Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents
Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss
Announcements
  • Volunteer at the Outreach department, help sign up new members and distribute the monthly newsletter!
  • The collaboration and review departments are open. Please visit and nominate or help review articles!
  • There is a new project banner {{WPAVIATION}}. It will replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses.
Featured article candidates 
x • y
Featured content candidates 
Peer review 
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/P-38 Lightning •
Featured article review 
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Zeppelin •
Collaboration 
Malaysia-Singapore Airlines
Articles needing attention • Needing infoboxes • Unassessed • B-class review • More...
View full version (including requested articles and task force lists)
Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
Assessment department talk
Collaboration department talk
Review department talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery talk
Portals
edit · changes

/Archive 1
Shortcut:
WT:AVIATION

Contents

[edit] Project tags

I've been going through tagging and retagging some articles. I found a few interesting questions, and would like to propose a consistent approach to dealing with these issues.

  1. Some articles are already tagged to one or more child projects. I suggest that if a page falls into more than one child project, it should be re-tagged for the parent aviation project. So pages that were tagged to Aircraft and Airports would be re-tagged to Aviation (with the same assessment).
  2. Articles that deal specifically with one project should be tagged to that project. So aircraft and parts of aircraft should be tagged to the Aircraft project (e.g. airframe). But terms relating to operation of the aircraft should be tagged to aviation (e.g. airway).

--Dhaluza 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with this, to a degree. An article tagged to both Airports and Aircraft, but that does not relate directly to either one, should be re-tagged to the more general Aviation project. One example is Talk:Instrument flight rules, currently tagged as an Airport project page, but I think that this more properly belong under Aviation projects scope. But articles such as Talk:Instrument Landing System belong specifically to the Airports project. Its all dependent on the scope of the projects. If there is some sort of overlap, it should be corrected. If the overlap is required, we could deal with it in the same way the Military history project does. Use the main project template, with an added parameter identifying other involved projects, which would then categorize them in both projects. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Your examples on IFR/ILS make sense to me, but seem to be inconsistent with the argument you make about aircraft engines and aircraft. If the ILS should be included in the Airport project because it is part of the airport, then aircraft engine should be in the Aircraft project for the same reason. I don't have a strong opinion either way, except that whatever we decide it should be easy to explain and most importantly consistent. My initial thought is that we should try to push things down to the child projects as much as possible, and only use Aviation to cover the gaps and overlaps. But I'm open to other opinions. 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's verify the scopes in the Recap above. This should help decide where everything belongs. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
PS. Just be thankfull our pages don't generally fall under too many non-aviation related projects, or we'd end up dealing with a situation like on Talk:Jim Thorpe. Six different wikiprojects! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation (parenthesis)

There is no consistency in the terms used to disambiguate aviation terms in Category:Aviation terminology. For example:

One of the things projects are set up to do is to standardize things like this, and now that we have a unified project, we may as well put this on the table. We should work on a guideline on how to use disambiguation terms consistently. The easiest thing to do might be to just use the more generic term aviation in most cases. Or, if not, we should decide when to use aircraft vs. aviation, and probably not use flight or aeronautics at all. Dhaluza 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I would think that things having to do directly with aircraft, especially parts of an aircraft, ought to say "(aircraft)", and terms relating to more general things such as air-traffic control should say "(aviation)". I also think "(aerodynamics)" would be useful for dealing with principles of flight, such as lift, drag, that would be more specific than aviation. - BillCJ 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Projects goals

I think we should start attaining some featured article goals. I was just recently perusing articles on Scouting with 17 ga and fa articles (just listed in the template at the bottom). I guess, what i am proposing we do is first, determine whoich articles are core to the topic of aviation. Extremly famous historical aviations, perhaps amelia earhart or the wright brothers and define a list of articles we would like to reach featured status. Then, get working on them. Do any other members have ideas on this? or prosed articles to push towards featured status? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Single Project Banner for use by all aviation related projects

Painted nose section of a Douglas B-26C "Invader" Serial No. 44-35918 (Formerly A-26C). Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007). Good luck Trevor with this high-flying project!
Painted nose section of a Douglas B-26C "Invader"
Serial No. 44-35918 (Formerly A-26C).
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007).
Good luck Trevor with this high-flying project!

I've created a project banner at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. This banner can replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses, such as categorizing articles under specific projects. It is based on the banner user by the Military history project ({{WPMILHIST}}). An example of it in use is at User talk:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner, and you can see that by using the various parameters, all aviation articles will be combined under the aviation project at Category:WikiProject Aviation articles and when tagged properly, in their respective Category:Rotorcraft task force articles, etc. It will also allows us to introduce other areas of the Wikiproject, such as "collaboration of the month", and take advantage of the larger total number of users throughout the projects. Please comment here, and make any suggestions for other options to include in the banner- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't tell what the image was until I clicked on it to review the source page. It might need to be a little larger. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I increased it to 100px, but its still not that clear. I don't think it should be any bigger so maybe another picture should be used. Any suggestions? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing articles

Just a quick summary on the assessment process to keep people up to speed.

