Talk:Curtiss YP-37

Requested move 8 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. A similar discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Status prefixes (and mission modifiers) in US military aircraft titles. ZLEA _T\^C 01:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• Curtiss YP-37 → Curtiss P-37
• Bell YFM-1 Airacuda → Bell FM-1 Airacuda

– This article, which had recently been moved from Curtiss P-37, encompasses both variants of the P-37; the XP-37 and YP-37. Therefore, the title should be reverted to the more broad designation of "P-37", without any "X/Y" mission modifiers. The given reason for the move was "standard to title US military aircraft.articles by last designation used". I don't believe this is a valid reason given that the type was never redesignated; the YP-37 was an improved variant of the XP-37, but was still a "P-37". Likewise, the original XP-37 retained its designation after the YP-37s were built, meaning that both designations were used concurrently. ZLEA _T\^C 18:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I added Bell YFM-1 Airacuda to this move request since it suffers from the same problem. The XFM-1 is not a variant of the YFM-1, but both are variants of the more broad "FM-1". ZLEA _T\^C 04:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Wouldn't P-37 imply a production aircraft? Srnec (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Srnec Not necessarily. The "P-37" designation is the most broad version of the designation that can be used to denote the type. The "X" and "Y" letters are status prefixes, a form of mission modifier denoting their status as "experimental" and "service test" aircraft, respectively. Most articles on non-production US military aircraft have "X" in the title because they only existed in prototype form, but the P-37 is a special case in that it progressed to pre-production before ultimately being canceled. Another aircraft that progressed to the pre-production phase before being canceled was the Curtiss P-60. The basic "P-37" designation does not imply production, only that the type was the 37th pursuit type so-designated by the USAAF. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Referring to an American military aircraft by its last assigned designation with a status modifier such as X or Y is fairly standard in aviation literature, going back long before I was born. We've followed that custom on Wikipedia for a long time also, though there may be some exceptions as newer editors have come along. I'll look in my books for further cites, but I'll note that a source on the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda page follows the same custom, so it's certainly not unique to me. ZLEA, I apologize if I stepped on your toes by moving an article you'd created without discussing if first, but I didn't think it necessary at the time. BilCat (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  @BilCat: You moved Curtiss P-60 back in 2009 to its current title. I assume you think it should be moved back now? Srnec (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, because the P-60A was ordered into production, though it later canceled. BilCat (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per BilCat. By convention, the last status designation built is the one named. The Y designation is relatively rare as such, but it does occur. First couple of RS sampled on my own bookshelf: Jones, US Bombers, Aero Publishers, 1974. Green & Swanborough, The Complete Book of Fighters, Salamander, 1994. For what it's worth, unbuilt types cancelled before even cutting metal still get the X designation (e.g. Republic XF-103). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have Mondey, The Hamlyn Concise Guide to American Aircraft of World War Ii, 1982. It lists the "Curtiss YP-37" and "Curtiss-Wright P-60". The Bell YFM-1 Airacuda isn't listed, as it predates WWII. I have a Gunston book on American military aircraft, printed in the mid-80s, but I'll have to dig it out. BilCat (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Gunston, American Warplanes, 1986, does list "Bell YFM-1 Airacuda" as the title of its entry on the aircraft, but has no separate entry on the YP-37. So this isn't a convention we made up for Wikipedia. As to whether we should follow it or not, that's an editorial decision. To this point, there's. no consensus here to change it. BilCat (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - In many cases we have articles on aircraft that also encompass the prototype but don't go out of our way to acknowledge the name of the prototype in the article title. Nor should we imply in an article name something that isn't correct - there was no aircraft built that was a P-37, there was one XP-37 and a dozen or so YP-37s. Quantity has a quality of itself - didn't someone say that? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying there were no P-37s built is like saying there were no F-16s built because there was no plain F-16 (all variants either had a mission modifier/status prefix or a suffix letter). Mission modifiers and status prefixes do not denote distinct types, but rather variants. P-37 is the most basic form of the designation which encompasses all variants, while YP-37 only denotes a single variant. In other words, the XP-37 was not a YP-37, the YP-37s were not XP-37s, but both the XP-37 and YP-37s were P-37s. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the USAAC/USAAF system did use the bare designations, with "A" signifying the second variant. See North American P-51 Mustang variants#P-51/Mustang Mk IA (NA-91) for one example. Thankfully, the USAF changed this in its 1948 designation system, and that continues with the 1962 system. Perhaps we do need a discussion on with how to handle status designations, and whether or not to use Xs or Ys in articles titles at all, excepting variant articles like the Lockheed YF-22 and Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. But that should probably occur at WT:AIR, as it's a major editorial decision. BilCat (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

BilCat That's a good idea. You make an interesting point, but the designation "P-51" can refer to either the variant or the type, depending on the context (as confusing as it is, it is accurate to say that the P-51 is a variant of the P-51). Same goes for "P-37", which can refer to either a hypothetical production variant or the type as a whole. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.