YD	IAF
60	F-16E	RE	UAEAF
60	F-16F	RF	UAEAF
Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	RMAF

Image copyright problem with File:F-16 VISTA.jpg

The image File:F-16 VISTA.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Major variants and upgrade programs

This page is about variants, so IMO, the upgrade programs are of secondary importance to the actual configurations. I've done what I can to move the configurations listed under programs to the major upgrades section. I hope an expert can pick this up where I left off.

It is certainly worth noting if the configuration was the result of an upgrade program, however. If anyone deems it worth the effort, it seems like there is enough information here to begin separate articles for the actual upgrade programs. 70.250.189.85 (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Special production variants

It isn't clear what the organizing principle behind the "special production variants" is. What is "special production"? I'm assuming that this essentially means "licensed production" by non-US manufacturers, or partial licensed production, but it isn't stated. This section could probably use an introductory paragraph explaining this, or otherwise clarifying what is special about the production. 70.250.189.85 (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like miscellaneous variants to me. Changing it to something like "Other variants" would work. Or "Other production variants". Anybody got other ideas? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. The KF-16 listing isn't clear why it is considered a variant, however. I feel we need at least a demonstrated configuration difference to have a listing. Probably just needs supporting wording. 70.250.189.85 (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic information summary

It is hard to glean the key essentials of the variations from this article, without reading it in detail. I would like to create quick summaries of the key points for each variant in a small infobox or table, or something similar.

Haven't really settled on what is essential yet, but am currently thinking of including:

• Designation(s)
  • The official one, if such a thing exists
  • Unofficial ones, such as "Desert Falcon" or "F-16XL"
    • Unoffical names should indicate who uses that terminology (manufacturer, customer, etc.)
• Role
• Model (F-16A, F-16B, etc.)
• Manufacturer's Type/Version (Construction Number) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.170.9 (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Customer(s)
• Main differences from an already described variant
  • In particular, engines and avionics
  • Any new technology, if it is a demonstrator
  • For consistency, suggest that the baseline be the "standard" block configuration, whatever "standard" means
  • Production quantity
    • Was the design ever produced?
    • Was this a single special-purpose aircraft or a class of aircraft?
• Proposal Year
• First Flight Date

Most of this information is available in the article, but it is very frustrating to get at this information, since it is organized in an ad hoc way. I'm having a hard time assessing how comprehensive various facets of the article are because of this. 70.250.189.85 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

GF-16

Is the GF-16 for real? I've heard of maintenance trainers, which this seems to be, but I've never heard of any kind of designation for these F-16s, and it wouldn't seem to indicate particular "configuration" variant, AFAIK. If this is real, can we get some more details about the actual configuration of these aircraft? Are they in any way different from the others of the same model? 70.247.170.9 (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

CK-1

I'm not certain, but my educated guess is that the CK-1 aircraft (belonging to Israel) mentioned in the article refers to the aircraft construction number CK-1, since CK seems to be a type version associated with Israel. For example, here, CK-7 seems to be an Israeli bird. Could an expert please verify and source this?

This seems an important clarification to make, seeing as how the AIDC F-CK-1A/B Ching Kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter (IDF) is also mentioned in the article, with the common 'CK-1' substring. 70.247.170.9 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Specs table

While specs tables aren't generally used in combat aircraft articles (usually just airliners), it might be a good idea here. Just something fairly simple, as we don't have to list as many parameters as in the main specs template. - BillCJ (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, like the one at Harrier Jump Jet#Specifications ? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! I had forgotten about that one! Thanks for remembering. - BillCJ (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple as opposed to detailed? My expectation is that this article would have more detailed specs than anywhere else. Isn't this the ideal article for details? Where is the main specs template you mention, anyway?

I still don't understand why the table is set up in an apples-to-oranges fashion. Why are we comparing YF-16, F-16A, F-16C Block 30, F-16E Block 60, and not YF-16, F-16A, F-16C, and F-16E, irrespective of the Block numbers? This is confusing to an outsider, especially since the article doesn't attempt to clarify. 70.251.1.149 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving Variant info from the Main f-16 page

I brought over the block and engine summary table from the f-16 page. I also shortened it to make it a little more compact and readable. While this information is included in the text, It is a very informative and clear little chart. It is such a obvious move (to me) I just did it rather than get a consensus.