  1. The "importance" is no longer used, the article is now assessed only according to content.
  2. The content can be classed by a rigid scale, here, to explain
    1. Anyone can rate an article stub or start, if they do so then a checklist of criteria for upgrade to B-class is shown in the template.
    2. If someone rates it B-class but does not include the B-class criteria checklist, then the article is placed in Category:B-Class aviation articles needing review, and people can check if the article deserves the B rating.
    3. If someone does the B-class checklist but the article is still rated start or stub then the article is placed in Category:Potential B-Class aviation articles
    4. No article should be rated GA unless it has gone through a nomination process.
    5. No article should be rated A class unless it has had an A-class review
    6. No article should be rated FA unless it is an FA

With this system in place, no article should be able to be rated too high. If there are any questions about this sytem, or comments on how to improve it, I'd love to hear it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

Will this project replace WP:Air? If so, all the redirects should be made here, including the beleaguered aircraft specs templates. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:AIR will still be responsible for all aircraft pages, this project will just help out by taking on articles which are related to aviation, but not specifically to aircraft. For example, Flight, which used to be under WP:AIRs scope, is now part of WP:AVIATION, but autopilot is still under WP:AIR. This project will act as a "home base" for all the other projects members, giving each project more visibility and improving communications. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

About this message in the newsletter:

  • {{WPAVIATION}} is the project banner for use by all aviation related projects. All links to the old templates need converting to the new one.

I can have my bot change any references to old templates, just let me know which templates need changing. —METS501 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

{{AircraftProject}} and {{AirportProject}} need replacing. I don't know if it is possible, but the pages tagged AircraftProject could also have the parameter |Aircraft-project=yes added, and the ones tagged with AirportProject could use |Airports-project=yes. Thanks, Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm running my bot on the 3400ish references to {{AirportProject}}. Should be done later today. ^demon[omg plz] 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of aircraft of the RAAF - Page move

I've started a discussion / vote to move the page (Australian) List of aircraft of the RAAF to List of aircraft of the ADF. See Talk:List of aircraft of the RAAF. The main reason is to cover the Army and Navy aircraft already in the list and for future Navy/Army aircraft to be included. - Ctbolt 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aerosonde

I am working in Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles and came across a couple of things some of you may care to comment on:-

  • Why does Insitu Aerosonde have this name, as the article only refers to it as "Aerosonde"?
  • Aerosonde is the abandoned article (a disambiguation page), having not been edited for nearly two years. Should Aerosonde be the main article in place of Insitu Aerosonde and the other disambiguation Aerosonde Ltd be a "For the Australian company see ...]] at the top of that article? --Bduke 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the article should be moved to Aerosonde, and the disambig page move to Aerosonde (disambiguation). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volunteers needed?

I'd like to volunteer for any task that this project might lack.Wikimachine 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • While waiting for other requests, it would be nice if someone could check to see that for all IATA and ICAO codes, there is a redirect or a disambiguation page pointing to the airline or airport article. Vegaswikian 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Check out Template:WPAVIATION Announcements for many sub-project tasks, convert {{AircraftProject}} and {{AirportProject}} tags to the {{WPAVIATION}} tag, nominate articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Collaboration, recruit new members and send out newsletters (See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Outreach). These are just a few things to work on. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airports?

I was under the impression that the old WikiProject:Airports was now within the scope of WP:AVIATION, but I don't see it listed as such on this project's page. Someone should maybe fix that if I'm remembering right ;)

Secondly, I'd appreciate it if some other aviation folks could take a look at this WP:Airports discussion about whether or not to disambiguate Liberia, Costa Rica, from the country Liberia in a list of destinations served from LAX. There is nothing even remotely approaching consensus at the moment, but some people seem to think a discussion with two (plus a comment from an individual who is otherwise not participating in the discussion) on one side and two on the other amounts to consensus.--chris.lawson 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:Airports is listed as a sub-project, see:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation#Sub-projects. But the specific airport articles, such as Montréal-Mirabel International Airport, are still under the WP:Airports scope. The project banner used is {{WPAVIATION}}, but the parameter |Airports-project=yes should be included, to place them in the correct assessment categories. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skybus Information

I am just curious about something. Recently, a few unregistered users have edited the Skybus Airlines article with information that I could not verify at all after hours of search. I am not saying the info is false, but I think it should be verified somehow. I do not know how to go about talking to an unregistered editor, so I am not sure what to do. The reason I am concerned is because this came soon after someone added malicious information to the article. This info isn't malicious, but isn't exactly raving either. If someone can either verify what was recently added or suggest a course of action, please do. Thank you. Polypmaster - Talk

  • Add some fact tags on items you can't find. And ask about them on the Skybus talk page. -Fnlayson 03:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of most successful aircraft

List of most successful aircraft seems to be a rather vague list with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. No definition of success and probably has an English speaking county / US bias. It's basically uncited and probably unverifiable for the aircraft listed. Is there any opinion here on deletion of the article, cleanup etc? It was prod'd but de-prod'd by an anon user. Initial contributor of the article is now indef blocked. --Dual Freq 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It looks like it goes by most produced or long term use in its category or something like that. But without some critera spelled out, it should be deleted. -Fnlayson 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

Man, that whole concept is just begging for edit wars! How would you ever define it without doing serious OR? I agree, it should be deleted. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defining Jet Fighter Generations

Since there has been a fair amount of edit-warring regarding what aircraft belong to what jet fighter "generation" (especially in the 4th generation jet fighter article), I've produced a "description", based on my professional experience, to serve as a guideline to help reduce, if not eliminate, the feuding. The problem is, there is no official definition and few published ones to go on — yet the terminology is so widely employed that it's hard not to treat in Wikipedia. While my contribution can only be treated as OR, my intent and hope is that it can serve as a guideline that editors can refer to in order to resolve disputes.

