Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:AIR
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 - May | Jun - Oct | Nov - Dec ] — 2008 [ Jan | Feb - ]

Lists: [ Aircraft • Manufacturers | Engines • Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons • Missiles ] Timeline
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
US Air Force changed all their home pages - numerous Air Force links need to be fixed (not just AFM)

Contents


[edit] Archive bot?

I was just about to do some cleanup here since this page is getting very long, but wondered whether anyone would object to enlisting a bot to maintain this page for us? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The main WP:Aviation talk page uses a bot that archives talk over 60 days old. Sure, that'd be great. I'm never sure how much to archive when I do it. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree - always try 60 days for starters. MilborneOne (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No worries, good idea. Nimbus227 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Question, what about a link to the archive page the bot is using? I could do that manually (/Archive 19). Is there a way for it to automatically add/update the link? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
If we want to keep the current page layout, we will need to add the link manually. The alternative would be to switch to using the "Archive box" as seen (for example) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What about an archive time shorter than 60 days? Seems like 45 or 30 days would give a more reasonable length to the main talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rotary engine confusion

Current situation:

There was a move discussion at Talk:Rotary piston engine#, but only three editors discussed it. One editor suffled some pages around, but I can find no clear move records on the history pages, nor do I see evidence of cut-and-paste. Evidently some pages were outright deleted in the process of shuffling. The main editor commented: "Move this page (Rotary piston engine) on the rotating radial-pattern engines such as the Gnome to rotary engine, as these engines have no other name."

The Wankel engine is regularly referred to as a rotary engine in many circles, and every so often, there are discussions or comments added to Rotary engine claiming that it is really a Radial, and this page should be about the rotary engine in some Mazdas!

In my opinion, the fact that the WWI-rotary engine is at Rotary engine is a constant cause for confusion. I'm not sure of a better name for the engine, but plain "rotary engine" is clearly not working out very well, to me anyway. [[Rotary engine (aircraft) might be do-able, but the engine has been used in cars and motorcycles too, according to the article. Beyond that, I haven't a clue what to call it.

So, do we leave things as they are, or can we cme up with a better solution. If nothing else, Rotary piston engine out to be redirected to Rotary engine (disambiguation); however, it has a lengthy talk page with the previous move discussions, and should perhaps be merged with Talk:Rotary engine (disambiguation), if possible, or atleast have a note dierecting people to the move discussions. Comments? - BillCJ (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

An obvious way to disambiguate it is to relocate the popular early aero engine to rotary radial engine. I need to check a few facts before making any other suggestions though... --Rlandmann (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
There are basically two types of rotary engine: those with pistons that are of a radial configuration per the WWI type (theoretically a "boxer" configuration could work...need to check); and the pistonless type such as the Wankel. So IMHO to simplify matters, there should just be two main articles:
The Dab page would still be Rotary engine (disambiguation). Do we need a devoted Rotary engine (aircraft) page as this would just be a copy of the rotary radial article? --Red Sunset 11:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Rotary engine (aircraft) would be problematic, since the radial rotary types used on aircraft are identical in concept to those used on tanks, motorcycles etc; but there have also been a few aircraft powered by Wankel-type engines. I think an article with that title would just muddy the waters. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but couldn't think of a good alternative at the time. I do like your suggestion of Rotary radial engine - it's not that common a term, but it is descriptive. Radial engine doens't have the word "piston" in it so I think it would be unnecessary here to. Again, i'd prefer the DAB page at Rotary engine, since this is the most common term for both the rotray radials and the Wankels, and it is the more simple name. Anyway, at least we're getting some good ideas and discussions, which is why I posted here. - BillCJ (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that idea; since I've just been reading about rotary horizontally-opposed engines (as Red Sunset suggested) and a rotary one-cylinder engine. Back to square one! Maybe use Rotary piston engine then? --Rlandmann (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Rotary piston engine was Rotary engine's original location, and I'm beginning to understand why they chose it - there's no simple disambiguator that cover's all the options! - BillCJ (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought: rotary pistonless engines are referred to by a range of names; Wankel, quasiturbine, etc. Does anyone know an alternate name for a WWI rotary? I can't seem to think of one off the top of my head. Maury (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of another term used for the WWI type other than "rotary". I also didn't realise that Wankel-type engines had been used in aircraft... I must be more thorough! However, I agree with the suggestion of Rotary piston engine as a coverall article for the radial and horizontally-opposed piston types, and similarly Pistonless rotary engine for the Wankel, quasiturbine, etc rotor types. That leaves Rotary engine for the Dab page. I'm not sure that the matter could be simplified any further, but it would entail a fair bit of merging and moving! --Red Sunset 20:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, every instance I can think of where a Wankel engine has actually been used to power an aircraft, it's been a converted Mazda or NSU engine powering a "hot rod" homebuilt of some sort - so don't feel too bad! But we've actually got a few purpose-built Wankel-type aero engines listed here (though no articles yet). The only other gotcha I can think of was a point someone made on one of the relevant talk pages, where they claimed that the rotors of Wankel engines are sometimes colloquially referred to as "pistons" and that therefore "rotary piston engine" was still an ambiguous term. I haven't heard this myself, and in any case, all these pages will need big disambiguation disclaimers at the top of them, whatever they end up being called! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple. The SCORE definitely powered some aircraft, but John Deere dropped it before it went into production (sigh). There was also a recent German attempt, using diesel because avgas costs so much. I went looking for it, but I guess they disappeared. In the meantime I found this, which is kind of amusing because it's about four miles from the house I grew up in, and will be visiting tomorrow. I doubt I'll have time, but I'll try to take a drive by.

So given this basic state of affairs, what is the current proposal? To make simple "rotary engine" just for the dab? Maury (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading RedSunset right, the proposal is:
  • Rotary engine - currently on the WWI-type aircraft engine - becomes main DAB page
  • Rotary piston engine - currently a DAB page - becomes the main article on the WWI type
  • Rotary engine (disambiguation) - currently a DAB page - becomes redundant (redirect to Rotary engine?).
  • Pistonless rotary engine - describes various types of rotary combustion engines - stays where it is
  • Wankel engine et al - specific types of rotary combustion engines stay at their own articles
--Rlandmann (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Pistonless rotary engine and Wankel rotary are effectively the same animal without having a close look at the articles. Perhaps there are patents involved. Many German gliders are using rotary engines in their self launching versions.
I wondered about Rotary engine (historic) and Rotary engine (modern)? It's not an easy one I agree. If someone said to me that a modern aircraft was 'rotary' powered I would not expect to see seven cylinders flailing round in the breeze! :-) Nimbus227 (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If you take a look at the pistonless rotary engine article, you'll see there are a few different approaches to rotary combustion described, of which the Wankel is just one (albeit the best-known and most widely-used one), so not the same animal. I guess historic/modern could work too; but I wonder whether this could add a different type of confusion with regard to older automotive Wankels no longer in production (for example)? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, RL has summed it all up nicely. To be sure, there is a little confusion created by rotors sometimes being referred to as rotary pistons, but by-and-large the mention of "piston" brings to mind the reciprocating type, so I think we could still get away with using "pistonless rotary engine" for the Wankel-type. However, if there is still confusion as to whether "rotary piston engine" could mean an engine with rotary pistons (rotors), there is a another possibility:
  • Rotary engine (reciprocating) for the WWI-type
  • Rotary engine (non-reciprocating) or Rotary engine (rotor) for the Wankel-type et al
I hope this doesn't further confuse matters! --Red Sunset 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the later, IMHO. Maury (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a lot of confusion regarding Rotary engine vs Radial engines - In a Rotary Engine the crankshaft is fixed and the entire engine rotates (makes timing lots of fun) where a Radial Engine you have a Master Connecting Rod with slave conncting rod attached. The Wankle-Type is not a true aviation engine. btw: someone commented that germans experimented receintly using diesel engines because of the high cost of aviation fuel - if you check the history of aviation, you would find that most German Zeppelin's used Mayback Diesel Engines. Davegnz (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Engine infobox

Should we have an Infobox for aircraft engines ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should look into it, if there's not one lying about somewhere already! Should probably follow the basic format of the Aircraft Infobox as far as layout goes, but obviously the fields would be different. There might be an infobox for other types of engines that could be adapted for use, bu they may include specs, for which we already have jet specs. As an interim/alternative, if you just want to add a bolded name to the Lead pic/caption, use {{Infobox Aviation}}. - BillCJ (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a very good idea. I searched through the existing articles and the foreign language wiki equivalents and there does not seem to be any engine infobox in use. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - and no, there doesn't even seem to be one in existence for automotive engines. Perhaps the infobox should be designed to accommodate car/bike/truck engines too? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
As to accomodating other types of engines, I guess it depends on what parameters we want to use, and if we can have enough field options to be workable without being unwieldy. I guess we need to list what fields we want to have, and go from there. - BillCJ (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
For comparison, there are a few automobile engines out there using cut down versions of {{Infobox Automobile}}. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than re-invent the wheel as an experiment I have just used the standard Aircraft infobox on Armstrong Siddeley Mamba - opinions ? MilborneOne (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a definite need. I see 2 options: the R975 or the A-series. My preference is for the R975 style, but I'm a detail nut. Trekphiler (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd say that the aircraft infobox works fine for aero-engines. perhaps uses instead of users but quite a good fit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cessna and notable "users"

Every so often, we get someone trying to add so-called notable users to business aircraft pages. Today, it's the Cessna Citation page. I've tried explaining that the use by acotrs and others is not generally notable, but to no avail. I mentioned that John Travolt's ownership of a 707 is notble, but not of a Cttation. I could use some help, especially from an admin, from some editors of greater patience than I possess! THanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember another instance where something like this happened where some relevant policies got trucked out - was it something that Oprah Winfrey owned? --Rlandmann (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to ring a bell, perhaps a Lear or Gulfstream. - BillCJ (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be fair to include the first user of a type as notable? Say, National Widgets was the first to buy Cesboeman's Ticketwriter 5zillion? Trekphiler (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (OK, I'm never going to write for Dennis Miller.)

[edit] National origin

I brought this up several times last year, and the reception of the idea was good, but I never pushed to get it added. So, I've now added the "national origin" filed to the infobox, between the "type" and "manufacturer" fields. I've also added the following "intructions" on the doc page: Use the main nation (ie. UK), not constituent country (England); don't use "EU". List collaborative programs of only 2 or 3 nations; for more than 3, use "Multi-national". Feel free to tweak the intructions to cover anything I might have missed, and perhaps even change what I have. While I understnad that England, Scotland, etc. are legitinmate countries, there were and are many British manufacturers with opertions in more than one of the contituent countries. We generally use "UK" or "British" anyway, but this is just in case the issue comes up. Also, "EU" would be far to vague, even for multi-national programs, and controversial. - BillCJ (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff - as somebody who regular adds country of origin to articles! happy with the change - can we make it clear in the instructions NO flags. MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - I'll try to work it in after my sleep period. - BillCJ (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You sleep, Bill? I was seriously wondering about that! But, yes, a good idea, although I wouldn't mind seeing "Multi-national" used whenever there's more than one – it heads off the edit wars over which country's name precedes the other(s). And definitely, please, Lord, no flags! Askari Mark (Talk) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tejas vs. JF-17, Round 3 Crore, 28 Lakh

