Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:11, 24 September 2007

Shortcut

[[:|WT:Air]]

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

Template:Todo3

Individual owners list

About two weeks ago, I removed an unsourced list of individual owners from the Bombardier Global Express page. In spite of the fact I asked it be discussed first, some re-added the list today, and then asked for discussion. I've removed it again, and my explanations of why are on the Talk:Bombardier Global Express page. As far as I know, this is the only business-type aircraft with such an extensive list.

In general, it's my impression we haven't allowed such lists, mostly because they tend to be OR and non-notable. Feel free to commnet on the genreal ide here, and the specifics of the list in the Bombardier Global Express on that talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help required on a concentrated attack on F-22 Raptor Messerschmitt Me 262 and F-15 Eagle pages

There has been a flurry of reverts on these two pages centring on the popular cultural references. A well known editor who has an aversion to these entries has removed all the sections without discussion or consulting with the very lengthy history of editors such as BillCJ and others in ensuring that the submissions are noteworthy. Please look into the matter. Arghhhh, we need an admin here. Bzuk 18:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Per this diff, the editor believes the Five Pillars forbid ANY Trivia or pop-culture refernces in non-related articles. I wish he was right! However, hopefully his actions will get a clarification on the issue, and perhaps we CAN get them banned! - BillCJ 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I think he is right, this is not the way to go about this. He disregarded any normal discussion and launched into wholesale attacks. There is not even a check on the consensus that you and others had established about making sure that the articles reflect other editors' contributions. FWIW Bzuk 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm an admin. How can I help? Please read WP:AGF, by the way. Just because a user makes changes you don't like doesn't mean they're in bad faith. --Eyrian 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The V-22 Osprey as well. The F-15 Transformers entry was agreed upon on the F-15 talk page and here. The F-22 one was discussed at length on the that article's talk page. -Fnlayson 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page. Consensus there is clear. --Eyrian 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus there or on any of the pages that had popular culture sections removed. In fact, all of the affected pages showed a long and consistent edit history of editors who had carefully screened submissions in these areas. This recent series of deletions seems motivated by a singular editor's notions about popular culture and not driven by the consensus of the group. IHHO Bzuk 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Talk: V-22 Osprey#Pop Culture, largely uncontested. And these are hardly singular notions, I assure you. These are trivia; unanalyzed appearances in fiction are inconsequential (from teh dictionary definition of trivia) to our understand of the subject. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection (WP:FIVE), and should not collect trivia. --Eyrian 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that trivial information is not acceptable but when many editors have submitted material over an extended period that links the impact of a particular type of aircraft into the public psyche than that transcends the insignificant and trivial. Would you remove a mention of the the Battle of Britain (film) when discussing the Supermarine Spitfire or Top Gun (film) when establishing what the general public knows about the F-14 Tomcat? The fact that all the aforementioned references have been provided and affirmed in many other reference sources gives more credence to the argument that the aircraft type has made a substantial connection with the populace. One of the first reference sources on the Avro Lancaster culminates with the examination of the use of the bomber in the Dam Busters (film). The fact that you are probably not alone in your assertions regarding the value of popular culture is countered by the legions of other editors who have contributed these "pop" references. I maintain that proper consultation or discussion did not take place in the recent exchange of edits and reversions. I do not find your name in the "talk" pages nor do I find a call for consensus. If you wish to do so, please go ahead and I and other editors would gladly abide by the decisions of a consensus on the topic of popular culture. I do not ascribe "good faith" to the type of actions that were exhibited in the last instances. FWIW Bzuk 18:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, I think that every one of those references should be deleted. And I doubt more than a handful of people associate the F-14 with Top Gun. And, unless there are citations to the contrary, fundamental scepticism is the rule. Whatever you may think that a list proves, it doesn't. To try and use these lists to prove something is, in fact, an examination of primary sources to advance a position; i.e. original research. Again, good faith is a matter of whether an editor is trying to improve the encyclopedia. That is what I am trying to do here. --Eyrian 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I will accept the contention that your intentions are in good faith but your actions belie the fact that you did not approach the discussion pages when making major alterations in an aviation article. As to whether your opinion holds sway, set up a direct and unambiguous request for consensus on the wholesale elimination of all popular culture references and let the consensus decide. FWIW Bzuk 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I really don't think that deleting a popular culture section is a major alteration to such fine articles. The number of (non-disclaimer) bytes changed was tiny, and all that was removed was a small section. Check WP:AFD if you have any doubt about where these references are headed. Indeed, one might say that it's better for the lists to become over-long, as they will eventually become bindingly deleted. Their obvious faults are made even clearer when brought to their natural conclusion. --Eyrian 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In your lawyerly way, you're avoiding the question. Any revision, including removing a section, that changes the article in a substantive way is a major revision. If you felt these changes were necessary, then they should have been addressed in the proper forum, the "discussion" page of the affected article. If you want to remove all popular culture references because that is your "bent" then request a consensus for other editors to "weigh in." MOTS Bzuk 19:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

When I see original research, I remove it. When I see vandalism, I remove it. When I see violations of the BLP policy, I remove it. When I see violations of notability, I nominate them for deletion. I don't think that every change made in compliance with policy needs to be discussed on the talk page; that's just approaching bureaucratic paralysis. Please read WP:BOLD --Eyrian 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the key issue here is a difference of interpretation of Wikipedia Policy. You beleive it doesn't follow policy, and are thus acting accordingly. However, there are MANY editors, admins included, who disagree. Can you cite a single sentence that explicitly forbids sourced, notable pop-culture appearances? If you can cite such a CLEAR statement, I'll join you in taking ALL the pop-culture sections out of the articles. You may be able to string some policies together to imply they sould not be allowed, but again, that's interpretation. WP:AIR and MILHIST have tried to form guidelines restricting pop-culture to "notable" appearences because they are not in fact forbidden. I and a lot of other editors in these 2 projects wish they were, but they aren't!

The best course of action for you at this point is to stop removing the appearences for now, and get a clarification on Policy on the issue. (I've not been around long enough to know how exactly to do that, or what it would be called.) If it comes back that is its in fact forbidden, again, I'll help you take it out. If it's allowed, or at least unclear, then I'd support you in trying to get it expressly forbidden, or at least allow Projects to do so on their own. - BillCJ 19:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill I wholeheartedly agree with you, and as you know, I was not fighting for the retention of the "Popular culture" references because, as you know, I have been as vociferous as any other editor in removing trivial and inconsequential submissions. I felt that there was an "attack" taking place by conceivably a very knowledgable and skilled editor but one who had not taken the proper course of action in seeking a consensus to underline the actions taken. I can see that there are strong feelings and emotional stakes here but I just as strongly felt that what needed to happen was to protect the articles (as is) first and then asking for direction from the group. FWIW Bzuk 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please voice your opinion here. --Eyrian 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd characterize it more as a "campaign" than as an attack, with the former being a more "neutral" term. In addition his is risking far more with continued reversions that a regular user, because, as admin, he would be held to a higher standard by any reviewing admins or 'crats if they felt his actions were over the line. I do agree something ought to be done, but that way is not the way I learned/was taught to do things on Wikipedia. - BillCJ 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll confess, I don't think I take the 3RR as seriously as I might. I don't like to block people for it (though I could've, several times). --Eyrian 19:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the justifications about "boldness" and the statement that major changes need not be discussed appear disingenuous. When the "campaign" had all the earmarks of an editwar by an editor who had not previously made major contributions to the articles, what would you expect others to think? All of the above commentary about the reasons to exclude popular culture could have very easily been brought to this or other forums or individual discussion pages to seek out a consensus for change and the simple expedient of checking the edit history for the sections being deleted would have quickly indicated that robust checks and balances had already been established by a number of editors and that the topic of establishing notoriety was an ongoing one. Nevertheless, this is my penultimate word on the "campaign", "crusade", "mission" or whatever. FWIW Bzuk 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A side effect of this revert war is that somehow it began overwriting the Messerschmitt Me 262, alternating between that page and the F-22 Raptor article material. Check the Me 262 history. It’s weird. Maybe an admin needs to look at that as well. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me weigh in here as a regular Aircraft Project editor and an admin:

