Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

External Links in P-61 Black Widow

I have removed the external links in P-61 Black Widow during the recent tidy up of that article. I converted the links to references and also added the links to the external links section. User:Davegnz has reverted my changes with the comment returned survivors section so to standardized with rest of survivors series of articles. As far as I know this is an aircraft article not a survivors article, I dont believe that the survivors articles follow any agreed format. As I cant see why this article should be an exception to External links should not normally be used in the body of an article and I have brought it up at Talk:P-61 Black Widow but just liked to bring it up to a wider audience for comment. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maybe what I need to do is convert the P-61 survivors section to a stand-alone article - that way everyone is happy and and it fits with the scope of the rest of the survivors series.Davegnz (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we need a separate article for four airframes, not sure either that the survivors articles are exempt from WP:EL. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did what MilborneOne suggested and looked up the WP:EL - in a nutshell:

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

OK how does this apply to the survivors series -

I try and link each entry to a home page (if available) this takes care of #1, I also link to one specifice web site (under the aircraft s/n) which has I feel great information but sometimes too much detail - this takes care of 3)

The survivors series is a balancing act between what is published on wiki (different museums, aircraft in movies, famous aircraft etc...) and what is available on the internet or published - right now use both external links, wiki links and links in the reference section for a overall balance and complete picture - maybe in a year or so I might change the formatting but for accuracy and neutural point of view (which covers #3 & #4) feel that the survivors series has a good coverage on the subject matter.

According to the WP:EL, my usage of the external links conforms to standard practices accepted by the rest of wikipedia...

As far as having a dedicated page to the P-61 survivors, somewhere in time on one of the earlier project aircraft pages, I mentioned the reason for the survivors pages was to reduce the information on the main page(s) regarding an aircraft type - would make the B-17 article huge if one was to list all the B-17 Survivors under the B-17 main article.

Having only 4 aircraft as survivors does not impact the main article, in the case of the P-61. However, it should conform to the rest of the survivors series (as created and in its current format) - if not then maybe a breakaway standalone article needs to be created. Davegnz (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - the rest of the survivors series should conform to how things are done throughout the rest of Wikipedia. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation on the survivors series already has been beaten to death - the survivors series conforms to wiki-standards (ie lists are acceptable, the is a section available for people to do a very detailed write-up and it has a standard format) - end of subject Davegnz (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it is the end of the subject just because you dont accept that others have problems with the survivors articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:: Why does MilborneOne always have to cause trouble and contriversy on the Wikilists - maybe he needs to be banned from editing for a few months - at least be removed from being an administrator. Everytime he makes a comment, he likes to disparage and put down other editors works Davegnz (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my fault - I was imprecise in my comment above. Davegnz seems to have taken it to mean that I thought there was something wrong with having the detailed survivor lists per se; whereas what I really meant (but didn't actually say) was that these lists should conform to the Wikipedia practice of placing direct external links in the footnotes, not inline within the text. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I looked up the the wiki reference you mentioned - nothing written in stone (or even mentioned) regarding placements of external references - if you look at the survivors seriers I use all three types of references, (wiki, reference and direct links). wiki states that direct references should be used to snet the user to a page where the subject is covered in detail - that is done - wiki also state the user should be able to link to additional reference (as needed ) in wiki itself (that is also done) - as stated, I have done everything per wiki rules and as stated before, this subject has been beaten to death. Davegnz (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered External links should not normally be used in the body of an article or include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox. in WP:EL. I am just trying to make it clear that the use of external links in the survivors articles is not normal practice, cant see any reason why the links cant be changed to refs as in the P-61 article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davegnz is quite right when he says "this subject has been beaten to death". The policy is clear in that regard. WP:EL is very plain, external links do not belong in the text of an article, they belong in the "External links" section at the end, or better yet as cited references. The reason for this is pretty clear as well, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and not a list of links. When I find external links embedded in the article text I turn them into refs or move them to the "External links" section.- Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt should read WP:EL (as stated below - external links embedded inside articles are acceptable practice -

From WP:EL

References and citation ---> Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations.

note: it states in-line or in a reference section. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I use both. I find that having to do two jumps (when trying to get direct information) is annoying, tedious and repitious. I use the direct reference to take the end user immediatly to a home page where the subject matter can be covered in depth. I use a reference section for two purposes 1) to links to other sites that cover the subject and 2) sites that have further information covering the subject.

The reference section is great when the end user can scroll down the big list and find numerous related sites for information they are looking for. I have also found the with the Survivors series, there reference lists can be huge - if I can help the end user by linking directly to a final home page withing the subject aircraft this can provide a quick and painless end result. Davegnz (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you are 100% right, as you say they "should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section". They are referring to in-line citation style or end references, not leaving external links in the text. You are supporting what MilborneOne stated above. - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me in the paragraph where it states "citation style" --> all it say is in-line... again you are creating something that does not exist. This para. clearly states that "in-line" links and only "in-line" links are acceptable in wiki articles. If you want to discuss Citations then this is a totally different article (as stated in the above para).

Maybe you need to read the section on how to link -

What I am seeing is that you want to cherry-pick what you want to use and if it does not fit your narrow interpretation that you have to try and bend the wording (or add words) that do not exist to fit your dreamworld. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegnz (talk)

Davegnz: please don't forget to sign your name with ~~~~ so everyone know who is leaving these comments. Also instead of accusing other editors of bad faith, just because they disagree with you, please read WP:Civil and WP:Assume good faith - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops system crash - sorry for not signing----Davegnz (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this subject should be closed ----> We got way off the subject matter and does not deal nor help inhance the P-61 article. ----> Asking all editors to refrain for continuing and to move on <---- thanks everyone Davegnz (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are exceptions to almost every Wikipedia policy and guideline; but when you invoke one of these exceptions, there needs to be a pretty good reason for it. "So that the reader doesn't have to click twice" clearly isn't a sufficient reason to place external links inline, since this would apply to any external link used as a reference. Davegnz, at the same time that you're accusing other editors of "cherry-picking", you are choosing to ignore the general directive contained in the EL policy that such links should not normally appear inline, and instead, choosing to seize upon an exception provided for by the policy.

Is there a good reason why the "survivors" articles need to be treated as special cases? --Rlandmann (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flanker variant articles

The Sukhoi Su-27 "Flanker" has been developed in a few follow-on models. I only know a little about these. In any event, a few weeks ago I noticed the Sukhoi Su-30 had separate articles for Su-30MKI and Su-30MKK variants. Then today I notice the Sukhoi Su-35 has the Su-35BM split off. This seems like too much splitting off to me, mainly with the Su-35BM. Should some of these variants articles be merged back into the main model articles (Su-30, Su-35)? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that most of them could be condensed, and that if possible, they should be condensed. Certainly, the Su-35BM article is not so detailed as to need to split from the Su-35. Re-integrating the Su-30MKI and Su-30MKK would be quite a job, but attainable if anyone wants to put in the effort. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a glance at Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft), a proposed guideline for what is and is not notable. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Su-35BM article should certainly not have been split off. There’s hardly anything to the Su-35 article as it is. As for the Su-30 itself, it was barely different from the Su-27PU and there weren’t many built of that basic design; the various Su-30MK models are rather superior to it. One can, therefore, argue that the Su-30M/MK warrants a separate article since it was the first fully multirole derivative of the Su-27 (and Su-30) interceptor, and that was a notable development. While the Russians never procured many Su-30Ms, for financial reasons, even the native type is believed to have originally been equipped with inferior systems compared to those on the Su-30MKK export model for China. The MKK has additional requirements requested by and developed for China and which are probably a modest improvement (and which have reportedly been retrofitted to Russia’s Su-30Ms), so one can argue either way about having a separate MKK article.

The MKI, on the other hand, is quite a bit more advanced, with its integration of state-of-the-art Western systems. It is probably rather close to the Su-35MB, which may have drawn on lessons learned by the Russians from the MKI’s development. It is certainly different enough to warrant a separate article.

One can make a fair case for having a separate article on the Su-30M series in general, with the MKI warranting a separate, more detailed article. As for the MKK, the separate article has a lot of material and depending on the reliability of it all (which I haven’t time to check just now) and the specs we have for it, the suitability of a separate article could go either way. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive bot settings?

The archive bot's been working pretty well, but this page is still *huge*. Back in May, Fnlayson suggested reducing the threshold after which discussions got archived from 60 days (as it is currently) back to 45 or 30 days.

Would anyone object to setting it to 30 days? --Rlandmann (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see it trimmed back to 30 days. But I do not like the way it frequently archives just two or three topics - the large number of small archives are impossible to browse. I think it would be better if the bot ran weekly. (Sorry, I'm not a signed-up project member) -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it only removes only 2-3 topics at a time, those 2-3 topics are added to a larger archive, until that archive reaches a certain size (200 kb), then starts a new archive, which it fills up 2-3 topics at a time and so forth. The current archive is here - you can see that there are a few more than 2-3 topics in it :) --Rlandmann (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get my coat. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going out to dinner? Where to? :) -Fnlayson (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change. The 30 day setting should shorten this page to a more reasonable length. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mooney Rocket 305

This new article was just started by User:Mxbaraz. I just tagged it for lacking inline citations, but I would appreciate it if other editors would have a look. I am not convinced that this article shouldn't just be a small section in the Mooney M20 article. As User:BillCJ recently noted that article requires a major clean-up - it reads more like a pilot operating handbook. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just redirected it back into the M20, merging across a snippet of information that wasn't already in the main article. Just noting that this wouldn't have passed the draft notability guidelines. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick work! That was my thought too, but I wanted to at least get a second opinion! I have it on my list to do some serious work on that M20 article in the next day or so, too, unless BillCJ gets there first. It needs to get shorter and a whole bunch more encyclopedic, plus some refs I have! - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, have at it! I was just adding the "See also" template, and decided to reorganize the text sections, but I really don't know where to begin with cutting it back, and i have no sources on hand to add. I totally agree with your assesment. SO go ahead and give it a whack. Thanks.