A new editor has decided to revive the endless "My plane is better than your plane" disputes on the HAL Tejas and JF-17 Thunder, to the point of taking my insistence for including the 2 aircraft in the "Comparable" fields of the "See also" section as "proof" that I must be Indian. I answered his initial objections at length on the JF-17 talk page, to which he responded by reverting, and posting the same objections on the Tejas page! This continual dispute between the two countries carrying over to WP is getting really old, and I'm going to step back from this for a while, as such stress does not help my health. Any intervention would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Weird, huh? An "overzealous" contributor to Iranian topics here recently accused me of being an Israeli because I happened to disagree with him over the interpretation of Wikipedia policies. It's kinda depressing - if the paranoia is so great even here on Wikipedia, what hope is there In Real Life? --Rlandmann (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a serious matter to be discussed in longitudally on solid grounds and evidences that how could an aircraft going under evaluated testing/trials is better or comparable to a fully operational and official accepted aircraft. Whats the criteria to judge the performace of an under trial aircraft and its comparison, do we have to believe the developers statements regarding its performance or do we have another way judging? Looking forward —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 11:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon??? Bzuk (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC).
Aparytai - Who said anything about "better"? In this context, "comparable" simply means similar in general class, role, and era. It says nothing about capability, value-for-money, official acceptance, or anything else. Please take a read of this essay - I suggest you spend some time away from the articles in question and cool down. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rlandmann-No offense but would you like to tell me whats the meaning of comparable? You talked about class,role,era, if an aircraft not yet completed and going under evaluation tests or under trials, how could we say something about its general class,role or even era."Era" actually starts with the official production not with development of Proto types,you better be asked any aviation expert.If this is the case, I think its better to place LCA-Tejas in 80s because work on first proto type was started in 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem: we don't need to wait for any official acceptance to know that its role is that of a fighter aircraft, that within that role, it's a light, multi-role fighter, and that its prototypes flew in the early 21st century. For the purposes of Wikipedia's "see also" section, that makes the Tejas and the JF-17 comparable - the section is intentionally a broad one. Do you think we should have a special rule for the JF-17? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, as Rlandmann said above, Official acceptance has nothing to do with it. Look at the two aircraft:
Tejas -
Type - Lightweight Multi-role aircraft.
Empty weight - 5500 kg
MTOW - 13500 kg
Power - 85 kN
First Flight - 2001
JF-17
Type - Lightweight Multi-role aircraft.
Empty weight - 6400 kg
MTOW - 12700 kg
Power - 84 kN
First Flight - 2003
Any more questions??
If there is general consensus, I suggest that HAL Tejas remain as comparable aircraft on the KF-17 page. I have restored it there, and if Aparytai tries to rv it, we should through the 3RR book at him. Cheers. Sniperz11@CS 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


(Rlandmann),for sake of argument we will accept that "comparable" simply means, as you said, similar in general class, role, and era. However as I said earlier that,according to AVIATION rule "Era" actually starts with the production not with development of Proto types or being tested.Fine LCA Tejas produced (Though in developmental stages) in same era with Jf-17,would you like to tell me why Tiger Shark/F-20 in JF-17 list which was produced in 1984 and officially production stopped in 1990.Another surprising thing is Tiger Shark is absent in LCA-Tejas page?if these lca and Jf-17 are comparable and jf-17 and f-20 tigershark is comparable isn't it, f-20 tigershark is comparable to lca? Do you have any justification?Do you think Jf-17 belong to same era in which Tiger Shark/F-20 was produced?

(Sniperz11)I see your contribution in Indian defense topics in WIKipedia,I'll certainly appreciate your efforts,however things should be discussed beyond nationalism/patriotism eye glass. The way you presented LCA-Tejas case is so illogical,doesn't make sense.you compared two aircrafts, now have this and think about?

F-22 Raptor
Type- Multi Role
Speed- 2 Mach
Radar- AESA
combat Range- (471 mi, 759 km)
Ferry Range- (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km)
celling Range- (65,000 ft (19,812 m)
Empty Weight- (14,379 kg)
Loaded Weight- (25,107 kg)
JF-17
Type- Multi Role
Speed- 1.8 Mach
Radar- KLJ-7(A variant of J-10 AESA RADAR)Can track 40 targets at one time
combat Range- 1,350 km (890 nm, 1,025 mi)
Ferry Range- 3,500 km (2,100 mi)
celling Range- 16,700 m (55,790 ft)
Empty Weight- 6,411 kg (14,136 lb (14,220 lb)
Loaded Weight- 9,100 kg (20,062 lb)
LCA-Tejas
Type- Light Weight Multi Role
Speed- Mach 1.6
Radar- Pulse doppler(designed to keep track of a maximum of 10 targets)
combat Range- ?
Ferry Range- (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km)
celling Range- (15,950 m (50,000 ft)
Empty Weight- 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
Loaded Weight- 8,500 kg (18,700 lb) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Is there any big difference between the two aircrafts? No there isn't ,however its pathetic to compare Jf-17 with F-22 raptor, because we know what is F-22 raptor.Specification doesn't matter what they are,only thing that matters is the capability. So compareness means capability,performance not as said by Rlandmann"comparable" simply means similar in class, role, and era.

Another man like BILLCJ,talking about consensus?I'm asking to you,What is consensus? tomorrow if a man calls a donkey a Stallion and he asks for consensus ,do we suppose to have a consensus over donkey? No we know for sure what is a donkey and how a stallion looks like..So, as we can't compare JF-17 to F-22 Raptor same is the case in LCA-Tejas, we can not compare JF-17 with LCA-tejas. and by the way,Be logical.

With a gross weight some 2.5 times greater than the JF-17 and Tejas, the F-22 hardly counts as a "light" fighter, so you're right, it's not "comparable" for our purposes. And you're also right - the F-20 Tigershark is from a completely different era from the JF-17, so please feel free to remove it. There is no special aviation rule that says that "era" has anything to do with acceptance into service - you're simply making that up yourself. If that's not the case, you will have no trouble pointing me to somewhere where that "rule" is written. But here on Wikipedia, we group aircraft by when the prototypes were flying. You may not like that, nor agree with that, but if you want to change it, you'll need to build consensus to do so. "Comparability" here is a matter of convention - it means nothing more and nothing less than that. And you're seeking to have your "pet aircraft" made exempt from that convention. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Rlandmann) You said that the F-20 Tigershark is from a completely different era from the JF-17, so please feel free to remove it.However, what would you do to others,F-18 Hornet,F-16 Fighting Falcon,JAS-39 Gripen which made their maiden flights in 20th century? any justification? thats the problem that I was talking about?t, we should follow a different way to handle this problem and that is only those aircrafts should be included in comparable aircraft lists which are comparable in capability and performance and should also be in mind that whether they are operational or not because only an operational one can provide a full detail and neutral information.If we didn't follow above mention criteria there would always be problems regarding the topic. As I noticed in LCA-tejas article where in "comparable aircraft" list I found Dassault Mirage 2000, F-16 Fighting Falcon,IAI Lavi,JAS 39 Gripen,I'm surprised to see 20th century jets and another surprising thing IAI LAVI jet,how could a cancel project which even didn't reach to its completion being added in comparable aircraft list.

Another thing I noticed that whole articles of HAL-TEJAS/JF-17 are not in proper shape. There is too much repetition in articles respectively and also unconfirmed data. for instance detail article exists on Kaveri Engine of hal tejas and,It doesn't make sense ,I don't know, why repetition required? In JF-17article right after development I noticed topic with heading"Potential Customers" I think it should be merged in Operator sections under the same heading. In potential customer list I noticed that Zimbabwe is added? while in operators list it mentioned that Zimbabwe paid 200 million dollars for 12 jf-17s.I don't know why is he in Potential list.

It's really very simple: if you find aircraft from different eras being listed as "comparable", then please fix it. Operational status is quite irrelevant; it doesn't tell us anything about whether the aircraft are similar or not - only whether somebody decided to buy it or not. I suspect that the Lavi was included in the Tejas article due to the allegations of technology transfer between the two projects, but it clearly doesn't belong there (although not because of its lack of operational status).
If you find unconfirmed data, you should attempt to confirm it, or bring it up on the article talk page and ask whether anyone can find a source for it - or (as a very last resort) tag it as unsourced and eventually remove it. Unfortunately, articles about new aircraft or aircraft still in development are magnets for this kind of speculation. There's also bound to be some overlap between articles about aircraft and closely related engine programmes; but you're right - any overly detailed material on the engine should be moved to the article about the engine. Again, this (and your question about Zimbabwe) is the sort of thing that should be brought up on the article talk page; this page is for discussing issues that affect aircraft coverage in general. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(Rlandmann)Thanks for clearing up certain enigmatic points which early on germinated some problems/confusion, as you early on rightly said that "comparable List" doesn't show that in which sense these/those aircrafts are comparable?Capability,Performance or Era?.So in this regard I suggest ,Why not we add one more thing in Comparable air list with bracket that is"Comparable aircraft (Capability,Performance,Role)".By adding these few words, we will have a certain foundation,through which we would be able to examine the capabilities,performance etc..of any aircraft and by following this method we will also be able to differentiate under evaluation jests and also future fighters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.219.169 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that there is as of now NO consensus to tighten the definition of "Comparable", yet the editor about which this discussion revolves is already acting as if a concensus has been reached.
The "Comparable" field is a highly subjective and broad field, which the Page Content Guidelines clearly states, and yet people keep wanting to turn it into some highly-specific thing with 15 points of criteria. If we define the parameteters as tightly as proposed, we could not list the EA-6B Prowler, EF-111A Raven, and EA-18G Growler on each others pages as comparable aircraft, even though they are pratically the only types that carry out the specialized ECM roles. THere are many other arcraft that are often listd with types of another era for various reasons, often because the roles were uniqe, or because of a close resemblance to an aircraft from another era. If we are goint to now limit it to only those of the same era, we will soon have to define what era actually means. Does it mean the same decade, or that they are within 5/10/20 years of each other. Do we date them by first flight or entry to service? Do we exclude production and non-production aircraft from being listed together? If so, then the F-22 and YF-23 could not be listed on each other's page.
I can go on and on with various problems, most of which I've actually had or seen arguments about. I'd rather just not have it at all. I'd like to propose we remove entirely, as it causes far too much confusion and contention than it's worth. This is a serious proposal, not an exercise in sarcasm or absurdity. If we're going to propose tightening the definition of "Comparable", then we should also be able to consider deleting it out right. - BillCJ (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(Rlandmann)I'm totally agree with the above mention suggestion that a consensus should be hold on tightening of comparable definition, because right now as (BillCJ)rightly said that Comparable aircraft causes too much confusion,dispute and contention,rather than benefiting viewers. As well as EA-6B Prowler, EF-111A Raven, and EA-18G Growler is concern, if they met the supposed comparable aircraft criteria, and if they in true sense are comparable in capability,performance,role etc..we will certainly add them in comparable list other vise ,no need for adding them, they have already detailed articles. You talked about Era, i'm afraid you're dying the fact that,if we rely upon above mention criteria we will have no need to add them in the list on Era basis.Or,if you want to add them on Era basis than you're right that,we will have to define what era actually means? are they within 5/10/20 years of each other. Do we date them by first flight or entry to service? Do we exclude production and non-production aircraft from being listed together? However, if we are not able to find a solution for comparable aircraft issue? only possible option would be(As billCJ) said completely remove it from the articles.

Wikipedia is worldly famous and recognized authentic source, so by keeping it in view we should certainly try to keep this thing authentic, unique, and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 12:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All Wikipedia rules are intended to be interpreted with a certain degree of common sense. In the case of the EW aircraft listed above, we need to be more flexible with the "era" component of the definition, since otherwise there are no comparable aircraft for any of them. In a common class of aircraft, such as fighters, we can be more precise.
Please understand: the "comparable" category exists simply as a way of grouping "see also" links. "See also" suggests to the reader other aircraft they might be interested in reading about - grouping these links as "comparable aircraft" tells them why they might be interested in reading about them.
There's no need to be creating complex formal definitions here. In the vast majority of cases, there's no problem and no debate. Every example I've seen where there has been trouble, it's because of an editor pushing some nationalist agenda. Rather than removing the "Comparable aircraft" section, we'd be better off removing nationalists. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(Rlandmann)Yes,you're right that some rules are intended to be interpreted with a certain degree of common sense, however in this context the word which has been used is totally out of common sense,the only meaning that our common sense produces is "comparable in capability" thats it, nothing more or less..My words are further strenthens by an Indian national remarks; "If there is general consensus, I suggest that HAL Tejas remain as comparable aircraft on the JF-17 page. I have restored it there, and if Aparytai tries to rv it, we should through the 3RR book at him. Cheers. Sniperz11@CS 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)"

So, I suggest that a consensus should be made for tightening the definition of "comparable aircrafts" or it should be completely removed. So as well as your saying that category exists simply as a way of grouping of other aircrafts, so I'm afraid its totally illogical.So I suggest that a category should be added with the title "Aircrafts List"..that will certainly fulfill job, which you asserted. One more thing I want to say that all late 80s aircrafts have been restored, in 4.5 generation fighters.