There seems to be a persistent confusion, making "pop culture" references synonymous with "triva". WP:FIVE is then cited for wholesale deletions of pop culture sections. First, that's a false equality. The deleting editor should take it upon himself to justify, on the talk pages first, why pop culture sections are necessarily trivia. To make such an equality is an opinion, not a point of guideline. Second, WP:FIVE says "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" (emphasis added). That's a statement of the overall nature of Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that WP can't have any information in it that could be considered by some to be trivia.
Eyrian, please respect consensus, and what's more, please join in the conversation rather than just voicing your opinion but cutting material out. And when I say "please respect consensus", what I mean is please respect the official policy of Wikipedia:Consensus, which says that if you make a change that is reverted, like your have done, don't revert the revert, but instead, take it to the talk page. You get one shot and a change, and if others disagree, you can't keep trying to force your opinion on the rest of us...you must take it to the talk page.
Major aircraft are bound to become not just vehicles for transportation, but cultural icons. The F-14 and Top Gun are a good example. The Navy participated in the filming, spending a lot of money on gas, not all of which was reimbursed by the film company. Why? Because they viewed it as a great marketing/recruiting tool, and the numbers they got as a result proved they were right. Hueys have become a symbol of Viet Nam. Blackhawks have become a symbol of U.S. intervention. So when these aircraft show up in major pop culture artifacts, that is very arguabley notable (which would then make it not trivial).

So, in conclusion: 1) stop the edit warring! 2) talk! AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:Trivia says to avoid/minimize trivia sections or lists, not that they are prohibited altogether. -Fnlayson 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point...for Eyrian's benefit, I'd like to quote one line from that: "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, it is recommended (when possible) to integrate items into the article text." I would have expected an admin to respect that point. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can assure you, I'm well aware of the appropriate guidelines and policies. I've long maintained that Popular culture sections are not trivia sections. Trivia sections contain isolated facts that are about the subject of the article. Popular culture sections contain references in other works (which are generally trivial). I don't generally remove trivia sections. Please note the difference between a trivia section and trivial references. --Eyrian 17:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    - They why are you deleting such sections wholesale, without discussion? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Entries in a trivia section can be integrated into the article. Bare-mention pop-culture references cannot. The former can be useful, the latter never can, and will always remain trivia. Therefore, per WP:FIVE ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection"), it has to go. --Eyrian 18:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
        Ok, I'm confused. First you say that pop culture sections are not trivia sections. Then you say that you're removing pop culture sections because they're trivia. So, I go back to my earlier statement...the guideline for trivia sections says you shouldn't simply delete whole sections, and the consensus policy says that after your change is reverted once, you should take it to the talk page. Don't over-use WP:FIVE - it's an intro page, not a policy or guideline page. It speaks of the whole encyclopedia, but doesn't prohibit some material that's considered trivia. Bottom line, please respect the principle of discussion and consensus, even when, in the end, you don't agree with the consensus. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said (and made certain to differentiate explicitly), there is a difference between a trivia section about the subject of the article, and the trivial cultural references. And the five pillars transcend policy; policy is written to enforce those pillars. Consensus isn't relevant when it goes against the fundamental tenets of the encyclopedia. It doesn't, for example, matter how many people want original research to be acceptable, it's just not the way things work here.--Eyrian 18:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Eyrian is doing his job and removing the nonsense that is permeating throughout Wikipedia. There are a few keystrokers that have a long history of doodleing in the articles. The longivity of the actions and their conspiritorial ways does not justify the content. I hope that Eyrian continues to take the high road. There are definately a couple of editors who need to have their logs run and have the trivia they have generated removed wholesale from the articles.68.244.70.73 02:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..and, prithee, who might yee be that you have such a sweeping generalization about the doodlers here resident. FWIW Bzuk 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Whoah!! Whatever happened to Assume Good Faith? It seems rather extreme to leap from a discussion about what the best way of dealing with items of tangential importance to the main article to suddenly start talking about conspiracies and threatening un-named editors with having their contributions purged from the system. Discussion is needed - and not just here - about what constitutes Trivia and what can be kept if properly cited, and how to control the build-up of such items without overloading the original articles or driving off (mainly new) editors who don't understand why something that they feel is important or relavent (even if most don't) has been deleted. Nigel Ish 18:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that was removed from the aforementioned articles could be considered "doodleing" or solely the work of a few keystrokers. You should check before casting blame. -Fnlayson 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notice the comment that "Consensus isn't relevant"? My doth think the lady does protest too much? Definitely my last addled thoughts on this subject. FWIW Bzuk 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Looks like a good portion of the conspiritorial 'click' have chimed in. Eyrian is taking the lead in routing out the abuses of those that would fill the aircraft project with trivial rubbish. Instead of justifing your actions through group chants, your energies should be focused on reviewing the basics of article content. It is time for more than just correction at the article level, Those that are responsible for the trivia, the disregard of standards and group thug mentality need to be banished.68.245.212.244 01:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, my anonymous friend, do not have a clue and to characterize the editors who responded here as part of the clique of conspirators wanting to keep trivia in and act as "thugs", is so completely off the mark, that it defies comment. The editors whose work you malign have been absolutely resolute on the topic of keeping trivial and non-notable nonsense out of aviation articles, yet recieve this type of baseless attack? FWIW Bzuk 03:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

BillZ, this is apparently the same guy who thinks "lost" aircraft, when referring to damaged/destroyed airframes, means "they got lost due to navigational error." After we had the SR-71 page protected, he began posting notes on people's pages about me being a "vandel" (his spelling). I believe you may have got one of them, and he sent out at least 2 today. As long as he keeps ou this kind of behavior, I wouldn't tak anything his says, does, or comments on seriously. To the anon IP, I say this: If you really want to contribute seriously to Wikipedia, register, stop acting like a dork, and treat people with respect. Everyone should have a second or third chance to get beyond their mistakes. Don't ruin yours. - BillCJ 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BAC One-Eleven

An IP user keeps changing the name in the BAC One-Eleven article infobox and intro, I have reverted twice put a note on the Talk page but he/she has changed it again. Anybody help please reverting the changes in the article and warning the IP user, thanks. MilborneOne 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the proper designation is "BAC 1-11"; "BAC One-Eleven" is a colloquialism. The issue certainly should be resolved on the talk page. Unfortunately, not all IP users read it. The best we can do with them is keep reverting and in the edit comment continue inviting them to discuss it on the talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper name in One Eleven which is why the article is so named. I have provided a reference to the UK type certificate on the talk page. Although as you say the IP user does not appear to read it. Interestingly he/she only changes the intro and infobox despite the fact that the term One-Eleven is use throughout the article. Have changed it back with comment as suggested. Anybody know of suitable template or words to put on the IP users talkpage to invite them to discuss. MilborneOne 07:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the reversions are made without explanation or clarification and certainly whenever a major change is made in an article, it should be first discussed on the "talk" page. Perhaps having the article temporarily protected from IP editing may alleviate the problem. I still find it irksome when "anons" hide behind IP addresses and yet make major revisions. IMHO (speaking from my god-like stature of course) [:¬∆ Bzuk 07:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Questionable EL

Some has been adding links to http://www.xairforces.net to aircraft articles, and I don't know if these are acceptable. THis is one of them. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like spam, spam, spam, eggs, bacon, and spam for breakfast! --Rlandmann 21:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda thought it might be, 'cause I do not like green eggs and spam. - BillCJ 00:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me why that is spam, so that I know how to define it. Those pages don't seem to be heavy with ads, but do seem to have a lot of images. Why wouldn't a surfer want to find a link like that, as they are reading cool Wikipedia Articles of airplanes they like? --Colputt 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. It's simple when someone seemingly connected to the site puts those a site's links in multiple articles (spamming). I'm not sure about the sites themselves, since many have some type of ad banner or pop-up ads. -Fnlayson 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The xairforces.net appears to have copied Wikipedia text without giving us credit in violation of the GFD License. See T-50 Golden Eagle & xairforces T-50 gallery page for example. -Fnlayson 01:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Colputt - it's general policy to be sparing with external links (see the policy here); partially because of the ephemeral nature of the web (remembering that we're trying to create something of lasting value here, re-usable by others far into the future), and partially so that our articles don't get overwhelmed - we simply don't need or want a link to every man and his dog who has a website with a few photos of a MiG-21.

