Talk:Consolidated P2Y

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States Start‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

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

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Confusing article

To say this article is confusing is quite an understatement. Much of the section covers the XPY-1 and the Martin variants, but we don't even have the Martins listed in the Variants section.

The Consolidated Commodore article also covers the XPY in some detail, so that's even more confusing. I'd like to split off the XPY Admiral to its own article, but in the article's current state, I wouldn't know where to start. BilCat (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this one is just a bit of a mess, and I have the same issue... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'm not sure what should go in the XPY article, and what should stay here as the P2Y. I don't think I have any print sources that cover these types. BilCat (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did find three print sources that covered the P2Y, and one (Janes 1989) that covered the Martin P3M, the production version of the XPY. So now I don't know if we should have one split article, or two! BilCat (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering one article about the production version at Martin P3M, which would also cover the XPY. BilCat (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense to me. I'd say one for XPY/P3M, one for P2Y. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]