Okay, I have a meeting tonight, but I should have some time tomorrow to clean it up some. Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let other project editors here know that I have finished running through the Mooney M20 article. Aside from a lot of copy-editing I cut out a lot of text that was non-encyclopediac and probably a copyright violation, as it all looked like it came right out of the POH. I added some models that had been missed, too. I also added some refs and a link to the 56-page type certificate. There is certainly more scope to improve this article, especially from the TC data, so you are all cordially invited to have a run though it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trainer (aircraft)

Trainer (aircraft) was moved to Military trainer aircraft without any discussion whatsoever on the article's talk page (the user did explain in move log). I have moved it back, and started a discussion on the talk page. Comments and advice, whatever your views on the issue, are appreciated. Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill: Glad you moved it back, that is a page on training aircraft in general, not just mil trainers! I will add something to the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#New C-class rating and another update to the project banner for our projects changes with the new class. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed notability guidelines

WP:NAIR has been stable for a month now with no objections. Any objections to "signing off" on it as a guideline? SDY (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objections to trying but note that in the past this has proved contentious, with people claiming that lack of interest in a proposal equates to a lack of consent to make it policy. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Career infobox for individual aircraft

Our standard infobox is really intended for and geared towards aircraft types, and doesn't really lend itself towards individual famous aircraft. There's been a call for such an infobox in relation to a couple of Zeppelin articles, so I'm wondering what the infobox for an individual aircraft might contain? A few thoughts to get us going:

Name
Construction number
Registration number(s)
Major owner(s)/operator(s)
First flight
Total hours and/or total distance and/or total flights/missions
Fate
Preservation

Anything I've missed? --Rlandmann (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few other notes:

Manufacturer
Date of manufacture
Years of operational use rather than hours/flights
Other name (nickname, nose art name)

I know it's a bit excessive, but the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer has an example of an individual aircraft infobox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Wow! That's not an infobox - that's this project's old standard hard-coded data table for an aircraft type (see here). This was replaced by the infobox and specifications section years ago, and this is the only example I've seen in ages - maybe the last of its species still in the wild?

But yes - thanks - all great suggestions. Another (obvious) one I forgot:

Last flight

--Rlandmann (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in describing that particular infobox as a vestige of an earlier type, but I merely used it as an example that editors do wish to have an information box for an individual aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

(2 edit conflicts! - acknowledge BillCJ's stacking suggestion!) We're talking about slightly different things here. As far as the way this project has always organised content goes, the GlobalFlyer, Spruce Goose, Wright Flyer, and hundreds of other less-famous examples are all aircraft types, of which only one example has been built. They have therefore always been written up with exactly the same formatting as types of which hundreds or thousands of examples were built. On the other hand, individually famous examples of mass-produced have (almost) always been treated differently, with the spotlight on the type.

Now that we're talking about it, though, it seems logical to build the "individual aircraft" infobox in such a way that it can stack with the "aircraft type" infobox and be used in articles like the examples we're discussing here. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict - some questions anwered) RL would know, but the box on VAGF looks like the old table that was used by WPAIR, but was never replaced on that page. It doesn't seem to have most of the info mentioned above, and it still has the specs in the table, rather than in a separate template as we have now. That page would be a good candidate for the new infobox, but it would also qualify as a "type". Speaking of which, how would we determine which infobox a one-off type should get? Or is this type of template what is in mind for one-offs? I was thinking more towards individual aircraft of production types, like the several articles on the B-17s such as Memphis Belle, etc. - BillCJ (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could perhaps the new info be placed in a sub-template, which could then be added in like the (dreaded by me!) airliner or logo sub-templates? (Not necessarily in the top position of those sub-templates.) This would make it fit within the standard infobox, but not have the info visible in the regular infobox coding. - BillCJ (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be first and foremost an infobox for those B-17s, the Southern Cross, the Hindenburg etc; but if we go ahead with the "stacking"/subtemplate suggestion that you and I both just made, it has obvious uses for the GlobalFlyer, Spruce Goose, etc.

I'll give it a day or so to wait for any more suggestions for fields, then get coding and see what people here think. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A way to get ordinary reader feedback would be best. Otherwise I would like fewer fields somehow, I fear the reader may get overwhelmed.

Name -- this would appear at the top?
Construction number -- this means Factory designation?
Registration number(s)
Major owner(s)/operator(s)
First to last flight
Total hours and/or total distance and/or total flights/missions
Fate (and preservation)

Let Fate include preservation, for example "1935 preserved", or "1939-01-01 dismantled", or "1936 crashed, replica in museum"?

I feel date of manufacture is superfluous (except in the article body of course). Please note my opinion is biased by looking only at airship articles, where manufactured date is not always recorded, and some kept getting "remanufactured" during their life.

Will some fields be optional, so that if nothing is entered they will not appear?

Will there be an "Other" field for anyone to add unforeseen fields? Like Template:aircontent does for "see also".

My opinion tends to a small infobox, so maybe the fields Bzuk could go into an Others, or be optional.

That's all the feedback I have for now. -84user (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just installed a first attempt at this career infobox on both the LZ 129 Hindenburg and LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin pages. To answer 84user's questions:

Name does indeed appear at the top
Construction number should be self-explanatory - it's how the manufacturer referred to this individual airframe.
Fate and preservation - take a look at the implementation on the Graf Zeppelin page - I think these are quite distinct
I'm also ambivalent on date of manufacture. I've made it available in the template for now, but if others also think that it's superfluous, I'm more than happy to get rid of it
Practically all fields are optional
I haven't included an "other" field. One of the great beauties of parameterised templates is that we get a uniform basic dataset right across the project and we don't have people entering all kinds of minute trivia into what's intended to be a summary box. Other data pertaining to an individual aircraft can always be included in the article text; and if it turns out that there's some field that's missing from a large number of aircraft or a whole class of aircraft, this can be built into the template later.

Thanks for the feedback - please keep it coming! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Works for me. - BillCJ (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can "Fate" be replaced with a less flowery term. I can't think of a better term, but that one bugs me somehow. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I borrowed "fate" from our nautical neighbours who use it as a field in {{Infobox Ship Career}}, but am certainly more than happy for anyone to suggest a different descriptor for this field. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of big "IF's" what name do you put at top? example the B-17G at the AFM is know as Shoo Shoo Baby - but she was also know as Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby (was 2 shoo's when camo, 3 shoo's when natural metal) aircraft is painted with the three Shoo's but is wrong for the paint scheme. Same for The Swoose - aircraft was not known as Swoose until converted to CB-17D and since the aircraft (as of last note from AFM) is to be restored back to back to a standard B-17 do we use her original name or continue using the more common name (same with the CAF's Liberator B.I do we call her Diamond Lil or Ole 927)??

Now to construction number - should refer to actual assigned c/n not registration or designation number - problem with this is not all aircraft had a c/n assigned or it is not readily available (try and find the c/n for the Enola Gay) -

I also feel that the designation of the aircraft should be as complete as possible - not just B-17G but B-17G-30BO in the case of Shoo Shoo Baby) - but what do you do if the aircraft has had several designations (example CAF's Texas Raiders - do you call her a B-17 or the more correct PB-1W?? Again, AM927 -- Liberator B.I or B-24A-CO). To answer my owner question, I feel that the designation is what the aircraft was initially assigned in service, thus Texas Raiders would be designated a PB-1W, AM927 as a Liberator B.I and the Collins Foundation B-24 be designated a Liberator GR VIII with a secondary listing showing the more common designation (or what the aircraft was initially ordered as).

Do have a (minor) problem with the designation "Spruce Goose" - this was not the official designation nor name but a mocking slap in the face to Howard Hughes who hated this name. Davegnz (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name is no more of a problem here than it is in article naming generally. Choose the name that people are most likely to recognise, and be sure to note all other names prominently in the article. The other names field in the template will easily cope with any qualifiers that need to be entered, such as (restored name), (original name), or whatever is necessary.

Agreed that the c/n should be the assigned c/n; there are separate fields for serials and radio codes. For any aircraft type or individual aircraft that we cover, there's always going to be significant unknowns. The c/n field isn't compulsory - so if you don't know what it is, then simply leave it blank. It won't show in the template.

Agreed that designations of individual examples of mass-produced types should be as precise as possible. Again, the type field can cope with alternatives and (brief) qualifiers.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting using "Spruce Goose" as the name in the infobox; but it certainly needs to feature prominently as an other name, since whether you or Howard Hughes like it or not, it's probably even more well-known than the aircraft's official designation.

Wow! We're pretty much in agreement here - must be some kind of record for you and me :) --Rlandmann (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must be a glitch somewhere - have to rethink this entire conversation.......

in case anyone was interested the Hughes seaplane was designated HK-1 Hercules (NX37602) - what is really strange is this N-number is now assigned to a J-3C Cub - from one of the largest aircraft to very small Davegnz (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would Spruce Goose be just a standard type aircraft entry that just happens to be one off, if it had a career infobox would any one off prototypes with articles (example Hawker P.1081) have to have one as well? MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, it's probably fairer to say that one off aircraft (which includes both the Spruce Goose and the P.1081) are all eligible for a Career box. I think it would be problematic to take that next step from eligible to mandatory though, since there are many one-off prototypes we cover that are really, in the scheme of things, of pretty low importance. I think that when the Career box gets stacked with the Infobox, it will most commonly be in articles on very famous one-offs.

I think it's premature to try and set down a guideline for this just yet - let's see what happens "in the wild" and then codify that common practice later if it becomes useful to do so. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help at Saab

A long-time editor, but not not one I've seen before, is removing the {{reflist}} tag from the Saab article, which I added a few months ago. The article has only one citation (which I also added), and one uncited reference. It is my understanding that this is the sort of situation the tag is intended for. I've already reverted twice. Any admin help, no matter your view on this relatively minor issue, would be appreciated. Other editors are welcome to chime in. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it, it appears as though it is a tossup as to its validity there. I reccomend adding {{fact}} tags to the sections that are in question. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 22:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, Chris. I can probably add more cites from the same source I used before. I've always intended to do that, just have so many other things going on here too. One reason I use that tag is as a reminder to myself. Thanks, and good to see you around! - BillCJ (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When is a GA accident notable?

A few months ago, this project adopted some notability guidelines for aircraft accidents and incidents based on what the Airports and Airlines wikiprojects are using, specifically that:

Accidents or incidents should only be included if

   * The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
   * The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
   * The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

While these make good sense for commercial aviation, they don't seem well suited for general (or military) aviation. Many of us will be aware of the tendency for the GA accident du jour to make its way into an article on a type, or even for the occasional unremarkable GA accident to get an article of its own (which don't tend to survive AFD); but we probably need to set some kind of standard for these events. In particular, we probably need to work out at what point a GA accident is notable enough to mention in an article on a type.

Offhand, I'd say that an event that fits the third criterion above would normally qualify, as well as one that resulted in the cancellation or long-term suspension (how long term?) of a type certificate. The death of a celebrity or other person who would be otherwise notable enough for their own Wikipedia article might be another possibility. Thoughts? --Rlandmann (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider adding a criterion for when the accident isn't notable, but the restoration is, though a clever person would just call the article "Restoration of Foo" and avoid making it about the accident. SDY (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About a year ago, User:Akradecki put together a set of proposed notability guidelines for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. The proposed guidelines are here, and include something on GA accidents: Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved, notable people are involved, or the incident/accident otherwise results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. Note: momentary news coverage, which would not last beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident, does not confer notability. The rest of the proposal is good too, and perhaps it's time to re-submit it for cosideration. - BillCJ (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks Bill (and Akradecki, of course!) for that. Seems to be pretty much just what we're looking for. It looks to me like this was drawn up as a gauge as to whether such an incident deserves its own article. When we're looking at them, I guess we need to ask ourselves whether the bar should be set any higher or any lower for a brief mention of the incident in an article on a type.