Wikipedia has an ongoing problem with people who want to use the encyclopedia simply as a means of driving traffic to their sites (see here). This is viewed as a form of abuse, and always follows the same predictable pattern that occurred in this incident - the insertion of multiple links to the same site across a wide range of Wikipedia articles (as Fnlayson noted above) - several dozen in this case; some articles were given several links to various pages of the same site. When this sort of thing occurs, it's regarded prima facie as less of an attempt to improve Wikipedia, and more of an attempt to advertise somebody's private website.

There are many kinds of external link that are really helpful in aircraft articles - links to manufacturers, airlines, air forces, and museums spring to mind. There are also some private websites that really stand out for their treatment of their subjects - Rob de Bie's site on the Me 163 for one example. In the words of our external link policy, these do indeed "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail".

In this particular instance, however, the website offered our readers nothing that they couldn't easily and immediately obtain from an image search engine. Furthermore, since (unlike, say airliners.net), it seems very doubtful whether the site's creator has licences for the images that are being reproduced on the site, this sort of link is undesirable both because we don't know how long it will be before they get a take-down notice, and because it's at odds with the respect that Wikipedia gives to others' intellectual property. --Rlandmann 03:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Rlandmann, it makes much more sense to me now. It is another thing I will keep in the back of my mind as I create new articles in my own quest to find the noteable US Military Aircraft of the 1920s and 30s. --Colputt 02:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's more in the WP:EL policy page. Like no forum pages. -Fnlayson 03:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novi Avion

I recently discovered the Novi Avion page, and it needs a LOT of help. It lists two vague sources, and none are cited in the article. It doesn't specify who the manufacturer was, so I'm not able to find it in any of my printed sources. Then there's the fanboy IP who keeps adding stuff like (had not Yugoslavia being broken up and socialism having not collapsed two years earlier, and since not only would it have served Yugoslavia's airspace well. I could use some help from someone who is either more familar with the plane, or who has access to other material, perhaps even from non-English sources. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no manufacturer as the aircraft project never got so far. In Yugoslavia, the military's VTI R&D center designed and tested the aircraft, which would go to an aerospace manufacturer for production (in this case, probably Soko). I added a little more on VTI, but there is little available in English and I have no facility with Serbo-Croatian, I'm afraid. I can try to help answer specific questions there, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft re-branding

How do we handle aricraft that have been re-branded by their manufacturer? With older aircraft that have been re-branded years before, it's not much of a problem - DC-9 Super 80 to MD-80 isn't a problem for us, everything we've written says MD-80. Recently, AgustaWestland has re-branded a few of its helicopters, including the AB 139 to AW 139. THat was an easy one, since it wasn't that widespread in use, and had fewer mentions.

But now that AW has rebranded the EH101 as the AW101, what do we do? It's been called the EH101 for over 20 years now. Do we change every mention on en.wiki to AW101, other than to mention it used to be the EH101? DO we move the page now, or wait till AW101 becomes more common? I know this is better asked on the EH101 talk page, but I'm also asking about re-branding in general, and how we should handle such a thing. - BillCJ 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is a solution but the most commonly known name should predominate with a note that the type has also been re-named or "re-branded" (neat name, I like that). When and if the new name becomes the most common name, then changes would be required. FWIW Bzuk 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That's what is usually done, but I wasn't sure if it was the way we want to do it. We don't have to have guidelines on everything, but it does sometimes help to be prepared. You never know, Bombardier might buy out Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and finally make B747 the official designation! Or Embraer might buy a majority stake in Airbus, and then we'd have the E380. (Don't laugh - do you think anyone in the 1942 would have believed McDonnell, a start-up in St. Louis, would merge with Douglas 25 years later? Stranger things have happened!) - BillCJ 17:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabour the topic, but the most recognizable name will "win out." Even though Boeing used the "717" designation for essentially the family of Douglas DC-9/MD-80/90, most observers still use the DC-9 appellation. FWIW Bzuk 17:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Rebranding is a recurring and thorny problem indeed. Gulfstream’s bizjets are another good example. My preference would be to cover them as they are most well-known, unless there is a significant redesign associated with the new brand. Redirect the rebrand to the main article and add a para. or subsection noting the change and explaining the reasons (if known), and mention it in the intro lead. (BTW, w.r.t. BillCJ’s example, I flew on a Super 80 during a business trip last week. It’s interesting to note that the only designation exposed to the flying passenger is “Super 80”.) Askari Mark (Talk) 22:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fokker ribs requiring some meat

I just came across some new Fokker articles created by Mark Lincoln from some limited info available to him. Despite the titles of two of these stub articles, all three actually address multiple aircraft designs. Anybody have further references to help him expand them? They are Fokker V.17 (thru V.25), Fokker V.27 (thru V.37), and Fokker V.9, V.11, V.12, V.13. V.14, and V.16. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got these on the back burner. Some of the models described are prototypes or one-off developments of existing designs that should simply redirect to articles we already have; others can and should be at least stubbified as distinctive types of their own. For the time being, I was even wondering whether this information could simply be merged into the main Fokker article until someone has time to sort it all out? Any objections? --Rlandmann 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO that would be the best thing to do. Normally we wouldn't break them out into separate articles until there's sufficient information available to do so. Perhaps we should add a section (maybe someday to be a separate article) on "Fokker prototypes". Askari Mark (Talk) 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be enough significance for these designs to rate a separate article. They probably fit best within other major Fokker articles. FWIW Bzuk 05:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed in most cases; but there are a very few I noticed when I first ran my eye over them that are indeed unique breeds that would (all else being equal) be eligible for separate articles at some point in the future. But for now, I think I'll go ahead and merge them. --Rlandmann 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to go through the Fokkers in general as I have found much that many of the articles requires cleaning up and tweaking to get to the general standard and layout that we are looking for. One thing I've noticed is the inconsistancies in naming the different Fokker aircraft, e.g. you can see "F27", "F-27", "F.27". I would lean towards using the last version. --MoRsE 08:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style, Template:Aerospecs vs. Template:Aircraft specifications

I just discovered that the Template:Aerospecs is used in quite a lot of articles (some 400). This differs somewhat from the Template:Aircraft specifications which I believe is the standard for WP:AIR. The template is quite new (late March). I have been trying to fix some that I have stubled upon, but the sheer number will take time to correct. --MoRsE 10:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the new template because of the serious fundamental problems with Template:Aircraft specifications when dealing with anything other than the most mainstream of aircraft. It's worse than useless with whole categories of aircraft including lighter-than-air, sailplanes, and many aircraft of even slightly unconventional design (including God forbid anything that might have rotors and wings...)

Furthermore, the design of Template:Aircraft specifications is based heavily on addressing problems that never really existed; the reason why units are specified as "main" and "alt" rather than coding them directly as metres, feet, etc was to address the concerns of a single voiciferous user in 2005 who never contributed a single aircraft article in his entire time on Wikipedia and yet was deeply concerned about the units this project was using. Likewise, the template is seriously bloated with fields for things that are rarely if ever present in our sources and even more seldom actually contributed to articles; such as airfoil sections and power-to-weight ratios. These were inserted as part of a "top down" effort by certain editors who felt that these should be included; when pragmatically, virtually no contributor was ever contributing them.

