Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and Category:Raiffeisen Zentralbank: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Battle of Britain: Aftermath; can anyone make sense of this?: New section - Bot unlinking avyear template
 
m Quick-adding category "Categories named after companies" (using HotCat)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Catmore|Raiffeisen Zentralbank}}
{{shortcut|WT:AIR|WT:Air}}
{{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive header}}
<div style=";font-size:.9em;background:#f8f8f8; margin:0 !important;">'''Lists:''' [ [[List of aircraft|Aircraft]] | [[List of aircraft manufacturers|Manufacturers]] | [[List of aircraft engines|Engines]] | [[List of aircraft engine manufacturers (alphabetical)|Manufacturers]] | [[:Category:Airports|Airports]] | [[List of airlines|Airlines]] | [[List of air forces|Air forces]] | [[List of aircraft weapons|Weapons]] | [[List of missiles|Missiles]] | [[Timeline of aviation|Timeline]] ]</div>
----
{{todo|small=yes|float=right|w=60%}}
__TOC__
----
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 22
|algo = old(21d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive %(counter)d
}}


Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG, or RZB Austria, is a central cooperative bank based in Austria.
== Company merge proposals ==


[[Category:Banks of Austria]]
An editor has propsed merging several companies at [[Talk:Aérospatiale#Merger proposal]]. At issue are a set of draft guidelines from [[Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information]] which recommend covering all of a companies predecessors on the same page, under the latest name. Thanks. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:Cooperative banking]]

[[Category:Cooperatives in Austria]]
== Naming conventions - US military aircraft ==
[[Category:Categories named after companies]]

During the various discussions about the "survivors series", the issue of how we name articles about US military aircraft has come up a couple of times.

A little bit of background:

Some of the major driving forces behind Wikipedia's naming conventions have been: to ensure that duplicate articles didn't get created, and to maximise the chance that a new article will already be linked to by former redlinks scattered throughout the rest of the project.

"Designation-name" was adopted back in 2003 as a convention for naming these articles because it was felt (correctly, I think), that people writing articles on, say, World War II topics would be more likely to make a link to "P-51 Mustang" than a link to "North American P-51".

Five years on:

Things are a little different in 2008; the vast bulk of US military aircraft now have articles - really only the truly obscure are left to cover. There are also 5 years' worth of redirects in place, reducing the chance of duplicates being accidentally created.

What we're left with, then, is a situation where a small but extremely signficiant subset of our articles are named at odds with how the overwheming bulk of our aircraft coverage is named, and how entries on these types in aviation publishing are usually titled (for whatever that's worth).

''If'' we were to change the convention, the real work wouldn't be in the page moves - they're fast and easy - but with adjusting the dozens of templates we've been laboriously implementing this year. Of course, that wouldn't have to happen overnight, but it would still be a big job. There ''may'' be a bot out there that could do it - I haven't looked into this.

So: could we have a quick show of hands on the following? --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 23:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Assumptions:'''
In the following, it's assumed that
# "name" continues to only be official names; thus "Fighting Falcon", not "Viper", no "Aardvark"
# article names continue to reflect the most common name for the family and don't attempt to capture every different designation applied to this aircraft and its variants (eg, P-51 Mustang, not P-51/F-51/A-36/F-6 Mustang/Invader/Apache, F4U Corsair, not F4U/FG/F2G/AU Corsair/Super Corsair; B-29 Superfortress, not B-29/P2B/F-13 Superfortress/Washington)

===Leave things as they are===
'''Designation-name''', except when no name, then '''Manufacturer-designation'''<br>
Eg: P-51 Mustang, F4U Corsair