Consensus, by definition, means that people generally agree on a certain point of view. As far as I can tell, your main point here all along is that to qualify as "comparable", aircraft must have the same operational status. No-one here seems to agree with you. Therefore, no consensus exists. Let me put it another way and ask whether there's anyone here other than Aparytai who thinks that the JF-17 and the Tejas are not comparable? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A think that a good dose of common sense is needed when talking about comparable aircraft. Appropriate criteria for comparison will vary depending on the context of the article- for some aircraft valid comparisons could for aircraft of similar size (i.e comparing say Hughes H-4 Hercules with Dornier Do X - both very large flying boats but of different eras. Being too rigid would eliminate this. For the JF-17 and Tejas, I would think that they are definately comparable - they are both light fighters of similar size, performance and role - both of which could be seen as MiG-21 replacements. Nigel Ish (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(Rlandmann)First of all ,I would like to clarify one thing that topic related to comparable aircraft list broadly not to Hal-Tejas or jf-17 specifically.Yes, indeed that whats I meant thats what all english dictionaries says

a-dictionary.com: Capable of being compared; having features in common with something else
b-oxford dictionary:-comparable adj. (often foll. by with, to) able or fit to be compared
c-Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary:-comparable adj.similar in size, amount or quality to something else:
d-Compact Oxford English Dictionary:-able to be likened to another; similar. 2 of equivalent quality.

So,we should certainly make it clear,that on what grounds/basis these aircrafts are comparable.I'm asking how can you compare an late 80s jet with the 90s one or 90s to 21th century one.Because we know for sure that they are produced in different Eras, have different technology,different designs,different material etc..You asked for consensus on this issues fine,than you're not suppose to ask are JF-17 and the Tejas are comparable? but to ask should we added "Comparable aircraft list" in the articles or not,which causes too much confusion and contention than it's worth. Because it doesn't tell us that, are these comparable aircrafts were/are produced in same era,for what we have to define era.Does it mean the same decade, or that they are within 5/10/20 years of each other. Do we date them by first flight or entry to service? Do we exclude production and non-production aircraft from being listed together? " or are they comparable in capability? are they same in airframe? have they same kind of radars?, avionics?, electronics?,same kind of engines etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.221.99 (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nigel Ish- I always requests my wiki kinsmen that for god sake discuss things beyond eye glass of nationalism/patriotism, however each time I found nationalism touch in discussions.Though these things are not in my intension's to discuss in details, however if you insist,than its alright; You said they are comparable, would you like to tell me how? first of all I would like to mention in here that Hal Teja is yet to be completed. Now come to main issue comparable or not?.

Question-1-Is Lca operational or not? Under evaluation right , so in testing phases, it means till to its final production prototype we can't talk about its performance,capability etc...according to DRDO/Hal sources would be ready in 2012, see wikipedia.Jf-17 is operational and full production of aircraft has been started last year. are these comparable?........"NO"

Question-2-Lca,Engine finalized? if it is would you like to tell us? Jf-17 engine uses RD-93 while same firm has completed RD-93-B(thrust vectoring nuzzle has been added) with 15 percent more thrust even powerful from F-16 block 60 engine while Chinese engine WS-13 is also ready for 200 Chinse jf-17/FC-4 assembling....are these comparable?........"NO"

Question-what Radar Lca using these days? According to (http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3503)“India’s electronics industry has been unable to build a radar system for the new jet(LCA-Tejas)” while as proposed by Hal/drdo is Pulse doppler radar(designed to keep track of a maximum of 10 targets)while Jf-17 uses KLJ-7(A variant of J-10 AESA RADAR)Can track 40 targets at one time some sources says supplied Pakistan jets have KLJ-10 radars (J-10 Radar).I advise you to please compare pulse doppler with AESA Radar....are these comparable?........"NO"

Question:-Lca uses Russian Avionics while Jf-17 uses western and Chinese avionics reason is Russian are not worthwhile that why has been rejected. are these comparable?........"NO"

Question:-Show me a single videos where lca-teja has been showed doing maneuvering for 10 seconds whats the turn rate of these jets. any idea? Regarding jf-17 compare it with F-16 block 60...

though, there are dozens of things that i can count, however I would like to mention one thing in here that can prove that HAL-TEJA is not comparable to JF-17 that is;"with empirical data indicating that indigenous Light Combat Aircraft Tejas, in its present form, will not be able to meet the Air Staff Requirements (ASRs), the Indian Air Force (IAF) has raised serious questions over the future of the aircraft’s long term induction into the squadron service."Wikipedia "The IAF has communicated that the Tejas’ performance, both in terms of thrust and its airframe qualities, was still a long way from what was desirable."reports.(http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/01/stories/2007120156141600.htm) while hal/drdo sources has confrimed that IAF is not willing to accept a single jet.(http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/LCA_Will_Not_Be_Abandoned_says_Antony_DEFEXPO_INDIA-2008_Opens100015099.php) This fact is further strengthen by the fact that IAF is acquring 126 mrca to counter JF-17 which is confirm by Indian Air chief. are these comparable?........"NO""NO" "NO" "NO" "NO" "NO" So,where is the debate?

Is the JF-17 a light, multirole fighter of the late 20th/early 21st century? Yes. Is the HAL Tejas a light, multirole fighter of the late 20th/early 21st century? Yes. As far as WikiProject Aircraft guidelines are concerned, that's all that's relevant. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Look the same to me! comparable aircraft is just a guide to readers to find other similar stuff it is not meant to be a scientific investigation into differences. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MilborneOne & Rlandmann "comparable" is a general comparison to link readers to aircraft that are generally similar, not a precise technical analysis or an endless search to find aircraft that are almost identical. To be honest it is just a very minor part of the aircraft articles and is not worth wasting all this time on. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Rlandmann) I'm sorry, but you're obstinating and is intractable, I would like to remind it, that its not a matter of stubbornness but a logical matter,so please understand the sensitivity of the matter. Ok, for sake of argument I accept it that lca and jf-17,are comparable ,but would you like to tell me ,why they are,F-18 Hornet,F-16 Fighting Falcon,JAS-39 GripenTigershark in the comparable list.I removed all those aircrafts as you said "please feel free to remove" they were reinstall by someone because people think that they are comparable in capability,performance,technology etc...

(MilborneOne) you said similar, on what grounds? Era? Capability?Technology? or what? if you based upon Era,then you must have to define "ERA" does we consider it same decade, or within 5/10/20 years of each other. Do we date them by first flight? or entry to service? Do we exclude production and non-production aircraft from being listed together? what would you do to other aircrafts which were developed in 80s or 90s,70s,I'm afraid they have no place in 21th century aircrafts, or if you want to add them on basis of capability then we have to examine the capability,performance and technology of the aircrafts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs)

[edit] Popular culture sections in aircraft pages

It serves a valid purpose for interested persons to see real and simulated examples (instead of static 2d photos), and I would include documentaries in the list too (after all, they are produces because of generally popular interest). As to games, it is a very valid inclusion as well, and very good games offer a great simulated feel. Rather then the personal opinions, here are some guides

While “Top Gun” is an extremely obvious inclusion, and so is “Memphis Bell” and “12 O’clock High” about the B-17, and no doubt “617 Dambusters” is to the Lancaster, lesser aircraft in movies should be included. The He-111, Spit, Bf-109, Hurricane are major players in the “BoB” movie and certainly worthy of mention. Yet in shows like “Piece of Cake” it is of little more the plot tool and has about a minuet in the series, and in “Dark Blue World” uses stock footage from “BoB” (but it can be mentioned in the Spitfire section due to being so prominent). One contention is exaggeration. The Disney movie The Last Flight of Noah’s Ark has a B-29 as a central piece, but exaggerates its cargo abilities and I think its cabin size (Hollywood is terrible for exaggerating capacities).

  • I propose that to be included the aircraft needs to have at least some time (15min) of film time static, and some 5 min--Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC) total if flying. Interior footage (including accurate prop) of at least 30 sec would be for inclusion. CG models can also be included if they have enough time an accuracy can also count, with “Narnia”’s opening a good example.
  • For games, it should be simple. As long as you can fly it or man its guns, its included. “BoB2, Wings of Victory” allow you to take a gunners position to defend it is grounds for inclusion. If it’s in a series, list only the series title, like IL-2 series, MFS or CFS. AI targets are not to be listed. Further, I suggest we limit games that where at least updated 2003 or later, as this is when quality of the games offers a good simulated model.

--Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This project's current policy of pop culture sections is at WP:Air/PC pop culture. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I support remaining with the existing policy. This newly proposed one is too complex to be applied in practice and will likely lead to a great number of unproductive discussions. - Ahunt (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It still lacks guide lines for games, and my suggestion is rather straight forward. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to the subjectivity of deciding notability of video/computer games, I would vote for the deletion in entirety but I do support the present guidelines as per others' comments above. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC).
The existing guidelines seem perfectly clear and are equally relavent to video games/flight sims - pop culture items are included when they are notable to the AIRCRAFT - which should be demonstrated and cited.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nigel that the existing guidelines are very clear, appearances must be "especially notable". WP:Notability says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." This means that if a game uses an aircraft it cannot be mentioned in the aircraft article unless there is an independent and reliable source that can be footnoted as having written about the connection between the game and the aircraft. This is the same standard for all Wikipedia articles. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll add my voice to those above and say that there's no need for such a drastic revision of policy. The only times I can think of where a game would be worth noting in an aircraft article would be where the aircraft is absolutely central to the game (in the way that the F-14 was central to Top Gun) and where there are verifiable and reliable sources that state that this depiction is significant in some way. Even under these circumstances, a link in the "See also" section, as in the Ilyushin Il-2 article, is probably all that's needed, rather than a distinct section. A link to CFS from every playable aircraft in those games? No way. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a great difficulty with the proposed guidelines (ie 15 minutes of flight time, 30 seconds of stock interior time) this would exclude one of the greatest aviation films made - Catch-22. While thousands of hours of film were shot (according to the DVD film commentary) only 12 minutes of actual screen time was used - there is also zero interior footage as well. I also think this would eliminate 12 O'clock High and many other aviation films (in a 90 minute movie a good portion of the film is used to tell a story) - the aircraft are just props used to move the story along (or as filler). There is very few movies that center on the aircraft (Statigic Air Command, Thunderbolt, Fighter Squadron, Battle of Britain, Memphis Belle). One of the best and classic movies - Best Years of Our Lives would also be eliminated yet the ripping scene of row after row of B-17's being scrapped is historic in its own right. While a policy might be indicated, I think it has to be based on common sense and not screen time. Lets go with several question as a qualifier - Does the movie center around aviation ? (yes/no) - if yes next question: is the aircraft protrayed accuratly and/or in historic context ? (yes/no) [this would eliminate the screen disastor Pearl Harbor) next question: is an aircraft used as a major character in the film ? (yes/no) [this question would preserve the J2F Duck used in Murphy's War]. If we can come up with, say, 10 questions (or so) that all have to be answered yes then this might be a good way of limiting frivious entries Davegnz (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
My first post was only some suggested guidelines, but Davegnz has good points, and some great ideas. The current WP:Air/PC pop culture guidelines are very much left to interpretation, and some shouting matches can/have erupted over what is relevant.
It has been years since I saw Catch-22, and how central the B-25 is to the story?
12 O’clock High has much B-17 footage, and some interior (could be a fairly accurate prop).
Battle of Britain has significant footage of Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf-109 (Spanish), and He-111 (Spanish), and that is grounds to have them listed in the appropriate aircraft sections.
TopGun could actually be excluded, because the story is about the characters, while 12 O’Clock and BoB is both the characters and their vehicles (you can ask, how often is the airplane named in the movie?).
The last is splitting hairs but is a point, I am not looking at radically changing anything, just clarifying what “especially notable” (what makes it “noteable”?) and “significant ones of relevance to the airframe” (It suggests the focus is mainly the airframe) means. If it sounds like I am challenging the “canonical example” of TopGun, I am. “The Spirit of St. Louis” (James Stuart movie, not documentary) would be my pick of a “canonical example”, where the airplane is equally or more important as the character.
As to games, in the He-111 wiki I listed 4 current sims that have a He-111, CFS, IL-2, Battleground Europe, and BoB:Wings of Victory (as crew only), and that’s about it. Is 4 too much for “very few of them”? I am sure a P-51 would have a couple dozen (not including the arcade types like Battlefield series), so what fraction of that?

--Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture Section cont.

The discussion has scrolled up. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Superfighter Aircraft

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Superfighter Aircraft, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rlandmann (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs down on this neologism. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable site

User:Drewinfo has been adding links to http://www.anyjetanytime.com/ to various articles. I'm not exactly sure what type of business it is, but it does appear to be a business. They do have limited info on vairious arcraft, but no sources for the info. Any thoughts on this site? - BillCJ (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill: I checked it, I think it is just commercial spam for a company that describes itself as "Blue Star Jets is the worlds most comprehensive and efficient private jet brokerage company." - Ahunt (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I checked all the insertions of that spamlink and they are all gone now! - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD outcome

Well, the various categories based on unremarkable aircraft features survived CfD, so I've been trying to think of how best to handle them.