Template:Aircraft specifications is fundamentally flawed both practically and philosophically, and I've been trying to refine something better. Template:Aerospecs now working well (I think) across an incredibly diverse range of flying machines; and I guess now that the question has come up, I'm asking the project to endorse it at the very least as an acceptable alternative to the current abomination. In time, of course, I'd like to see the one completely replace the other, but it's very early days yet to be calling for such a radical and widespread change. --Rlandmann 11:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Aerospec template not have an layout example on the talk page or below the code? -Fnlayson 13:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Aerospecs does appear to be less intuitive than Template:Aircraft specifications (of course - this may be because I'm used to Template:Aircraft specifications. One MAJOR problem with Aerospecs is that it does not allow for citing sources - Citing is important and not allowing citing of the specs makes it harder to see whether correct/sensible data has been used and to fill in gaps for missing bits of information (and citing this information) - in a worst case , using a template that doesn't allow citing runs the risk that good information could be deleted as uncited, something we all should want to avoid. Nigel Ish 15:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that it adresses some of the shortcomings, but I am a little concerned that the layout and appearance is a little different. --MoRsE 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Fnlayson - Template:Aerospecs isn't properly documented yet, since I'm still treating it as a work-in-progress. Up to now, I haven't been inviting anyone else to use it (although I've noticed at least one other editor doing so). If and when the template receives any sort of sanction for general use, I'll be more than happy to document it properly. If you read it in the context of Template:Aerostart, which I use for setting up articles, it will make more sense, since it's commented in that version.

@Nigel - I'd also like to think that the level of intuitiveness is a matter of habit; after all, what's more intuitive - specifying dimensions as "alt", "main" and "original" or "m", "ft" and "in"? As for citing - specifications are flat, uncontroversial facts, and not the sorts of things that ought to require direct citation. WP:CITE asks for citations only for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". If a specification is controversial for some reason (for example a claim about speed or range), then this controversy is surely noteworthy enough to be discussed in the body of the article and ought to be cited there. However, having used it in well over 400 aircraft so far, I've yet to find a specification contentious enough to warrant a direct citation (exactly the kind of thing I've been hoping to learn about the template).

@MoRsE - How do you see the layout differing? I've tried to ensure that it's the same to minimise any possible disruption to the project while I work on this. The appearance is slightly different for, again, some quite deliberate reasons; practically, because certain fields in Template:Aircraft specifications are quite clearly over-precise compared to most of the sources that provide the specifications for most of our articles. The worst offender is identifying gross weight with MTOW. MTOW is a specific gross weight, a regulatory concept related to airworthiness and certification. When a source specifies a weight as gross (or even "maximum") it may be quoting an MTOW figure, but in a vast number of instances (particularly for historic aircraft) there's no grounds for simply assuming this. I have similar but lesser misgivings about identifying maximum speed with V_NO; in many cases this will be anachronistic and/or irrelevant. More generally, I hold that the field names simply don't need to be wikied, since most of these links are of very marginal utility ("service ceiling" is perhaps the only one of the basic specifications whose meaning is not necessarily immediately obvious to someone without specialist knowledge) and to my mind this is outweighed by their eyesore value! --Rlandmann 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So - referencing information isn't important? If information isn't cited - how does anyone know what source has been used and how credible it is - We shoudln't just shrug our shoulders and say "Well its somewhere in one of the references - it doesn't matter where!" People do make mistakes sometimes - and having proper sources can help to see if mistakes have been made. Nigel Ish 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No less, and (significantly) no more important than any other piece of uncontroversial information here. Insisting on a direct cite for specifications considerably over-reaches WP:CITE. There's no policy that demands this, not even any guideline that does. The ^[1] current^[2] vogue^[3] on^[4] Wikipedia^[5] for^[6] wanting^[7] to^[8] cite^[9] every^[10] individual^[11] fact^[12] or^[13] set^[14] of^[15] facts^[16] in an article is, to my mind, inconsistent with building an encyclopedia (though perfectly at home in a term paper). All it really achieves is a general decrease in readability, since the sources are generally not easily checkable by other editors, let alone casual readers, and I designed the template on that premise. As I said to BillCJ below, if people want to add citations, the template in no way prevents them from doing so, but it does dispense with the misleading illusion in Template:Aircraft specifications that this is somehow mandatory. My personal belief it that over-referencing is nothing more than a fashion -one of many that comes and goes here over the years. But that last point is of course just my own 2 cents' worth. --Rlandmann 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Just re-reading that - it may come across as more fierce than I really mean it to be. Yes, over-referencing is a "hot button" for me - but I know that this is an unfashionable view at the moment - the last thing I want anyone to feel is that I'm somehow attacking them personally, so please read my remarks in that light! :)[reply]

I am guilty of using the new template! I find it a lot easier to use. I dont see a need to cite directly in the template as source documents I use are always listed under references. I would support its adoption. MilborneOne 21:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new template overall, but I do think it needs to be expanded to include a few of the options in the old one, sucha s armament and avionics. In particular, I don't see why the ref option should not be included. I find it very useful when adding data, and I like to know where data came from, as we all know of sources that are notorious for bad data. Having the ref in the specs makes it clear in no uncertain way where the data came from. You don't have to use it, but I really don't see the need for excluding it. I do like the eng/met toggle, which is nice, and saves alot of work if it needs to be changed from one to the other. - BillCJ 22:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armaments are already in there (in a much more flexible form than in Template:Aircraft specifications). Avionics are deliberately not, since this is another example of information that seems quite reasonable in include in theory, but in practice is (a) seldom provided in sources (b) seldom contributed even when it is available and (c) isn't the sort of information that's ever shown in the specifications sections of encyclopedia-calibre works. As for specs, if for some reason anyone wants to provide a reference for specs, they can of course do so by inserting ref tags the same way they would do with any other piece of information, so the option is already there by default; it's not excluded in any way. On the other hand, building such a section into the template tends to make it look like a requirement, which really over-reaches WP:CITE. --Rlandmann 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't having ONE ref line in the specs be alot better than people adding refs after every indivilual spec they want to references? THe alternative is putting one or two sources just above the template itself, but it's going to be done is a hap-hazard form. THe ref line formatting ensures some uniformity in that. I can see how you'd be against over-referencing, but I honestly fail to see how excluding the ref line is going help that any. To me, the specs are an important part of the info we present, and I also like knowing where the specs I added came from, as my memory is pretty bad! I personally think sourcing specs should be required, as I like to know where they come from without having to hunt through a bunch of sources. However, I can live with it being an option - I just don't understand excluding the line at all, as that would needlessly complicate the whole situation. Now as far as the format of the ref title goes, I'm OK with how it looks, but wouldn't have a problem with a diferent style either. - BillCJ 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BillCJ, your logic is inescapable! Much as I despise the trend, if people are going to provide a reference for the spec section, it makes sense that it should be in a standard format and not, as you say in any haphazard format. I've just implemented a ref parameter in the template that will output a citation in the same format that Template:Aircraft specifications uses (ie "Data from"). --Rlandmann 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every once in a while my logic comes out that way by accident! ANyway, life on WIki is about compromise. I could I'd give up the avionics field in exchange, but I don't ever use it! - BillCJ 04:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - nobody else does either! :) --Rlandmann 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information, there are some templates that possibly could be worked into the current one (with some modifications of course), these are Template:M to ft in and Template:Ft in to m. This could save (me for instance) some time to try to figure out how many feets and inches a certain metric length is. As for the templates, I would love to see the adapted template include the data for helicopters as well, whether it be the new or the old one. As for the Template:Aerostart, it is very good if you manage to fill in all information required. However, if you don't, the appearance seems a little unfinished, with some part of data required (met=) and a lot of whitespace due to the invisible headers, see e.g. [1]. As for Rlandmann's question, I believe now that it was merely the links in the older template, which were missing in the new one, that caught my eye. This is easily corrected though. --MoRsE 06:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realised the problem with the whitespace and rectified it some time ago, although some older articles still display the problem. ~~(met=) is indeed required; there may be a switch that I'm not aware of that could force the template to assume SI units unless specified otherwise? I'll take a look.~~ This template already supports helicopters and always has; however, some editors have been deleting unused fields from actual articles - so perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from? I'll very vigorously resist any attempt to "correct" the new template by installing links into the field descriptions, for the practical and aesthetic reasons I gave above. --Rlandmann 07:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now remember why I made the switch compulsory rather than using an if/then/else - so that the template could be saved in the code of an article "dormant" in the few rare cases where we had no meaningful specifications available (like here). --Rlandmann 07:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I think I got the indent level right) To my mind the issues to be addressed here are

