Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Shortcut:
WT:Air

WikiProject Aircraft talk — archives

pre-2004 [ General | Strategy | Table History | Aircraft lists | Table Standards | Other Tables | Footer | Airbox | Series ]

2004 [ Mar-Aug | Aug ] — 2005 [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006 [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov - Dec] — 2007 |[ Jan - Feb ]

Lists: [ Aircraft • Manufacturers | Engines • Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons • Missiles ] Timeline

Contents

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Help requested

Over the christmas holidays I made a visit to the Smithsonian's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center and took lots of pictures - see User:Raul654/favpics/Virginia2006. There's lots of red links for pictures that could use articles, and I'd appreciate help from the people in this project to do it. Raul654 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

New manufacturer's template

Created this template and added it to the available pages:

Template:Yakovlev aircraft

- Aerobird 21:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A comment that's worth making here: some of the aircraft navboxes, like this one, have a light grey header area, and some, like {{aviation lists}} have a light steel blue (rgb #bbc4de) header area. I think we should choose one or the other for aircraft templates.
As for this template, I would very much prefer hyphens (or possibly pipes "|") over asterisks as dividing marks. Karl Dickman talk 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I followed the lead of Template:Mikoyan aircraft. Another user edited it to "dots" and I like that so I think I'll be using those. - Aerobird 14:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree on the color issue, and personally prefer light steel blue. Akradecki 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually prefer the grey, myself. - Aerobird 14:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And here's another new manufacturer's template:

Template:Sukhoi aircraft

- Aerobird 14:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a new one, but Template:Ilyushin aircraft is now rather more extensive in its coverage. - Aerobird 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The people's glorious {{Lavochkin aircraft}} template is now ready to fight capitalist exploitation. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Been reading the Leon Trotsky, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels books again, Emt147? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
And now, a direct connection to all of the glorious designs of Comrade Antonov! {{Antonov aircraft}} - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Delta-wing aircraft

I noticed that this category includes aircraft such as the Sukhoi Su-9 which, although their wings are triangular in shape, are tailed deltas instead of "true deltas" (say, Convair F-106) which I believe are the intent of the category...? - Aerobird 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My advice would be to remove the cateogry if you feel it innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delta is the planform, and has nothing to do with whether or not there are tail surfaces. Such an arrangement is a tailless delta; any aircraft, however, may be designed with a delta wing. If you don't believe it, check the wikipedia article on delta wings. I'd add the category back. ericg ✈ 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, the way I've always understood it is as "delta" (=no tail) and "tailed delta"; I'll think a bit/solicit further comments... - Aerobird 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Me too. Interesting to note that the article delta wing supplies no sources, so I'm not sure how much stock I'd place in it as definitive about the usage of the word. Akradecki 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I know it's not a citable source, but google "tailless delta" versus "tailed delta", tailed gets about 30% more hits. Furthermore, 'delta' describes the planform, not the aircraft's configuration. Do you automatically assume that a tapered wing is also swept? That a swept wing aircraft has a tail? None of those planforms have a 'default' configuration either; the RQ-3 Dark Star is a straight-wing tailless design; the McDonnell Douglas X-36 is a tailless swept-wing canard design. It's the planform. ericg ✈ 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, delta-winged planforms come in both tailless and tailed varieties; in fact, aircraft with canards usually have them coupled with a tailless delta wing design ... in effect, the horizontal "tails" have been moved to the front. Which approach a designer uses depends upon the particular performance and mission profiles the aircraft is to be designed for.Askari Mark (Talk) 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as a citation for delta being the wing shape, and not the configuration, goes - here's a quickly-searched quote from NASA Technical Paper 2771 of 1988:
The supersonic aerodynamics of delta wings at high angles of attack is presented to ensure a complete review of all pertinent aerodynamic characteristics. Possible applications of the data at these characteristics would be to canards or horizontal tails of aircraft and fins of missiles (11).
There are undoubtedly more references, but to me this discussion is fairly obvious. Simply mentioning canards in the discussion should make it clear; after all, a Gripen is technically a tailed (albeit in canard form) delta aircraft. A design has a delta wing, and can be of a 'pure delta' or 'tailless delta' configuration, just as it can be of a 'tailed delta' arrangement, but the delta itself is the wing planform and isn't specific to either configuration. ericg ✈ 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Douglas template

I've significantly expanded Template:Douglas aircraft. I'm not entirely happy with some of the sequences though, so if somebody wants to fiddle with it - and add it to the appropriate pages... - Aerobird 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. One question though: Has it been decided if were to use popular names in the template or not? Not having them would decrease the size of the templates, but some users may not know the designations, but are familar with the names. - BillCJ 01:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The standard has been to remove them. There's not much space in those templates, and they get gigantic very quickly. I went in and removed them, and also pulled the airliners - that's duplicated in template:Douglas Airliners and doesn't seem appropriate in an otherwise military navbox. ericg ✈ 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixup, I wasn't sure if the various 'X' planes should be in the various categories or all in a lump, and didn't know about the airliner template. On the names, one concern I would have would be that for some Wiki users, say in the UK or South Africa for instance, 'A-20' or 'C-47' might not ring a bell, but 'Boston' and 'Dakota' would be instantly recognisable.
On another note (slightly along those lines) - should all the various designations for military DC-3s, i.e. C-53 Skytrooper, be included? - Aerobird 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Good lord, please no! There are at least a dozen! ericg ✈ 17:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A-26 Invader for AID