If this works for most people, how about we strike the chart from the F-16 page. It really should not be there. Buck Claborn (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocks table

Time ago I remember seen a table with block/quantity built or so, can't find it anymore, any help please ? Also can someone tell when USAF received its last new aircraft from factory ? not upgrades, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.158.19 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon variants's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

• From Gulf War: Bourque P.455
• From Israeli Air Force: Israel Shows Electronic Prowess Nov 26, 2007, David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall, Aviation Week & Space Technology
• From Northrop F-5: Peck, Michael (2017-05-21). "Is Vietnam Really Planning on Bringing Back 50-Year-Old American Fighter Planes?". The National Interest.
• From Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen: Borger, Julian (5 June 2015). "Saudi-led naval blockade leaves 20 m Yemenis facing humanitarian disaster". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 October 2015.
• From Indian Air Force: Malyasov, Dylan (19 October 2015). "India Will Buy 194 Virus SW 80/10 Microlight Aircraft from Slovenia". defence-blog.com. Archived from the original on 14 September 2016. Retrieved 7 August 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Indian MRCA competition: Irish, John; Pineau, Elizabeth (10 April 2015). "India orders 36 French-made Rafale fighter jets - PM Modi". Reuters. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
• From Minigun: Jarvis, John Paul. "Brought to You By GE: The M134 Minigun".
• From List of Pakistan Air Force squadrons: "Final Salute to F-6". Archived from the original on 2008-03-26. Retrieved 2008-02-08. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Republic of China Air Force: "F-16V Radar Integration Clears Way For Taiwan Upgrade". IHS Jane's Defence. Retrieved 2014-12-15.
• From DARPA: Warwick, Graham (May 22, 2009). "Darpa Plans Triple-Target Missile Demo". Aviation Week. Archived from the original on November 28, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Slovak Air Force: (www.aglo.sk), AGLO solutions. "Druhy techniky". www.plrb.mil.sk.
• From Indian rupee: "FXHistory: historical currency exchange rates". OANDA Corporation. Archived from the original (database) on 4 April 2006. Retrieved 1 September 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II: "Cold Stops".
• From Fighter aircraft: "Can U.S. air-to-air missiles hit their targets through today's enemy electronic warfare?", Military and Aerospace Electronics, April 12, 2016, http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2016/04/ew-missiles-challenge.html
• From South Korea: Korean Social Sciences Journal, 24 (1997). Korean Social Science Research Council. pp. 33–53
• From STS-107: KSC, Lynda Warnock. "NASA - STS-107". www.nasa.gov. Archived from the original on 10 May 2016. Retrieved 9 May 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Popeye (missile): Mizokami, Kyle (6 December 2017). "Israel Has a Submarine That Could Destroy Entire Nations (Armed with Nuclear Weapons)".
• From Speech recognition: Beigi, Homayoon (2011). Fundamentals of Speaker Recognition. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-77591-3. Archived from the original on 31 January 2018. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Tiger: Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, edited by C.T. Onions, entry panther
• From United States Air Force: "The Gates Case" (PDF). No. July 2008. Air Force Magazine. Air Force Magazine. July 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 November 2016. Retrieved 22 November 2016. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Dassault Rafale: "Egypt receives third batch of Rafale fighter jets from France". ahram.org.eg. 5 April 2017.
• From Israel Defense Forces: "Israel largest defence supplier to India: report". The Hindu. 16 February 2009. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
• From AIM-120 AMRAAM: "US coalition downs first Syria government jet." Retrieved 19 June 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

New Page for F-21?

The F-21 has been jointly developed by LM and Tata. Considering the 'Make in India' plan, the Joint Venture with Tata, compatibility with Russian missiles, special custom for IAF,

I think the F-21 needs a dedicated page. DoomDriven (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Far too early for that. It it wins the competition, then it will be warranted, as with the Mitsubishi F-2. Please note that in India, winning the competition doesn't guarantee further production, as with the Rafale, but there will be enough controversy related to such a win that a separate article will be needed to cover it all at that time. - BilCat (talk)

Upgrade programs (Turkey)

The given text seems contradictory: "Turkey holds the option to upgrade the remainder of its 100 Block 40s, which could extend the program.[69][72] As of 2019, all F-16s in TAF's inventory are upgraded to Block 50/52+ and being fitted with indigenous ASEA radars.[73]"

If there is remainder of Block 40s, then I don't see how all F-16s in TAF inventory can be upgraded to Block 50/52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:110E:8523:B8C9:205E:D093:D2B8 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Which section does South Korean KF-16U goes to?