that we will end up having two templates for the same role - not good
that an editor, having his own concerns as to the content (the units issue aside), developed a template that addressed these concerns rather than working to have them implemented by extending the existing template
that a work-in-progress is spun off into numerous articles before it is complete and properly documented for others to use. (with the result that we have 400 now using it which is more than necessary for testing and refining).

To my mind, the first two issues run against the general principle of concensus, the last seems more careless than anything. My personal opinion is that we should seek to incorporate those elements which can extend the use of the Aircraft Specifications to more aircraft ie the gliders then use of the aerospecs template can be phased out. The author has shown how this can be done by the addition of extra parameters. At the same time, the documentation for both templates should be updated (Aircraft Specifications has some paramters which are poorly documented including "hardpoints" and "propellor") so that users of either can be certain of using them properly and consistently.

As a secondary concern, using a template name very close to the one for tagging that specs are missing ie "aerospecs" vs "aero-specs" is also bad form. For myself when I meet the template I convert it to the standard, chiefly in cases like some WWI era machines where the specs avaiable run to little more than length span and speed. GraemeLeggett 13:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly unlikely we're going to end up having two templates for the same role; one is almost certain to win out in the end. In any case, even if it didn't; it's really no big deal if one lingers on for a while until natural attrition picks it off. The difference to users reading aircraft articles is (deliberately!) trivial. And I think, when you've converted articles back to the old template, you've seen that conversion is pretty straightforward if anyone cares to do it. Well, unless you have to decide whether a non-rigid airship is best described as fixed wing or a helicopter that is... :)
The fixed-wing/helicopter and prop/jet switches in the existing template render it fundamentally and fatally flawed. A "clean sheet" design, whether Template:Aerospecs or something else again really is the best approach. I admit that I made a conscious decision to tackle all the initial design and implementation single-handed, mostly because I believe that the old template suffers badly from its design by committee roots (ie, incorporating lots of features that various people thought were good ideas but which no-one, not even themselves, ever really wanted to use - or in fact did use).
Well, it's not really all that long ago that I implemented the last batch of changes to properly accommodate lighter-than-air craft; but yes, I guess I'm satisfied enough now to ask for the project to endorse it as an acceptable alternative to the old template. I was aiming to get to the end of the letter "C" in the list of missing aircraft before raising this but I don't suppose it makes much difference now. Again, to my mind, one of the problems with the old template was that it wasn't tested for long enough or (specifically) across a wide enough range of aircraft before being released for general use. The flat, uncategorised, random nature of the "missing" list makes it ideal for this sort of test - you never know quite what is going to come up next in the alphabet!
Granted that aerospecs vs. aero-specs is unfortunate - a plain blunder on my part pure and simple. Thankfully, in practice there really seems be little chance of confusing them. Nevertheless, I'm more than happy to rename the Template:Aerospecs and do all the cleanup in existing articles that use it if others here have concerns on this point.
"Propeller" and "Hardpoints" are two beautiful examples of the bloat that exists in the old template and the flawed design philosophy at its very roots. Everything I said about the "Avionics" section above applies equally to these two; and they illustrate my "design by committee" accusation very well indeed.
Documentation for Template:Aerospecs has always been intended once the template was ready to present for official sanction. Since that has now de facto happened, I will now make this a matter of priority and the template and its use will be fully documented by the end of the month. (I have personal reasons that will limit my Wikipedia time after tomorrow for the next week or two, so unfortunately I can't promise to attend to it sooner). Notwithstanding this, I was delighted to see how quickly, completely, and consistently User:MilborneOne was able to pick up the template, even in the almost complete absence of documentation! This makes me hopeful that the new template is indeed more intuitive than the old one - perhaps that user might like to share his experiences of getting to know the template? To everyone else, "Try it! You may like it!" :) --Rlandmann 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new template is easier to use, I noticed that Rlandmann was using it and thought I would give it a try. No problems most of it is self documented, it handles the main/alt problems a lot more elegantly then the old template. Armament is a lot better - it was free format before it is a lot better controlled. There was a lot of entries in the old template that are never used, they just dont appear in most general reference material. It is a lot easier to create for example helicopters. Sorry I keep saying easier but in my experience it is. MilborneOne 20:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using the new template recently (along with Template:aerostart) and have found it/them to be immensely easier to use, and, after creating 16 new aircraft articles of varying types, the only item the template hasn't covered so far is when the cruise speed is based on a certain altitude (and I don't even think that's an important enough variable to include). I'll help with the instuctions page to get this thing running.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a 'max speed more' or 'max speed alt' field could handle that. The Aircraft spec template has 'more' fields for descriptions. Anyway, just a thought. -Fnlayson 13:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of countries in Operators section

Are there any guidelines for the names of countries in Operators section? I couldn't find and I would like clear situation like this or another edits without edit war.

My proposals:

We shouldn't use full and official name of countries:
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a little bit longer than usual United Kingdom.
- Republic of Poland next to Polish People's Republic are both less known than Poland.
We should use the different name of country for highlighting major differences like:
- British India vs India (colonial / independent)
- German Empire vs Nazi Germany vs Germany (the same country in different timeline)
- Republic of Vietnam vs Socialist Republic of Vietnam (separate parts of the same country)
- Spanish State (Franco's one) vs Spanish Republic (before Spanish Civil War)

Any ideas, comments, opinions etc.? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - BillCJ 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No guidelines that I'm aware of. I'd say that #1 is obvious and #2 makes good sense. In both cases, I think you've also illustrated what most of us have been doing most of the time anyway. --Rlandmann 20:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that. Who will revert changes in both Defiant articles to fit to this standard? I don't want to do that because it could be considered as an edit war. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 22:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the simplest forms best - just the country names are all that is needed in an infobox. In the Operators section itself, the country name is all that is necessary, but if used by multiple services (RAF & RN) or government faction (Free French AF), it would be fine to note that as well. Long forms of country names should be left "for official use only." Askari Mark (Talk) 01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted Boulton Paul Defiant. I won't do it a second time. Is this what is called a POV issue? I see that he is changing a number of instances of British India to India. Perhaps there is no real answer to this one. I do prefer the extra information conveyed by the descriptive version (British India), over what may be the simple version. This is the reason why Wikipedia will never be accepted universally, becaues even the Wikipedia editor community can't agree on the intent. I prefer Vichy French and Free French over French for those periods of World War Two (which is also called many things). Just like there was once a Republic of Texas where it is now the State of Texas, a distinction should be made. What does the source say? --Colputt 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had been informed that there was a consensus discussion going on so that i would be able to post my explanation. The following is what i had posted in my talk page to the message left by Ptior . - Reg the point India Vs British India Even in the time of the British - they never called it "British India" or "British Raj" - Everything went by the name India. Forexample, the government was "Government of India" and not "Government of British India" or "Government of British Raj". Similarly there as the "Indian Railways" and the "Indian Air Force" and not the "British Indian Railways / British Raj Railways" or "British Indian Air Force". Even when the Brits created the Indian Air Force they never called it "Royal Indian Air Force" but simply "Indian Air Force". We can argue about the semantics of who ruled what. but as far as terminology is concerned. only "India" existed and not "British India" or "British Raj". jaiiaf 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kamov Ka-50/Ka-52