While adding the Template:Douglas aircraft tag to the appropriate articles, I came across the one on the A-26 Invader. Shamefully inadequate is an understatement. I've nominated it for AID so let's get cracking folks! [/steamfromears] - Aerobird 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Granted, I haven't been on here all that long, but I'm not sure asking for assistance after nominating it for AID is the best way to go about it. But then, I'm still learning. - BillCJ 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

McDD template

I think the template is going to be too big if we include all McDonnell and McDD products on it. Personally, I'd rather see the McDonnel Aircraft listed alone. Yes, there will be some overlap, such as the F-4, but probably not more than a few. In addition, the current name of the template is fine for post-merger McDD; only Mc DOnnell would need a new template page. - BillCJ 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well for now I think it works better 'together' - a McDonnell-only template would be rather short. But if it starts to grow out of hand, I'll split it. - Aerobird 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Civil Operators - Format

I have been checking a few of the lists of operators mainly on civil airliners, some have the country listed after the airline/operator name (sometimes within different kinds of brackets). The list is normally alphabetic. Any reason why we cant make it like the military operators which normally list the countries then the operators as sub-lists? - or at least agree on a format. Apologies if this has been agreed before and I have missed it. MilborneOne 22:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pitot-static system article rewrite

I just wrote a fairly large article on the Pitot-static system. I would love some feedback from other pilots of aviation enthusiasts. I mainly covered the mechanical systems (I am not as familiar with the new computer systems). If anybody has information, or sources or something on those, it would probably greatly enhance this article! I would love some feedback so drop by, read it and let me know what you think. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Akradecki 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
A very good job, Chris! I don't know that it needs much more in the way of sources; it's a pretty basic system. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 737 Users

I saw that on the "Primary Users" section of the Boeing 737 that someone had put orders as well as deliveries there. For example they put Ryanair as having 492 737 in their fleet when they only have 120. The rest are orders. I though a fleet is what exists? I erased it and put what exists there. are we keeping the primary users as the number of planes they currently fly or all the planes they will one day maybe have? Thanks Marcus--Bangabalunga 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean in the Aircraft Infobox, I'm against having any totals listed there at all, especially if we're going to have poeple adding in various amounts. The Infobox is intended to give a summary, not full details, especially since those details are given later in the article. If we keep totals, however, I think it should be present fleet, and nothing else. - BillCJ 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bangabalunga (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Transformers

There is a debate going on at Talk:F-15 Eagle over its appreance in the cartoon show, and listing it in the Pop culture section. Wtth the upcoming movie, we will probably be flooded with users adding the appearances to every article for an aircraft in the film. If you have a preference over opening up the Pop culture to cartoon appearances, please chime in, no matter your preference. - BillCJ 02:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I see fairly little use for pop-culture references in an encyclopedic article, and I believe that the ones that are justified (such as Top Gun for the F-14 and Dr. Strangelove for the B-52) are few and far between, and only when the appearance is significant. Gee, there's that concept of notability again! I can't see Transformers as being a notable appearance. Akradecki 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. As I mentioned over there, if it's (1) definitly an "xxxxx" and (2) can be referenced as being an "xxxxx" then why not include it? Preventing it could be seen as starting a slippery slope - who defines notability? What level of notability is the threshold? Game appearances no, TV (live-action, animated, or claymation) si. - Aerobird 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the slippery slope has already been reached in trying to allow the Transformers reference. In the past, the stated concensus on WP:AIR has ben to keep the trivia/pop culture section as near to nothing as possible, allowing only the really notable mentions. This has not been changed as of this point. The Transformers has its own article, and I support its existence. It can and should have a list of each aircraaft type there. Many editors, my self included, would rather see no pop culture mentions at all - the current policy is a concession as it is. We spend enough time every day dselting all sorts of cruft from the aircraft articles, and I hate to see what will happen if we open the door to this one. - BillCJ 07:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • shrugs* I reckon I'm fine either way. "It make no defrence to me". - Aerobird 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Can I give a somewhat extreme example? Consider the UH-1 page...how many movies, TV shows and cartoons have Hueys in them? The list would go on endlessly, far overwhelming the legitimate article. I agree with the consensus to keep the trivia and pop culture to the truly notable (and in answer to the question of who defines notability, WP guidelines do...so since the F-14 got real medis coverage for its use in Top Gun, that makes it notable. I seriously doubt if there will be any legitimate media covering the airplanes in Transformers). Akradecki 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
If the list gets out of hand, why not consider breaking it into another article like Cultural references to the Huey (just an idea name). Then, on the article on the main aircraft, list a few of the most relevant and have one of those main article headers letting readers know there are more on another page. Just an idea. I think that the references are somewhat important, and interesting nonetheless but I also agree it could quickly get out of hand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a lovely strawman argument you've put forth there, but, like all strawman arguments, it doesn't hold water. Sure, there have been several hundred movies, TV shows, and cartoons with Hueys. In how many of those did a Huey play a notable part? Three? Five? I don't think anyone is arguing that carte blanche should be given for every fictional depiction of an aircraft, just that when a bit of media is particularly focused on a certain aircraft, it is worthy of mention provided that the article has a "Pop Culture" section already.--chris.lawson 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps for the purposes of this section the sense of "notability" should be whether or not the "pop culture" item under discussion significantly contributed to the "fame" of the aircraft by instilling recognition of it among a sizeable section of the general republic to whom it would otherwise have remained unknown. This would help screen out those pop cultural items that merely used the aircraft as a "prop" (which is most of them). Its effect would be to limit entries to a few best-seller books/novels, acclaimed films, and other bric-a-brac of modern culture. In this instance, the Transformers would be eligible; however, I'm not sure most of the flight simulator computer and video games and such would. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's ignoring the key issue here - does the F-15 play a prominent role in Transformers? Is it on screen for more than, say, 5 minutes out of the movie's full running time? The Huey plays a prominent role in Apocalypse Now, for example, while it plays a minor one in movies like Behind Enemy Lines. I have yet to see anybody provide evidence that the F-15 plays as much of a role in Transformers as the F-14 does in Top Gun, which I think nearly everyone will agree is the ultimate example of pop culture notability. ericg ✈ 18:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible solution

Several months ago, another editor and I expanded the Harrier Jump Jet disambiguation page into a full overview of the Harrier. Intitally, I moved all the pop culture items fromt the Harrier variant articvles to this page. After a few weeks of noticable growth in that section, the other editor spun the section off by creating the Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture, with a "main" link under the heading. Predictably, it began to grow there also, even though the page has still not been categorized. I like not having to mess with it on the main articles, tho I do try to limit its length what I can.