One option that's occurred to me is that we make these hidden categories; this means that the articles will still exist within that category and be accessible from it, but that the category won't show in the articles themselves. I've just hidden Category:High wing aircraft as an example - if you click on the category, you can see that the articles are still in there; but if you click on any of the articles, you'll see that there's no link back to the category. This means that you can still browse downwards to the category (if you're browsing through Category:Aircraft), but that you can't browse sideways through the category from one article to another.

To me, this seems to strike a balance between those who feel that these categories should be added to each and every aircraft article, and those who feel that doing so creates a lot of unnecessary clutter on the pages.

Indeed; if we go ahead and hide these categories, I'd suggest there are a lot more configuration-based categories we could add - such as landing gear configuration - that are commonly used to describe aircraft but which it's difficult to imagine anyone using to browse sideways with ("Computer - show me all aircraft with retractable tricycle undercarriage!").

What do you think? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sound like a good comprise we can use some cats that help users find stuff but not clutter the articles. Does this mean we can have Category:Monoplanes !!! MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Monoplanes would be a logical parent category for the high-wing and low-wing categories that we already have, plus the Category:Parasol wing aircraft, Category:Mid wing aircraft and (perhaps) Category:Shoulder wing aircraft we would need to round out the set.
In the other direction, I'd suggest splitting Category:Multiple engine aircraft into Category:Two-engine aircraft, Category:Three-engine aircraft etc. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I seriously disagree on that last one – that’s what produced this plethora of trivial categories in the first place. Let’s keep them to a minimum until we decide what to do with them before splitting them into even more. “Single-engine” and “Multi-engine” should do fine for now. “Monoplanes” would be a good roll-up category. “Biplanes” is one of the few of these that actually has some value IMO, however, it begs to have “Triplane”, “1-1/2 Strutter” and other such; perhaps a roll-up category of “Multi-wing aircraft” would be a good idea. “Variable-wing aircraft” would capture swing-wings, scissor-wing, etc. That would neck us down to five reasonable general categories (2 by engine configurations and 3 by wing types). I believe it would be easier to get consensus for combining the “unremarkables” into a few general categories (and then dispensing with them as superfluous) than getting any of the former deleted. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes- absolutely - I wasn't about to go splitting things up until there was some feedback here first. I guess with engine numbers, while singles and twins are incredibly common, categories for aircraft with three, four, five and more engines have at least some chance of being useful. Category:Triplane aircraft already exists, and Category:Multiplane aircraft is perhaps best reserved for those with four or more sets of wings (of which we have maybe about half-a-dozen or so already written up). But what do you think of making these trivial categories hidden? --Rlandmann (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If they’re hidden, why have them in the first place? Are they really that useful? If so, then why hide them? As I see it, the problem is that the “unremarkables” were a good-faith creation that sounded fine in principle, but are rather useless in practice. After all, who really wants to go plug them into every single article to which they apply – and how do you handle those aircraft that are debatable as to which wing type they belong to?
For instance, since the great majority of airplanes are single-winged, it there really any value – with respect to categories, as opposed to lists – to separating out non-mono-wings into “Biplane”, “Triplane” and “More-than-three-wings” categories (as opposed to “Mono-” and “Multi-”)? Just because we have them doesn’t mean we really need them. (I’m not opposed to them; I’m just recommending we consider exactly how fine we "need" to slice and dice a general category.) Ditto tail-plane configurations, landing gear configurations, etc. Where do we draw the line between “useful” and “trivial”?
As for engines, I can see breaking out jets and reciprocating engines and possibly those into turbojet/turbofan/rocket and inline/rotary/Wankel-or-whatever since we capture that degree of information in our specs, but when it comes to number of engines, how much more do we need than “Single-engine” and “Multi-engine”? Yes, there are lots of twins but the issue is just how finely do we need to slice “Multi-engine” before we get to “More-than-X-engine”. IMHO, the bottom line is “What’s "really" useful to the project?” and let’s cut it there. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You probably know my opinion on "why have them in the first place"? But if you read the CfD debate, the three arguments that were made to keep them were that (1) they did no harm - there's no rule against large categories (2) they reflect real-world categorisation of aircraft and (3) they are useful to people who want do to browse aircraft via one of these features. Personally, I think that (2) is irrelevant to whether these features make a sensible basis for the categorisation of encyclopedia articles, that (3) is pretty unlikely, and that as far as (1) goes, the real harm is the amount of clutter that having these categories adds to the articles they've been applied to. Hiding them, as I suggested above, hopefully strikes a balance between having them existing and accessible on the one hand, and hiding the clutter on the other.
I guess my basic point is that if we have to have these, let's (1) make them as unobtrusive as possible, and (2) apply them in a thorough, systematic, and consistent way. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If the categories are hidden they do not clutter the articles but do allow a drill-down navigation through the categories and as Rlandmann states to make that worthwhile they need to be systematic and consistent. I think a category for example like six-engined aircraft or eight-engined aircraft would be of interest to users and they would be more likely to click through an interesting category. But to work you need to cat all the engine variations and other major discriminators like wings and landing gear. MilborneOne (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Hiding “trivial” categories offers one ‘pro’ and two ‘cons’ IMO. The pro is that it reduces the clutter; the cons are that it creates some maintenance problems for those who want them in the first place and in the second place – and some may see this as a pro – it sweeps the issue under the rug for a while. The maintenance problem is that you don’t know if the article already has a particular category without editing it and scrolling to the bottom; it could mean that adding them gets stalled at “A-F”. Actually, there’s a third problem – potential arguments over which categories should be hidden and which not.

I think that there is a fairly simple solution to that third one and one which can be tied to a well-established guideline, WP:OCAT. There are two very key points made in WP:OCAT that should always be kept in mind. One is the first paragraph:

“Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as ‘category clutter’.”

The other is what I call the “OCAT Test”:

“If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created.”

My proposal is along the lines of the OCAT Test: “If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category is suitable for being hidden.” While such an article can be written for Wings, for instance, an encyclopedic article on “Low wing” cannot reasonably be proposed. Likewise (and at the expense of serving beans), Cockpit can, but “Tandem cockpit” or “Side-by-side cockpit” cannot. Empennage yes; “Tricycle landing gear” or “Tail-dragger” not. On the other hand, that leaves Biplane and Triplane as potentially “legitimate” – although not mandatory since “Monoplane” or “Multiplane aircraft” remain reasonable alternatives (whether more desirable or not). A similar situation exists for number of engines; it’s a matter of preference as to how many to create separate categories for before “Multi-engine” becomes useless. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh - where were you during the CfD? :) I also played the "not every fact needs to have a category" card, but apparently it wasn't sufficient.
I wouldn't be too concerned about the maintenence problem - it seems that the users who have been keen to add these categories have traditionally done so in the context of making various other changes, so they've got the article open in edit mode anyway. I'll also add that if there's a consensus here to start using these categories, I think that most of us who are regularly adding new aircraft articles would take it on board and the categories will grow in that way as well. And if, for some reason, someone needs to get a current snapshot of what's in the category, it is of course trivial to unhide it and then hide it again.
Likewise, I don't think that determining at what point a category should become hidden is any more a difficult policy decision than any other around here. As a starter, I'd suggest that any category which we would reasonably expect to hold over 1,000 articles should be hidden (eg, Triplanes and Multiplanes visible, Biplanes and various monoplane configurations hidden; single-engine and twin-engine hidden, six-engine and eight-engine visible; propeller and jet hidden, rocket, solar, and steam visible).
For whatever it's worth, we have substantial articles on taildragger configuration, tricycle undercarriage, V-tail, and T-tail. Substantial head articles could probably also be written for high-wing monoplane and low-wing monoplane, explaining the historical use of and the different advantages and disadvantages of the configuration, just like the articles on different empennage configurations do.
Finally, the "null scenario" is ugly - if we can't delete them and can't hide them, it means we have to leave them littering the place up. --Rlandmann (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I’ve been on an enforced wikibreak for the last two months or I probably would have. I was aware of some of those articles, but I don’t think I’d call them “substantial” from an encyclopedic viewpoint; I rather think they should be rolled back into Undercarriage and Empennage, respectively. (In fact, V-tail and T-tail are more substantive in material than their parent article.) The frenzy over writing articles sometimes overlooks the encyclopedic value of the subject matter, which – IMHO – in these particular cases merits more a subsection in the parent article than as separate articles in their own right. I guess it also just goes to show how much more attention has been given to specific aircraft articles than to basic aircraft articles. (BTW, if MilborneOne gets his Category:Monoplanes, can we also have one for Category:Flying things? :-P ) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree with your analysis that the focus has been on documenting aircraft types and that our engineering articles are lacking. But whether these particular articles are of encyclopedic value probably reflects the philosophical standpoint of the person asking; a lumper or splitter. Just to clarify - I'd only support the existence of Category:Monoplanes if there's consensus here that we could hide the sorry thing :)
I'm (obviously) disappointed by the CfD. I felt that it was conducted more as a vote than as a consideration of the implications of these categories for the articles that they were being added to. The "keep" responses were practically textbook arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In short - We wuz robbed! :)
Category:High wing aircraft has now survived two CfDs - I don't think we're going to be able to get rid of it, unless policy changes, or someone thinks of some great new argument. As a bit of a pragmatist with a "can't-beat-em-join-em" outlook, I'm happy to start using these categories - I'd rather see them implemented properly than lying around as Category:200 biplanes that start with the letter A.
Let's hope that Category Intersection is implemented one day. It would actually make these things useful. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: If you want to create Category:Flying things, you should probably try de:. :D

[edit] RfA

MilborneOne is up for adminship. Since members of this project have worked closely with him, please let your thoughts be known here. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all those that supported me during my recent RfA with a succesful 73/2/2 result. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JAS 39 Gripen peer review

I asked for peer review for JAS 39 Gripen at /Peer review/JAS 39 Gripen. If can provide some comments/suggestions there that's would be appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mi-24 variants

A new user has created around a dozen short articles on various subtypes of the Mil Mi-24. There's a discussion about merging taking place here. Maybe time to finish work on those notability criteria for aircraft I was playing with last year! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Date conventions

Resurrecting an older topic. Has the group made a decision about the use of d-m-y as opposed to m-d-y formats? I was sure that the issue has been discussed before and a consensus reached. I could not find the talk thread on the topic. Am I wrong? What do people think? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

I prefer to use D-M-Y on Wikipedia, but can live with either. As long as they're wikilinked, most logged-in editors will see whatever format they prefer. For the sake of the latter, though, if an article has already used one type extensively, I'll often follow suit. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we would be going counter to what the Manual of Style allows if put that in strictly. Now some guidelines for the infobox like with the year in aviation links would be good. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helicopter peer review

Helicopter is submitted for a Peer review in order to reach B-Class and to prepare for a GA-Class submission. Please take a look at the article and place your comments on the peer review page (peer review link above). --Born2flie (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PAK-FA cancelled?

An IP user (what else?!) has claimed here that the PAK-FA was cancelled on 12 APril 2008. A google search for "PAK FA" cancelled has only turened up youtube and forums, but nothing from reliable sources on the first few pages. Has anyone heard anyhting about this from something trustworthy? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The various forum posts cite RIA Novosti as the source, but I can't find the story on their site, in either English or Russian (not all articles are freely available in English). Until someone can provide something verifiable, we should lose it... it should stay lost. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
From what I have seen during a G**gle search it appears to be a hoax, one discussion [1]. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely a hoax. The Russian defense ministry and the air force just reaffirmed first-flight plans a few days ago. It's also not an accurate reflection of the RIA-Novosti writing style nor the way major decisions are formulated by the Russians. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Mark, would you mind posting something at Talk:Sukhoi PAK FA‎#Rumors of project cancelation (April 2008)? Some other users have discussed it there, and we could use your experienced voice on this. I'd rather not just copy what you wrote over, as they addressed some different questions there than we talked about here. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming

68.187.153.197, has been adding [2] to various articles as an external link, typically at the top of the list of external links. This practise may be considered spam. Please comment. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC).