* I would leave things as they are. With proper redirect pages anything remotely close to the aircraft's name will get readers to the aircraft article, so let's save all the potential labour and work on making the articles better instead. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
* Concur. Except that since we're discussing a US topic, it would save "labor". ;) - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
* A lot of work for little or nothing to gain it seems. Also, there would be discussions/arguments over which manufacturer to use where mergers and acquisitions are involved. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
* I don't see a problem (although I did to start with!) [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
*Better to leave things as they are; wholesale changes would just make things confusing to readers, especially those who might not know the manufacturer but know the name or designation.[[User:Minorhistorian|Minorhistorian]] ([[User talk:Minorhistorian|talk]]) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
* This is my preference only by a slight edge over mfr-designation-name, mainly because of the Wikipedia convention that articles should generally use the most common usage of a name. '''[[User:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">AK<font style="color:#006400;">Radecki</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh</font>]]</sup> 04:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
**Parenthetical question for Rlandmann...in your "assumptions" section above, you said "no Aardvark"...and that leads me to a question...what are we going to use to judge whether a name is official? I'm asking because DoD 4120-15L lists "Aardvark" as the official name for the F-111, but the article's name doesn't use it (it's not even in the lead paragraph, although it's the title of the infobox...I don't care which way we go, but we should a) have some consistency and b) agree on what determines a name to be official). '''[[User:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">AK<font style="color:#006400;">Radecki</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:Akradecki|<font style="color:#62BB32;">Speaketh</font>]]</sup> 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
*** The F-111 was nicknamed Aardvark until the US Air Force retired it in 1996 and made the name official. That's a rare case for US official names. See [http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2322 F-111D/F Aardvark] -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 04:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
*** Yet we have [[SR-71 Blackbird]], where "Blackbird", to my knowledge, was never official. I have no problem with "Blackbird" being in the article title, but to exclude "Aardvark" seems inconsistant. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 05:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
**Sorry guys - Aardvark was evidently a poor choice of example on my part; the nickname was indeed made official at the type's retirement. I included the comment as an assumption because, well, I assumed that's what we were doing! I'm sure I've seen chat about this over the years, but can't point to any right off the top of my head. But yes, I agree with the comments above that we should be consistent, and have some point of reference to judge the "official" status of a name. DoD 4120-15L would seem to be a sensible choice for contemporary types. The Naval Historical Center has a document [http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/APP05.PDF here] for past types - I couldn't find anything comparable for the Army/Air Force. As for the Blackbird, if that name's not actually official (and indeed, it's not in DoD 4120-15L), then notwithstanding anything else that we collectively come up with, I think this would be a clear case of being trumped by "common sense" - the usage is pretty widespread ;) (FWIW, the NASM [http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:qKaE0-KsdIcJ:collections.nasm.si.edu/code/emuseum.asp%3Fstyle%3Dsingle%26currentrecord%3D1%26page%3Dsearch%26profile%3Dobjects%26searchdesc%3DA19920072000%26quicksearch%3DA19920072000%26newvalues%3D1%26newstyle%3Dexpanded%26newcurrentrecord%3D1+%22sr-71%22+%22official+name%22+blackbird&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au says the name was official]) But are we in agreement that "Fighting Falcon" is better in an article name than "Viper", and "Thunderbolt II" over "(Wart)hog"? --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 06:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
*I'd argue to leave things as they are - I say this entirely for ease of use. On the occasions when I've had to make a link to an aircraft article, I've found the American ones simple to link to, whilst the RAF designations have usually involved a bit of ferreting around to find the right name. Lots of redirects are good, though! [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 08:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

===Change to manufacturer-designation===
(except for (rare, early) cases when no designation, then '''Manufacturer-name''')<br>
Eg: North American P-51, Chance-Vought F4U

*Just to play devils advocate her, but this form would standardize manufacturers of both civil and military aircraft, such as [[Douglas Aircraft Company|Douglas]] ([[C-47 Skytrain]] = military version of [[Douglas DC-3]]) - [[User:Trevor MacInnis|Trevor]] [[User talk:Trevor MacInnis|MacInnis]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Trevor MacInnis|Contribs]])</small> 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
*

===Change to manufacturer-name===
The "RAF solution" :) <br>
(except when no name, then '''Manufacturer-designation")<br>
Eg: North American Mustang, Chance-Vought Corsair

*
*

===Change to manufacturer-designation-name===
(leaving out whatever elements don't apply or are sufficiently ambiguous)<br>
Eg: North American P-51 Mustang, Chance-Vought F4U Corsair