One other criterion that jumps out at me that might make an event worth mentioning in a type article (but not its own article per se) might be the crash of a rare or unique vintage aircraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the XB-70 Valkyrie article does, but that's different since it wasn't exactly mass produced. Spacecraft accidents (q.v. Challenger) I presume are beyond the scope? I'd refine "unusual circumstances" a little bit as well. Hillbillies drinkin' up a storm and trying to tip cows with their homebuilt is definitely unusual circumstances, but even if it makes the news (human or bovine interest story) it's probably not notable. SDY (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like User:Akradecki's proposal - I think that hits the main points. You would certainly want to capture accidents that result in ADs in the case of certified aircraft, or any kind of airworthiness review process (as in the Bonanza V tail review), but avoid an endless list of pilot error accidents, unless there was clearly a human factors design problem involved, in other words an aircraft feature that was designed poorly enough to create a series of the same type of accidents. Accidents that were investigated and showed up design flaws (as in the case of the Flying Flea) I think should be included, whether they were corrected or production ended as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's possible for an incident/accident to be notable TO the aircraft type without being notable enough to merit its own article. Something like the first accident for a type would be worthy of mention in an aircraft type article, or an otherwise unusual incident. These accidents are often of "borderline" notability, and might fail to be kept in an AFD. I looked at the 777 article, and there are 6 incidents listed, and only one, the London crash this year, has its own page. Of the other five, probably only the first stands out as notable enough to be listed, but the others are all sourced (which is rare). Most of these would probaly not even be listed on an average airliner page, except that the 777 hasn't had any major disasters along the lines of the DC-10's early career. However, they are all somewhat unique in the career of the 777, and probaly just notable enough not to make a big deal of deleting. - BillCJ (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The three line notability was originally written by me for the airports project and was also taken up by the airline project. But I would agree that it is all that is needed for airports and airline articles a guideline based on Akradecki proposal would be more suitable for aircraft articles. The problem may be the more complicated the guide the easier it is for the my accident must be in the article types who will use the loopholes in the guidelines at AfD and similar discussions. So I think we need to make sure that any guideline is as clear as we can and Akradecki's proposal is a good basis for that. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem to wondering off the theme of this talk section - from working in aviation GA means General Aviation - not military flight (ie XB-70) not Commercial (ie 777 crashes) or Corporate - AD on the V-Tail Bonanza might qualify, The crash of Buddy Holly should be included - problem is the blurring of what is a GA incident and what is a Commercial/Corporate (ie Charter for hire - see [Avantair.com]) -

Would a Celeberty who crashed in his personal ex-commercial jet (say John Travolta and his 707) be considered a notable GA accident?? Is the A-380 owned by the Saudi King be considered a GA accident (I think in both cases since they were built and certified as Commercial aircraft the answer would/might be no).

Does an AD that Grounded all the AT-10's because of a misguided inspection technique be considered notible?? Would the Grounding and retirement of all the PB4Y-2 from Forest Fighting be notible because of one poorly built wing spar -

I think notable in this case would have to be the death of a notable person (i.e. John Denver) using a personal aircraft "Died" while in control or a passenger - but again was this aircraft certified as a GA or home-built experimental?? Davegnz (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right - the use of the term "GA" is imprecise because it means all aircraft that are not operated by the airlines or the military. A Saudi Prince's private A380 is a GA aircraft. Perhaps it would be better to ask if there should be a clearer standard for accidents involving aircraft of gross take-off weights of 12,500 lbs and below - the FAR 23/CAR 523/JAR 23 definition of a "light aircraft"? - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davegnz is right in pointing out that we've wandered a little off the original topic, but that's OK - we need to consider notability for military and commercial incidents as well; I kicked the discussion off on GA since these are the (almost always unremarkable) accidents that tend to cruft up articles on aircraft types. A quick search of the NTSB database shows something like 300 such fatal accidents every year in the United States alone - undeniably tragic, but Wikipedia is not a memorial.

An AD that resulted in the grounding of a type is going to be significant to the history of that type, and probably rates a mention (whether we think that the reason behind the AD was reasonable or not - that's not our call to make).

If a Saudi prince's private A380 crashed, it would probably qualify as a notable GA accident because of the unusual nature of the event (the fact that it was an unusually large and expensive aircraft to be operated in private hands). --Rlandmann (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider all aviation for a second, maybe a WP:BLP1E-ish criterion for "integrate into main article":

If the plane accident involves a notable person, can the accident just be incorporated into that person's article? John Denver's death is probably best covered this way instead of having a whole article for the accident (unless the accident is otherwise notable).
Can the accident just be included in the article for the type? Consider the "Israeli F-15 without a wing" incident, which is currently and appropriately just in the F-15 article.

Another criterion that could be added: notable controversy, current or resolved, over the accident (i.e. the original Comets and the metal fatigue). SDY (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox Aircraft}} - alignment of attribute labels

(Copied from Template talk:Infobox Aircraft#Alignment of attribute labels to reach a wider audience)

The column alignment used in {{Infobox Aircraft}} isn't standard. Most {{infobox}}es use left-align for both label and value; this template's use of right-align on the label (to have a sort of "middle-align" of the columns) stands out and doesn't add any particular benefit. I reckon if left-align for both is good enough for the majority of other infoboxes it's good enough for this one. It also simplifies this template's code a bit, which should help with further work in the future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIKESHED. Might as well let him have his way, though. If he is anything like the other wonks that have complained that WP:AIR does things differently, he won't leave us alone till he gets his way. Although I would be happy to be wrong! - BillCJ (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look on the bright side, Bill - at least Chris has had the courtesy to actually discuss the issue rather than just implementing it (as we've seen in the past), and either way, deserves civility.

While I agree that the suggestion (demand?) comes across as rather high-handed, the underlying reasoning is sound. While there is (as far as I'm aware) no actual "standard", this infobox is certainly uncommon in its layout. I guess that while we're talking about this, we should also revisit the perennial left-aligned caption bugbear, as another example of a bikeshed issue that we might not want to be revisiting every couple of months.

So - maybe a quick show of hands on the two proposals is in order? --Rlandmann (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure what I did wrong to warrant that. For what it's worth, {{infobox}} is emerging as a standard way of doing infoboxen, but I'm smart enough not to propose that WP:AIR adopt it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that was uncivil, you should have seen my previous several drafts! (btw, I don't think I was was uncivil, just not assuming good faith - there is a difference!) I just have an aversion to people insisting that all projects have to do things the way others do, simply because the majority does it that way. In this case, no guidelines even exist stating the majority way is preferred. Btw, Chris, you might want to check out the talk archives from earlier this year where we were forced to spend many hours retooling the "See also" section to satisfy one guideline wonk. He even deigned to help on ONE page out of the several thousand we had to change. And that's not the only time it's happened either. I am just tired of drive-by editors trying to insist we are wrong somehow because we don't follow the MOS in lockstep. I'm not objecting to how you asked - you have done it 100% correctly, when you could have just made the changes - I'm just insulted you felt it needs changing at all. Again, it's a BIKESHED issue, and as such, I won't comment on the merits of doing it one way or another - it doens't really matter. - BillCJ (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although most of the active participants in this project (me included!) seem to spend the vast majority of our time working on articles within this project's scope, I think it's really important that we never lose sight of the fact that we're a small part of a much bigger picture. And just as we like to insist on certain levels of uniformity within articles about aircraft, there are people out there who try to look after the uniformity of the look and feel of articles across Wikipedia more generally. That's a worthy goal!

It's just unfortunate that past experiences have soured our receptiveness to such suggestions. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken! - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

1. Reformat {{Infobox Aircraft}} so that the data labels are left-aligned (compare, for example. the ship infobox on an article like USS Enterprise (CVN-65))

Support --Rlandmann (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — Does not really matter. Either will be fine with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SDY (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator: less code means easier maintenance, and left-align is used to good effect across a majority of other infoboxen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - WP needs diversity. - BillCJ (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - doesn't do any harm and looks a little tidier.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose — I actually think the right-justified format looks tidier and less visually unappealing. I can live with either, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Reformat the image caption in the infobox so that it's centred underneath the image.

Support --Rlandmann (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Centering is fine for short captions, but not for long 1-2 line captions. Keep centering as a manual option for short ones. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose (I'm used to seeing left-justified captions, but several other wikipedias do use the proposed version, see ar:إيرباص آي380) --SDY (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I guess the issue here is not what other language Wikipedia editions do with their aircraft content (we don't even pretend to aim for a uniform look with them), but what English Wikipedia, that we're a part of, does with non-aircraft content. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - That's reasonable. I guess the only real "caveat" would be to make sure that the words underneath the picture are more label than caption. Captions should be left-justified, labels centered, but I weakly opposed it because I mostly WP:DGAF. SDY (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lengthy captions should be the exception in infobox images because of the data-driven layout they use. Short captions look better centered and most infobox captions are short. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the majority of other templates - whatever way they do it must be right! - BillCJ (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, Partial oppose - Good idea in theory, doesn't work in practice, as most aircraft captions tend to be a bit lengthy. This has been tried before (including by me!), but it just doesn't work out. Perhaps a simple option toggle to turn centering on/off at will, with one or other the default. - BillCJ (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Yep, easily done. And - dammit - the MediaWiki software includes a feature that would allow templates to automatically switch, depending on the length of the caption, but the feature isn't currently implemented on Wikimedia wikis! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this idea. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support if technically possible, see BillCJ's comments. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral — I agree with Fnlayson that it doesn't go well with multi-line captions, but then everything in the infobox should be brief. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template updates

I think that the comments and straw poll above indicate a general support for a facelift of {{Infobox Aircraft}}, so I've gone ahead and implemented this. Captions can be manually switched between centred and left-justified (see below). As a widely-used template, the changes will take a little while to propagate through, but should start to become visible in articles shortly.

Things to note:

Field justification - Fields are now left-justified

Captions - Captions now default to centred, as on most other Wikipedia infoboxes. To make long captions left-justify, simply insert the word "long" into the field name; so |caption= will produce a centred caption, and |long caption= will produce a left-justified caption.

Cleanup - Two of the data labels were wikied; I've delinked them for neatness. They were "Manufacturer", a word which I don't think needs any special explanation or expansion, and "Maiden flight", which needed to be linked as a kind of jargon, but which doesn't need a link if the data label is changed to the more prosaic "First flight" (which I've done). Working on the Draft notability guidelines for aircraft has made me sensitive to how problematic the word "type" can be, so I've changed this data label (but not parameter) to "Role", which reflects more accurately what we're actually using it for. (ie - |type=Agricultural helicopter will display as Role: Agricultural helicopter). If anyone has any objections to these, please let me know.