KF-16U is a South Korean upgrade of KF-16C/D B-52 to F-16V standard with few changes compared to V variant. It does not have CFT and HMD (therefore, AIM-9x-2 also excluded). HMD feature will be upgraded later. Also F-16C/D B-32 (F-16PB, Peace Bridge) were upgraded to F-16PBU. Kadrun (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Block 20 was the official designation for new production, not MLU

There's a bunch of terminology going around on whether the Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) program jets are referred to as "Block 15 MLU" or "Block 20 MLU". On the side of the latter, there are websites like F-16.net and Aircraft Recognition Guide that use the "Block 20 MLU" terminology. On the side of the former, the archived Lockheed Martin magazine and the intelligence company Janes say that Block 20 was the designation only for new build aircraft (like those that went to the Republic of China / Taiwan), while MLU aircraft are separate and are referred to as "Block 15 MLU" (since that was their production Block before upgrading). The website Air Vectors suggests that the Block 20 designation was applied informally, which would explain the overlap with the Taiwanese Block 20 aircraft. Military-Today.com is another website that points out that the Block 20 designation is for new-build aircraft, with capabilities similar to that of the MLU.

Since a primary source (Lockheed Martin) and a respected defense source (Janes) both describe the MLU jets as Block 15, I propose moving the content of the current Block 20 MLU section to the F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLU section, and adding a note to the end that Block 20 was officially only used for new-production jets but that informal use may describe the MLU. I will carry out this change if there aren't any comments in a week. TROPtastic (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to add that DSCA also refers to the MLU as F-16 Block 15 MLU. Examples here, here and here. Alin2808 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those! I've added them as references along with the others. TROPtastic (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alin2808:@TROPtastic:

Me and another user are discussing the issue on Blk 20 and I would like to invite you guys to join the discussion in my talk page. Thanks🙏 Ghostingb (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I recognize that this conversation is well over a year old, but still it actually would be better for the two of us to shift our discussion here, so it's a single centralized place for everyone to talk. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester @Ghostingb thank you for mentioning me in this discussion and bringing it over to the talk page for this article. I read through the discussion on Ghostingb's talk page, and I'm a little confused about the agreement you came to (if any). Are new-build Block 20 aircraft for Taiwan/ROC referred to as "AM/BM" variants by respected 3rd party sources?

The agreement was basically indicating that sources are split on how they refer to it. Some, notably the Aircraft Recognition Guide source, use the terminology "F-16AM" (or BM) and the Block 15 (or Block 20) designations interchangeably. Other sources use them independently of each other. The sources seem to be in general agreement that the term is only relevant to new builds, but it seems that the new build aircraft are referred to by both sets of terms (AKA the "M" designation and the Block designation) while actual upgraded MLU units appear not to be; but again this doesn't appear perfectly consistent, hence the compromise language indicating both schema and letting readers do their research. FWIW Ghostingb made a good suggestion to drop the word "locally" from designated, which is probably a good edit and I just haven't gotten around to doing it. However, my biggest concern w/ the article wasn't actually the naming for the variant but the fact that the edits were leaving in a broken sentence fragment, which I was trying to get cleaned up. I am not going to lose sleep over how we describe the source split on the naming. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This would be news to me, but it has been some time since I dived deep into F-16 naming conventions. In my past research, I saw "AM/BM" designations only for the "Mid-life Upgrade", which makes sense (M for Mid-life). TROPtastic (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I dont think so actually. From my research all sources also clearly indicates AM/BM is only for MLU but clearly Swatjester dont think so. Ghostingb (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Fnlayson:May I also invite you to discuss this issue please🙏 Ghostingb (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Why are you tagging me in discussion here where I have not participated? And no thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Swatjester@Ghostingb So I did some digging around about the F-16AM/BM Block 15 MLU/Block 20s and found the following:

- On F-16.net, it says "The 150 F-16A/B Block 15OCU's for Taiwan are built to MLU standards and are designated Block 20. The Block 20 designation was reserved in the 1980's. It was later assigned to the Taiwanese aircraft and to the MLU program initiated to bring the European F-16s to an enhanced level" (), and further for Taiwan "The F-16s are F-16 block 15OCU's built to MLU specifications (but designated F-16 Block 20 however)" ()

- Both official websites of RIAT and the Kleine Brogel Air Base refer to the European MLUs (Dutch and Belgian in this case) as F-16AM/BM or F-16 MLU

- On the Armyrecognition page about the F-16A/B, it says that the F-16 Block 20 is a "further improved version of the F-16A/B" and "was produced for countries seeking to modernize their F-16 fleets". They also differentiate the Block 20 from the Block 15 MLU.

Looking at those sources, it seems to me that the Taiwanese F-16s use the designation F-16A/B Block 20, while the upgraded European F-16s (and possibly all other upgraded Block 15s as seen with Thailand on DSCA) use the designations F-16AM/BM, F-16 Block 15 MLU, or just F-16 MLU (F-16.net being wrong about their designation as Block 20). Alin2808 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

To make things more complicated, not only Block 15 aircraft got the Mid-Life Update. Belgium, Denmark and Norway also upgraded Block 1, 5 and 10 aircraft to MLU, while the Netherlands only upgraded aircraft starting from Block 10B onwards. I'm therefore suggesting that this section gets renamed to something more common like 'F-16AM/BM MLU'. LP98 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

MLU with tape M6.5 and M7.2 supports more weapons

According to https://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article2.html, starting with tape M6.5 and M7.2 supports also the AGM-158_JASSM and some more. I am not really an expert, so I did not do any improvements myself. Torsten Knodt (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

QF-16 move

Should the qf-16 be moved from proposed variants to another (not sure which one) as it's well known to exist, see the YouTube video Boeing just published Uglyjumpers (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Wait no I'm stupid Uglyjumpers (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

F-16 Block 80

Would it be appropriate to add the F-16 Block 80 to the proposed variants list? It was brought up to the CSAF in 2025 and has a decent bit of media coverage throughout the year, and the CSAF acknowledged the idea. Its not clear if the USAF is actually looking into it, but given the context, I think it would be fitting to have in the "Proposed" category. Omega LVIII (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, with the appropriate sourcing. Military Watch Magazine isn't a reliable source, and 19fortyfive is not great, but TWZ and National Security Journal are fine. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Inappropriate template in F-16I section

The

sidebar template has been added to the F-16I subsection. This page is a highly technical catalog of global aircraft hardware variants (avionics, engines, structural modifications). Placing a massive, specific geopolitical/strategic sidebar inside a single technical sub-heading completely breaks the article's layout and scope. It belongs on policy or strategic doctrine pages, not a hardware list. It should be removed or moved to 'See Also' at the bottom.

~2026-33664-34 (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. It's not a "massive" template -- it's a small sidebar appropriately placed on an article section that is linked from within the sidebar, on the relevant nuclear delivery system. It does not break anything about layout or scope -- this is being overdramatic to the point of absurdity. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Dismissing a basic layout cleanup as "overdramatic" doesn't change the fact that this template completely hijacks the article's scope.

Per WP:SIDEBAR, navigation templates belong on pages that form a cohesive, tightly linked series. The argument that the sidebar belongs here just because the F-16I is a delivery system is completely circular logic. You can't just hardcode a specific fighter jet variant into a geopolitical/nuclear template and then claim that template has a right to sit on a technical engineering page.

Look at what this sidebar actually links to: highly controversial, non-technical topics like Gaza genocide, and the Masada myth. Forcing a massive geopolitical box full of these topics onto a hardware section meant to document avionics, conformal fuel tanks, and engines violates WP:NPOV and completely breaks the scope of the article.