It seems like a good-faith effort by the site's owner, but yes, I'd call his method "spamming". - BillCJ (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCommons question

I've seen too many images on Commons deleted lately without any warning, and no way to check or fix the images, or perhaps tranfer them to WP as Fair-use. Right now, there seems to be a bot-initiated system where trigger-happy admins delete files that could be fixed with a few minutes of quick research and thought. Some of these images actually have all the information availabe, it is just not in the right format, sometime because of a simple mistake. Therefore, I've made the decision that I will not be uploading any pics to Commons until a sensible system run by competant reviewers is in place. This is because I fear that the images I upload being deleted, but rather a protest of the current "Shoot first, hope no one asks questions later" process currently used be Commons. Also, since I don't trust Commons to manage the images properly, I'd rather not have someone else tranfer them to Commons, only to have them deleted by another incompetant deleter, and forcing me to upload the image again. So, is there a way to upload free images, such as US DOD pics, to WP, but ask that they not be transferred to Commons? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not as such. PD images routinely get transferred over there when they're found. Of course, the place to bring up your concerns is over at Commons. If you can cite specific examples, you could make a strong case. There really aren't too many images that this project can use under "Fair use" anyway; the odd logo, or accident photo and that's about it. And that's good! We're meant to be building a free encyclopedia here - and one of the senses of "free" here is that is should be freely reproducible. Every time we include an image under a "fair use" claim, we undermine that purpose. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There does seem to be a lot of aircraft images vanishing from articles recently, after they are moved from en:Wiki to commons and then deleted. In this case of course, the first thing that editors working on the article know is when the image disappears - certainly no warning on the article's talk page (which if we're lucky, we may get if someone has problems with an image here - I'm not even sure whether the person who originally uploaded the image is always informed, even if they are still active - or if any warnings that are issued are just given on Commons - where the original uploader may not have an account, and certainly may not check on Commons very often, so images may get deleted without anyone attemping to defend the image. Many of the photos that are deleted are ones which it is difficlt to find free images to replace them - such as obscure aircraft where there are no survivors and don't come from nations where we can use something like pd-US-GOV or crown copyright expired to find a photo to show what the aircraft looks like.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that there's a real problem with notification: there's actually no mechanism (that I know of, anyway) where an original uploader to Wikipedia is warned about a problem that's first identified on Commons. The warning will be visible on the Image page itself, but since this is transcluded from Commons, even having the image on one's watchlist isn't going to help. This discussion would be helped if we could have a few specific examples - that way we could see whether the problem is with the information provided in the original upload to Wikipedia, or whether it was created when the image was transferred to Commons.
Note too that just because a free image is "difficult" to find does not qualify for fair use - it has to be impossible to find or create. Cases like Nigel's suggesting (an obscure aircraft with no survivors from a country with only strict "70 years after the photographer's death" rules) would certainly qualify, but our "free encyclopedia" purpose would still be better served by a free-licence drawing or free-licence photograph of a model. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is nothing new with this issue (cf. Help need in photo images being systematically deleted, Help needed on Image challenges and Logos of individual aircraft in Infobox Aircraft). Actually, a notification mechanism was created (after much heated commentary and strong encouragement from myself and many others) and for at least a while (I’m not sure it’s still the case), BetacommandBot was posting seven-day warning notices on the article talk page and the uploader’s talk page. (I’m not sure it’s still doing so; I gave up fighting the “fair-use nazis” a long time ago.) However, the way it’s run, it can go through an entire Wikiproject’s image pages in a fairly short time (it’s a bot, after all). Since many image uploaders are long since gone and the process to certify fair-use is so tedious (assuming one understands the process in the first place), it’s nearly impossible to save more than a few images. The remaining option is to somehow track down the original source and then re-upload it and re-justify it (or get the copyright holder to release it into public domain – assuming they are locatable and alive or their heirs discoverable). In short, except where a Wikipedian can take a pic themselves, a great many articles will have to do without. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There is also a bunch of Wiki Image Nazi's that take pride in having thir 'wiki pages' vandalized - like a badge of honor they brag how much torment they give an author when they desice to delete his entire collections of pictures - I had a whole slew of WWII B-24 Liberator pictures I know (as I paid for the coping) from the USAFM - I do not have the USAFM file number so they were just put under 'US Government release' - the photo nazi's still deleted themDavegnz (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems protection

BAE Systems is the featured article for today. It is getting hit left and right with vandalism edits, mostly by IP editors. Could one of the admins here look at sem-protecting the article. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Another user added it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as well. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked at it but as I remebered, protecting a main page featured article is frowned upon. Wikipedia:Main_Page_featured_article_protection. If i remeber the discussion correctly, the main page featured article may often be a new editors first interaction with this project. By protecting it, we show that it cant be edited by everyone. Vandalism can be fixed quick enough., Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The best plan is just to watch it and fix it as long as it is on the home page. That is the price of success! - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Easy to say that when you're not constantly reverting vandalism. Other articles have been semi-protected before. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The scope of this goes far outside wiki project aircraft. It was a community decision. That is part of what makes the wiki wonderful is we can always go back to the last known good version. The vandals are always one step behind. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small text issues

The {{reflist}} and {{Commons}} tags are now in a much smaller text font, at least in IE6. As an editor with vision impairment, this makes the refs especially hard to read. Does anyone know where to go to address the issue, and hopefully get it changed back? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks the same to me as they always did (a slightly smaller font than the body text). Check that you haven't accidentally changed your browser's text size (View>Text Size), but otherwise I'd say that Village Pump (technical) would be the best place to ask. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
All modern browsers include the ability to adjust text size very quickly. This feature was invented for people with problems reading small fonts on websites! IE6 isn't as good as IE7 or Firefox 2 or 3. In Firefox you just hit Ctrl+ and the text is enlarged one size. Ctrl++ gives you two sizes. Ctrl0 returns things to normal. - Ahunt (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I have a menu icon that adjusts text size, but as stated below it's just the small fonts that are affected. I don't care for Firefox, but my comp is too old and slow for IE7, or for the new pop-ups gadget. Saving to upgrade, donations welcome. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The small format font looks smaller today, but the regular font looks the same size. So increasing font size across the board is not the ideal fix. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that before i started using reflist, i would have to use a div tag with class="references-small" to get small text in the references. Maybye somebody changed that to default? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the template {{Reflist}}, it is div classes to references = small. If you want to see big references, you can use the old fashioned references\ tag. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The change seems to be to the small font setting overall. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. It does seem like some overall setting were changed, as the reflist fonts, though always a little smaller (95% I believe), are now much smaller than that. - BillCJ (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New template

I just found Template:WWIIUSSRAF. Needs some work to be up to code, but I'm not sure it's necessarty either, but that's just me. Maybe it's time we formulated some guidleines on fotter navboxes, as the (needed) company navbox campaign seems to have convinced some users that they need to make some other templates too. - BillCJ (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pelikan tail vs V-tail

Can you guys come to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pelikan_tail and opinate on whether Pelikan tail is different enough from V-tail to have its own separate article? There is also some discussion at Talk:Pelikan_tail (I posted this same message at WP:AVIATION, where I was told to ask also here) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Hawker hurricane bd707

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hawker hurricane bd707, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawker hurricane bd707. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rlandmann (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massive uncited additions from dynamic IP users

Several IPs have been adding material to aircraft articles of several nations, primarily carrier-capable aircraft, but all unsourced, and in a similar style. A few of the talk pages have copyvio warnings. The IPs I've found so far are User:62.57.75.33, User:81.184.16.62, User:81.184.16.62, User:62.57.75.33, and User:195.235.59.100. All are registered in Spain,a nd come from at least two ISPs. I and others have placed warning on most of the IP talk pages. I have also reverted most of the recent text that has been added, as I do not trust that this user is not adding copyvio material, based on previous activity of some of these IPs. Oh the joys of open IP editing! - BillCJ (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Use of references

Recently, an editor has been removing reference notes in the bibliography section of Polikarpov I-180, with the edit notes that the additions were made by a non-contributing editor. The main contention was that the reference source had not appeared in the "notes" section and therefore was automatically suspect. Wikipedia:Citing sources does not make this distinction although I do know that a number of editors firmly believe that if a reference source was not used in a citation then it should be eliminated, or failing that, put in a "for further reading" section. Bibliographies are intended to be a listing of all reference sources that were used in formulating an article, and therefore, an editor who "fact checked" by finding a corollary source or who read material from that source in order to better understand the topic, can list that source as useful. The particular deletions of reference sources added by a very experienced editor, and a reputable researcher and contributor to the aviation project group, is also problematic. What do you think? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

Hi Bill. It is a problem. Unfortunately the best cure for this problem is to enter all references as in-text citations when they are used in the first place. It is hard to fix that after the fact. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Adam, what often happens is that another editor has created the entry in the bibliography and then it is difficult to determine where the reference cite should be placed. As well, there is still the issue of creating a useful bibliographical record of sources for other editors and readers. See Milborne's response:
":According to Footnotes An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". so they do not have to be used as sources in the writing to be added to Bibliography just that the might be of interest to the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)"
My response: "That's how I read this as well, but there are some strict interpreters who have insisted on only bibliographic records that are mentioned in citations. The problem with the I-180 article is that removing the bibliography entries was predicated on this concept. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)."
I'm with Ahunt. Best way to fold a recently-found reference into an article is to find a sentence (or write it!) that is supported by the reference and then insert it inline. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, the question remains, if the submission is in good faith but does not include a citation or quote, it is difficult for another editor to assign a citation from the source that may not be "at hand." As mentioned earlier, a bibliography both in definition in the publishing world and on Wikipedia is essentially the same.
This is a standard definition: "bib·li·og·ra·phy (bbl-gr-f) n. pl. bib·li·og·ra·phies, 1. A list of the works of a specific author or publisher. 2. a. A list of writings relating to a given subject: a bibliography of Latin American history. b. A list of writings used or considered by an author in preparing a particular work. 3. a. The description and identification of the editions, dates of issue, authorship, and typography of books or other written material.b. A compilation of such information." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC).
That's the one I use. If I use a source to confirm, but don't cite it, in it goes. In many cases, if it's got good pix or something, it goes in, too. Trekphiler (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing VC-25 notability

A novice user has proposed merging Boeing VC-25 back into Air Force One at Talk:Boeing VC-25#Merge proposal. While not mentioned in his initial proposal, he is now claiming that the VC-25 is not notable apart from being used as AF1. Please review the proposal, and weigh in, no matter your views on the issues. (PS, I can't wait to see what he does when he discovers there are TWO pages on the VC-137C! - BillCJ (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commons category?

Uploaded pictures of airplanes. Don't know their manufacturer, name or type. Located in commons at Saskatoon Airport If anyone can help it would be appreciated.SriMesh | talk 05:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice pics. Sorry I don't know most of them, but we should have plenty of members here who will know. - BillCJ (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Like to help but the link has no images!! MilborneOne (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The link worked fine for me, and I've checked it after Milb's post too, and it still worked. - BillCJ (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops if you are not logged into Commons you do not get any images just This category currently contains no pages or media!! I have put some info (the easy ones) on SriMesh talk page MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm so glad to know I'm not the only one who boobs that way occasionally! =] Trekphiler (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afterburner/reheat

Just a minor question, hopefully not one that will cause a big fuss (row): Do we generally treat the use of afterburner and reheat the same way as most ENGVAR issues, or is afterburner the generally accepted term now for our articles? Note that the article is at afterburner. - BillCJ (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to treat it any differently from any other ENGVAR issue, but maybe I'm not seeing the problem here? --Rlandmann (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No problems so far. I was just looking at some recent edits on Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour, and the question came to mind. - BillCJ (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thrush Aircraft

An IP with scant edits before today has heavily edited the Thrush Aircraft page, adding large amounts of text taken straight from the Thrush Aircraft website, which is copyrighted. I've cleaned out most of the offending material. However, the user keeps removing the {{citations}} tag, which I added as there are no citations/footnotes. I warned him on the second offence. I'm heading off to bed for the night, so if someone else could keep an eye out on this page, I'd be grateful. Anything that can done to improve the page would be good too. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill: It looks quiet overnight, but I am watching it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I did a bit of work on it but basically the references need more attention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Question about the number of images now being removed

Is there some reason why a number of previously acceptable images are now being challenged and removed? Please see: Image:AvroArrow1.jpg which has been in place for quite a while. The challenges and deletions seem to be coming from bots and admins. Whazzup? FWiW, can anyone help in setting up a proper template or in providing the acceptable language to save this image, all I did was remove the challenge tags as I couldn't see what the problem was. Bzuk (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