* The current situation is anomalous and the reasoning behind it is no longer applicable. This is what most reference works do, I think. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 23:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
* This would be my preferred solution as it follows standard reference usage. I can continue to (unenthusiastically) live with leaving it as is, though. [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]]</small> 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

===Something else?===

*
*

== Armstrong Siddeley Nimbus ==

Eee! Found an engine with my name! Would appreciate a bit of help with this article please. My fairly good reference book has no mention of this piston engine, it does mention that the [[ADC Aircraft]] [[ADC Nimbus]] was a redesign of the [[Siddeley Puma]] (which I think this is probably referring to) and I am fairly sure that it is not supposed to be the [[Bristol Siddeley Nimbus]] turboshaft. Any thoughts? Cheers [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:The only google hits on Armstrong Siddeley Nimbus are to the wikipedia article our mirrors so I suspect this is really the ADC Nimbus. Doesnt clear up your question but I did find this on the ADC Nimbus [http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1926/1926%20-%200142.html]. The Bristol Siddeley Nimbus turboshaft was originally a Blackburn design so I dont think it is connected. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 18:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, I think this is relating to the [[ADC Nimbus]] and [[Siddeley Puma]]. Does not fit with the 'big cat' series which is apparent in the navbox. There is not much to merge, AfD? [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 18:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I would have thought a [[WP:PROD]] would work. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 18:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Will give it a go, have not done that before, seems a reasonable course of action. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 18:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::Now prodded. Just to add to the fun there are two more AS engines that could be covered, the [[Armstrong Siddeley Hyena]] and the [[Armstrong Siddeley Deerhound]] which appears to be a dog, not a cat! Doh! [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 19:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::And there's the [[Armstrong Siddeley Boarhound]], another unfeline three-row radial, although unlike the other two it appears never to have flown.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Maybe they ran out of cats! Mentioned in the index of Alec Lumsden's book and mispelt as 'Boardhound' but there is nothing in the text, he does only cover the engines that flew though. It's an educational journey anyway. Cheers [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 19:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Deleted under CSD 8, have unlinked the section title incase you get red eyes like mine!! It's hard work plodding through these engine articles but I hope I am improving the quality. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 01:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Kaset Green Hawk]] ==

Here is a new article that could really use some serious work, if anyone has the time to have a look at it! I have my doubts about the photos included as they are all stamped for ownership on the photos themselves. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 12:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

:I have had an editorial run though this article, but it could really use a second and third look. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 13:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sud-Est/Sud-Ouest ==

A user has proposed moveing the articles on two aircraft manufacturers, [[Sud-Est]] and [[Sud-Ouest]], to other titles, and converting the existing pages to DABs. Input from the WP:AIR community would be helpful. There are two separate but similar discussions at [[Talk:Sud-Est]] and [[Talk:Sud-Ouest]]. Note: the user has placed ''five to sixx'' DAB links on each article. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 21:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
:I think Bill Gunston calls them SNCASE and SNCASO, we have [[SNECMA]] which is a familiar term to us hopefully, and the Belgians had [[SABCA]] so the French speakers seem to have a convention going back many years. I disagree with the other proposal of merging these companies and others into [[Aerospatiale]], many of us are deliberately creating or expanding articles on the smaller (but very notable) companies that were eventually merged with larger US/British companies. Seems just to be a naming problem, the DAB tags look silly, I would guess he is trying to make a point. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 22:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah, I checked Gunston's book on aircraft manf's beforehand, and thst's what it said. I think the Acronym is better than spelling out the whole name, which is what the French and German WPs do. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 05:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== Mark Daniels (Defense Consultant) ==

A user has added an article on [[Mark Daniels (Defense Consultant)]]. Originally, it had no sources, but there is now a vague link to F16.net. Tho that is primarily a forum site, it does have other content, but without a direct link there's no way to know where the info came from. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 05:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with the CSD tag on it! - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 10:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

::I'm afraid that I just knocked back the speedy deletion request. While I very much doubt that this person is notable, the article does make some claims of notability so it needs to go to AfD or be [[WP:Prod|prodded]]. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 10:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:::I've just added the Prod template. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