~2026-33794-81 (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, hyperbole will not make something that's untrue, true. A small, collapsed-by-default template that doesn't appear until halfway down the page and has direct relevance to the topic does not in any way "completely hijack the article's scope." Further, you're wildly misstating what WP:SIDEBAR says. It does not say any such thing about "navigation templates belong on pages that form a cohesive, tightly linked series." You are misunderstanding the recommendation that the links within a "good" navbar generally be "fairly tightly related" -- though they are not required to be. In this case, they are, but regardless even if they weren't the appropriate place to have that argument would be on the template itself, not on the pages that transclude it. What that same guideline *does* state, however, at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is that Every article that transcludes a given navigation template should normally also be included as a link in the template, and every navigation template that includes a link to a given article should normally also be transcluded onto that article, so that navigation is bidirectional. So our guidelines are very explicitly clear on this point. Beyond that, we do not censor content simply because it's geopolitically controversial. Please see what Wikipedia is not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Appending a specialized hardware variant (F-16I Sufa) to a geopolitical template does not automatically grant that template a permanent right of way over the layout of a technical aviation catalog.

Invoking WP:BIDIRECTIONAL to defend this is entirely backward and circular. The bidirectional guideline exists to maintain navigation consistency for already-established, relevant topics it is not a loophole that allows an editor to hardcode an out-of-scope link into a template and then claim the template is legally mandated to sit on the target page. By this logic, any user could insert a fighter jet variant into a template about global economics or cultural history and claim the aviation article is structurally required to host it.

The core issue remains article scope and layout. A template linking structural sociological and geopolitical concepts like Masada myth has no objective structural business inside an engineering subsection detailing avionics upgrades and engine specifications. Demanding that the discussion move to the template talk page ignores the fact that the disruption is happening here, on this page's layout, by forcing non-technical, charged content into a technical catalog.

This isn't a request for "censorship" the linked articles have every right to exist. It is a request for basic layout neutrality and adherence to article scope.

~2026-33794-81 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody has appended a specialized hardware variant to the template. That link has existed in the template since the template was created, and the template has been in the article for months without complaint. Your reading of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is mistaken and has no basis in policy, nor is your "by this logic" example relevant to what happened here, because this is not a template about global economics or cultural history. What you're simply trying to avoid is that the core of your argument is "I don't want to see controversial links about Israel in this article". I'll also note that Gaza genocide, Masada myth and similar topics -- including arguably this one, are covered by the WP:CT/A-I contentious topic -- as a non-extended confirmed editor, you aren't even authorized to be talking about that subject unless it's to make a constructive, properly formed edit request. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Claiming that an unregistered or non-extended-confirmed editor is "not authorized" to participate in a civil, policy-based Talk page discussion is a blatant misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. Extended confirmed protection limits direct article edits; it does not block editors from using the Talk page to point out layout issues or raise policy concerns.

the longevity of an out of scope link inside a template does not grant it immunity from cleanup under WP:SIDEBAR. The fact that it has been there for roughly 2 months does not override the fundamental requirement that navigation templates must remain contextually relevant to the specific article scope hosting them.

Attributing personal, non-neutral motives to a structural argument about layout consistency is a strawman. The core of the argument remains unchanged despite the deflection: a technical hardware catalog detailing avionics and engine specs is an incorrect host for sociological and geopolitical navigation boxes.

If the template cannot be defended on its structural merits under WP:SIDEBAR without relying on a circular interpretation of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL or attempting to gatekeep Talk page access, then the layout choice is indefensible.

~2026-33794-81 (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You need to stop misrepresenting what policy says. The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed. You may, as a non-XCR editor: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. But this is not a properly formatted edit request, nor is it non-disruptive. ARBECR is quite explicit that you are not authorized to participate in a substantive discussion on this topic. Period. Doesn't matter if it's about layout issues, policy concerns, or the weather -- if it falls under the topic area (which it does, as you've admitted that the crux of your opposition is the fact that the template links to articles that are ECP under the topic area) and one of the narrow exceptions doesn't apply (which it doesn't here), the Arbitration Committee has decided on behalf of the community that you're not welcome to participate in that discussion. That's the second time you've blatantly misrepresented a cut-and-dry policy here. Don't let there be a third, and if you continue to violate ARBECR, you're going to be sanctioned for it. Further, I'm increasingly concerned that this is an LLM-written response in violation of WP:AITALK. Please disclose whether you are editing -- including on this talk page -- with the assistance of LLMs. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 12:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)