Talk:Air Force One

Inconsistency

The article says in section "Boeing 707s and entry to jet age":

"Toward the end of Eisenhower's second term, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles commented that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and other senior Soviet officials had begun using the technologically advanced Tupolev Tu-114 aircraft for their travels, and it was no longer dignified for the president to fly in a propeller-driven aircraft."

In this form the argument makes no sense because the Tu-114 is a propeller plane (and this was also the case for the one Khrushchev used). 83.93.38.219 (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Mark Tillman Notability

Opening this for discussion, I think Mark Tillman clearly meets standards for notability for his own page due to role on 9/11 and long time service as Air Force one pilot. Does anyone have a strong opinion as to why he shouldn’t have his own page? Nathanproton (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

unique modifications for Air Force One

detailed description of Air Force One's unique modifications in all the versions that have carried the Air Force One designation Ronasaurus! (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Date format

@Fnlayson: I would think it would be day-month-year military format. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I was going by the rest of the section I was editing ("Boeing 747-8 from the royal family of Qatar") then. The article has a "Use dmy dates" tag at the top. So a bot should fix them or editors can if the bot does not. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I ran a script, all dates are fixed :) - FlightTime (open channel) 20:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Image caption detail

Pinging @Snake bgd since we're apparently edit warring instead of applying BRD...

I fail to see the need for such excessive detail inside an image caption. That sort of detail has a place in the article text by all means - but that's just bloating what should be a caption describing the image. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Infobox image

The amount of edit warring about the infobox image is just getting ridiculous. Can you all please sit down and discuss what the infobox image should be and stop warring?

@Houtyuhn @Quaerens-veritatem Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with@Danners430:'s edit here. Since Air Force One is a designated call sign, not an aircraft, since the present president uses the VC-25B with that call sign, and since the VC-25B has lately received more coverage than the legacy aircraft, as a matter of WP:DUE should it not be buried later in the article, but in the forefront? Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430:, @Quaerens-veritatem: Thank you for pointing out the need to resolve this on the Talk page.

To address the point regarding WP:DUE: while the VC-25B Bridge is indeed the aircraft currently in active service, the Air Force One page is a general historical and conceptual article covering decades of presidential airlift. The legacy VC-25A carries over three decades of global visual recognition and cultural weight, making it the most encyclopedic choice for the definitive lead image.

To properly balance both historical weight and current real-world service status under WP:DUE, I propose a clear compromise: **displaying both aircraft in a stacked infobox format, with the classic VC-25A placed at the top (as the primary image) and the current VC-25B Bridge stacked directly underneath.**

Furthermore, using a different, distinct photograph for the VC-25B Bridge in this lower position successfully resolves the visual duplication with its dedicated sub-article, Boeing VC-25B Bridge. Let's move forward with this collaborative structure to improve the page layout for our readers.Houtyuhn (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The infobox should contain a single image, showing the subject of the article. It's questionable whether the correct infobox has been used here, but it may well be. In my personal opinion, it should be the current Air Force One, and images of previous aircraft belong in the body of the article. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430: Respectfully, the standard practice across Wikipedia strongly supports using multiple stacked images or collages in an infobox for general historical or multi-generational articles (see pages like M1 Abrams or various naval ship articles with multiple generations).

As Danners430 noted, "Air Force One" is a designated call sign and a historical concept, not a single physical airframe. Treating this article as if it were a page for a single, active aircraft—and burying 30+ years of global iconic history in the body text—does not align with the broad scope of this page.

The compromise proposal (VC-25A on top, VC-25B underneath) ensures that the current active aircraft is prominently featured at the very forefront to satisfy WP:DUE, while simultaneously respecting the callsign's immense historical weight and resolving the 1:1 image duplication with the Boeing VC-25B Bridge sub-article. Sticking rigidly to a single-image limit harms the visual representation of a multi-generational topic. Houtyuhn (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

That's great - I don't have to agree with the compromise. As far as I'm concerned, an infobox should contain a single image of the subject, and this discussion should agree on which it should be. My opinion is the current aircraft. As with any discussion, let's see what others think. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:54, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Since we now have two distinct viewpoints regarding the Air Force One lead image—either keeping it strictly as a single image featuring the currently active aircraft, or implementing a stacked infobox compromise (VC-25A on top, VC-25B underneath) to represent both eras under WP:DUE—I welcome further input from other members of the community to see which layout best serves the article.Houtyuhn (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)