The way ahead - while researching how best to implement the Individual aircraft infobox discussed above, I took a long look at WP:SHIP's system of stacked, modular infoboxes - an elegant and simple solution to an otherwise complex bit of coding. I've therefore made a similar solution available in parallel to {{Infobox Aircraft}}. Instead of using the one template, this stacks ~~three~~ two templates together: {{Infobox Aircraft Begin}}, ~~which contains the table formatting code and the name field, {{Infobox Aircraft Image}}, which contains the image and caption,~~ and {{Infobox Aircraft Type}}, which contains the rest of the data from Infobox Aircraft. The fields in these ~~three~~ two templates are exactly the same as in Infobox aircraft, and the look on a page should be indistinguishable from Infobox Aircraft. I've put an example in place on the North American XB-28 as a demonstration. The beauty of this system is that {{Infobox Aircraft Career}} can be added to the stack if desired, or the same "Begin" ~~and "Image"~~ module can be used with the "Career" module and without the "Type" module for an article on an individual aircraft (see LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin as an example).

I'll document all of this properly over the next few days. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, I like the ability to bolt on the career or type infoboxes. MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturer link is good to have to show that they do manufacturing, upgrades and other support. If it weren't for the last part I would agree it does not needed to be linked. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking: What is the purpose of having the Begin and Image sections separate? Do you have something in mind, RL? - BillCJ (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it was originally just a throwback to WP:SHIPS. I merged them at one point, then split them again. I thought that keeping them separate provides just a little bit more flexibility, allowing the modules to be more easily re-ordered, if that ever becomes desirable. But on further reflection, if we ever think that an extra module needs to go between these sections, it be added just as easily to an {{Infobox Aircraft Begin}} that contains the image code as well. I'll go ahead and merge them. Good catch! --Rlandmann (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a lot of work for little benefit. We are not comparing like with like. The Aircraft infobox is a terse summary of the aircraft type; the Ships infobox setup does more work than the Aircraft one since it carries the specification as well as the key dates in its history. Unlike ships, where most all are notable, we have few notable aircraft. Unlike a ship which may have a career measured in decades and covering a number of notable incidents aside from its launch, commission, and scrapping, notable aircraft tend to be notable for a single incident - Spirit for crossing the Atlantic, Hindenburg, R101, Stardust for their demise. The articles on crashed aircraft cover from the point of the notable incident, and may use the {{Infobox Aircraft accident}} template. These extra templates are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. A band-aid will do here. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latécoère 300

Sorry to clutter up this page, but I just created Latécoère 300. I'm rather excited because until now I've mainly been a gnome; this is the first article I've started from scratch. (I reciently joined this and some other projects to try to get motivation to write articles.) I realize it's not much, but there's not a lot of information out there on this series. I guess I'm just excited and looking for some validation that I didn't screw things up. Comments welcome! Livitup (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA under review

Hello there, the article AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood of Underground Mushroomers

I just found this newly created article at Brotherhood of Underground Mushroomers. Not likely to be notable on its own, even if it were sourced. My only question is: PROD or CSD? - BillCJ (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD. No context, no content. SDY (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree CSD - there are no refs and a search pulls up no articles, except this Wikipedia article! Although I don't see which criteria it would qualify under - criteria 1 perhaps. You could always move the text to CFB North Bay - it could be a sentence or two there and then make the article a redirect to that. Still need a ref, though. - Ahunt (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this article should be merged with CFB North Bay not enough information to qualify it as a stand-alone Davegnz (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, but as a concession to WP:BITE, I've left a note on the contributor's talk page asking for a reference. If he can indeed provide one, then we can go ahead and merge rather than delete. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of September 11, 2001

Looking for a home for the detailed information regarding the aircraft of 9-11. Tried the September 11, 2001 attacks page but keep getting information thrown-out. they keep refering this information to the individual pages for these flights, but feel that a simple para on the 9-11 attacks page should also cover this subject... wondering if a quickie page would cover this subject (see my homepage / sandbox for this info) Davegnz (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bellyfeel that info about the planes should be included in the article about the crash, i.e. American Airlines Flight 77. SDY (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other 9/11 flights are listed in {{Sept11}} if you don't have those handy. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree absolutely. Actually, most of the information is already contained in the crash articles, so it won't be a big job to integrate it if desired. These individual airframes are absolutely non-notable outside the context of those tragic events. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the decision here - add it to the September 11 article, start a new article or what?? REason I ask is I can not get it added to the main article (where I think it belongs) and need help from someone up to food chain to get it to stick and not deleted (over and over). Davegnz (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the detailed information should be in the individual incident articles, but it is strange that the main article does not mention even the aircraft types used or have a summary that directs you to the four individual articles. I would have thought that at least a Airline Flight Number 99 was a Boeing XXX registered NXXX on a scheduled flight from x to x should be in the main article under its own subheading. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very very bad - actually agreeing with my fellow editors (need to check my meds again) <bg> - Exactly my point, take a quick look at my home page and you can see the quickie section I tried adding and was dumped. I think the editors over at the 9-11 article do not want to dirty up there article with messy aviation information - I think right now, need to do a quickie article and leave it as a stand alone Davegnz (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I see what you mean, I added the names of the aircraft (Boeing 567 and 757) with the names of the pilots and got an immediate reversal saying the information was "trivial." On attempting a smaller follow-up edit, the submission was immediately reversed with the comment: "1st, read WP:MOS - your revs are poorly written; 2nd, aircraft types says nothing about transcontinental nature; just write and cite "transcontinental"." You would be better off creating a new article or adding to each individual article. The warriors on the ramparts seem to eager to protect this article from any new submissions. FWiW, not worth the fight IMHO, but I did ask the editor in question to reconsider how he talks/writes to people which verges on incivility. Bzuk (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Supermarine Spitfire variants part one and two

These are some really extensive articles, requiring two parts, but I hate the "part one/two" titles. Before I propose on the respective pages that they be moved, I need new titles. Any suggestions? My thinking is to rename them "Supermarine Spitfire Single-stage Merlin variants" and "Supermarine Spitfire Two-stage Merlin and Griffon variants". - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Early" and "Late" would seem to be an intuitive split, though I'm not sure how well it would work for the specific topic. Splitting all of the mass-produced designs into one article and the one-offs and experimentals into the second is also reasonable. SDY (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Merlin and Griffon series? FWiW, otherwise, I like the early and late differeentiation. Bzuk (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

In reference books this kind of split is typically done chronologically, so "early variants" and "late variants" would be good. However Spitfire development was unusually complex, so not all books do this - some choose the Merlin/Griffon split, and some follow the Mk numbering - typically under the "Early" and "Late" headings (the Mk numbering was not always chronological in practice, although it usually was). That last one would be my choice. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could perhaps add a second table to the comparison article, summarising all the variants with a row for each Mk/subvariant along with a few salient details. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "Early" and "Late is probably best. I suggest those titles, but the articles may need some reorganiztion to actually reflect that. I created the comparison article from from moved content, it does need major expanding to include all variants. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with renaming as Trevor suggests but I would ask that User:Minorhistorian is at least consulted as he has done the vast majority of the quality work in those articles. I would also agree that the article titles are not ideal. I have helped occasionally. Many readers may not know what 'single stage' and 'two stage' means. The Griffon section is relatively short and could easily be expanded into its own article, Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon powered variants) which leaves the Merlin variants to be split in half. It is not easy to split by mark number (first Griffon variant, MK IV) so it could be split Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin powered variants) and Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants) which is still a bit clumsy but is a variation of what has been suggested here. Nimbus (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of, course. I'll let him know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I first suggested splitting the original article it was to try and keep things to a manageable length, using the Wikipedia guidelines. The titles were really "working titles", in lieu of seeing how things would evolve. My initial reaction was that these articles have appeared under these titles for so long that a change would be unnecessary and/or confusing. On reflection I think a change of title to something more descriptive would be in order; however a brief explanation of the phrases "single-stage" and "twin stage" for the engines would be needed in the case of Trevor's suggestions. How to split the articles? For now I would suggest that the "generational" change brought about by the adoption of the Merlin 60 series is the most convenient break point. As they stand the articles are reasonably balanced in length and a different type of split would require extra work to reallocate references, notes and bibliography. I say go for it!Minorhistorian (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you have to help!! Nice one. A bit spooky but the phrase 'working title' was in my head, honest. The Griffon article could easily grow. It is worth spending some thought on getting the titles right to avoid future discussion. When I started here there was just one Spitfire article, spoilt rotten now! Nimbus (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping head against wall* What have I started now??? ;-) Minorhistorian (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Anyway, Trevor started it! Nimbus (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think for simplicity and clarity Trevor's Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin powered variants) and variations thereof is the way to go. "Single-stage" and "Two-stage Merlin" engine variants would be too confusing to those who don't know the meaning of the terms. I was also thinking something like Supermarine Spitfire variants Prototype to Mark VI, Supermarine Spitfire variants Mark VII to Mark XVI etc; trouble is that as the Spitfire range expanded the Mark numbers gave no indication as to the engines installed. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that a seperate article for one-off and special production mks. (it PR versions, navalized, long range, high altitude versions, high speed versions, trainers) could also thin-out this article

Early Merlin Spitfire (Mk 1-Mk V) [Battle of Britain Mks)
Late Merlin Spitfire (Mk VI-XX)
Griffin Spitfire (Mk 21 - 28)
Experimental & Navalized Spitfire

Davegnz (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles and their talk pages have now been moved to their new pages and the articles with the "working titles" have been deleted under WP:CSD G6 "non-controversial move" provisions. I'm now working through those pages which have links to these articles to amend them. For now the articles are reasonably well balanced for length and further splitting will probably be complicating things a little too much. I think another priority could be to look at updating the Supermarine Seafire article? Minorhistorian (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft of Iran

I found this article, it hasn't been touched since November 2007! What should we do with it?

It appears to have been specifically a list of aircraft used by the Iranian Air Force. I've therefore redirected it to List of aircraft of the Iranian Air Force. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done--EZ1234 (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Aeroengine

With the recent changes to {{Infobox Aircraft}}, it is now less sutible for aircraft engines, as illustrated at Armstrong Siddeley Mamba. Specifically, the change from "Type" to "Role" is now insufficient for aeroengines, as Turboprop is hardly a "role"!

