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 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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
I feel that references (directly) to the name Spruce Goose should be replaced with Hercules.
The moniker was derogatory reference, and IMO should not be perpetuated.
-- HobbesPDX22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the name should be replaced. "Spruce Goose" is the name that has stuck, and that people who are not knowledgable about aviation history recognize. I think an explanation of the origin of the term is worthwhile; but I believe it should be included along with the official name. Is my recent edit acceptable to you? -Pete01:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, just a reminder that this argument has been thriving amongst us "plane geeks" for decades. Even Mr. Hughes did not like the moniker and yet this was the first name I learned of the bird as a small child seeing it in Southern California. Please check out Talk:Hughes_H-4_Hercules for other discussions about this topic. It might be best to discuss it there instead of the museum site. Either way, "a rose by any other name is still a rose." In this case it's just a giant wooden one... Blue Skies --Trashbag04:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that the aircraft & spacecraft collection should be represented, but not smaller artifacts such as support equipment, uniforms, spacesuits, etc.; just the major pieces that the public would be likely to come and see. Thoughts and comments? Swbailey97128 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment by Swbailey97128 I can agree with in part. I would suggest that the important artifacts be included only. The item that caused me to do the original trimming to this article was the inclusion in the list of a Sputnik (replica). That type of thing likely does not need to be included in the list (in my opinion). RP459 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the statement by RP459 about the inclusion of minor things like satellite replicas. I would not necessarily rule out all replicas, since replicas of the Bleriot XI, the Curtiss Headless Pusher, and other such aircraft that may no longer exist, are still important to the story of aviation and would be of interest to researchers and potential visitors to the museum. Swbailey97128 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I would suggest attempting WP:BRD or WP:BOLD, I think you and I are on the same page, and no one else is chiming in with their $0.02 so I would go ahead. RP459 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might it be best to break up the aircraft listed into groups, such as Early aircraft, WWII aircraft and Jet age aircraft to help people find what they may be interested in seeing? Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes that one is reading the article to find something. Most people likely read the article to get an idea of what the museum is about, its history, etc. I think it would be far more valuable to add a section which deals with the broad view of the museum's holdings—a short paragraph or two. Key holdings should be made more accessible by giving a brief description so one can better judge if they want to follow the link. Maybe something along the lines of Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, fighter and ground attack used from 1956 to present(?) with a single jet engine and delta wing. —EncMstr (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As it stands it is a list, which though informative, does not read well. The museum is a broad collection of aircraft through the history of flight, with emphasis on the contemporary aircraft of the Spruce Goose (WWII aircraft), along with jet aircraft, rockets and space craft, and of course helicopters, all brought together through Delford Smith's broad contacts throughout the world. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
