It used to cite or transclude it though; the F-117 entry was where I learned about it from.

I mean.. OK? It honestly doesn't sound like a fitting content for article [[F-117]] to me. A link when talking about its missile capacity? Sure. But other than that it should go to its own article.

Why? It seems appropriate content. The F-117 is, by construction and design, a machine for killing people. It is natural to showcase its most "successful" mission.

Because it already has a standalone article?

Of course, but this notorious bombing must be mentioned as well, with a link to its main article.

Just like the article on the B-29 superfortress [0] mentions and links to the article about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki [1].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima...

Not to say that the shelter bombing isn't a tragedy, but it's nowhere near the scale.

> killed at least 408 civilians

vs

> The two bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people

Maybe it's a sad state of affairs that 400 civilian deaths isn't that remarkable, but this is the world we live in. More than that died in the Mariupol theatre airstrike, but we don't need to link that from every airplane and munition article.

Sorry. I wish this shit was less common too.

The a-bombing on Japan was a much impactful/influential event, and more importantly, for whatever reason, it was heavily associated with B-29 (probably THE reason why B-29 was famous in average people to begin with).

This is what makes the bombing event essential for B-29's article.

The Amiriyah bombing doesn't really have such connotation with the plane.

If only Wikipedia had usable revision tools instead of their atrocious CVS clone.

It's the editors that are the problem, not the software.

No, the software's a problem in this case too.

It's linked from the GBU-27 bomb article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-27_Paveway_III