I would like to invite other knowledgeable editors to review and comment on what I've posted at Talk:Fighter aircraft#Defining Jet Fighter Generations so that we can have, as a guideline, something that is well-rounded and represents a consensus of our "in-house" experts. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Columbus Regional Airport Authority

I created the Columbus Regional Airport Authority article recently as it is the overseeing body to Port Columbus International Airport, Rickenbacker International Airport, and Bolton Field. I am curious if this article should be covered under {{WPAVIATION}}. It is certainly involved in aviation, but it doesn't fall directly into any of the subcategories. Polypmaster 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New infoboxes

I've been working on some new infoboxes for commercial aircrafts. So far I've done:

Someone asked me to do the same for military aircrafts, which I'd be glad to, but I don't know anything about military aviation. So if you want me to do any new infobox for either type of plane, just tell me the manufacturer and give me a list of models. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

well I have not edited any of the airliner articles, but here is a list of the aircraft made by McDonnell Douglas prior to merging with Boeing:
DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, MD-90, MD-95
Polypmaster 02:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
James, you probably need to consult with the editors of the current Infobox at Template talk:Infobox Aircraft before you make any further changes or additional infoboxes. The original {{Infobox Aircraft}} was created to provide a single infobox for all aircraft aritcles, both to standardize the box, and to allow easy updating to new standards. Creating new infobox templates means that when changes are made, they will have to be made to more than just one template now. The current box was also created and accepted by consesnus of WP:AIR, and changes to it should be carefully considered and discussed first.
Having said that, I do like your ideas, and they obviously took some time and thought on your part. One suggestion would be to ask the original infobox editors if your changes can be incorporated directly into the original template as an option for a company header to be added if needed on individual pages. - BillCJ 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This seems super redundant, considering that we have a) an infobox for aircraft and b) a shitload of templates for designation sequences. I'm just sayin'. ericg ✈ 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually do agree with you on those points, Eric. Thanks for doing the subtemplate solution anyway; I didn't realize it would be that simple to implement. It seems the broader concensus is going to be to use them, so at least this we we keep the main infobox. Thanks for the quick work! - BillCJ 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no prob (for reference, I just converted the "Infobox X Aircraft" to logo+sequence only, and included those in the Infobox Aircraft template as {{{subtemplate}}}). I simply made the change in light of maintenance issues and standards between infoboxes - I'm not making any kind of comment on their appearance or suitability, although if asked I'd say they're kind of awkward and not very useful.
Anyway, It'd be nice if you guys could think outside the box a little bit more (and I'm not saying that to be condescending) as far as templates go - it's a template, which means it can be modified easily using parameters that don't necessarily apply to all uses. If you have infobox questions or suggestions, bring them up and we can adapt the existing template to include them rather than having to herd a bunch of variants around whenever changes are made. ericg ✈ 06:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Good day, it looks like the Boeing list should be called "Boeing Airplanes" instead of "Boeing Aircraft." Otherwise you may want to include the Boeing Helicopters (eg: 107-II, 234, 360). Great look though! -Trashbag 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft Engines

I would think that aircraft engines and their manufacturers are covered by WP:AVIATION but they currently do not display as such. What is the verdict on this? Thanks. Polypmaster 02:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Falls under WP:AIRCRAFT's stated scope. --Born2flie 15:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, add the banner where ever you see it lacking. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airport Infobox Change???

I have noticed that when looking at the Midway Airport and O'hare International Airport articles the Airport Infobox has changed. There was a new airport statistic section. When did this start? Marcusmax 01:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for new page

Hi. I just joined up here, so please forgive me if i've posted this in the wrong place. I wanted to start a page on Diverterless Supersonic Inlets (DSI) which are being used on the F-35 and JF-17. I'm hoping for your help, especially since, frankly, my aeronautics related knowledge is almost zero. I hope you'd be able to do so. I've created a user sandbox page at Diverterless Supersonic Inlet Sandbox, which i'm hoping can become a suitable page. Hope you'd be able to help edit it and expand it. I need any info possible, especially the basic science behind engine inlets (which i'm not really able to find). Thanks and cheers. Sniperz11 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • All I can do is suggest some layout/format changes. Try a Development section to cover the changes in the design and how it came about. Then a Design or Description section describing the specifics of the current design. Avoid advantages/disadvantages sections, since that could encourage original research type conclusions. Good luck. -Fnlayson 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Aviation_9d8a.html"