That's a fair use image. It needs to have a fair use rationale for each article it is used in per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. I can put the rationale text into the template form they like for one of them to get it started. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The wording for a rationale was there but maybe not in the form that the bot wanted to see. A template would be fine and dandy and others would probably appreciate having it, as well. Thanks, Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
There is actually a "proforma" for an acceptable fair-use statement at Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline. I have been using this for logos and such and none have be bot-deleted.- Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The fair-use templates on that image page need to be completed. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As the guy running the bot in question, it's not the format of the statement that's the problem, it's the lack of naming which articles fair use is claimed for. Using the template is a good idea because it helps you cover all the points needed, and it lets the bot update things if the page is moved, but it's not essential. --Carnildo (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] V speeds list

My current goal is to get the article V speeds up to featured list status. I would appreciate any help (especialyl from foreign aviators), to make sure it is not to americanized (with all the FAA references etc). Also, any missing speeds, wrong speeds or anything else that can be cleaned up would be greatly appreciated. I plan to work on this list for the next cople of weeks slowly making sure it is cited with reliable sources and expanding the into paragraph. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Z-739 - article on individual aircraft

Someone has recently started an article on Z-739, an example of a Mitsubishi G4M which the article claims, served in the Japanese invasion of the Phillipines. Ignoing the fact that it is unreferenced and needs a LARGE amount of clean-up, there appears to be nothing to indicate notability over the other 2434 G4Ms. I've placed Notability tags on the article but would welcome comments on whether this could be rescued or wether Prodding is appropriate.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't this article be "folded" into the main Mitsubishi G4M article? Just ask for a merge; discussion will ensue and the article can then become a section of the main article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
Not much there that could be salvaged, I think. Pending any sources to establish notability of this particular airframe, I'd say delete (or transwiki somewhere). --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The same editor has also created the articles F-319, 721-339 and K-324 and K-384. Similar concerns apply.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've now Prodded the articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Nigel! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Boeing 797

An article that you have been involved in editing, Boeing 797, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing 797 (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

  • And I didn't even know we could AFD redirect pages! - BillCJ (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparable aircraft

Does any have a clue why all these new users suddenly feel that the first edits they should do is correcting the Comapable field in the "See also" section? I've been here nearly two years, and I don't remeber it being quite liek this before. I'm sorely tempted to disable the field on the aircontent template, but then they would probably go outside the template, and make things even worse. Most of them don't seem inclined to even discuss what they are doing, most notably Segregator, and the multitude of dynamic IPs. Is there anything we can do short of protecting the pages, which takes an act of Jimbo to accomplish? I'm about ready for an enforced wikibreak! - BillCJ (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it is an outbreak of fanboyism (mines bigger than yours and comparable with the big boys down the street). Perhaps we should either remove the comparable field which is probably a bit harsh as some readers find it usefull or write a watertight definition of comparable aircraft. The current definition is are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. perhaps it should be are those designed to perform a similar role (for example fighter, bomber, transport), first flown within five years, and of a comparable (plus or minus 20%) size and weight of the article subject. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Would it be of use to include the definition as part of an invisible note that appears directly after the sub-title? FWiW, disregarding the notice is grounds to challenge the entry. Bzuk (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC).
  • The Aircontent template has those hidden notes. See Template talk:Aircontent. I started adding those notes to some articles to clarify what comparable means. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Mexico DC-9 drug bust

I just came across the 2006 Mexico DC-9 drug bust article. It was AFDed and kept nearly two years ago, but sitll does not assert notability beyond the fact that the bust happened. Any thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be particularly notable from the article - not the first aircraft to be caught carrying drugs. Some of the article is probably speculation. Looking at the original AfD the main driver for keeping was that it could be expanded although it was just a recent news story then. Might be worth another AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As an article about a plane, I find the history somewhat interesting. However, I'm thinking that the reason this article exists is that someone thinks/thought there is some kind of CIA/US conspiracy regarding the aircraft and the drugs found. Google searching "cocaine one" dc-9 N900SA comes up with quite a few hits in that vein. The St. Petersburg Times says the plane "disappeared" after its seizure, trying to make it into some kind of conspiracy I guess, but in only a few minutes of web searching it shows up as registered to the Attorney General of Mexico shortly after the seizure. The article quotes the FAA as not knowing where the plane is, but if it's registered in Mexico, why would the FAA know or care where it is? Mention of the DC-9 and the drug bust pops up in various newspapers every few months, recently Nov 2007 as part of a story on the raid of Casa de Cambio Puebla. DEA uses it as an example of international cooperation, but doesn't elaborate on how they were involved. Images as XC-LJZ and images of c/n 45775/71 over the years with an image of the Sky Way logo that led to it being dubbed Cocaine One. One photographer thought it was a TSA aircraft because of the logos. Interesting, but I don't know if its encyclopedic. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox changes

Please note 122.57.217.119 has been systematically changing infobox descriptions to his/her liking. Sometimes good, sometimes bad choices but be aware that a newbie is "marking territory." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Heavy Bombers

I cannot agree that a strategic bomber is different from a heavy bomber.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.217.119 (talk • contribs)

They can be the same but can be slightly different. Strategic means or implies long range. A bomber could have a high enough payload to be a heavy bomber but not the range to be strategic. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the B-36 considered a Very Heavy Bomber at one time??
I have to agree there. A "strategic bomber" is one that is used in a strategic role, as opposed to tactical role. This means that it is designed to be used against targets such as factories, railway lines, ports, etc, rather than in the battlefield support tactic role. Of course these distinctions get confused in the real world. In WWII Lancaster heavy bombers, designed for the strategic role, were used in battle field support. Similarly in Vietnam the B-52, another aircraft designed for strategic bombing, was used in tactic bombing and the F-4, a tactical fighter-bomber, was used against strategic targets. While you can indicate which role the aircraft was designed for, it may not have been used exclusively in that role. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] P-61 Black Widow

An long-time user known for doing his own thing, user:Davegnz, has been making alot of non-standard changes in the P-61 Black Widow page. These include, but are not limited to:

  • Adding 2 or 3 linebreaks in the captions, along with detailed info on each plae in the pic, such as serial numbers, and calling its "standardized".
  • Adding 200px sizing to all the images.
  • Promoting sub-sections to main-level sections.

He usually doesn't listen to me because he thinks I hate him or somthing, so I haven't spoken to him directly on this issue. I have let him know I'm opening this discussion on his unexplained abandonment of the WP:AIR/PC page content guidelines. While they are just guidelines, we generally need a consensus to do something different, which he has not even tried to do. In fact, he is claiming he is following WPAIR guidelines, which is in no way true. I could use someone tactful to run interference for me before I start breaking things! Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • And a full protect would be good to, even if it's the "wrong" version. - BillCJ (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting that Bill wants to ban the use of common Wiki tools - if an author was not allowed to manipulat the size of a picture then I am sure that the PX command would not be an option in the image files - same thing with using line breaks, bold, italic, etc... Bill from his comments wants us all to use limit our articles so that everyone can just get along - sorry Bill but I am sure that every article that is created, someone somewhere is going to have a hard time seeing it as it was created (it might just be because they are using a Mac vs a IBM, laptop vs desktop, Pentium vs TRS-80 etc... you can not place you own preferences on other editors - maybe bill would like use to ban movable type and go back to using monks and scribes to express our creative ideas...
The thumbnail sizes are against the Manual of Style no doubt. Don't know about the line breaks in captions, very non-standard anyway. The sections are Not laid out per this project's layout guideline. There are basically redundant Operators sections too. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A couple of things about what a mess Bill has made of the P-61 page - he completely reorganized the P-61 survivors sections from organized to mixed up (placed the surviving P-61C before the P-61B, etc.) he lost the information and references to the China P-61B, buried the history of the NASM P-61 in the thunderstorm project. made a mess of the organization trying to organize the sections to a more readable format - he also lost the information on the F2T-1N and replaced accurate information on the 12 Naval P-61's with inaccurate information - in short he made the article which now had some semblence of order into a usless article - not mad a Bill but I wish he spent sometime thinking about about his changes which were wrong. He also reinserted a lot of redundent information, lost the references to which air forces each of the P-61 squadrons were assigned - I could go on and on he made such a mess, but after trying to fix hios mess, just gave up and reverted back to Friday's clean version...........Davegnz (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dave, what I did was revert to the original format of the article that followed the WP:AIR/PC guidelines. I did keep some of your changes, but I felt since you know what you added, you'd be the better person to re-add these, using the proper format this time, and citing your sources (which you have yet to do, such as your F2T-1N section - how do we know yours is more accurate when it isn't cited??). The text changes are one thing, but then you've insited on reorganizing the article again, and adding your experimental captions back in. ANd delting my good changes, if you even noticed them. - BillCJ (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Bill I looked at what you did and found that you rearranged 4 days of hard work fixing the hodgepodge of information that seemed to jump from one idea to another without rhyme or reason - I saw the changes you did with the project thundersorm section when you placed historical information on the NASM aircraft back into that section instead of leaving it with the aircraft historical section (which was in the survivors section) I also noted you deleted (or lost) the pictures which went with the survivors section and completely screwed up the order in this section (in short you destroyed in one day 4 days of hard work) as for the F2T-1N these are historic fact they exsisted and are documented in every "real" history on the P-61. My photo captions accurately reflected the history of these aircraft - which in simple and short words (just so that you will understand them) this is the point of wiki - to present accurate information!!!Davegnz (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

just to make you happy:

Just by looking at the addresses, Only the Navy site appears reliable, as it is a primary source. THe others generally present info with no sources. PS, "present accurate information" is too long words nme for to understandment. Can please someone to me for explain? - BillCJ (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • By the way Dave, have you ever seen http://plane.spottingworld.com/? They have know rules or restrictions on content like WP does, except for no copyvios. It's a Wiki, so the software works the same as here, and you can even copy WP articles there, as long as you have a template at the bottom saying it came from WP. Best of all, know one will ever tell you it's unencyclopedic, and they allow original research. That's why I'm not working on there, of course, as I like rules! - BillCJ (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a little demonstration of image sizes would be useful here:

Image:A-26C Smile.jpg
A-26C-DT Smile
at Thumbnail - Look look -
its an airplane


Image:A-26C Smile.jpg


at 100px you can see it's an A-26C

Image:A-26C Smile.jpg


at 200px you can see some detail

Image:A-26C Smile.jpg


at 300px you can even see the rivets

As my little demonstation shows, 200px is appropiate for getting the essential details viewable :)).

Since the default setting is 180px, which will apply to anyone who isn't logged on, or hasn't changed the default image settings, there seems little point in forcing image size to 200 without a very good reason - there will be very little change to the majority of users, and all it will do is make thinks awkward for those who have set their default size to a different value, either for convience or useability purposes.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
For cases such as these Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images says no to thumb sizes. Infobox images, maps, diagrams and other special cases allow larger sizes to be specified. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Project consensus as repeated above (and in the next section) is to go with WP:IUP and not set the size of images. Not really any point when any user can see the image at 800px with one click, or even higher resolution if available with two mouse clicks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOS#Images is pretty clear that image sizes for thumbnails should not be set, but should be left up to individual user's preferences. This allows them to account for their own screen resolution, operating system and other limitations. The same policy also explains why the software allows thumbnails to be set - it is for special cases, as specified, such as very high aspect ratio photos.
The policy says:

"Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for the overwhelming majority of readers), and a maximum of 300px. It is recommended that lead images not be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences."

"The image subject or properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Apart from the lead, other cases where a specific image width is appropriate include (but are not limited to) images with extreme aspect ratios, detailed maps, diagrams or charts, and images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image."

Since this is a policy I don't see any reason to circumvent it in this case. - Ahunt (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Typical Hunt & Peck Liberals - why do you not post the entire section on photos and lets everyone see exactly what it states instead of your interpretation - I know that you conveniently left off the leading sentence...
" Image size "
Image size is a matter of preference. Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for the overwhelming majority of readers), and a maximum of 300px. It is recommended that lead images not be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences.
The image subject or properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Apart from the lead, other cases where a specific image width is appropriate include (but are not limited to) images with extreme aspect ratios, detailed maps, diagrams or charts, and images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.
Note that it state clearly:
1) Image size is a matter of preference.
2) Unless you state (of perminently fix) the image size, the width will be what is specified by the user.
3) Image subject may call for a specific image width.
4) Nothing in the manual of style that states you can not set the size of the photos - it actually incourrages there use if it appropiate for article.Davegnz (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually it does not state that at all - it clearly states that Image size is a matter of preference. - meaning it is the editors preference on wheither or not to use a larger size - no where does it state or ban image sizes so stop making up rules and trying to force your wrong ideas on others.Davegnz (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I quoted the relevant portions, not the whole thing, to save space. That is why I gave the link - so you can read the whole thing.