Frankly, I wish we could do something like this for all the aircraft articles. We do this anyway with variants, operators/users, etc. Granted, we'd end up with a bunch of small stubs in most cases. Maybe there is a way we could combine several similar aircraft on the same page (Hornet and Super Hornet would be obvious).

As to the issue at hand, I would not oppose having the Transformers listed on the F-15 pop culture page; in fact, I'd pretty much ignore the pages, as I prefer to concentrate on the hard history of aircraft. Yes, the pages would grow, but we could somewhat relax the standards as they now stand. We might have problems with the pages being AfD'd for various reasons (stub, notability, etc.), but if the problem stands behind the pages, that shouldn't be a big issue.

This may have been proposed and nixed in the past, but I think it's time to consider it again. - BillCJ

Agreed (and I'm no longer going to be proposing that merge). - Aerobird 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mil (unit)

I came across this unit in Magnesium Overcast. Jenkins says that the AN/APQ-23 bombing radar had a maximum error of 35 mils, which meant that bombs dropped with its assistance were never more than 350 ft from the target when bombing from an elevation of 10,000 ft. (He also indicated that the error increased to ≈2,000 ft from the target at an elevation of 40,000 ft.)

I think I have derived the formula was used to calculate mil values: \alpha=\frac{\Delta}{10}{\left(\frac{h}{10000}\right)}^\frac{4}{5}, where α is the accuracy in mils, Δ is the statistically maximum error, and h is the elevation of the bomber. From this formula, the distance that would generate an accuracy of 35 mils when bombing from 40,000 ft would be 1,980 ft—almost exactly the distance cited in Magnesium Overcast.

Does anyone know anything about this unit? Karl Dickman talk 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

mil is an angular measurement:

mil - a unit of angle measure, used in the military for artillery settings. During World War II the U. S. Army often used a mil equal to 1/1000 of a right angle, 0.1 grad, 0.09°, or 5.4 arcminutes (often written 5.4 moa; see "moa" below). More recently, various NATO armies have used a mil equal to 1/1600 right angle, or 0.05625° (3.375 moa). In target shooting, the mil is often understood to mean 0.001 radian or 1 milliradian, which is about 0.0573° or 3.43775 moa. In Britain, the term angular mil generally refers to the milliradian. 1 milliradian corresponds to a target size of 10 millimeters at a range of 10 meters, or 3.6 inches at 100 yards.

– http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictM.html

I'm familiar with the 1/1600th right angle version. A circle being comprised of 6400mils or approximately 17.8 mils per degree. Sounds like the 1/1000th right angle would be the version you're looking for. An old, retired USAF pilot I know talks about setting the depression on the bomb sight in "mils" based on an airspeed and altitude and payload weight. In the U.S. Army, we use a distance formula utilizing mils:
width = (\frac{range}{1000})\times mils
so
350 ft = (\frac{10,000}{1,000})\times 35 mils
1400 ft at 40,000 if 35 mils is the maximum error. --Born2flie 03:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I wonder if they didn't teach us a modified version of the formula in order to not confuse us with the current use of mils (1/1600th right angle). They tell us that (\frac{range}{1000})= range factor
but \begin{align} width & = (\frac{range}{1000}) \times mils\\ & = range \times (\frac{1}{1000})\\ \end{align} --Born2flie 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy accident?

Was working on the Hawker Sea Fury page and noticed that a previous edit had left out the tag to end the "references-small" command. This meant the "Related Content" section was also in the small font - and it looks pretty dang good!

Perhaps this little bit o' serendip should be spread elsewhere? - Aerobird 02:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that actually does look pretty good!Akradecki 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the specs template?

It appears that on aircraft that do not list an value for afterburning (F/A-18 Hornet, NASA M2-F1), engine thrust is not appearing on the page...? - Aerobird 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ericg ✈ 15:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Got it. Whoever edited those bits last managed to swap the #if statements so that unless an aircraft had afterburning thrust specified, nothing would show up. It's been fixed. ericg ✈ 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"Moochas grassius". - Aerobird 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturer = OKBs vs Factories?

A thought on the infobox Aircraft template. When working on a Russian design, should the "Manufacturer" field be the design bureau - which most people will think of as the manufacturer - or the actual builder, KnAAPO, MiG-MAPO, etc.; with the OKB in the "designer" field (as I did with the Beriev Be-103)? After all, the Tu-16 would have most people saying that Tupolev was its manufacturer - but it was actually manufactured in three different factories. Probably the simplest solution is to have the OKB listed as the manufacturer, but the stickler for accuracy in me protests. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 03:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Either both design firm and builder or don't list the builders. I'd rather see the design firm on the first line and the builders on a second line like this: (built by: KnAAPO, etc.). I'd put using the Designer field as a second option. -Fnlayson 04:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

CASA 2.111 standalone article?