We currently have separate articles for the Kamov Ka-50 and the closely-related Kamov Ka-52. There is a merge proposal at Talk:Kamov Ka-50#Requested merger 2. Any participation in the poll and discussion is welcome, whatever your ultimate view on the issue. - BillCJ 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft Specifications

The template could use some improving but I don't know how to do that. Who could I talk to? Marine57 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first place is the template's talk page. Here would be the second choice.. -Fnlayson 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Problem going on with 4th generation jet fighter

Ash sul asked me to look at massive changes to this article, chiefly by two anon IPs. A quick look through these shows that there's a lot of POV being inserted (often with weasel words instead of sources), large blocks of material being summarily deleted, and POV "reallocations" of aircraft among "generations" — along with some actually useful contributions. If you'll look at the history since my last change on 17 August 2007 at 12:51, you'll see what I mean. Ash sul thought I might semi-protect it, but I'm not an admin. I'd like someone here who is an admin to look at the situation and see what's best. At least one of the anons will go to the talk page, if you have his attention. (He's the one who has been edit-warring over whether F-22 should be considered a "similar aircraft" to the Typhoon.) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend semi-protection and thorough check of the article for WP:OR. Personally, I think it needs an extensive re-write.--Dali-Llama 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Units

Since not everyone has the Units tab on their watchlist, I thought I'd drop this here as well...there's now a template that will do some of the units conversions that we need. I've added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Units, and full instructions are at {{convert}}. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Survivors

Just some examples - not very consistent naming policy - any chance of a consensus and make them all the same ? MilborneOne 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added CH-54... Yeah there are quite a few article/list/etc of these out there. --Trashbag 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul of Fighter aircraft and 4th generation jet fighter articles?

Given the recent fracas over the 4th generation jet fighter article, the inherent nebulousness of the definitions of “jet fighter generations”, and the excessive overlap of material between that article and the jet fighter portions of Fighter aircraft (which means the same problems crop up in both), I’d like to propose a restructuring and overhaul of both these articles.

“Fighter aircraft” would be revamped to focus more on the history of fighter evolution, with an emphasis on the significant tactical and technological developments which have advanced their capabilities. (This would include important prototypes and technology demonstrators where appropriate.) The jet fighter section would be reworked toward this end with minimal reference to “generations” (and no listings of aircraft in particular generations), but linking (where relevant) to a new article, “Jet fighter generations”.

This new article would be a complete reworking of the “4th generation jet fighter” article to discuss the concept and how and why such “consensus” definitions have arisen, and identify those aircraft and which of their technologies have come to “define” each generation. I feel this would be a much more encyclopedic article, as well as a way to better showcase, if you will, articles on those most important technologies and their impacts on tactics and operations. If the community thinks this is a good idea, I’m willing to work on a draft version. (My discussion of these generations in the talk page of Fighter aircraft could be the basis of an outline.) Comments? Askari Mark (Talk) 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes much more sense than what is there now. I'm all for it. --Colputt 04:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference sources in other languages

I have noted that a number of references other than English-language sources have appeared in the references and notes sections of various articles. What is the usual standard for acceptance of these sources? Is an English-language source considered primary while other language sources are secondary? In some cases, for example, on a Swedish or Finnish aircraft, I assume that the best sources may even be in Swedish or Finnish. Then again, there are fantastic series of reference materials in Polish and Japanese that provide authoritative information and would be suitable as references. What do others think? On another peripheral issue, do book references have a greater precedence than magazine/journal/other media sources? FWIW Bzuk 12:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I too would like to know what sources are preferred. I tend to prefer subject dedicated books first (such as ME-109 by Martin Cadin), then encyclopedia books (like The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft), then non-fiction accounts (such as Biplane to Monoplane Aircraft Development 1918-1939). Magazines and Journals are cool, but I don't have much access to those. I don't like advertisements, like the 8x11 picture cards that Lockheed puts out to jazz up their fighters. They usually have some odd information on them. What about un-published sources, like national archives or Military General Orders? Is that a bad thing? I read somewhere that Wikipedia prefers error-prone "published" sources over original research. If you don't research and find original sources to validate the "published" stuff, don't you just end up with a bunch of junk? I would always assume the best source is the one closest to the subject by ~~local~~ locale or language, translated to English sources would be worse by definition. What we do here looks just like the "Research Papers" I wrote in school, isn't that the very definition of original research? --Colputt 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where to get started! Wikipedia:Citing sources Emoscopes ^Talk 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bzuk’s original questions, the answer to the first can be found at WP:RSUE and the last at WP:RS. With respect to the latter, in general, it’s not so much in what form it is published, but the expertise and professionalism of the author and the “forum” in which the source is found. Scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals are considered best, along with books by recognized experts in the field; online discussion forums and blogs are considered unreliable (although they may have experts commenting in them) because there is no independent, third-party review of the author’s writings. Sources like national archives or Military General Orders one has to be careful with, since they are what are known as "primary sources". Wikipedia prefers we write about what others – typically experts in the evaluation and critiquing of such sources – have written about them and the subject matter to which they attest. In essence, yes, what we write here is very much like the research papers written in school, but what is different is that we do not make original observations or conclusions; we write instead about what experts and professionals have written on the subject, since they are (usually) better qualified than we are. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack helicopter change of focus and/or merger

With the creation of the Helicopter bombing article, a debate started with whether or not to merge it into Attack helicopter. However, after looking at that article, I personnally feel that it could do with its own updating and improvement, and perhaps refocusing. On the talk page someone is asking for clarification of "attack helicopter" as a definition, and I personally think that an article such as "Armed Helicopter" should be used to encompass armed helicopters, transports turned gunships, dedicated attack helicopters, and helicopter bombing (and anything else that's relevant). Other thoughts? -- Thatguy96 19:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed Armed Helicopter will cover gray areas. Sounds like a fine idea. Seems like renaming Attack Helicopter to Armed Helicopter and adding the other info would be the way to go on that. -Fnlayson 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer keeping the Attack helicopter article separate, but trimming it back just to cover the AH-1 Cobra forward. It is a well-known term, and as such deserves some coverage. However, if the concensus is for it to be moved and merged, I'll live with that. - BillCJ 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Attack Helicopter article is kept as is, the Helicopter bombing article could be reworked to a Armed Helicopter one covering bombing and attack with a main article link pointing to the dedicated Attack article. -Fnlayson 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so are we pretty set on the Armed Helicopter/Attack Helicopter distinction? Does anyone have a good working definition they can put into the Attack Helicopter article? When I get some time I could also start the Armed Helicopter one and move the Helicopter bombing part into it. -- Thatguy96 16:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I would suggest moving Helicopter bombing to Armed helicopter - that way we keep the edit history of the earlier article active, rather than orphaning it as a redirect. Minor, but just somethibng I prefer to do. - BillCJ 16:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, too. BTW, after dealing with all sorts of edit wars and incivility elsewhere, it is such a breath of fresh air to come here to this project and be around editors who discuss things like adults! Thanks, guys! AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An attack helicopter is one designed for ground attack role with major weapons and some armor. Versus modifying/upgrading utility or transport helicopters by adding weapons. It's a primary role vs. a secondary one as well. -Fnlayson 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if the secondary role becomes the primary role? The UH-1C and UH-1M featured upgraded engines for increased power primarily for the gunship role. What about light helicopters where the primary role is gunship, even if the aircraft's original role had been observation or liaison (as in the case of the H-6 and MD500 series)? True, neither were designed ground up as gunships, but the UH-1C and AH-6J, for example, were both subsequently operated almost purely in this role. -- Thatguy96 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AH-6J has a lift alter-ego in the MH-6J, so it isn't an aircraft design operated almost purely in an attack role. It is a version of that design and series that is modified for a mission. --Born2flie 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The helicopter is no longer designated AH-6 when it is configured for the lift role. Technically, the AH-6J's primary role is attack, regardless of the fact that there are other versions that are used in other roles. -- Thatguy96 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement links the UH-1C and the AH-6J together in being designed for one thing and operated solely as another. There is no UH equivalent to the UH-1C operated in any other role, this is not true of the AH-6J. They are not the same in that respect. I can agree that the "AH-6J" is operated as an attack helicopter, but your statement implies that like the UH-1C it was designed for one thing and turned into another. The H-6J was envisioned from the beginning as being able to be used as both a multimission platform as well as an attack platform for the purpose of streamlining the logistics tail; the same reason why the UH-1M, the UH-1H, and the AH-1G all shared the same engine and why the UH-60 and AH-64 do today. --Born2flie 08:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I think I agree with you, but I'm actually not entirely clear what you're saying. When you say there is not UH equivalent to the UH-1C operated in any other role, do you mean no UH-1s that were essentially developed specifically for the gunship role? No other UH series aircraft that were developed as multi-mission platforms? Also, to say that the UH-1C was designed for one thing and turned into another sort of confuses the reality. The introduction of the 540 rotor system, the biggest change from the UH-1B to UH-1C, came at a time where the helicopter was being used almost exclusively in the gunship role. To say the UH-1C was "turned" into a gunship, belies the fact that the UH-1D had entered service before it, leading to the doctrinal shift to short fuselage UH-1 (204-based) aircraft for gunships and long fuselage UH-1 (205-based) for transport and utility roles. Like I said, I'm not entirely clear on what you're getting at, but I think I might be in agreement with the basic idea. I disagree on one point, however, and I think I can quite easily compare subsequent models of the H-6 to the UH-1. The AH-6J and MH-6J are both part of the H-6 family, which started with the OH-6A. -- Thatguy96 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there is no AH-1C and UH-1C, there is only the UH-1C and it was operated as an attack platform. UH-1Bs were armed as escorts when the UH-1D began operating circa 1962-63. The biggest complaint was the lack of power and speed of the UH-1B when it was loaded with armament. This prompted the improvements of the UH-1C which began being delivered in place of UH-1Bs in 1965. This is not the same for the AH-6J.