I think you missed the point however - the policy indicates that the size of thumbnails is a user preference and not an editor preference. The reason that is so is that you don't know what screen resolution the user may have, what eyesight limitations they may have, or even whether they are using a handheld device instead of a desktop, etc. The key statement is "Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences..."

PS painting me with the epithet Typical Hunt & Peck Liberals is not relevant to this discussion. You will find more people may be persuaded by your arguments if you don't try to insult them. Please read WP:CIVIL. That policy prohibits "Insults and name calling." That is an extract, though, you may want to read the whole article to get the full context. - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually you missed the point - it states Image-size is a matter of preference,does not state end-user or editor - since later on is states that the thumbnail will reset to users preference - the initial statement Image size is a matter of preference. can only apply to the article editor (or who ever posts the picture).
I also noted that while you quoted 95% of the article (you state "quoted revelant portions") this is short hand of conviently leaving out anything that contridicts your position on this subject.
Again, I note that nowhere in the manual of style does it prohibit using larger px sizes - this is the foundation of this debate - it does clearly state that having largers pictures is acceptable practice.
I did not specify mention you as a "Hunt and Peck Liberal" - only you decided that this title applied to yourself.

Davegnz (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Having larger picture sizes may be appropiate in some cases, but also see WP:accessibility#images which states "When possible, do not force oversizing of images that override the default user preferences". To my mind this all feeds into the interpreation that "picture size is a matter of preference" refers to the reader not the editor. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it from a common-sense point of view – why should one editor inflict his/her preferences on potentially millions of others? Ignoring whether or not specifying image size conforms to MoS recommendations; surely by sticking to thumbnails and allowing others to specify their own image size preference shows more consideration. --Red Sunset 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Graeme's right - it's the accessibility policy that's the relevant one here. The other problem that seems implicit in Davegnz's reading of the situation is the idea that as the original contributor of an article, he gets some sort of special consideration in how the article develops over time. This is plain wrong. The original contributor has no more say than anyone else in what happens after they upload it. As the upload screen warns us, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... by others, do not submit it." --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up my take on the issue as well. The only thing I would add is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for "readers", not for the "editors". Therefore it would make sense that the reader's preferences would be paramount. As Rlandmann points out it is impossible to account for the editor's preferences, because them are many of them and all will have different preferences. That is why we have policies to govern editors and in the case of thumbnails, let readers pick there own size preferences. - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pehaps we should ask that the wording at WP:MOS#Images be clarified to make clear the meaning of the paragraph regarding preferences, on the off chance the viewpoint expressed by the majority of editors here is wrong. Not that I think it is, but the editors of the policy page should have a good idea what it actually means. Clarifying the policy/s text should prevent such disputes in the future, hopefully anyway. Btw Dave, "Liberal" means somthing quite different in much of the wolrd than it does in the US, and is usually closer to a US "center-right conservative". The proper insult would be something akin to "hard-left labourite or socialist", not that many from those countries would think of those terms as an insult. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill: I agree that if the policy passage has caused this level of confusion then it does need some clarification.

Also quite right on your second point. We Canadians cannot be insulted by calling us "liberals". This is a nation that is proudly "small-L-liberal". That is why I said "try to insult", not "succeed in insulting" - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just done a little trawling through the MOS talk archives and it appears that "stengthen/weaken the wording on hard image sizes" seems to be one of those perennial issues that keeps coming up. My guess, without further delving, is that the current wording is a design by committee solution to keeping both sides happy. So if anyone wants to wade in there and revive the debate, my advice is to read the archives first and see what you're getting yourself into! In any case, the accessibility policy is quite clear on the matter. You'd have to have a pretty solid rationale to hard-code an image size and have everyone else leave it alone for long. I can see this applying to maps and diagrams, but for pictures of aircraft? If there's a particular specific detail that you need to call attention to, there's nothing preventing you from uploading a cropped version of the photo to present that detail. In all other cases, the full-size image is only ever a click away if you want to see it. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If everyone thinks that hard coding the size of pictures is angainst Wiki Policies then why do you not all get a petition going and tell the people running Wiki that this is your policy and that you feel wiki is wrong to allow the editors the choice on what size picture to use. Until Wiki changes their policy(s) then this debate is useless. It has also been stated "Why should one editor inflict his/her preferences on others" my response is that wiki policy allows the editor the choice (not the reader) until wiki owners/creaters/policy makers bans fixed size images then any debate is irrevelent. I also note that Wiki Policy clearly states that the first picture of an article (not just maps/drawings etc) be 300px - I am sure that the mutitiude of people on smaller screens have a problem with these images but I do not see any complaining and rallying against this usage Davegnz (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hard-coding image sizes is not against policy if there is some good reason to do so - such as to ensure the legibility of maps and diagrams. It's a very useful feature to have.
Furthermore, it's incorrect to say that policy asks for the initial image in an article to be 300px - policy recommends against using an image smaller than 300px (ie, its natural, unthumbnailed size) as the lead image in an article, since this means that the lead image will end up smaller than any thumbnails included in the article. The same principle would apply to hard-coding the lead image at a size smaller than 300px.
The real question here, however, is: Why are you so hell-bent on the idea of forcing everyone else on the planet to accept what looks good on your screen, whether it looks good on theirs or not? If you think that 180px thumbs look too small, then the solution is simple. Click on "My preferences" (normally at the top right-hand corner of the screen you're reading right now), click the "Files" tab, set thumbnail size to 250px or 300px and click "Save". Voilà. No more problem. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Captions

Been looking at a lot of the Wiki Aircraft project articles and found that there is a hodgepodge of pictures and captions in the entire series of articles - have been following one standard rules when I have been doing MY aircraft survivors series and works fine
  • first line i/d's the aircraft and aircraft serial number (ie P-61-1NO 41-23456) with the serial number in Ital
  • Second line names the aircraft with name associated with picture (Big Lady) and is in bold
  • Third line id where this aircraft can be seen (ie museum) or aircraft unit (USAFM)

In an article like the P-61 I feel do not have to keep repeating on every picture caption, the name of the aircraft (Black Widow, Reporter) as this is redundent and annoying also feel it is redundent and annoying to stated Located at: or just at: just state where the aircraft can beeen seen and leave it at that.

I have also been setting the captions at 200px for several reasons - standardization of sizes of the pictures and not have a hodge-podge of sizes wondering about the article (except for the first picture with is usally set at 300 for effect) - I have found that 200px is a very good size for initially viewing a picture before clicking on and looking a the picture full size

    • I hope I have made a case for a standard rules for a captions - Davegnz (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Accessibility :
"When possible, do not force oversizing of images that override the default user preferences. Some users need to configure their systems to display large text; forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult."
Also note (from MOS and Wikipedia:Captions) that the caption should be succint.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
actually the word is succinct: compendious: briefly giving the gist of something; "a short and compendious book"; "a compact style is brief and pithy"; in other words short and streight to the pointDavegnz (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It is normal practice as Nigel Ish has just stated not to set the size of images in the aircraft project. As for the captions I dont have a huge problem with the multi-line captions related to surviving or display aircraft, although I dont think the bold is needed. On general article images the multi-line can look wrong to most users and we should make an effort to present a caption in unbroken readable text. Most readers will not appreciate or realise what you are trying to do and most likely change or delete it. Also note that apart from surviving or notable aircraft the exact aircraft serial number or registration is probably not notable and not needed in the caption. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What I am trying to do is to present historical / accurate information on a picture - stating that a picture is just of a Mustange or P-40 is useless for this purpose (especially if you are in an article dealing with the P-51 and every caption just states this is a P-51 - useless and redundent. Stating the aircraft type P-40-5CU and the serial number (especailly if one is not visible) is enhancing the accuracy of an article and make it revelent and usable for real aviation historians not just the occasion skimmer. This was the purpose of the survivors series - to find and historically document the survivors. This also makes my case for the captions while it is nice to cater to the skimmers, the people who are going to keep wiki-accurate are the historians. Everyone states references are important - you can not argue the accuracy of a picture if you can state without hesitation the aircrafts actualy type and MFG's s/n - this is the rosetta stone and the foundation / bedrock of maintaining a historic / accurate record of an aircraft type.Davegnz (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand your need to add every detail to the image but this is an encyclopedia not a specialised aircraft website, their is no reason why all the information you mention can not be added to the image page it would then be available for anybody who selects or uses the image and provide the solid reference you seek. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you are missing my point, I am eliminating redundent details and getting to the heart of the information - get in and get out - my captions get streight to the point of a picture / describe quickly what you are looking-at and let the user get on with the article.
      • I find that articles that state with redundency this like" "This P-51 is wearing invasions stripes and is flying over bedrock texas" is useless but if you give quick information (ie tell the story of the aircraft) then not only do you preserve the historic footprint, but allows the reader to goodle (or any other copywrited search engine) to use the information in the cation to find out more information - THIS IS THE POINT OF WIKI-AIRCRAFT.
      • This is a computerized Encyclopedia (like Janes) - if this was not a specialized aircraft website then there would not be articles on obscure and one-off aircraft. There would not be articles on sub-types of aircraft (ie PB4Y-2, Piper PA-36 Pawnee Brave, Fokker C.V, Hawker Hedgehog). In other words you are wronge this is a specialized encyclopedia which should be edited for all. If this was not a specialized encyclodedia then why have detailed information on each type of aircraft, why detail the sub types and engine capacities. Why highlight the operators - I am sorry to again state (with great reduncy) you are wrong !!

Davegnz (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you need the article protected, or if any editors start to exhibit exceptional incivility, please let me know. I will also be following this as well. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll - CfD again

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Based on new advice concerning Category Intersection in the following section, I'm not going to push for a review, making this poll moot. Thanks for the feedback to those who participated! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


I've given some time for the dust to settle since the failure of the last CfD on the unremarkable aircraft categories, but I'm now planning to have the decision reviewed. As a preliminary step, I'm taking a straw poll this week to gauge support from WP:AIR. Please indicate your feelings below - Poll will run till 23:59 27 May 2008 UTC. This is a simple show of hands - if you want to discuss or debate any of the issues, please start a new take it to the discussion section below, or wait for the review. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:High wing aircraft

[edit] Category:Low wing aircraft

[edit] Category:Propeller aircraft

[edit] Category:Jet aircraft

[edit] Category:Single engine aircraft

[edit] Category:Multiple engine aircraft

[edit] Category:Biplane aircraft

[edit] Category:Pusher aircraft

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Straw poll - discussion

Just a question, it it your contention that these categories are not useful? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC).

Yes, in a nutshell. I just can't see how these categories can help anyone find anything, either by browsing downwards or sideways. You can read the previous debate here. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Category intersections work now. That means these can be useful for finding aircraft based on attributes -- if I want to look up that odd aircraft I saw, I can intersect "pusher aircraft", "propeller aircraft", and "multiple-engine aircraft", and hopefully come up with the B-36. --Carnildo (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Do they? Can you point me to some documentation? Wikipedia:Category intersection says that the feature is still no more than a request, with no indication of if (let alone when) such a feature may be implemented. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of these categories at this time will certainly be regretted in the future if intersection searches were made possible. Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
That's one hell of an "if" --Rlandmann (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No "if" about it. It was announced in a number of places, most of which have been archived by now; see [3] for one that hasn't. A search for an intersection of "pusher aircraft" and "mixed-power aircraft" does indeed find the B-36 --Carnildo (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My apologies - I seem to have missed the announcements. With that in mind, I won't be pursuing deletion any further at the moment, and will wait to see how this feature pans out. Thanks for the catch Carnildo. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F-4 Terminator 2020

A new user has created the F-4 Terminator 2020 page. SO fear there are no sources whatsoever. Also, I can't see the upgrade as being notable of a separate article from the F-4 Phantom II variants page. If any Phantome variant warrants spearate coverage, the UK variants ought to be done first. - BillCJ (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bill: I agree that the text form this (provided it can be sourced) should be listed in F-4 Phantom II variants and also mentioned in F-4_Phantom_II_operators#Turkey as well and that this article page should redirect to one of those. Do you want to do that? - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think there was an entry for it on the F-4 Variants page. A user added a bunch of text to it. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category special-purpose (sic) aircraft