As a variant of the Heinkel He 111, most would probably say the 2.111 belongs in that article; however, the production numbers and dates are totally different, and the later CASA aircraft were armed and powered by totally different equipment. I'd like to spin off what little data is available on the 2.111 into its own article, and possibly solicit information from the Spanish wikipedia. Spanish Air Force 2.111s were produced until '56, and many served until 1973! Opinions on the splitting of these articles? ericg ✈ 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish He 111 article only has about two and a half lines on the 2.111. However, the German article has a good-length paragraph, though I can't attest to the quality as I don't read German. None of my printed sources have anything beyond a brief mention, nor any specs on the 2.111. I'd say if you have a couple of pics and some specs to go ahead and split it off, otherwise wait, and just expand the existing section in the He 111 article for the time being. Also, of the 236 2.111s built, only 100 had Merlin engines, so the first 136 will still pretty much just lisence-built He 111Hs. - BillCJ 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The Deutsches Museum's site seems to have rough specs for the 2.111B - and at least 70 (according to another source) earlier aircraft were re-engined with a shipment of 170 Merlins from Rolls post-war. I'll work on a basic stub at User:Ericg/sandbox/CASA 2.111 - if anyone wants to lend a hand, I'll let you guys know when I start the actual CASA 2.111 stub. ericg ✈ 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say go for it, at least the later models were significantly different aircraft. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwings

Born2flie: I created a template to award Wikiwings on a user page: {{Wikiwings Award}}. Use in good health. --19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

IAI Nesher

Does anyone have some definitve, verifiable sources on the origins of the IAI Nesher? THere seem to be two main ideas: 1, that Israel copied and produced the Nesher on its own (possibly with US help); and 2, the Dassault supplied kits for the Neshers to IAI. The former is in all the printed sources I have, but the latter is stated in the article as if it is uncontested fact, but with few sources. Please respond on Talk:Dassault Mirage 5‎, as that is where we are discussing a merge with the Nesher page. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Commented on that page. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal aircraft

I know that there is a portal for aviation. and that wikiprojects aircraft airprts fall under aviation. Is there a particular reason however there is not a seperate portal for aircraft? Likewise, i am unaware if there is an actual project for aviation. Do some editors have some feedback on this? I would be interested in possibly starting an aircraft portal where we could showcase the aircraft did you knows. (we have had 3 in the last month) and showcase featured articles etc. Anybody have some feedback on this idea? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no aviation project, and (if enough editors show interest) I think there should be. An aircraft portal, however, may be a bit too specific to be useful. If there is anything people want to see then, as maintainer of the Aviation Portal, I urge them to make suggestions and even add them to the portal themselves. After reading your comment I took a look at the most recent DYKs and added what I believe are the three ones you mention to the automatically updating list here. If there are other thing you'd like to see then I'd like to hear about them. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
That was my other interest was getting involved with the aviation portal. I would like to see however maybye a wikiproject aviation, and have task groups for aircraft, ariports, airliners, etc. similar to the WP:MILITARY or whatever group it is. I think there are some stuff that is being forced into a project on aircraft or airports that would better belong to a general purpose project on aviation. such as the article on First solo flight. there are others and i can bring them up later. I will look into doing some work on the viation portal thoigh. Thanks for the feedback! by the way, what are your suggestions, reccomendation, ideas on starting an official wikiproject aviation? It could better cover famous pilots, etc etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute about image of B-36

We seem to be having a minor edit skirmish here over which image of the Convair B-36 at the National Museum of the United States Air Force to show. I had put Image:B-36-NMUSAF-4.jpg, a commons image that I took, in the survivors section and User:Signaleer keeps substituting Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg, a similar image that he downloaded from the museum's website. It is my contention that the commons image is sharper, has better color and definition of the nose area. Signaleer's main objection is that my "camera and photograph is inferior to the one provided by the USAF" [1]. I had put up a discussion on talk:Convair B-36#NMUSAF photo, where other editors agreed with me. User:Signaleer refuses to discuss it and keeps reverting the change with no edit summary. Thanks for your input. --rogerd 12:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at both images. They both appear like decent images. However, the first image, Image:B-36-NMUSAF-4.jpg, you can see less of the plane and has a stray person in the picture. the latter picture, Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg has a bit wider view of the plane but is admittable a little blurry. It is a tough call but I personally prefer the latter picture, picture Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg. Hope this helped. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
On a random note, I looked through your gallery Rogerd. the image, Image:B-36 NMUSAF 2.jpg might be a great addition to the page. It does not look like it would step on any toes and gives a good close up of the front of the plane. Just a reccomendation though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
All I can really add to this is that Signaleer is prone to breaking the 3 revert rule. Take that as you may. ericg ✈ 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

7500

I am doing some aero stub sorting and project tagging and ran across this article 7500. Was wondering if anybody thinks it should be renamed squawk 7500 or something of the sort? or, should it fall into the numbers style and be formatted like a number articles. e.g. 42, 256. or, should it redirect to Transponder (aviation) which gives summary of the important squawk codes? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say redirect to Transponder (aviation), myself. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree...redirect. There's absolutely no reason this should have its own article. Akradecki 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Done! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Proper location of pop culture