Therefore, I am picking up the discussion on an infobox for aircraft engines, which is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 20#Engine infobox. - BillCJ (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

Same as {{Infobox Aircraft}}

Proposed name -

{{Infobox Aeroengine}}

Needed fields

Class - reciprocating piston, gas turbine, etc.
Type - Radial, Turbojet, etc.
National origin
Manufacturer
First flight (?) - not certain we can always find this, but it should probably be an option anyway
Primary applications
Developed from
Variants

- BillCJ (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I hadn't noticed anyone using {{Infobox Aircraft}} on aeroengine articles. Are you aware of any other examples? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add a line for thrust or horsepower and or thrust/engine weight? Bypass ratio for turbofans might be a field to add, and there are a variety of other numbers that get kicked around that might be better to include in an infobox instead of cluttering the text. SDY (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Air has engine spec templates to cover that ({{Pistonspecs}} & {{Jetspecs}}). All the project templates are supposed to be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Templates for future reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in general we expect aircraft engine pages to conform to the standard form of aircraft pages. The specs template work fine to the specs section, but the pages should also have an infobox at the top. The large number of engine articles would seem to necessitate the use of a separate specific infobox. Rocket engines, such as De Havilland Spectre, use {{infobox rocket engine}}, perhaps a template should be created to allow its use on rocket, turbine, turboprop, radial, and piston engine pages. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've got a first bash at it up and running now at {{Infobox Aircraft Engine}}, and have implemented it in a handful of articles for testing.

It uses the common {{Infobox Aircraft Begin}} module to control its formatting, and is named to be consistent with the other members of this family of boxen.

Most fields are common with {{Infobox Aircraft}}, except:

{{{type}}} displays as Type:
I didn't add the suggested {{{class}}} parameter yet - is there any advantage to splitting this from type, since one ios necessarily a subset of the other?
I swapped {{{first flight}}} for {{{first run}}}, since the latter seems to be the more generally available date for most aeroengines.
I swapped Infobox Aircraft's {{{primary users}}} and {{{more users}}} for {{{major applications}}} after test-fitting the template to Rolls-Royce Merlin left me feeling that the split between "primary" and "more" was somehow inappropriate. In articles about aircraft types, the split is (almost) always based purely on who bought most of this aircraft, which is usually easily established for commercial and military types (and usually irrelevant for privately-operated types). To implement this in a parallel way for aeroengine applications would rely on figures that are not as generally available, and begs the question of whether we're counting engines or airframes in twin- and multi-engine applications.
I've added a {{{developed into}}} field, since this probably better reflects the relationships between different engines we have articles on. I'll note here that the "Variants" parameter of Infobox Aircraft was originally there to cope with articles about subtypes, but has now become a tangle of both subtypes of the type described in the article and new types developed from it (yes, I know it's not always a clear-cut distinction). It would be nice to untangle this one day, but that would be a Herculean task. Anyway - I don't think it's very likely we'll be having articles on subtypes of any aeroengine any time soon.

I'll take a look at the rocket engines and see what can be learned. I agree that articles about rocket engines for aircraft should conform to aeroengines more generally, so this would involve creating something similar to {{jetspecs}} for them and moving their specifications out of an infobox and into a section within the body of the article. Hopefully, that won't cause too much friction... --Rlandmann (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also note the existence of {{Infobox Automobile engine}} used on around 150 articles, but that WP:Automobiles has noted serious shortcomings with it. Maybe we could develop a common Internal Combustion Engine infobox with that project, and a common Rocket Engine infobox with WP:Space? And using separate {{Infobox Automobile Begin}} and {{Infobox Space Begin}} modules would mean that all three projects could share the same basic code, while still formatting the infobox to fit in with the rest of their content.

It's probably inevitable that any such joint venture would want to place the specifications in the infobox itself; WP:AIR's placement of Specifications in a section within the article body is a real anomaly, and one that I fully anticipate someone to take issue with at some point in the future (actually, it' already come up at least once in a FAR, but nothing more came of that). --Rlandmann (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Take a nap, and everything happens! Thanks for all the comments, and to RL for his great work. I like it. Btw, the Mamba use of Infobox Aircraft was a test by Milb1, and the only one I know of. I honestly think we should just use our own templete for aircraft, esp. since we don't use specs in them. As far as I know, no one has been placing Rocket or Automobile engine infoboxes on aircraft engine articles, so I don't foresee them would objecting to our template.- BillCJ (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posed the question because Trevor noted above a couple of instances where {{Infobox rocket engine}} has been applied to rocket engines developed for aircraft use - ie, the same template that's used for rocket engines developed for launch vehicles and spacecraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, gotcha! {{Infobox rocket engine}} was created in late April 2008, and has only had 2 editors, and no talk page or Docs page. It's probaly worth approaching them to see if they want to be involved. I imagine it would not be that dificult to add a performance module for space rockets pages to use. - BillCJ (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the reason I decided to bring this up now is that some aircraft engine articles, including Rolls-Royce Merlin, are being tagged as needing an infobox (tho I don't know what infobox they had in mind). I added {{Infobox Aviation}} to the Merlin page, as it has been added to some other aircraft engine articles. However, that's a generic box that's only an interim solution for engines, so this seemed like a good time to bring up the issue again. Anyway, I'm satified with what RL has put together. I would like to see consensus to use it in a few days so we can begin adding it to the tagged articles. Thanks again for all the quick discussion and work. - BillCJ (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

Any objections to going ahead an implementing this template? I'll mainly be doing it as I come across engine articles. - BillCJ (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observations on our style and content guides with respect to FA/A-class article standards

I’ve been working on improving the F-16 Fighting Falcon with an eye towards its eventually becoming A-class or even FA. However, in examining the handful of aircraft articles we have in those two categories, I’ve found that there’s a wide variance in topical section coverage and arrangement, along with any clear standard distinguishing FA articles from A-class.

FA-class: The B-17 Flying Fortress article goes from ‘Design and development’ to ‘Operational history’ with no aircraft description; however, it finishes up with a lot of space dedicated to what is essentially related “trivia” – with respect to the article’s subject itself (i.e., ‘Noted B-17s’ and ‘Noted B-17 pilots and crew members’).

F-4 Phantom II likewise has no aircraft description, but does have a ‘Flight characteristics’ section (an assessment-type entry) – and “analysis” and “comparisons” sections have been deprecated elsewhere due to their tendency to draw NPOV contributions. This article also has ‘Operators’ before ‘Variants’ – the reverse of what I see in most aircraft articles – and sections on ‘Culture’ and ‘Survivors’.

A-class: Concorde seems to me to be the best-developed article of the lot, but underweighted in the ‘Design’ section and overweighted in the ‘Main problems overcome during design’. The most balanced, however, I feel is the Sukhoi Su-25.

The F-84 Thunderjet and Tupolev TB-3 articles are rather idiosyncratic in their coverage. The former has a ‘Flying the Thunderjet’ section, but not one on variants; the latter has a ‘Description of construction’ section that is separate from the ‘Design and development’ section.

In short, it appears that WP:Aircontent and the WP Aviation style guide don’t play much of a formal role in FA/A-class assessment. Should we become more assiduous in their application?

A related question is whether these should go further and delve into what specific design elements should normally be covered (from an encyclopedic viewpoint). For instance, the Su-25 article includes the cockpit, wings and fuselage, power plant, and avionics as major subsections. Should this become the norm? Furthermore, if avionics are to be covered, how should we handle long-lived and much-modified aircraft like the F-16? (Address it in the ‘Variant’ entries instead?)

Thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spitting of the splitfire question above shows that it's not just avionics that causes problems for long-lived and frequently updated aircraft. My gut feeling on this is that we should develop a relatively consistent layout for articles on aircraft, maybe a "template" of sorts by broad groups, so that the F-16 article is structured like other articles about fighter aircraft. Since many readers will look at the "see also" or "comparable aircraft" it makes it easier to read when the articles cover the same things. Mindless consistency is obviously a bad idea, since "operational history" of aircraft that never flew is a rather moot point and doesn't need a section. This proposal would require some rigorous categorizing, and there will probably be disagreements over where to categorize some planes. SDY (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to resort to that - we already have a well-documented layout that's used more-or-less consistently in hundreds (perhaps thousands) of articles; where sections are inapplicable for some reason (as in your example of the Operational history of an aircraft that never actually flew) we simply leave them out.

As I see it, the real question is whether there's any particular type of material that (a) is cropping up fairly regularly in articles on aircraft types and that (b) isn't already covered in one of the standard sections.

I don't think there's any harm in articles containing one-off sections when there's something particularly significant to say about an aircraft or its history and which doesn't fit readily into one of the standard sections, or would add undue weight to that section. But when such a section is turning up time and time again in disparate articles, we should move to standardise what it's called and where it fits in relation to other sections. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - the standard sections in their standard order are set out at WP:Aircontent as noted by Askari Mark above. We also have {{Aerostart}}, a template that pre-loads the standard article layout when starting a new article about an aircraft type, or renovating an old one. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would never propose “mindless consistency” (indeed, I’m avoiding inclusion of a section that would be unwieldy), but I do believe that a degree of consistency is a good thing (which is why we have these projects in the first place). In particular, one would expect this of the “best of the best” of our products – yet, as I outlined above, there’s no clear way to discern what differentiates FA-class from A-class as far as this project is concerned. Furthermore, there does seem to me to be an evolving organization of topics for inclusion (at least in modern aircraft), and it may behoove us to consider some degree of formalization for the subtopics we might want to see in our articles (where appropriate). The current guidance only covers general topics. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this has been covered but I don't see it. FA and GA follow wikipedia wide standards and are not tied to what project they follow under. However the A/B levels are project ratings. That's partially why a FA article may be laid out a little differently than the project guidelines. Fnlayson (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the degree to which the FA-gang pay attention to the recommendations of the WikiProjects has waxed and waned over the years, with the current climate decidedly anti-WikiProjects. So on the one hand we have MOS telling us that "consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles", providing a major raison d'être of the WikiProjects, and then on the other, we have FA saying that an article so acknowledged is an example of "our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation", but (at best) not giving a tinker's cuss about whether the presentation of an article is consistent with the rest of its subject area.

Of course, there's no reason why any project's prescribed standards and those of the project more generally need to be at odds with one another. FA could be a great mechanism whereby "eccentric" standards by certain WikiProjects (ahem) get gently pulled into line, and by the same token, where great ideas arising from one WikiProject or another could be promoted throughout Wikipedia more generally. Unfortunately, we're a long way from that ideal, and consequently, chasing FAs seems to me to lead more usually to less cohesion and consistently IMHO.

Give it another couple of years and the pendulum may swing back the other way :) --Rlandmann (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine (I'm personally agnostic about FA anyway), but that still leaves the question of what our standards for A-class should be. Those are under our control as to defining what's the "best of the best". A-class should ensure that the "article is consistent with the rest of its subject area" – which is more properly an WikiProject concern than an FA concern – and I cannot recall seeing a FAR where the FA reviewers have demanded removal of such consistency. (Not that I would dare to assert it could never happen, considering some of the things I have seen happen at FAR.) In any case, I think we should have clear guidance for achieving such consistency for our editors with regard to A-class. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Accidents and incidents’ sections

‘Accidents and incidents’ or just ‘Incidents’ sections have appeared in a number of articles, and it’s unclear just what these include or exclude. I’ve seen an entry that might or might not be an “incident” deleted because it wasn’t an “accident”. Just what distinguishes an “incident” from an “accident”? This is not made clear in the style guide; if it’s just accidents, why don’t we simply call the section “Notable accidents” and leave it at that? “Incidents” is so general a term that just about anything could be entered into the section on that account. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both these words have very specific meanings in aviation. As defined by the ICAO, an accident is an event in which a person in or around the aircraft is killed or seriously injured, the aircraft suffers serious damage or structural failure, or the aircraft either goes missing completely, or can be located but is completely inaccessible. An incident is any event other than an accident that affects the safe operation of the aircraft, and a serious incident is an incident which almost resulted in an accident. Hijacking is an example of an incident that is often notable, but is not an accident, but few incidents will otherwise be notable. We need to be considering this issue in conjunction with the discussion a bit further up about notability of accidents more generally.