The UH-1A and UH-1B were first armed as escorts in 1961 to help escort H-21 and H-34 aircraft, just as a note. -- Thatguy96 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

en masse, then...--Born2flie 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OH-6A production series III (according to Jane's) included the provisions for the XM-3 armament system. While this is not an "original" design feature, arming the aircraft was available from early on in its lifespan. The AH-6J is a descendant of the OH-6A. But, it was designed as part of the J-series variant with both attack and lift configurations, so it is not similar to the UH-1C which has no lift counterpart designated anythingH-1C. The J- and M-series H-6s are the first to unify both the lift and the attack airframe as the same series of variant, while the H-1 attack and lift series have been maintained as separate versions due to their differing airframes, as well as roles. Although, the USMC utilizes the UH-1N in a light attack role, and will be using the UH-1Y in that role, as well. --Born2flie 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't exactly see what you're getting at. I agree that the H-6J has two versions, one ostensibly for lift and one for attack. How does changing the role prefix on paper make it unlike the UH-1C? The multi-mission modifier only comes into usage in 1977, before that M had been used to designate missile carriers (since the USN had aircraft with a special designator for such a mission when the shift in systems occurred in 1962). It was also used for mine-countermeasures for a short period after that. I'm actually surprised the M prefix hasn't been allocated to the USMC's upgraded UH-1Ns and the UH-1Y (which would have made them MH-1N and MH-1Y). They don't require an more of a modification from their light attack to light lift roles than the H-6J does. That the Army requested and received special role modifiers for the two aircraft, when M would sufficed for both aircraft is interesting in of itself. The first special operations H-6s were in fact direct descendants of the OH-6A and even received separate series designators, MH-6B and AH-6C. The Air Cavalry OH-6As also had a standard armament fit, noted in the official TO&E, and never received an AH-6A designator. A similar thing happened with the AH-58D Prime Chance aircraft, the production examples of which were redesignated back to OH-58D, with a new name (Kiowa Warrior rather than simply Kiowa). I would challenge the idea that this is the first time lift and gunship have been unified in the same airframe. -- Thatguy96 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is your statement on whether or not the same series (alpha identifier after the design number) being used for any other mission qualifies as "almost purely" being used as an "attack" aircraft. Your proofs continue to be that if forward pointing weapons are mounted on the aircraft, then it qualifies as an attack aircraft, but your initial statement implied that it was a single series of aircraft designed for attack purposes when the original design was not. Since the H-6J was designed in two configurations, I disagree with your initial assertion. As for the AH-58D, the role of the helicopter was not attack, but observation/reconnaissance. Even though it was employed in light divisions as the primary "attack" platform, its main role continued to be observation. --Born2flie 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I implied the entire UH-1 series was designed for the gunship role. The UH-1C and UH-1M specifically were operated only in this role, however. That's not an entire series, that's two models. In my mind this is exactly like saying that the original OH-6A was not designed for attack but the improved AH-6J was. The UH-1 series was not intended for attack, but the UH-1C and UH-1M were. They just didn't change the role modifier letter in the designation. To compare the UH-1A/B in my mind to the AH-6J is inaccurate. -- Thatguy96 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I'd have to give a lesson in aircraft designation. We refer to it as MDS: Mission, Design, and Series. I actually learned it as MTDS: Mission, Type, Design, and Series, as it applies to helicopters. AH-6J and MH-6J are both the J-series of the H-6. There is no lift variant to the UH-1C, although the aircraft is capable of carrying troops. I apologize, because I thought you were familiar with MDS and didn't understand that you would be confused by my talking from the MDS perspective. --Born2flie 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to give me a lesson in how the MDS works. I understand that. Its the exact terminology I was confused on. Still doesn't respond to my point though. What does changing the role modifier prefix or the series suffix do to the general argument here? What does it really matter that there isn't an AH-1C? The UH-1C and UH-1M were not deployed with units to be used in a utility role. You say right there that there is no lift variant of the UH-1C though it was capable of carrying troops and cargo and did so on occasion. That there wasn't an MH-1C (because there could be in 1965-6) or a CH-1C doesn't seem to change the fact that this was done. Why was it UH-1D or UH-1H and not CH-1D/H? Because someone decided and got it approved. There have been a lot of non-standard designations and otherwise conflicting reasonings, it shouldn't change a discussion on the reality, where a helicopter originally designed for one role had variants created and used almost purely in another. -- Thatguy96 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The C-series H-1 was designed with improvements to increase high/hot performance for the continued use of the Model 204 UH-1 aircraft in the escort role, since the Model 205 UH-1 had taken over as the primary hauler. However, the H-6 J-series was designed as an improved airframe for multiple roles. C-series H-1 designed and intended for one thing which would qualify as almost purely. J-series H-6 designed and intended for more than one thing...not quite almost purely.