Hello folks. Seeing that just about every section in WP:Air/PC appares before the specs, it seems a little silly for pop culture to come after. May I have permission to move pop culture to directly before the specs? Karl Dickman talk 06:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not see anything wrong with it. You have pretty good judgement on that kind of thing anyways. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I, personally, would place it after the specs, but I won't object enough to stop ya. ;-) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Just about every article I have worked one up to this point that had a "Pop culture" section has them after the Specs. I actually like it there, as I think it sections it off from the rest of the text, giving it less prominence, especially as WP:AIR stated guidelines are to avoid having the sections. The crufters appear to have no problem finding the section, no matter where it is located. As it appears after the specs in the Page content guidelines, that is the pattern I (and other editors from before my joining the Project) have been following. If there is no consensus, thats OK, or if the concensus is to place it above the specs, I will abide by that. However, in the interest of consistency, I believe it best to chose one way or the other. Consistency, after all, is one of the purposes of the guidelines. - BillCJ 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I would personally prefer to see it following the specs. Not being intimately germane to the article, I believe it belongs with the "related content" and "see also" material. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
While i am mostly indifferent, I like Askari Mark's reasoning. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Akradecki 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Askari Mark. ZakuTalk 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Born2flie: Me, (1, 2, 3, 4...) 5! --02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk about the Bicylce shed effect. Great to see 5 people chime in on a topic! Lets get a little more discussion on some more complicated topics (like the new category proposals), etc etc! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
There's got to be something wrong with this ... too many Wikipedians actually agreeing on something!! Isn't there a policy against that? ;) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care where it goes. In fact, I'd rather it wasn't there at all, so its placement is small potatoes. ericg ✈ 04:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft category update

We've had a comment period for my proposed reworking of the category scheme, and I think it's time to put the proposal into place. However, a few kinks need to be ironed out first. Most aircraft articles begin with the manufacturer name, so just about every category will be sorted by manufacturer. However, some categories, such as Category:Bomber aircraft 1940-1949, that contain both U.S. military aircraft and aircraft from other nations could be potentially problematic. Most other aircraft will be sorted by manufacturer, but many of the U.S. aircraft will be sorted by their military designation.

There are two ways to resolve this. The first is to let it alone and sort the U.S. aircraft by designation. The other option is to sort the U.S. aircraft by manufacturer. However, this option is unworkable unless the software changes, because even though P-26 Peashooter will be sorted in Category:Fighter aircraft 1920-1929 as if it were titled "Boeing P-26", its link on the category page will still be titled "P-26 Peashooter"—making the reader wonder what it's doing in the B section. This problem will remain until Bug 491 is resolved.

For my explanation and justification of the changes made to the current scheme, please see /Categories/Proposed update. Karl Dickman talk 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As I don't deal with categories (aside from occasionally adding them to articles), this isn't my preferred area of discussion. However, nobody has said anything yet, so I'll simply say that whatever you guys come up with is fine. ericg ✈ 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added some comments to the talk page for the proposed changes. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturer names in infobox headers

Spurred by discussion at Talk:Short Sturgeon: IMHO, the manufacturer's name should not be included in the "name" section of Infobox Aircraft, as it duplicates the "manufacturer" line. In some cases (i.e. Boeing airliners) it may be necessary on aesthetic grounds, but overall I strongly believe it should be avoided. Thoughts? - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 23:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Eric and I have also discussed this, and my position is essentially the same as yours. Karl Dickman talk 01:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, putting the manufacturer with the model name/number in the Infobox is redundant and not needed, imo. - Fnlayson 04:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Bicycle shed effect, again. Don't put the manufacturer in the infobox header. --Born2flie 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought this was fairly obvious, but I did basically create the infobox, so I guess some things are clearer than others. [edit: on reviewing Template talk:Infobox Aircraft, it's extremely clear: " |name = #REQUIRED <!--please avoid stating manufacturer in this field; it's stated two lines below -->". I'm not sure how much more detailed this can be. Unless it's something like Cessna 140 or Boeing 757 that has no specific model name, the manufacturer needs to stay 100% out of the infobox name field. There's not a lot of space in these things. ericg ✈ 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not names, but 140 and 757 are the model "designations", right? -Fnlayson 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps stating the obvious, but if the manufacturer's name is deemed necessary then it shouldn't be linked to the respective article; imo that should be done on the Manufacturer's Name line (where it is useful). TraceyR 07:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I would also like it if the manufacturer's name wasn't linked in the boldface of the first line of text. However, BillCJ has pointed out that on low-resolution monitors, having the link in the boldface may be preferrable. And while I'm at it, the bike shed should go as close to the showers as possible. Karl Dickman talk 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Special-purpose aircraft" = what???

Proposed category schema
Proposed category schema

Karl Dickman and I have been discussing the Proposed category update and there remains a major issue which we feel the community as a whole needs to address: Just what does and doesn't belong in the "Special-purpose aircraft" category — which question then, in turn, generates two related issues.

Issue A: If you look at the current proposed category schema (right), there are four Level 1 categories: "Special-purpose aircraft", "Experimental aircraft", "Civil aircraft", and "Military aircraft". Considering what the alternatives covers, it is unclear what really should be included in the "Special-purpose aircraft" category. According to the WP:Aircraft Categories page, the definition is simply:

"These aircraft have been designed for a single purpose - usually at the expense of any other capability they may have otherwise had. Most are specialised variants of existing aircraft types."

According to the proposed update, it is

"Aircraft in this category have been designed for a single, often unconventional or uncommon purpose. Most are modifications or specialised variants of existing aircraft types, and are designed for their mission at the expence of any other capabilities they may have had. An example is the WP-3D Orion."

So, is the "Special purpose aircraft" category nothing more than a "catch-all" chiefly for separate articles on aircraft that are variants of "basic" aircraft that otherwise fit into the other three Level 1 categories? If so, then shouldn't it really be supplanted by an "Other special missions" subcategory under "Military aircraft" (or the other two Level 1 categories)? (And this generates further issues of its own.)