You can find these definitions (and some examples) in more detail in Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do know the ICAO definitions. My rhetorical question was meant to question whether it's reasonable to use an arcane and not-intuitively-obvious technical nomenclature as a heading, expecting that the average WP editor will know what is meant. In general usage, "accident" can cover all three ICAO definitions, while "incident" is even broader in meaning(s). It would, from the perspective of the general public, be a suitable place to add a note concerning a large wargame maneuver (as was recently removed from the F-16 article) or even mention of a speed or altitude record. It also invites insertion of trivia. Simply calling them "Accidents" would be well understood, but then we'd eventually end up with a list of every ICAO-type accident/incident that ever occurred. While "Notable accidents" avoids this, it isn't a perfect solution either, which is why I'm inviting discussion. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JARGON basically says "avoid it or explain it." Considering that the definitions are relatively straightforward, why not just say "the ICAO defines it thus.[1]"? SDY (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On most of the articles I spend time on that have this section, esp the more popular airliner page, we use "Accidents and incidents". When lack of notability becomes a problem with new additions, we change it "Notable accidents and incidents". Does it cure the problem? No, because many WP users can't read big words lie "notable", but it does help some, and with admins who do know what notable means! As far as I can tell, that's the most workable solution we have right now, even if the heading is a bit longer than I'd like. - BillCJ (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on BillCJ point leave the definitions as accepted by the aviation industry...why should the editors "dumb-down" an article because the end-users can not use big words or incapable of using a dictionary. Next thing you know, we will have to replace entire sections with colorful crayon pictures (ie story book) with captions like: look, look, look, see the airplane, see the airplane, it flys in the sky, it flys in the sky, it has two engines and goes RRRRRRRRR, can you say RRRRRRR. Can you say Merlin (very good)... can you say evil Mosquito fighter bomber, can you say airplane that killed hundred of passive Germanys who were making Europe safe .

oops sorry got into the liberal version of WWII here (rotfwl) Davegnz (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn’t “dumbing-down” (nor notability, for that matter) but rather that we have an instance where the common words being used do not have their normal meaning, but rather a specialized technical definition. We certainly don’t require editors to become experts in such arcane subjects to contribute here; yanking out good-faith contributions by well-meaning editors lacking appreciation of the terminology is rather on the rude side when we’re supposed to be encouraging more editors to become active on the project. If we are going to employ jargon for topical headers, perhaps we should reference – as SDY suggests – the ICAO definitions, possibly in hidden text at the start of the section, and require it for those sections. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder if Askari Mark feel that this should be the policy across all of wikipedia - lets see, for people writing medical articles we replace "he Lacerated his hand and removed the third digit" with he got a big bo-bo on his pinkie", Naval terms - "Keel" with "bottom of boat", Veternary: "bitch with "Female dog" etc...

Right now, aviation has its own specified terms and meanings - you can go into any airport and say these terms to an aviation technician and they know what your are talking about - once you start "adjusting the technical definition" the terms become useless in there original context - the same can be said for any other technical field which has its own "speak". I did not spend 20 years in aviation so that the unwashed can undertand what I am talking about when discussing a problem on the jetway with my fellow mechanics (the EPR on #2 was high - the PT6 line was blown, also found the CSD was missing a mounting bolt to the PTO - also had to replace some BACB30LU3-3's) - Agree that is using the terminology of the industry then either a ICAO article needs to be written where the terms can be defined or a wikilink (or both) needs to be used.Davegnz (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I’m afraid you’re missing the point rather badly. The issue is not whether technical terms (like “avionics” or “laceration”) should be used for headings, but about what should be done when the technical terms mean something quite different than their colloquial usage and the casual reader has no clue that something else is being meant. While one can look up “avionics” or “laceration” in a standard dictionary and find a general-use definition that is identical to the technical meaning, if you look up “accidents” or “incidents” you will most certainly not find the ICAO definitions (nor any indication that they exist). My point is that in this particular case, we either need to provide a means for the casual editor (without any knowledge of aerospace jargon) to be able to learn what is supposed to go in that section or else use a term more intelligible than the jargon usage. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark think you missed that I was agreeing on some of your points - there needs a way of educating the great unwashed without eliminating (or dumbing down) the article with small words - Many professions have there own technical speak which has a specific meaning within the community. But, does wikipedia need an article with just technical jargon or can an artilce on the internet be "mined" for the information necessary - I think that is the 64 dollar question Davegnz (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hidden message I added to an Incidents section in an article: "Before adding an incident entry read the notability requirements in the Incidents section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content." This may be of help in other articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Years in aviation link

User:John had removed the {{avyear}} links in the SEPECAT Jaguar infobox, I added back the avyear link on the first flight as it allows the reader to reference the first flights to the contempary scene in aviation (other notable events and first flights). I am sure that we have discussed this before and the avyear template for use in the infobox came out of the last discussion. User:John has asked me to explain how this hidden link serves the reader. I have suggested that he comes here and asks the project. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Milborne. I am keen to ensure that aircraft articles conform to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and I think this kind of link breaks that. --John (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with John on this issue. I have always found these dates that link to "XXXX in Aviation" to really mislead the reader. When I first started reading Wikipedia aircraft articles I clicked on many of these "first flight" links hoping to find out more information about the first flight of the aircraft in question only to be lead to a "XXXX in Aviation" page that didn't even mention the aircraft type in question. I was told by people writing the "XXXX in Aviation" articles that they wanted the links out there, but I always thought they misled readers and took them to pages that weren't relevant. At the very least the "XXX in Aviation" page should at least mention the event being linked from, which almost none do. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the 'avyear' feature. The first flights don't link directly but if they are missing it is because we have not yet entered them. I might be wrong but in the 'aircraft infobox' instructions it says' don't forget to add the first flight date to the avyear page' or words to that effect. Can't see how this link breaks context personally. We could have categories such as 'First flights in 19xx' but that seems a backward step to me. Nimbus (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is centered on the fact that "XXXX in Aviation" links won't work with the date preference links. We were advised that the latter took precedence over the former. However ... since the MOSNUM style masters have recently been deprecating use of the date preference links – due to the unsightliness of all the blue bolding, an apparent inability to disable that feature for datelinking, and the fact that non-registered editors are not able to benefit from datelinking – the time has probably come for reinserting "XXXX in Aviation" links. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting points there. My experience has been similar to Ahunt's; these links, as well as being hidden, easter egg, piped links, usually do not lead anywhere useful, even once one has found them. As Askari Mark says, we no longer need to link full dates; however I wouldn't agree that this would be a justification for adding more easter egg links. I still can't see the benefit of these links; also, it's important to bear in mind that Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context is a project-wide consensus and style guideline. As far as I know this is the only project which has this local policy and I really am not seeing the rationale for it yet, sorry. --John (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F-20 help request

Could I get some eyeballs on F-20 Tigershark? I'd like to bring it to FA in the short term. Maury (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks everyone! Maury (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Aircraft of the Battle of Britain

Note that there is a new editor who is pushing a POV on the aircraft involved in the Battle of Britain. There needs to be some revisions as to weight. It seems to be another "my aircraft is better than your aircraft" argument. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Agree. A study of the edit history will tell anyone that this editor is reverting cited material, then has the (moronic) nerve to call me a vandal! Dapi89 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a repeated offence of calling the other editor liar, moronic explains the issue without much to be added. Refer to discussion page. Previous editors were vanadalising the text and were deleting integral parts of it, replacing with wishful claims, that were not supported, despite asked. Dapi89 needs to be warned for better manners and more constructive approach rather than just pushing the undo button if he sees some referenced material he does not like. Kurfürst (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bandy about claims of vandalism, that goes to WP:Tendentious editing. Use the talk page to resolve contentious issues. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Some light relief?

Anyone who needs a little something to lighten the mood should head on over to TAW-50. Hurry before it's gone! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm surprised in didn't have FTL or hyperspace capability. I'm pretty sure Lock-North are working on those too. ;) Thanks RL! After running into to WT:MILHIST#Proposal to dismiss Nick Dowling as Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject eariler tonight, I definitely needed something lighter! - BillCJ (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that page certainly explains the US budget deficit! - Ahunt (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the toilets seats on this thing costs - I am sure Al Gore will be buying one so he can spead his message about global warming...Davegnz (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was hilarious, but I'm afraid I have deleted it as a hoax rather than letting the PROD run. Sorry to be so boring but this is not what the project is for. --John (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a humor break. Nothing more. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seaplanes and flying boats

A suggestion has been made over on WP:AVIATION to rename this category to Category:Seaplanes, thus leaving the way open potentially to subcategorise this into Category:Flying boats, Category:Floatplanes, Category:Ekranoplanes, and Category:Amphibious aircraft, all of which are presently grouped together under the present category. While I'm not sure that we need that level of subcategorisation, I think that the suggested rename of the parent category makes sense. Thoughts? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the subcats although they would not be harmfull as most readers dont know the distinction between the different types. Dont see a problem with Category:Seaplanes will List of seaplanes and flying boats need to be renamed ! MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Seaplanes" is exactly how Transport Canada classifies them all in this country, so that would be consistent terminology. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the list should be renamed as well. Indeed, I probably named the category after the list without stopping to think about the suitability of the name. I agree with TracyR's thoughts on the WP:AVIATION page that as it stands, the category name (and the list it was named after) implies a false dichotomy between "seaplanes" and "flying boats" when one is actually a subset of the other. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain

I feel uneasy at the way the Fighter Aircraft Main types: Hurricane, Spitfire and Bf 109 section of this article has developed; from being a relatively small, easy to understand section in the main Battle of Britain page the editing has turned into a dogfight. I count myself as being partly responsible through my irritation at the way some editing has been done. Forgetting recriminations and finger pointing I advocate that the page be re-written with the following points in mind; other editors thoughts please:

1. What is the objective of this page? Is it to be a reasonably straight-forward summary of the aircraft involved or is it to be a technical analysis of all aspects of the design of the aircraft? The latter is interesting to me and I can delve in such stuff like a water buffalo in a paddy field; however, I am seriously asking whether it has become a page which can only be confusing to the general readership. Personally, I think much of this kind of detail should be handled in the pages of the respective aircraft types. That's what wikilinks are for

2. Verifiability of source material. Straightforward, I would have thought; if editors are to use material, standards have been set in Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.[2]

There are a number of references cited which do not meet this standard. The material must be accessible to all readers for it to make sense and for quoted extracts to be placed in context; are websites okay to use? If people can read Wikipedia, they can access material cited from websites whether it is 100% accurate or biased is then up to the reader to decide. It is all very well to quote a source, but the editor MUST provide enough details to provide access to that material.