It is obvious, to me at least, that neither one of us is going to convince the other regarding this distinction. --Born2flie 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not unconvinced of the distinction. I agree with the distinction. I'm debating whether it matters or not, which I feel is where we seem to be confused. You're basing your argument on intent of design, whereas I'm basing mine on actual use. I actually agree with you with what you're trying to say. I don't dispute it. What I'm trying to say is that for purposes of a revised attack helicopter article, finding a definition of attack helicopter that accounts for helicopters not intended for the attack role initially but used almost exclusively in this role, is important. In my mind a revised attack helicopter article would have to include the UH-1C and UH-1M, along with AH-6J and more traditional purpose built gunship helicopters. -- Thatguy96 16:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go with, you still don't understand what my objection is. I understand your point of view; if they hung forward-facing weapons systems off of it and even thought about using those weapons to attack a target, you feel that aircraft can be justified as needing to be part of the attack helicopter article. Got it. Not really my concern. Anyways, I'm done; basically because I'm just really tired of explaining the point to you. --Born2flie 18:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still like the 'designed for attack' part. But you got me on the roles thing. Would that be considered a light attack thing like with airplanes (light attack vs. heavy)? -Fnlayson 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that this stuff is what would make the article comprehensive, exploring the range of attack helos...some are designed that way, some are modified later as dictated by needs. If refs could be found, that's even worthy of exploration on an economic basis...do you purpose-build an expensive attack helo or retrofit existing equipment? After all, economics has killed some purpose-built attack helos. Role transmutation, from secondary to primary in the case of the UH-1C and M are also excellent subjects for discussion. Sounds like a rich subject! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding initials in US and PRC aviation cat names listed at CfR-speedy

Given the large number of categories and sub-categories involved with these category renames, and especially since this project seems to use templates for many more purposes than most projects, I thot it would be good to post it here, so project members could be involved, at least to make sure that whatever bot operator dares tackle this catches/knows everything that needs to change, including all the templates involved. Hellosandimas 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect Aircraft/Assessment page

I asked this over on the subpage, my most people probably don't have it on their watchlists, so, I'll ask again here: Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Assessment is basically a sub-set of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment page, is there any objection to merging/redirecting it page to that one? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems alright as long as the reviewers and nominators get the move. -Fnlayson 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what about putting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment link right below "Requesting an assessment" on the Aircraft assessment page? -Fnlayson 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of individual aircrafts in Infobox Aircraft

I implemented the possibility of inserting logos of individual aircrafts in Infobox Aircraft. I understand that there has been a discussion about logos in aircraft infoboxes before, but then the question was just wether or not to include the main company logo. (which was not fair use) Undederstandably, the main Airbus logo was removed from template:Infobox Airbus Aircraft.

My point is that it's fair use to have logos of individual aircrafts in the infoboxes. (Confirmed by an admin) And in my obinion, the most natural thing to do would be to do so, just like we do in the infoboxes of companies, organisations, game consoles, political parties etc. To place the logo of Eurofighter Typhoon in the infobox of its article makes sense.

But i was reverted by user:BillCJ who said "just because we CAN doesn't mean it's a good idea; please discuss at WT:AIR"

What do you think? I think it should be allowed when we indeed have the commercial logos of aircrafts. - S. Solberg J. 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the Aircraft Infobox wasn't designed with them in mind, and the Typhoon logo just doesn't work in it. It is the next image on the page. The Infobox is a pretty major component of aircraft articles, and changes need to be discussed first. "Be Bold" is not an excuse to do anything anytime without regard to what others may think. I have been promoting a "Country of origin" field for several months for the infobox,but have not just added it on my own out of respect for others. I am waitng till we have a consensus, or at least several other users support the idea. It would be nice if every once in awhile, you'd discuss an idea before implemeting it. At least then you wouldn't have me reverting you all the time. Gain a consensus to add product logos, and I won't revert them. - BillCJ 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never reverted you. And I've obviously now taken it to the talk page. You don't need to continue the flame war about 3RR and consensus from the A380 talkpage.

Wouldn't the most logic thing be to include a logo considering the fact that most infoboxes outside this WikiProject contains space for one? I'm not saying that i want logos for all infobox-types on wikipedia, but logos of individual Aircraft models would in my opinion not be the least logic thing to place in infoxes. Honestly, what's the problem?
"Typhoon logo just doesn't work in it" is a very strange and non-constructive sentence. Do you personally not like it? You should check out the infobox in the PS3 article; would that ordering of logo, text, main image be better? If you think the current infobox layout didn't work with the appearance of the logo in the Eurofighter infobox, you should remember that it's possible to redesign. - S. Solberg J. 23:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned 3RR or revereting, nor did I have those in mind. And, I was promoting discussion on redesigning it BEFORE puting the logo in, not after. My point is you have a pattern of doing something first, and then being surprised when people (esp me, I'll admit) object to it. Minor tweaks without discussion are fine, but major changes should be done with the whole project in mind. Would it hurt to run an idea by someone else first? If something's a good idea, I support it, no matter who makes it. I'm not one for petty objections just because I don't like someone, but I'm not going to keep silent just because we have a history either. - BillCJ 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please move on. - S. Solberg J. 23:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see a logo at the [very] bottom of the infobox, like where the EF logo image sits now. I don't think having a logo in the infobox helps much, but I'm not against it either. -Fnlayson 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly look strange to have the rectangular image above the logo.

The commercial logos are definitely becoming increasingly distinct, emphesised and prestigious for new planes. Of course the Spitfire didn't have a logo,(and we don't need to find one) but I think the aircraft infobox should provide proper room for 'logo-identities' of modern aircrafts. - S. Solberg J. 23:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you're getting the logo right below the image thing. At the very bottom or very top (current) of Infobox seems best to me. But whatever.. -Fnlayson 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of what you can put on popular culture

List of what you can put on aircraft in popular culture. Even Transformers is a demonstration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.144.73 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Flags and Multinational Consortia

A recurring problem where flags are being used to indicate or highlight nationality occurs whenever a multinational consortium designs, develops and coproduces an aircraft. A good case in point is with Eurofighter, for which some editors are choosing to use the EU flag ( Europe). Since Eurofighter GmbH is not an "EU" entity, per se, I believe this is an improper approach. However, the only other obvious options are to use the flags of all the consortium members (in this case four) – which really clutters up vertical lists and tables (especially when the country names are included) – or to leave the entry without a flag at all (only a blank field or the notation "N/A"). Any thoughts on what the best approach might be? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding the 4 flags rather than using EU flag . Estonia is an EU member , Adding the EU flag means Estonia is an Air crafts manufacturer. And this is false. Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:07, 23 September 2007 edit Fnlayson (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 145,393 edits →‎Merge/redirect Aircraft/Assessment page: link to Aviation page ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:11, 24 September 2007 edit undo Ammar shaker (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 4,785 edits →‎National Flags and Multinational Consortia Next edit →
Line 339:		Line 339:

	A recurring problem where flags are being used to indicate or highlight nationality occurs whenever a multinational consortium designs, develops and coproduces an aircraft. A good case in point is with Eurofighter, for which some editors are choosing to use the EU flag ({{EUR}}). Since Eurofighter GmbH is not an "EU" entity, per se, I believe this is an improper approach. However, the only other obvious options are to use the flags of all the consortium members (in this case four) – which really clutters up vertical lists and tables (especially when the country names are included) – or to leave the entry without a flag at all (only a blank field or the notation "N/A"). Any thoughts on what the best approach might be? [[User:Askari Mark\|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark\|(Talk)]]</small> 23:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)		A recurring problem where flags are being used to indicate or highlight nationality occurs whenever a multinational consortium designs, develops and coproduces an aircraft. A good case in point is with Eurofighter, for which some editors are choosing to use the EU flag ({{EUR}}). Since Eurofighter GmbH is not an "EU" entity, per se, I believe this is an improper approach. However, the only other obvious options are to use the flags of all the consortium members (in this case four) – which really clutters up vertical lists and tables (especially when the country names are included) – or to leave the entry without a flag at all (only a blank field or the notation "N/A"). Any thoughts on what the best approach might be? [[User:Askari Mark\|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark\|(Talk)]]</small> 23:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

			:I support adding the 4 flags rather than using EU flag . [[Estonia]] is an EU member , Adding the EU flag means Estonia is an Air crafts manufacturer. And this is false. [[User:Ammar_shaker\|<font face="Mistral" size="5" color="black">Ammar</font>]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Ammar_shaker\|<font color="green">Talk</font>]]</sup> - <sup>[[Don't Talk\|<font color="red">Don't Talk</font>]]</sup>) 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)