Issue B: Do we then settle for three Level 1 categories — civil, military and experimental — or should others be grouped at this level? Possibilities for inclusion in a Level 1 "Special-purpose aircraft" category could be Spaceplanes, Unpowered aircraft, Unmanned aircraft, Missiles & target drones, General aviation, or Racers (or some mix thereof).

Potential resolutions

To my mind, "Issue A" is that there should indeed be an "Other special mission aircraft" subcategory under the "Military aircraft" category to capture those variants and few "designed as" aircraft whose function doesn't fit in the more "noteworthy" subcategories. Then, if a relevant category is added, one need only look there for articles to move. Articles on the special variants of the C-130, then, would fall as follows:

Category:Bomber aircraft — AC-130 (category includes attack aircraft)
Category:Electronic warfare aircraft — EC-130
Category:Military reconnaissance aircraft — RC-130
Category:Military transport aircraft — C-130, KC-130, VC-130 (& L-100?)
Category:Special mission aircraft — DC-130, GC-130, HC-130, LC-130, MC-130, NC-130, OC-130, WC-130

The L-100 remains an issue since it was designed for the civilian market, but many serve in military transport roles.

"Issue B" is best dealt with by further discussion. The "Military aircraft", "Civilian aircraft" and "Experimental aircraft" super-categories are going to be huge. If air-launched missiles and target drones belong in WP:Air, then have a Level 1 "Missiles" category might help offload these from "Military aircraft". Similarly, "Unpowered aircraft" would "offload" a number of civilian, military and experimental aircraft articles into a coherent whole. UAVs have become a market in of themselves, so all three Level 1 categories might also benefit from a Level 1 "UAV" category. I don't know how "crowded" the civilian aircraft category might be, but splitting it into "Commercial aircraft" and "General aviation aircraft" might make it more manageable. The alternative, of course, is coming up with an "Other" category into which oddballs can be dumped, but that begs the question of this issue all over again.

What think y'all? — Askari Mark (Talk) 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about merging "attack" and "bomber" aircraft - yes there's a fine line there, but having the B-36 Peacemaker and A-37 Dragonfly both lumped as "bombers" just sounds wrong to me - as does the AC-130 as a "bomber". I guess there isn't enough call for a "gunships" category...
And that reminds me: what about helicopters?
- Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 04:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the AC-130 is more of a special-purpose craft than it is a bomber or fighter—assuming, of course, that the attack category is killed, which it may not be by the time this proposal is ratified. It has about as much in common with the A-10 as it does with a B-52, so it almost needs its own category.
Regarding helicopters, they will be categorised by mission type along with fixed-wing aircraft unless we decide that the twain should be split. Karl Dickman talk 05:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Crash naming proposal

Although this is on the edge of the "Aircraft" project (I'll be cross posting on the Airline project page, too), I've put up a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)#Airline accident naming conventions to codify the long-standing practice of naming articles on crashes as <<airline>><<flight number>>. Comments from the group to help establish consensus would be appreciated. Akradecki 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

V speeds proposed mergers

I have found 6 articles on indivudual v-speeds, of which most of the information is already in the article on V speeds. I have proposed that they all be merged into this article. I would like some feedback from this project though. Do these speeds deserve individual articles? The speeds that have been proposed for merger are VNO speed,VNE,VR speed,VS speed,VC speed and V1 speed. What do you all reccomend? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do what you like, but they will probably form a more coherent concept as one article. Anyway, the titles are all poorly-formed other than Vne - Vno is a V speed, but I've never heard it referred to as a plane's Vno speed - you'd just call it Vno. ericg ✈ 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
For such an esoteric topic, I can't see why they were separated. BTW, regarding the first line of V speeds, "V speeds or elephants ..." — can't say I've ever heard that one before. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Probably some vandalism I would have caught in the merge. Kind of funny actually. lol. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org

I discovered a curious thing while browsing around globalsecurity.org. A significant portion of the website's contents is a verbatim copy of various books (e.g. the entire Knaack's USAF Bombers encyclopedia which predates the internet by 20 years is copied word-for-word with a globalsecurity.org copyright slapped on top of it and the webmaster's claims that it's all his original writing). Strong work Mr Pike. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Pike previously established and ran military info database [2] for the Federation of American Scientists [3]. This was created because its arms control advocates wanted some basic information on military systems and weapons available for the larger, public pro-arms control community. Pike built it up slowly on a shoestring budget until it became a popular reference site for news reporters who knew little or nothing about military subjects they were writing on. Although it got the FAS a lot of press, they never really wanted to fund it as a general resource. Much of the material was drawn from other writers and defense press publications. (Keep in mind that until recent years, if it was on the net, published material was often considered and treated as "free use".) After years of this, Pike left and started Globalsecurity.org to do what he had long wanted to do, the way he wanted to do it. There was an agreement that he could start the GS database with material from the FAS database at that time, but each would pursue their own updates from there. FAS, in fact, has done little in the way of updating — or even maintaining, for that matter — since then. As a result, I tend to deprecate using FAS as a source; whatever they have, you can find (or find better) on GS. However, I treat GS like an encyclopedia: a place to start, not one to rely on. — Askari Mark (Talk) 05:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I know about the FAS origins, my comment was that Pike stole huge sections of text from several books predating the Internet (e.g. Knaack's encyclopedia was published in 1978) and is presenting them as his own copyrighted writings. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft specs template

I had an editor post these concerns on my talk page. I figured I would pass them on to the template gurus here to discuss with him. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