== P-47 Thunderbolt survivors ==

Please note that [[P-47 Thunderbolt survivors]] has been nominated for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-47 Thunderbolt survivors]]. [[User:MilborneOne|MilborneOne]] ([[User talk:MilborneOne|talk]]) 18:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

:I don't think this can be considered a good-faith nomination, as Dave is deleting this because he still thinks it's ''his'' article, it spite of being to to the contrary on many occasions. Also, it's not even been a month yet since the last AFD. Seems to be another disruption to make a point. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 19:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

== Engine navbox? ==

Trawling through the engine articles I can see a common system for later US military engines, like J79 (for turboJet) etc. It would be nice to start a navbox but I have no references apart from the articles here. Any thoughts/help? Cheers [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 01:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

: Just a comment. If you are grouping engines by manufacturer, their web site might be enough for this. Although some companies may just list their current engines, which won't help you. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 01:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks Jeff, I just found [http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/engines.html this], no idea how accurate it is but it's something to look at tomorrow. I was thinking of a navbox for the US military designations but we do still have some major engine manufacturer navboxes missing (P&W, GE, Allison etc). I think the navboxes are great and probably a more useful tool to editors than the reader. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 01:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I was just about to suggest that site, Nimbus! Andreas is very good, and he usually uses DOD PD documents as his main source, but he cites other works on that page too. The page lines up with everything I've ever read on the subject of US DOD engine designations. I will look around and see if I can find a published work to reference the definitions form, just in case the wonks won't accept this site as a reliable source. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::::(Edit conflict) Thanks Bill, as it is just for a navbox refs should not be a problem, I saw his list of sources and it looks pretty good to me. Seems to be an awful lot of numbers to put together! What to call it? US military aircraft engine designations? Do you ever wish that you never started something!! [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::* "US military aero engines" Aero engine may not apply to piston engines though. ?? -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 01:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thought aero engine was a British term! :-) I was only going to do the jets and turbines to start with. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 02:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::*I see Andreas uses 'aero engine' so can go with that. I have made a start in a sandbox [[User:Nimbus227/Sandbox/Navboxes|here]] if any of you guys would like to chip in. Many of the entries have auto-completed to DAB pages and articles on tanks, trains and all sorts of other wonderful things, needs a thorough sorting before moving it to mainspace. I've stuck with turbines at the moment, it could have piston and rocket engines added later or they might be better with their own navboxes. Also need to go back over it to pull out redlinked numbers that did not exist. Great fun, cheers. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 12:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The template is starting to look pretty good. As soon as we think we have all the WP articles linked to (the licencees are the tough ones to track down sometimes), I say go live with it. I noticed the title is now about gas turbines, and I think that's the way to go. THe piston engines will be pretty big, and I have a hunch the radials may need their own template too, be we'll see when we get there. Once this template's live, we'll have to add it to the engine articles, and then we'll start to see input from other editors. It's amazing to see how many editors start to chip in, and then the redlinked articles start to get written. Perhaps WP:AIR should focus on getting more templates done, as that seems to be a key factor in getting more articles written! - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 23:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Roger! Yep, it's nearly there, have weeded out most of the tanks and trains now. We can get things done pretty quick sometimes. Piston engines is one for a rainy day! [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 23:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::<s>Since the designation system doesn't distinguish between turbines for different applications, I wonder whether the </s> - Ooops! fragment of another idea that I thought better of - didn't notice it was still in my edit screen when I added material below. Sorry! --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::*Who? What? Not sure what the exat question is here, but the US DOD uses the same designation for some engines in both turboprop and turboshaft applications, IIRC. Is that the question? - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Just picking up on BillCJ's comment above re: redlinks in templates - Trevor's already got such a list [[User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Missing articles|here]]. Careful! Slow to load! --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 00:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::And on the subject of the excellent navbox - the aircraft templates retain the X- or Y- prefixes for designs that never got past that stage (reflecting the article names). Should the same apply on this engine template? --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I think it should, esp if we do it on the other templates, but no need to do it all at once either. I'll work on some later this week if we decide to ad the Xs or Ys. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::(Edit conflict x 2) Has now gone live, at {{tl|USAF gas turbine engines}}. Possibly not the best title for it but it fits with the naming convention of the other templates in 'Category:United States Air Force aircraft designations navigational boxes'. I just spotted that there is a tri-service category, doh! Yes, X and Y should be highlighted, I think there are one or two in there already. Now to add it to the articles!! [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Have added it to all the 'J's. The article designations agree with the navbox which is good, changed a couple to YJ. I thought about splitting the turboprops/turboshafts as mentioned above, it could be done by reading the articles, I think some engines were used for both applications though. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 00:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Reference sources ==

