Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

RfC/U

A Request for Comment on the conduct of User:Davegnz has been opened here. Community input is invited from editors who have had interactions with him. To see how you can participate, go here --Rlandmann (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash

An article that you have been involved in editing, 2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 South Carolina Learjet 60 crash. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Note the Nom's explanation! - BillCJ (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP 0.7 clean-up

We might want to organize a clean-up on the pre-selected articles for WP 0.7. I'd also recommend taking a look at some articles that didn't make it, but should have. One example is the Sukhoi Su-30, which is rated C-class (which I thought we weren't using?), but has very little depth to it. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Company merge proposals

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. - BillCJ (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions - US military aircraft

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? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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
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. - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Except that since we're discussing a US topic, it would save "labor". ;) - BillCJ (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem (although I did to start with!) Nimbus (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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). AKRadecki^Speaketh 04:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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 F-111D/F Aardvark -Fnlayson (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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. - BillCJ (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 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 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"? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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! Shimgray | talk | 08:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to manufacturer-designation

(except for (rare, early) cases when no designation, then Manufacturer-name)
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 (C-47 Skytrain = military version of Douglas DC-3) - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to manufacturer-name

The "RAF solution" :)
(except when no name, then Manufacturer-designation")
Eg: North American Mustang, Chance-Vought Corsair

Change to manufacturer-designation-name

(leaving out whatever elements don't apply or are sufficiently ambiguous)
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. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would be my preferred solution as it follows standard reference usage. I can continue to (unenthusiastically) live with leaving it as is, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Nimbus (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]. The Bristol Siddeley Nimbus turboshaft was originally a Blackburn design so I dont think it is connected. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? Nimbus (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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! Nimbus (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Nimbus (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nimbus (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - BillCJ (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nimbus (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - BillCJ (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - BillCJ (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 prodded. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - BillCJ (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Nimbus (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeff, I just found 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. Nimbus (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - BillCJ (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(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!! Nimbus (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"US military aero engines" Aero engine may not apply to piston engines though. ?? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought aero engine was a British term! :-) I was only going to do the jets and turbines to start with. Nimbus (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Andreas uses 'aero engine' so can go with that. I have made a start in a sandbox 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. Nimbus (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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! - BillCJ (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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! Nimbus (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Since the designation system doesn't distinguish between turbines for different applications, I wonder whether the~~ - 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! --Rlandmann (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? - BillCJ (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - BillCJ (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict x 2) Has now gone live, at {{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!! Nimbus (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nimbus (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Maury (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about policy, I care about article quality. Policies are subject to change (see above), trustworthyness generally isn't. Maury (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"'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.

Maury (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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? Cheers Nimbus (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.Nimbus (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the table [2] 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. Nimbus (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD

Template:Monnett aircraft is up for deletion here. Your opinions welcome. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? - BillCJ (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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? - BillCJ (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nimbus (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]