While editing the Short Seamew specifications I have come across something that may need to be catered for: height/width for carrier aircraft with wings folded for storage. I have added these two specs to the Seamew by interposing a "* line"; this looks sort of ok but messes up the preceding entry: the closing round bracket of the alt-dimension comes after the interposed line in both cases. Is there a clean way of inserting such lines into the template without messing it up? Many thanks. TraceyR 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Supplementary comments: it would also be useful to have a specification parameter for wing sweep (in degrees) (see Short Sherpa's recent history); the Short SB/5 had three different setting for sweep during its life; could this situation also be catered for? Perhaps a "minimum sweep" and "maximum sweep" would be good for e.g. the F-111 and other variable geometry wings. I realise that these suggestions add to the complexity of the template, but they would be useful. Thanks for your contribution here! TraceyR 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the More General field would be the thing to use unless there are Sweep fields added. -Fnlayson 16:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to adding a line I usually type something like:

) <li>'''Fruitbat load:''' a whole lotta lb (way too much kg</li>

which accounts for the rogue ")" element. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Aerobird. I got it to look ok with the following i.e. with no end of line tag (which produced a new line with a single ")":
|span alt=16.75 m)<li>'''Width with wings folded''' 23 ft (7.01 m TraceyR 19:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki mirror or stolen content ?

I recently stumbled onto a change to Arado Ar 234 made by User:Nekhbet, this user added a link to http://www.aircraft-list.com/db/Arado_Ar_234/23/ . But the text there is nearly 100% a copy of the Wikipedia article. Is this site a mirror site or is the content stolen from Wikipedia? If it's a mirror/clone them I was not able to find GFDL license info or even a notice it's text was taken from Wikipedia. --Denniss 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it's a licensed site or a mirror. They have a link to the Wikipedia article on their page, so it doesn't appear to be an underhanded effort. I suspect it's just another aviation aficionado with creditable webpage programming skills who probably believes Wikipedia is free-use and has no clue about a need to license. Have you contacted the owner to let them know how to arrange that with Wikipedia? — Askari Mark (Talk) 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Add an entry on WP:MIRROR. Ta/wangi 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Added at mirrors and forks --TAG 06:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Prune {{aircraft specifications}}

Note: this is a transcluded subpage. Click here to edit.

This template has become a bit bloated in some parts, and I think it's time that we review some of its features and decide whether to keep them or not. Please note that I do not suggest not including these in the articles; I only propose that some of them should be removed from the template code. Some of the fields that need to be discussed:

Useful load
Isn't this just the difference between MTOW and empty weight?
Vne, Vs, Vmc
Vno and VC are probably the only V speeds used on a regular basis in our articles.
Hardpoint codings

I developed this to better accommodate modern fighter aircraft, which carry most weapons on external hardpoints. For example,

|hardpoints=6
|hardpoint capacity=4,500 kg
|hardpoint guns=12.7 mm [[machine gun]] pods
|hardpoint missiles=[[AIM-9 Sidewinder]] [[air-to-air missile]]s
|hardpoint rockets=70 mm unguided rockets
|hardpoint other=*'''Fuel tanks:''' 4,000 L

would yield

However, since I am going to the trouble of pruning the template, I think this is a very worthy candidate for elimination.

Wing loading, thrust/weight, and power/mass
Several editors have argued that these values are always calculated by Wikipedians, and therefore constitute original research.
Loaded weight
This figure is cited in many sources, but is usually arbitrary—no universal standard exists for defining loaded weight.

Karl Dickman talk 09:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't "top speed" be Vne? - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 16:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The template links to VNO for maximum speed. How correct this is, I don't know. Karl Dickman talk 18:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Top speed" is the maximum speed the aircraft can attain in level flight, typically near or around VNO (normal operations). VNE is the never-exceed speed, typically reached only when the aircraft is in a dive or at high altitudes and mach numbers. ericg ✈ 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how useful "loaded weight" is for the purposes of Wikipedia; frankly, I think that empty weight and max takeoff gross weight are all that is needed — and "useful load" can be readily determined from those. If I were to add something weight-related, I'd probably substitute "wing loading". As for armament, I think that should be a standard separate section for combat aircraft, whether a template or not. It's not so much performance-related as capability-related. If you are going to make it a template, I would divide the "Missiles" parameter into separate AAM and ASM lines, and add another parameter for "Other pods" (nav, recce, EW, etc.). Askari Mark (Talk) 21:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Although in nearly every article wing loading is calculated as the loaded weight divided by the wing area. Several editors have argued against including wing loading and thrust/weight specs, on the grounds that they are calculated by us and thus uncitable original research. Karl Dickman talk 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Simple math is "original research"? If everybody would calculate the same result, then it's hardly original. I could agree if there were a choice of formulae to employ. Max wing loading would tend to get around the "loaded weight" issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dying to add more entries to the specs. I'm just thinking of what the average person familiar with published aircraft encyclopedias would expect to find. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
One thing that might be useful to actually add into the specs would be hover ceiling (IGE, OGE, or both) for helicopters. A lot of the service ceiling entries on helicopter pages are actually hover ceilings and I have to remove them. Hover ceiling is generally a more useful spec for helicopters than the service ceiling and is more often stated by the manufacturer than an absolute service ceiling which is more a function of weight and engine performance. As for the loaded weight, I was always taught that it was the aircraft with oil, fuel and pilot, minus cargo. So, it is a true indication of what the cargo capacity is versus thinking that the useful load is its actual cargo carrying capacity. --Born2flie 16:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about screwing up the format. I just wanted to point out that in most of the articles the power to weight nomenclature is sloppy. From the Piaggio p180 page: Power/mass: 4.13 kg/kW (6.79 lb/hp) Power/mass implies power to weight, but the number is reversed as weight/power. Many of the articles do this, although power to weight is the idiomatic way of saying it, it is incorrect. It will also lead to confusion for the few aircraft that actually exceed 1:1 Also the term "mass" doesn't make sense as the aircraft is in a gravitational field, and lb is not mass, it is weight.