A while back I was "called out" by the FA people (well, person) because they considered the references in [[F-20 Tigershark]] to be unreliable. The references in question were Mark Wade and Joe Baugher, both of whom I consider to be highly reliable. In Joe's work, for instance, the only error I ever turned up was one that was in the original source (Greene).

So, what say you all? Do you consider Joe to be reliable enough to quote here?

[[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Actually we had this debate some time ago. While his work is excellent, the main problem is that Baugher is self-published and thus runs afoul of the Wikipedia policy at [[WP:SPS]]. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 19:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::I don't care about policy, I care about article quality. Policies are subject to change (see above), trustworthyness generally isn't. [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:While sources like this are certainly high quality and trustworthy, technically as self published web-pages by people who are not published experts, they may struggle to meet the letter of [[WP:RS]], so using them will cause problems when trying to get an article through GA or FA review. I think that a compromise could be that, where a source of '''''Equal or better quality''''' that meets WP:RS can be found (such as the sources that Baugher quotes in his articles, then use them. If not, then you may need to accept that the sources may be subject to challenge.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::"'While sources like this are certainly high quality and trustworthy''"
::If you believe this, and I'm assuming you do, then that's all I'm interested in.
::If the SPS policy outlaws sources we, the experts in the field, consider "high quality and trustworthy", then the SPS needs to change.
::I think it's vitally important we consider the ''spirit'' of the law. The REF system is attempting to weed out low-quality sources, that's its entire raison de etre. Most SPS's tend to be low quality. So by ''generally'' outlawing SPS's, SPS reduces the amount of bad quality refs.
::But as SPS notes, not all SPS's are bad. And I think we all agree that Joe is not bad (right?). We shouldn't be removing a ''good source'' because it falls into a category that was intended to weed out ''bad sources''.
::If there is any sort of consensus here that Joe's works are trustworthy, then that absolutely overrules the SPS. This is not the first time this sort of issue has come up.
::[[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree that the [[WP:SPS]] policy needs to be changed. The challenge in doing so is then how to judge a good quality self-published source from a poor one. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 20:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::::One immediate hallmark of a quality SPS is that it lists its sources, as Baugher does. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:* Agreed with Nigel. Use Baugher and Vectorsite.net pages as interim references. Replace with quality print or other sources when you can. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think we've heard from many of the "usual suspects" on this, and the consensus does seem positive. I'll round up a few of the stragglers... [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury Markowitz]] ([[User talk:Maury Markowitz|talk]]) 18:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== FA push? ==

BTW, I think Joe Baugher is tops. Thanks very much for the help with the US turbine template, it works well and is a useful tool. <s>We don't have many FA's and it occurs to me that the [[Rolls-Royce Merlin]] should be up there (currently start class, no Brit bias intended!). There is 37 kb of text at the moment and it is a bit jumbled but I am sure with a bit of work it could make it. I know this bypasses the usual process but it's worth a try. I pasted the article text into here so it could be worked on by all without edit summaries and the usual backlash with the intention of pasting it back in laterer. Am I mad?</s> Cheers [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 02:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:Have struck some of that, I wasn't thinking straight last night, ignore me, cheers. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:* A drive to get some articles in shape for Good Article and Featured Article nominations is a fine idea. Due to sometimes painful formatting issues, I suggest going through the GA step before FA nomination. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::* I can understand why there are not more, I tried to get one article through GA but with hindsight it probably wasn't ready and from involvement with the Phantom FA review I got a flavour of the even higher jumps to get over.[[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Having watched at least one article savaged by the "Good Article Demons" I would rather have an article that is good, than a Good Article. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Ha! Well said! :) --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