For instance, after a long search on the internet, I recently requested a cited report "Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And Its Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War, February 1941, {Australian War Memorial Archives)" from the Australian War Memorial Archives: I cited the title of the report; I have just received a reply from the researcher of the AWM stating that;

Thank you for your inquiry. Yes this appears to be a mysterious item! The reference should have included a series and item number if the report came from our official records. I cannot find any publication in our books database with this title. Wikipedia should be contacted to request the writer provide a more precise reference.

ie: the material is not available for general use until more details of where it can be found are provided. Again, it may well be fascinating read and a 100% accurate report explaining the situation in regard to fuel supplies to the RAF, but if it cannot be read, the information cannot be verified. Simple, straightforward.

3. There's nothing wrong in stating or defending a POV, especially one that can be reasonably backed up with supporting material - turning it into a "pissing contest" is an exercise in futility. Unfortunately two editors lost their editing rights over this. Personally, I look back at some of the things I posted on the discussion page and I cringe a little, for getting drawn into such an exercise. As I said some time ago, I couldn't give a hoot about the Spitfire Vs 109 schtick - all I was asking is that others respect my right to cite material without have it summarily removed because it came from a "revisionist source". I couldn't give two hoots about the opinions of someone else who can supply no evidence as to why such material is questionable and should not be used. That is a great way to get my back up and make me wanna do the same thing just to show how irritating it is!

Any other thoughts?Minorhistorian (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the "problem" of overanalysis, I think that having this information on this article is desirable, that is what it is for. Putting it onto the pages of the respective aircraft causes more problems than it solves, IMHO. The Bf 109 and the Spitfire saw action throughout the war, and with the article in question, we can stick to a select few variants that belong to this particular theme, without having to do the same for the later ones (which would need to be done for thoroughness), which would have to be done were it to be moved. Easy (in theory). So I say keep the detail where it is.

In everything else I agree with Minor'. My edits, though harsh, unnecessary and said with my brain cavity heating up by a few degrees, were simply to defend sourced edits against unreferenced claims, and I got blocked for it. The information might exist and be true, but if it isn't available, let alone cited, it cannot be used.

I have noticed a further information request has been put next to one of my citations, and although the website provides the book source, I can cite it when I receive that book (I have it on order). Dapi89 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Well it certainly looks 'hot' in there! I wikilinked this section title for easier navigation, hope you don't mind. From a quick glance the lead does not match the title at all and grammar, spelling and punctuation have all gone out of the window during the 'exchanges'. The 100 octane issue seems to be misplaced, although relevant to performance it is not an 'aircraft of...' and is more connected to Logistics of the Battle of Britain as would the parts supply problem that Douglas Bader overcame in his own unique way. The Spit, Bf109 and Hurricane sections are mostly comparison which I am sure are covered in their own articles, I've seen a few aircraft comparison articles deleted recently. There is a Spitfire photo in the Defiant section. The article seems to have 'lost its way' a bit, needs to be thinned out by editors that are not involved and the relevant points made clearer, it is not until near the end of the 100 octane section, for instance, that the significance of this problem is explained, it should be the opening sentence IMO. The good news is that there is a lot of text to work with. I could be bold and have a go but it is likely that I would also get drawn into the 'dogfight' (good pun, BTW) by deleting an editor's favourite sentence, that's the way it seems to go unfortunately. We have to remember who might be reading this, if I was a 14 year old schoolboy I would give up after a couple of sections and go back to Playstation land. Hope that was informative and does not upset anyone. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's a fine line between analysis and original synthesis of material; and overly-detailed technical comparisons tend to push that boundary. While I'm not saying that it's been crossed (yet) in this article, this is one of those occasions that I think we need to remind ourselves that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles here need to limit their scope and granularity of detail to what one would expect to find in an encyclopedia, or at most an "Encyclopedia of Aviation" or "Encyclopedia of World War II".

To me, it looks like the level of detail in this article is starting to push past this into what we might expect to find in a specialist monograph for military historians or enthusiasts (like the Osprey and Schiffer titles I think most of us are familiar with). It's great for those of us with fetishes for the technical details of flying machines, but I'm not so sure that it's encyclopedic.

In trying to keep perspective on this slippery notion of encyclopedic, I've found it useful to spend time in public libraries and non-specialist bookshops, perusing the books on aviation, aircraft, and aircraft types to get a feel for where we should be aiming.

Imagine a whole book on the Battle of Britain written in the same tone and same level of detail as this article, and then ask how likely it is that such a book would be on the shelves of a reasonable-size public library, or non-specialist bookshop; or whether it's something they would have to order in for you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fetish for oily Tiger Moths, is that normal?! That was an aircraft of the BoB was it not? Sorry, got silly there for a minute. RL, can you define what 'encyclopedic' is for us again? It might help. I could not honestly tell you past my own thoughts except that I used to think that it was 'a big book, full of facts'. Nimbus (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a big book but it covers many subjects in a volume. The content on each is summarized. For example I have a couple encyclopedia of aircraft type books. In them an aircraft type might get a few pages, while a dedicated book might give 100 or more pages on the same aircraft type. Wikipedia:Summary style might be of help also. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we've already got an encyclopedia article on encyclopedia right here! :)

There are a couple of different characteristics of an encyclopedia that I think are relevant here. Fundamentally, an encyclopedia aims to be a compendium of accumulated knowledge (rather than a publisher of new or original knowledge); this is why we have such strict policies on original research and synthesis, and why we (sometimes counterintuitively!) preference secondary sources over primary sources.

The second characteristic, the main one that I was referencing above, and which Fnlayson has just provided a perfect example of, is that an encyclopedia conveys information in a summarised, concise way. That specifically doesn't mean that it's "dumbed down", but this can be a really hard balance to find. An encyclopedia article doesn't attempt to include every fact about a subject or be the "last word" on a topic; quite the reverse. It's a "first word" on the topic, an introduction, a jumping-off point. It says as much as it needs to in order to brief the reader on a subject and give them the essential concepts and vocabulary they need to go off and learn more about it.

I've often thought that the "not paper" part of the What Wikipedia is not policy is a very mixed blessing. The writers and editors of paper encyclopedias were forced by logistical and economic concerns to keep their material on-topic and stick to the salient, seminal facts. "Longer and more detailed" does not equate to "better".

There are many different genres of non-fiction writing; and an encyclopedia article is a different animal from a newspaper story, a historical monograph, a pilot's handbook, a textbook, or a college term paper. We have many "encyclopedia articles" that read more like one of these other genres though.

OK - off the soapbox! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, not 'soapboxing' at all. I am beginning to feel quite strongly that we (as a project team) should slow down on creating new articles and expanding new ones but concentrate on improving the quality of the existing ones. We probably avoid this because it treads on other editor's toes at times. There is an awesome backlog of articles needing attention. I have created a couple of articles, they have been expanded to a sensible level with the grateful help of other editors and I don't feel the need to expand them much further as their points will be lost. I would think that this is a WP wide problem as the number of notable subjects covered falls. Nimbus (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rlandmann; for an article titled Aircraft of the Battle of Britain there is detail here that would bore people who aren't aviation buffs spitless. When I step back and look at some of the information I've included, I've fallen into the trap of assuming that anyone reading the article will understand the detail. Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy or Price's The Hardest Day are great examples of books we could well use as a guide; in both a reasonable blend of technical information has been written into a narrative which is able to be read, understood and - most importantly - enjoyed by those who wouldn't be too interested in the nuts and bolts of the weaponry. I just wish I could write with the clarity and precision of either of them. I will go through material I've included with a stiff wire brush and try and be objective about cleaning it up.

Nimbus' point about improving the quality of existing articles, rather than creating a swag of new ones, is also a good one. I've created a couple of article that need some TLC, but I've been too tied up with other things to be bothered.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's nothing that says that an encyclopedia article has to be particularly interesting to the reader (but of course, it would be an ideal!). Across Wikipedia we have articles on hundreds of thousands of bugs, plants, obscure aeroplanes, rocks, stars, Pokemon characters, and what-have-you that are little more than a dry account of what that specific thing is, and for the most part, that's all that an encyclopedia article on that subject needs to say about it.

As I see it, the biggest problem with technical detail overkill is not so much that it's boring for a reader without the same fetish (no-one's holding a gun to their head and making them read it, right?) it's the "forest for the trees" effect. The more minutiae the article includes, the more likely it is that the main points will get swamped and lost, and thereby the article fails in its purpose of briefing the reader on the subject.

Of course, there are some extremely skillful writers who can convey a wealth of fine detail while still keeping their main points clarion-clear above it all. That's really hard to do at the best of times, and on Wikipedia, two effects specifically make it even harder.

First, the collaborative nature of the project makes this "best case" scenario a moving target. As soon as you think you've achieved the balance I just mentioned, someone else is likely to come along, see that you've mentioned that the DB 601 was fuel-injected, and then dump in a whole paragraph about the specifics of the fuel-injection system of that engine. "Gilding the lily" is a very real problem on some articles. Some will then cry "censorship!" or "dumbing down!" when you try to remove it.

Second, it's much easier to achieve that tricky balance when writing from a specific POV, in order to advance a specific position. We try (and I say, rightly so) to achieve balance by presenting any and every point of view - even a passing nod to the loony fringe. This is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, but it almost inevitably results in reducing the directness and therefore clarity of the writing.