Engines and armament

Because these sections are relatively complex, perhaps they could use their own subtemplate to make the main template easier to read. Or perhaps the info should be entered manually rather than automatically? Karl Dickman talk 01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Plane vs. Aircraft

I see the word "plane" used to refer to aircraft in many articles, and in this talk page as well. I suspect this is a British usage, and I am wondering whether is it a formal term in technical British English, suitable for an Encyclopedia in that written dialect, or if it is a colloquial or slang term that should be replaced with a specific formal term such as aircraft or aeroplane. Dhaluza 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Plane is a shortened form of airplane. Try a search here for airplane. Aircraft is a more general term referring to airplanes, helicopters, etc. (fixed wing and non-fixed wing aircraft). -Fnlayson 17:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure that 'aeroplane' is, overall, less common than plane (or airplane) as it's a Britishism. Keep in mind where the first fixed-wing, powered, piloted aircraft was flown. ericg ✈ 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The question is whether "plane" is proper formal usage suitable for encyclopedic content in British English, because it is not in American English. Dhaluza 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Since no-one has defeded this usage, I assume there is no objection to removing informal use of "plane" and replacing it with a more specific and formal term? Dhaluza 14:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Plane is less formal sure. As long as airplane is used first, using "plane" the next time should be OK if the meaning is clear. -Fnlayson 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Keeping it as "aircraft" or "airplane" is fine, plane is considered a colloquialism. Look where it falls in my dictionary definitons: Plane: 1. Mathematics: A surface containing all the straight lines that connect any two points on it. 2. A flat or level surface. 3. A level of development, existence, or achievement: scholarship on a high plane. 4. An airplane or hydroplane. 5. A supporting surface of an airplane; an airfoil or wing. IMHO: stay away from a "plane." :} Bzuk 16:57 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Aviation terms reference

For those of our editors who aren't "up" on some of the aircraft-related terms that get mentioned here, a fairly good basic reference I've come across is Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (Canadian Edition). (However, please keep in mind that its units of measure are Canadian, not US.) If anybody has come across better, please post a link to it here. — Askari Mark (Talk) 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The FAA version is also online.--chris.lawson 23:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for air forces

There's a discussion going on at the military unit infobox talk page about adapting the infobox for national service branches (in particular, national air forces) that could use some additional input; it's been suggested that editors here might have some useful experience to share, so comments would be very welcome. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Year in aviation" vs. reader's date preference conflict

Apparently there is a conflict when dates are wikilinked where if, say, [[1913 in aviation|1913]] is used, then the reader's preference for the date, [[January 24]], won't display properly when the option is set to use the format "January 24, 1913" (cf. [4]). Has this been encountered before and is there a fix? Askari Mark (Talk) 18:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thought this [[1913 in aviation|1913]]-[[01-24]] (1913-01-24) might work. But it doesn't look like it.Wiki Date formating :( -Fnlayson 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears that a bot is going through the aviation articles changing all of this. I went and read up on the subject, and there's been lots of debate, but definitely no consensus about going to the "user preferences" format. It seems to me that a bot campaign is therefore premature. If there's consensus amongst project members to leave the YiA in there, I suggest we approach the bot owner, quoting the MOS, and ask him to stand his 'droid down. Akradecki 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, seeing dates in the [[####-##-##]] format, especially in infoboxes, makes me cringe... - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it is improper for the bot to replace YIA code without consensus; however, the best thing would be to fix whatever the problem is in the first place. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a problem with a lot of Wikiprojects... if possible, I think the programming of the date template should be modified to link to a "year in..." page if a separate parameter is specified. ZakuTalk 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Something along the lines of [[1941-12-07 in aviation]] would definitely be nice. I would also like to admit that I convert the dates to ####-##-##, but only for infoboxes. Karl Dickman talk 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, perhaps consider that there are other editing chores you could do instead, and leave the date as to the editor's preference. :} Bzuk 06:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
As a side note, I'm not sure why we need more than just introduction / retirement year in the infobox, especially since for most aircraft we only have a year. It's much better to state the years, then explain specific dates (if available) in the text. For first flights an absolute date makes a lot more sense. This would also help strip (SOME) of the YiA problems from our articles. ericg ✈ 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • True. The Year only is generally fine for older aircraft. Full dates matter more for somewhat new aircraft, imo. -Fnlayson 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, giving the full date as a YIA date attracts the unmerciful attentions of the bot. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been having a conversation with the bot's owner over on his talkpage, others who are concerned with this issue might want to weigh in there, as well. The owner has also been invited to justify himself here. Akradecki 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what do you mean by "there is definitely no consensus about going to the "user preferences" format". The consensus is reflected at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia:Piped link. Extensive discussions concern mainly relevance of links to partial dates and the shortcomings of current date preference scheme. Piped links to "years in something" are also frequently mentioned as easter eggs links which shouldn't be used at all but I haven't seen nobody suggesting using them in a way that breaks date preference at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Jogers (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of this subject has now been taken up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I've put in my 2 cents, but if we don't want the bot to resume taking apart YinA links, other project members need to contribute their input there...and now's the time. Thanks! Akradecki 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New articles

January was an immensely productive month for us with 74 new aircraft articles! Awesome job everybody! - Emt147 Burninate! 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How many were improved to GA or FA status? --Born2flie 05:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
F-84 and B-17 got A-class ratings, B-17 became an FA, F-105 became a GA. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Aircraft_Archive_15_2d8a.html"