:::It may be worth trying to get help from [[WP:MILHIST]] they seem to be rather more successfull in getting articles, including technical articles such as we have here, through the FA process.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 19:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Looking at the table [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Maintenance] it does seem strange that we have over 10,000 articles in the aircraft project but only three featured ones. Is military aviation a separate project (showing 24 FA's in that column)? Maybe someone 'higher up' in WP will notice the lack of FA's and offer words of encouragement/advice. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::* Judging by [[:Category:FA-Class military aviation articles]], it appears Military Aviation TF covers a wider area than we do here at WP:Air. They include aircraft, accidents, companies, persons, etc. Where Air does not seem to include the persons and companies. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 23:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::What I was thinking of as comparible was articles for things like warships and tanks, whichj can be compared more directly to wp:aircraft's articles.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== TfD ==

[[:Template:Monnett aircraft]] is up for deletion [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_October_8#Template:Monnett_aircraft|here]]. Your opinions welcome. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Kawasaki YPX ==

Just found the [[Kawasaki YPX]] article, which was posted in July, but has absolutely no sources. Has anyone seen any reliable sources on this airliner proposal? - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Airliner subtemplates ==

We currently have a "subtemplate" field in the [[Template:Infobox Aircraft]], which is being used for 4 airliner manufacturer templates: [[Template:Infobox Boeing Airliners]], [[Template:Infobox MD Aircraft]], [[Template:Infobox Airbus airliners]], and [[Template:Infobox Embraer Airliners]]. There are other manufacturers wich could have templates, including Bomardier, the British airliners, and the Soviet/Russian types suche as Illushyin and Tupolev.

Before going ahead and creating such templates, I wanted to see if the project felt there was any real use in have these links at the taop of the page when most already have navboxes at the bottom. The subtemplates originally had the manufacturers' logos, but this was disallowed by the Fair-use wonks. I did not support these templates in the first place, and still feel they are of no real use, and redundant to the navboxes, and are mostly clutter. In fairness, there were few company navboxes in existance when these 4 subtemplates were created, but IIRC all 4 manufacturers now have them.

So, should we discontinue the use of these subtemplates, or should we expand them to cover other airliner companies? - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 17:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:No idea who created them but it seems to work well for the casual reader. They ''are'' 'non-standard' which perhaps you are worried about in case they set a precedent. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::They might have served a purpose before the widespread roll-out of navboxes; but I think they've had their day. I'd be very glad to see them go. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RL, well said! Perhaps the Infobaox aircraft template could have a "problem" with the Subtemplate coding? ;) Nimbus, I wasn't so much worried about it setting a precedent as just having incomplete coverage of the airliner companies. I was actually starting to write a template for Bombardier when I realized we only had 4 of them, and perhaps WPAIR should consider whether or not we want to use them at all before I went and made more of them! I actually do use the templates, mostly because they are there, but for most other types I go to the bottom navboxes. It may take some getting used to for people who have been using them to bounce to other articles, but as RL siad, we how have novboxes for that. RL, besides disabling the subtemplate field, would we need to TFD the templates, assuming we decide not to use them? - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

: I also use them because they are there, like right clicking on a link to open a new tab. The subtemplates don't have to be deleted now. We could remove/disable the subtemplate field in the Infobox first. -[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::Removing them from the infobox templates would be the logical first step. Assuming there was no outcry over it, the subtemplates would then be eligible for speedy deletion as substantial duplications of the functionality provided by the navboxes. Unless there's any dissent here, I'll make the infobox changes in the next day or two. --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, works for me! - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Prod ==

You may or may not be aware that I have 'Prodded' the [[Aircraft structures]] article. I thought it only fair to highlight this here in case there are strong thoughts either way. Some discussion on the talk page. The problem stems from the direction of the text. I would like to try to create a similar article (with a different title) that focuses solely on the design and construction of aircraft (not models, hang gliders or kites etc). I know this is a 'biggie' and it is possible that there is another similar/better article out there that is not being linked. Regards. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 18:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Battle of Britain: Aftermath; can anyone make sense of this? ==