I wish I knew the answers! I just try to keep the "inverted pyramid" in mind, and keep referring to aviation books aimed at a general readership who don't need or want to know the cabin width of a Piper Cub, size of a Bonanza's baggage door, or the distance from the ground to the centreline of a B-29's propeller hubs. (OK - I made up the first two. But the last one is a real example). --Rlandmann (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only everyone would follow my POV on everything! It would be boring, but safe. Anyway, getting back to the article I'm in the process of winnowing out excess baggage while keeping the main POVs. Personally, I would prefer not to have the flight test reports. While interesting, thaey are also subjective and full of contestable information. I'll leave it alone for now. In the meantime I'll sit back and see what others think...*fingers cramp while crossing* Minorhistorian (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So If I were to reference in the article about the Piper J-3 Cub how many Rock Stars can fit into the cabin while protecting a rare plant or bug all while playing Pokemon character - it would be an ideal situition Davegnz (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming question (radar, avionics)

I wrote a couple of radar articles, and when I was "linking around" I found some others that were named differently. I named mine with the style "company name"+"product name", like "Emerson AN/APG-69". However, it seems that most of the ones I found were simply the product name, "APG-69". Is there a standard here? If not, I would propose the former simply because it looks much more like the aircraft naming standards, and avoids potential namespace problems in the future. Maury (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maury: I have to agree with you, that will save a lot of problems later on! I would add in this case that "APG-69" should redirect to "Emerson AN/APG-69" as well. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With mergers and acquisitions, leaving off the company name would help with that. I'd be fine with the full name/designation including the AN/ part and leave off the manufacturer. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer simplicity, going with just APG-69. Every US DOD radar uses the "A/N", so it really does nothing to help disambiguate or identify. I am OK with the "A/N" in the title line, though, as it is part of the official designation. But of course, I'll support whatever guidelines the project adopts. We might ought to check with MILHiST and SHIPS to see if they have any standards for US DOD sea- and ground-based radars. - BillCJ (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Maury and recommend "manufacturer"-"designation". We cover systems other than those with US-DoD designations, and maintaining separate US/everybody else naming standards has been a pain in the backside for aircraft. If a manufacturer gets bought out or merged, the article can easily be moved; the new manufacturer's information will need to be inserted into the article at some point anyway. But, per, BillCJ - let's find out what other projects have done, and try to be consistent with them. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: It looks like a de facto standard exists amongst both sea-based and ground-based ~~targets~~ radars to include the "AN/" prefix, but not the manufacturer name. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In aviation literature the manufacturer's name is sometimes included, sometimes not - much in the same way that an aircraft's manufacturer may or may not be included. Some types have product names and/or military code names, such as Ferranti's Blue Fox. Looking through the List of radars I think the situation is as impossible to standardise as it is for aircraft types. For the US types I think it is reasonable to do what we do for aircraft - and what is already de facto - which is to leave out the manufacturer's name. I have no "aviator's" opinion about use of the AN/ prefix, but it would at least help to reduce the risk of namespace clashes. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. Particularly germane is Fnlayson's note about mergers -- what led me here was the General Electric APG-67, which is now the Lockheed Martin APG-67! Buuuut, my guess is some day we're going to have something called "APG-67" that's either a protein or gene, so I'm still of two minds about this. But we don't have to come to a conclusion today! Maury (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That example, covering both manufacturer and genetics, shows the advantage of "AN/APG-67" -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that AN/APG-67 shows as a sub-page of AN, and so on. Does that cause any problems? I'm genuinely asking because I do not know the answer. - BillCJ (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's similar to F/A-18 Hornet, which has a "< Talk:F" link on the talk page. The link seems to be the only issue there. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It used to cause a problem, but doesn't any more. The link on the talk page is a throwback to those times. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I just wasn't sure. - BillCJ (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S-211 help needed

An IP has been dumping text into the S-211 article per this diff]. I've already reverted twice. User admits he translated the text from an "Italian defence magazine", and it reads like it! Any help, esp from our residents admins, would be much appreciated. It's possible that our banned "friend" has returned, but I don't think so at this point. Note, I have been planning to split the M-311 off to its own page in the near future, and the Specs he has added can be used then. I've removed the M-311 specs now as the article already has S-211 specs there. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned them. Yes, I wonder too. --John (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that material that the contributor claims to have translated from an Italian defence magazine will be a copyvio; translations are specifically derivative works of the original. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RL. That thought had crossed my mind too. Also, I've split off the M-311 to Alenia Aermacchi M-311. I appreciate the help from MilborneOne in getting the main text written and sourced. - BillCJ (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should light aircraft articles include operating cost information?

I wanted to let the other members of the project know that we have just started a debate on this issue over at Talk:Cessna 150. The project page content guidelines seem to neither recommend nor prohibit an operating costs section. The reason the debate is happening on the Cessna 150 page is that it seems to be the only article that has a "costs" section. I would like to invite all the other interested members of the project to participate in the discussion. I think the issues are well summarized there on that page, so I will refrain from repeating them here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming sports planes categories

I've finally got round to initiating the CFR for this tree - you can find it here if you want to weigh in. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Aviation

For information our general use infobox has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_Aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted B-17s

Have noticed that in the B-17 Flying Fortress there is a lot of duplicated information, some, like the Memphis Belle (B-17), The Swoose, and Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby, Nine-O-Nine, My Gal Sal (aircraft), etc all have extensive articles that deal with this information. These aircraft (Memphis belle, the Swoose etc) also have been summerized in the Boeing B-17 Survivors article - It it necessary to duplicate these articles, etc... with this section.

Asking for a vote to have this section removed from the B-17 article because of redundant information Davegnz (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an FAR

Does anyone know where I can go to get accurate information on the B-52 Stratofortress, in particular with regards to the bombers payload capacity? It would really help with an FAR I and others are working on. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the variant. If you are you interested in the current Air Force H model see B-52_Stratofortress. The B-52 talk is a better place to ask this... -Fnlayson (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of proposed moves

Several months ago, I moved Army Air Corps to Army Air Corps (United Kingdom), and created a DAB page in its place. After nearly five months with no complaints or concerns, an editor in now proposing to revert the move, and place the DAB page at Army Air Corps (disambiguation). Please weigh in at the respective talk pages, whatever your opinion. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to be precise, it was done 4 months zero days ago, and I am requesting a revert to the situation that existed before that since Jan 2004. By the silence is consensus model you are trying to assert, there was no problem to fix with a move in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before March 2008, there has been no discussions of moving or renaming Army Air Corps on any of the talk pages of the articles linked above. That's where these things should start. This proposed move is at Wikipedia:Requested moves now. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircrew member

I just ran across Aircrew member: It needs major help, starting with its sources - it has none! - BillCJ (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is aircrew member the right term doesnt sound right to me I always thought aircrew were well aircrew! Didnt think flight attendendants were classed as aircrew? MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: It is superfluous, since Aircrew already exists. Candidate for deletion? --TraceyR (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircrew redirects to Aircrew member at the moment. That needs to be reversed. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, considering that article was started on 18 November 2004 it is truly awful. Not only does it have no sources, but it is badly written, sounds like a personal essay and presents opinions that do not conform to any known standard or references. For instance in the Canadian military pilots, navigators and flight engineers are classified as "aircrew" (i.e. essential to the operation of the aircraft) but flight attendants are "flight crew". In Canadian civil aviation there is no such thing as "aircrew" (ref CARs definitions and Aeronautics Act definitions). I have no idea if any country defines anyone as "aircrew" and this article doesn't clear that up. I have to agree with MilborneOne too that "aircrew member" is poor grammar. It should have been "aircrew" or nothing. Incidentally Aircrew redirects to Aircrew member. I would suggest that this article needs to made into a disambiguation page with a simple list that includes Aviator, Flight attendant etc. It is a rotten article as it is. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys! Good to know I didn't think the article stunk because I was up at 5am! - BillCJ (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help with cut/paste move

This and this. I stand by my assertion that Honeywell RQ-16 is the proper name per our naming conventions, but the improper cut-paste move is the real issue. And now I'm not just "prickly" anymore! - BillCJ (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no admin, but I have an observation and question. By extension, it appears to me you would be looking to rename the rest of the "RQ" articles as well. None currently have the manufacturer in the article name; they have the common name following the military designation in a manner similar to the article about the P-38 Lightning, which does not include "Lockheed" in the article name. Can you define more clearly the direction you want go with these? Here are the other RQ articles:

RQ-1 redirects to MQ-1 Predator

RQ-2 redirects to RQ-2 Pioneer

RQ-3 redirects to RQ-3 DarkStar

RQ-4 redirects to RQ-4 Global Hawk

RQ-5 redirects to RQ-5 Hunter

RQ-6 redirects to RQ-6 Outrider

RQ-7 redirects to RQ-7 Shadow

RQ-8 redirects to MQ-8 Fire Scout

RQ-9 doesn't exist yet; should redirect to MQ-9 Reaper

RQ-10 doesn't exist yet; if appropriate, should redirect to CQ-10 Snowgoose

RQ-11 doesn't exist yet; should redirect to RQ-11 Raven

RQ-12 doesn't exist

RQ-13 doesn't exist

RQ-14 doesn't exist yet; should redirect to RQ-14 Dragon Eye

RQ-15 doesn't exist yet; should redirect to RQ-15 Neptune

RQ-17 doesn't exist yet; should redirect to an as-yet unwritten article about the MQ-17 SpyHawk.

Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here: My issue was not with the renaming, but how it was done. THe user has twice performed cut-and-pastes move, which are not allowed because thy break the article history. Even had I approved of his choice of name, I would still have reverted the cut/paste move, as i have doen on several past occation

Naming: the WP:AIR/NC Naming conventions specifies "Designation, official name (or popular name)" for US products with DOD designations. If there is not an official name, or clear popular name, then "Manufacturer, designation" is preferred. In this case, "MAV" is an abbreveiation for "Micro Air Vehicle", of which there are many, not just the RQ-16. When an official name is assigned to the RQ-16, then it would be appropriate to to move it to the new title. If the consesnus is to keep the article at RQ-16 MAV, then I'll abide by it, but the cut/paste moves which broke the article's history will still have to be repaired.

The reason I asked for admin help on this is that, because of the user's comments towards, me, I have no reason to believe he won't just keep on reverting my attempts to correct the cut/paste move. I gave him the standard templated warning that explains why cut-pastes are not allowed after his first move, yet he did it again. Some people are just dense for whatever reasons, but at least an admin has the tools to deal with policy breakers. - BillCJ (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign to change all wikautodate linking

Although I really don't care what style is used for dates in Wiki articles and since there is a recent revision to MoS to indicate that autodating is optional, I am still quite perplexed that at least one editor, see:[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Colonies_Chris] is engaged in wholesale changes to "his liking" in not only dates but in other wikilinks. Whattodo? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I am with him on this. There is the Lightbot that has also been going though all the aircraft articles also removing date links. I always found them misleading. You see a statement in an article, perhaps indicating an aircraft's first flight was on such and such a date and the date is blue linked. You click on the date expecting to see further information and instead are taken to a page that lists some very general things that happened on that date, almost always not including the item that you were looking for more information on. I have never talked to anyone yet who has set the date preferences, which is the supposed reason for the date linking - it seems very few people care enough to set that up. As explained in MOS I count linked dates as "Low added-value items are linked without reason". - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the following discussion: [1] and note: "Just to be clear, see the top of WP:MOSNUM. You'll note what it says about it being a guideline (as opposed to a policy). The means it's advisory, and so is optional." FWiW, on "new" articles that I am editing, see Empire of the Sun (film) and Swing Vote (2008 film), i have completely discarded autowikilinked dates, but I do not feel it is productive to go around changing countless other articles as I would rather be contributing by writing articles. Bzuk (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]