How do we define a "project"?

Post about B-1 upgrades deleted due to AG admonishment have taken myself to the "woodshed".

Abraham Gubler said:

This forum is for information related to unrealised projects not new developments and future plans.

Click to expand...

Wait, what? "Future plans" would seem to fall quite squarely into the "unrealized projects" description.

Orionblamblam said:

Abraham Gubler said:

This forum is for information related to unrealised projects not new developments and future plans.

Click to expand...

Wait, what? "Future plans" would seem to fall quite squarely into the "unrealized projects" description.

Click to expand...

...Agreed. However, would a *real* moderator take a moment to clarify matters?

Strictly speaking, I would say something which may actually yet be built is probably best put in "Aerospace".

Abraham Gubler said:

PS. The rule is pretty straight forward:

The primary purpose of the "Secret Projects" sections of this forum is to document real, but unbuilt, projects. Prototypes that didn't enter series production may also be appropriate at the descretion of the moderators. Aircraft built in series production should generally be discussed in the "Aerospace" section, warships, tanks and other military vehicles in the Military section.

Click to expand...

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7428.0.html

Click to expand...

... which would make discussion of, say, the F-15SE (the proposed stealthified F-15) *perfectly* appropriate for the "Post War Aircraft projects" subforum. Because no proposed aircraft, no matter how hard the developers are working on it, how big the budget is, and how safe the project is politicially, has, by definition, been put into series production. Such designs are the very definition of "real, but unbuilt, projects." They just haven't been built *yet.*And no matter how big the budget or how safe the politics... it could come about that they never *will* get built.

Abraham Gubler said:

During the process of these sub forums being established it has been made clear by the forum establishment that these ‘original’ forums are to remain for the detailing of the ‘secret’ projects that never entered production. Notice the use of the word “never” again another clue of the historical nature of this forum.

Click to expand...

Note also the word "secret." Are we to thus assume that the only topics to be discussed are, in fact, those topics that were in fact "secret?" That would *exclude* concepts like the F-15SE from *ever* being discussed, since all the information that has so far come out on it has been declassified. Additionally, civilian projects like jetliners would be pretty much all excluded, since while some might be proprietary, almost none are actually "secret."

To me, it seems appropriate to discuss *current* projects in the post war forum... and to then move them *out* of that forum (into, say, the catch-all "aerospace") if the project ever comes to be... and if the information & graphics presented in that thread do not provide any insight into unbuilt variants or developmental steps.

A perhaps more rational approach would be to have a "Current Projects" forum, distinct from "post war" and "aerospace." Then, when the current project inevitably gets cancelled as a budget-cutting process, it can get moved into "post war."

...Guys, there's a little too much anal-retention - from one source in particular - going on here. Howabout backing off a bit, because it's threatening to reduce the overall enjoyment factor the SP forums have been renown for.

.

Thanks Overscan for removing this anal expression fest out of the B-1 thread.

OM said:

...Guys, there's a little too much anal-retention - from one source in particular - going on here. How about backing off a bit, because it's threatening to reduce the overall enjoyment factor the SP forums have been renown for.

Click to expand...

*I* thought it was enjoyable and interesting in a Jerry Springer kind of way, but certainly off-topic for a B-1 thread.