Can anyone make sense of what this is trying to say?:
<blockquote>According to one theory, losses of aircraft and experienced aircrew in the Battle may have been a blow from which the ''Luftwaffe'' never fully recovered. Supporters of this theory argue that only 929 bombers took part in [[Operation Barbarossa]]<ref>Bergström 2007, p. 129.</ref> out of 1,511 level bombers available to the ''Luftwaffe'' on 21 June 1941; this latter figure was was significantly higher (1,711) on 11 May 1940.<ref name="Murray p. 80" />, showing a drop of 200 from May 1940<ref name="Murray p. 80">Murray 1983, p. 80.</ref><ref name="de Zeng p. 10">de Zeng et al Vol. 1, 2007, p. 10.</ref><ref>De Zeng gives a different figure of 247 fewer bombers(de Zeng et al Vol. 1, 2007, p. 10.)</ref>{{note label|Note9|i|i}} Records of bomber strengths however reveal that the decrease occurred as a result of the Battle of France: the ''Luftwaffe'' possessed 1,380 level bombers on 29 June 1940, prior to the Battle, and 1,423 level bombers on 2 November 1940,<ref>Murray 1983, pp. 53–55.</ref> at the end of the daylight phase of the bomber offensive, which British historians traditionally identify as the end of the Battle. Just prior to Barbarossa. In a similar manner, it is also claimed that inadequate production levels in German factories also were a factor, with an average 250 single-engined and 64 twin-engined fighter aircraft produced ''per'' month during early 1941.<ref>Irving 1974, p. 163.</ref> As a result, it is claimed, that the number of German front line aircraft was declining, a problem which would not be resolved until early 1942, with a huge effort to expand production, reaching 1,200 by March/April.<ref>Irving 1974, p. 142.</ref> Conflicting reports of front line status should be noted with totals cited of 1,107 single- and 357 twin-engined fighters on strength prior to the Battle on 29 June 1940, compared to 1,440 single-engined fighters and 188 twin-engined fighters on 21 June 1941;<ref name="Murray p. 80" /> <ref name="Murray p. 53">Murray 1983, p. 53.</ref> but the existence of the new night fighter arm - which had 263 aircraft in addition - that was created from existing single-and twin-engined fighter units, should also be noted.)<ref name="Murray p. 80" /></blockquote>

This desperately needs a complete overhaul to make any sense. At the moment it is almost unreadable and seems to be trying to prove that statistics can be used to prove virtually anything. As it is the whole "Aftermath" section itself needs a complete overhaul... [[User:Minorhistorian|Minorhistorian]] ([[User talk:Minorhistorian|talk]]) 10:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:The cited refs are all paper books, which I don't have here, but depending on exactly what the refs say (I suspect they only give raw numbers and not concluded theories) this could all be [[WP:OR]], - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::The entire sequence is poorly written and edited and, judging by such phrases as ''According to one theory'', ''it is also claimed'', ''it is claimed'' there is an interpretation being placed on two sets of figures ''Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.'' This whole Aftermath section is full of ''arguments, speculation, and ideas'' and needs close, careful editing. [[User:Minorhistorian|Minorhistorian]] ([[User talk:Minorhistorian|talk]]) 21:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. Without the actual books cited though it is hard to judge what to do, how to fix it or whether to just remove it all. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Here is a thought: when things have been contentious on some articles I have scanned and posted quotes on the talk page from the paper refs I used just so everyone can see them. I believe this to be allowed under "fair use" as long as it is only short sections quoted. You might ask the contributors to post their reference info that way if you don't have access to it. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 22:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

==Bot unlinking 'avyears'?==
According to my watchlist an awful lot of articles have just had their 'avyear' dates unlinked, quite disheartening as I added the date and template to many of them. I thought this template was safe from the date unlinking crusade? [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] ([[User talk:Nimbus227|talk]]) 12:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:08, 13 October 2008

For more information, see Raiffeisen Zentralbank.

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG, or RZB Austria, is a central cooperative bank based in Austria.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft&oldid=244982306"