I came across this category today Category:Special-purpose aircraft. Leaving the use of the hyphen aside for a moment, do we have any reasoning as to what its intention is? Articles in its subcats include a metrological aircraft (WP-3D Orion), target tug (Miles Martinet), target drone (Airspeed Queen Wasp and a propaganda airliner (Tupolev ANT-14). It seems to be a case of a category to lump anything that can't be easily categorized.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it should have been "Category:Miscellaneous Aircraft" instead. It doesn't seem to serve much purpose, does it? - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A case for CFR then (at least) or CFD? I think in some cases the entries can be moved to other cats, or left in the higher "....ish aircraft 19xx-19yy" category.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a catch-all category for aircraft with highly-specialised roles that weren't covered elsewhere; it's always been part of the aircraft category system. But, like the parallel Category:Military aircraft, Category:Civil aircraft, and Category:Experimental aircraft, no individual articles should be left there at the top, but diffused downwards through the tree. Aerial targets are probably numerous enough to get their own role category, though. We could rename it to "Miscellaneous" I guess. but we need something to cover the machines that don't fit neatly into a role category.
The hyphen is correct, since "special-purpose" is a compound modifier qualifying "aircraft". --Rlandmann (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] F4U/FG-1D survivors (El Savador Aircraft)

Ran into a big dircrepency in the FG-1 series of aircraft looking for advice - have a reference site that I really trust(as good as Janes (the site is Aero Flight)) that has a listing of all the FG-1's flown by the El Savador AF FG-1D's - the problem I am finding is that the FAS numbers on many of the aircraft do not match what many other sites claim they should be. One of the problems with the El Savador Aircraft is the airframes were mixed and matched. Should I:

1) Go with the reference that I trust (Aero Flight)
2) Go with the refences I trust, but note the discrepency
3) Go with the flow and mark the aircraft with the preceived FAS number but note at the end the Aero Flight discrepency

I am hedging towards #2 - any suggestions Davegnz (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about total numbers of aircraft or individual aircraft serial numbers? Is the article F4U Corsair? - Ahunt (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No not the F4U article - new article on Chance-Vought F4U Survivors being created / in sandbox - what I am talking about is actual aircraft BuNo.s vs FAS number. I have conflicting lists / one of which I really trust Davegnz (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. My vote would be to go with the most reliable source or the most recent source but note that there is debate or at least a discrepancy. It would help to note that you think that due to cannibalizing parts that serial numbers have become confused or at least unreliable. In my mind the most important point would be to not present the information as being more reliable than the confusion in the sources would justify! - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JF-17 Thunder

There's a slow-motion edit war taking place in the specifications section for this aircraft (what a surprise!). I've been unable to turn up a set of data from any reliable online source. If someone has something in print (eg. a recent JAWA) perhaps they could use it to verify/replace what's in the article now.

Actually, the whole article is badly in need of verification, since it's mostly built from sources of dubious reliability. Be sure to don the Nomex first. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added a few facts from the AWST 2008 Source Book not sure how long they will last! - not an expert on Chinese aircraft but the source book has different lengths and wingpsan and weights for the JF-17 and FC-1 which makes them look like slightly different aircraft. Having a look through all the woffle in the JF-17 article it does not mention they are different and implies they are different designations for the same aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability guidelines redux

some of you might remember that last year I was working at drafting some notability guidelines for aircraft. In the wake of the Mil-24 variants episode and the current Z-739 question, I was thinking it was time to dust these off and post them up. The draft guideline is here, and comment and constructive criticism is invited on the talk page. If no major objections turn up in the next few days, I'll go ahead and move it to project space. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Will that be a separate "tab" page off the main project page (like Templates, Page Content, etc)? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes - that's what I was planning. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Good, just wanted to know where to look for it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming specs

Both of the commonly-used specifications sections ({{aircraft specifications}} and {{aerospecs}}) contain more data fields than will even (could ever!) be used for any particular aircraft. Common practice seems to have been to leave these empty fields intact in articles. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I leave those empty fields there it's because (a) it does no harm to do so and (b) it provides a complete set of fields for anyone wanting to copy-and-paste the code into another article. I've just noticed an editor systematically removing these fields, and I wondered what others here thought? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been restoring them when people remove them. I think that they need to stay to allow future editors to add the missing information to them! - Ahunt (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but I was talking more about the specs that couldn't possibly apply to the article in question - for example, those that support rotor diametre or envelope volume in articles about fixed-wing aircraft. Like I say, since they don't actually cause any harm, I think that even these should stay in order to supply an "intact model" for people wanting to use them in other articles. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree there too, I have used existing specs as models for other articles. Perhaps a comment on the top to the effect of: "Please don't delete items from this template".
Another problem has been editors trying to add things to the specs that aren't in the template and making a real mess of it when they won't display right. Perhaps the comment could be more like: "Please don't add or delete items from this template" - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with that for the most part. I don't think it is needed to leave the other engine/prop fields though. I suggest a hidden note saying something like "Template fields are listed at Template talk:Aircraft specifications." -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the term "aircraft"

I know this topic has been presented before, but a new editor has made a case for using "airplane" instead and has systematically reverted all the instances of aircraft with "airplane" and now, "plane." Can people look at Charles Lindbergh, Spirit of St. Louis and the The High and the Mighty (film). I am not able to continue a dialogue with the editor but he may be amendable to talking to others. He has already changed all date protocols to his choice, and seems very determined to do the same with the term "aircraft." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC).

(I reverted the dates in the Lindbergh biography back to the customary "month-date-year" format about a month ago which is the way they had been from the entry's creation on September 9, 2002, until May 10, 2007, when they had been arbitrarily changed with only the brief notation "rationalize dating conventions." There was no contemporaneous notation made in the Talk page relating to that action or the reasons therefore.)(Centpacrr (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
User User:Centpacrr has copied text from other talk pages into Spirit of St. Louis which lists all his arguments why aircraft is wrong and airplane is correct. I have explained that this is an issue that covers all aircraft project articles and should be discussed on this page. He has just put in another long scientific explanation (comparing aircraft with species and airplane with sub-species) to further his argument. Again I have explained that he should bring his points here for a wider discussion if appropriate. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm OK with the current policy, as it limits lintany of "aeroplane sounds archaic" vs "airplane is backward/provincial" arguments. However, if we are going to discuss possible changes, I wouldn't mind going back to the WP:ENGVAR guidelines on a limited basis for articles on solely national topics, such as Spirit of St. Louis. If we have to say "Concorde" instead of the (grammatically-correct) "the Concorde", and call it a "she" instead of "it", why shouldn't we be allowed to call the Spirit of St. Louis an "airplane"? - BillCJ (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Airplane should be allowed for US focused articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW Lindbergh uses the terms "airplane" and "plane" exclusively in his 1927 book "WE" when writing abut the Spirit and all the other airplanes he flew.(Centpacrr (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Yes, you stated that a little bit below. I believe this is mainly an issue of using a neutral spelling of aircraft over airplane (US spelling) or aeroplane (British spelling). Using neutral spelling terms fixed-wing aircraft is more specific than just aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see the point of substituting a cumbersome three or four word phrase when there is a perfectly good and well understood word in common usage throughout the English speaking world for the same thing, especially when the word is likely to be used many times in a particular article. If the issue is different spelling or a different term used in the US and Great Britain, then does that mean that a "neutral" term needs to be found as well for "propeller" ("air screw" in British parlance) or "wing" ("mainplane" in the UK) to cite just two other examples? If so, then this is indeed going to be a slippery slope.(Centpacrr (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
Minor point the terms airscrew and mainplane are very rare in British usage where the terms propeller and wing are normal. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point. I was just using these as examples of how this whole concept of "neutrality" could be taken to an extreme. "Airplane" is not an esoteric term, and I expect is just as well understood on your side of the pond as it is on our's. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC))
Although it is understood Airplane is seen as a strange Americanism! MilborneOne (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but The Times does not necessarily seem to agree. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Usage of "Airplane" vs "Aircraft"

Note: The following discussion has also been moved from Talk:Charles_Lindbergh and Talk:Spirit_of_St._Louis. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

Where appropriate the general term "aircraft" has been replaced with the more precise term "airplane" in the Lindbergh biography for two principal reasons:

  • In his own writings (such as his 1927 book "WE") Lindbergh exclusively uses the terms "plane" and "airplane" (and their derivatives "biplane" and "monoplane") to refer them while the generic term "aircraft" never appears in his writings.

Where appropriate in the Lindbergh biography the term "aircraft" has been retained when it is used in quotations (such as the Medal of Honor citation), in proper names (such as Robertson Aircraft Company), or for more broadly inclusive references such as "aircraft industry."(Centpacrr (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

Consider that airplane is a derivative of "aeroplane" and leads to the use of "plane" which is not generally defined as aircraft. Consider that the MoS has dealt with this issue extensively and that the use of "airplane" is not recommended. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC).

Thank you for your comment. I have not proposed using the word "aeroplane" in the Lindbergh biography which I agree would be archaic, however the term "airplane" is clearly one that is in current and common usage. (Google returns in excess of 46,400,000 "hits" for the word.) My point is, however, that "airplane" is a far more precise term than "aircraft" because it is limited to being applied only to "powered fixed-wing aircraft" which is what all of the aircraft being referred to in the article are. (As I pointed out above, the term "aircraft" has a very much broader meaning.) "Airplane" and "plane" are also the terms which Lindbergh clearly preferred and used exclusively in his writings about his various airplanes.

Please direct me to the Wiki "Talk" page where I can find the extensive discussion of the issue of "aircraft" vs "airplane" to which you refer above so that I can read, understand, and evaluate whatever arguments were made for and against when this matter was dealt with. (A "word search" of the MoS fails to return any reference at all to the term "airplane" or to its usage being "not recommended.")(Centpacrr (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC))

See: MoS guide, it specifically uses the term as an example, "In choosing words or expressions, especially for article titles, there may be value in making choices that avoid varying spellings, where possible. In extreme cases of conflicting names, a common substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft) is favored over national varieties (fixed-wing aeroplanes [British English], and fixed-wing airplanes [American English])." Also see, [4]. The discussion pages on all the sites are archived. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The term "fixed-wing airplane" is clearly redundant as any airplane is, by definition, a "powered fixed wing" aircraft. The term "aircraft" refers to the broad category that encompasses all types of man made "flying machines." (It is equivalent to a term like "watercraft" which would similarly encompass all man made vessels meant to float on the water.) "Airplane" is a sub-category of "aircraft" just as "hydroplane" would be a sub-category of "watercraft." I only use the term "airplane" when that is what I am writing about. (My FAA pilot certificate, for instance, carries the rating "Airplane Single Engine Land" -- not "Aircraft Single Engine Land" -- because the later would be ambiguous and therefore not meaningful.)

The term/word "airplane" is not a "conflicting name" or "national variety" for anything. It is, instead, a well understood word in common usage in the English language with a specific meaning which is narrower than "aircraft." (For instance when you see an advertisement for "airplane rides" [Google hits: 110,000] you would certainly understand, without the need for any further explanation, that this means a ride in a "powered fixed wing aircraft" without having to say "powered fixed wing airplane rides" [Google hits: zero]. An advertisement for "Aircraft rides," on the other hand, would be too non-specific and confusing to be useful.)

The argument you quote above is therefore flawed because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the definitions of (and difference between) the words "airplane" (air·plane [air-pleyn] A heavier-than-air aircraft kept aloft by the upward thrust exerted by the passing air on its fixed wings and driven by propellers, jet propulsion, etc.), and "aircraft" (air·craft [air-kraft, -krahft] Any machine supported for flight in the air by buoyancy such as balloons, blimps, and airships, or by the dynamic action of air on its surfaces such as airplanes, gliders, and helicopters.) When I use the term "airplane" I do so because I mean the former (powered fixed wing aircraft); when I use "aircraft" I do so when I mean the later (i.e. the far broader category of any and all types of "flying machine"). This, by the way, is exactly the same thing that Lindbergh does in his writings in which he uses the terms "airplane" and "plane" exclusively to refer to the various powered fixed wing aircraft he describes. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

I understand the terminology and agree that there is a difference in definition that is acceptable, although in Wikipedia and in the WP:Aviation Project, the term "airplane" is not recommended and as much as possible is replaced by other terminology. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC).

On reading the MoS language quoted above (which only has to do with variations in spelling between US English and British English), I don't see a convincing case for "not recommending" the use of a perfectly good and well understood word in common usage throughout the English speaking world, and I especially can't imagine a circumstance in which it would be acceptable to ever "recommend" to substitute a word for any reason which has a materially different meaning. (By the way a Google search of Wikipedia for "airplane" returns 3,120,000 hits, while a search for "aircraft" returns only 2,220,000 hits. FWIW) I also do not see anything in [5] (which has to do with the naming of specific aircraft types) that seems to be in any way relevant to the issue of the usage (or definitions) of the two terms in describing categories (aircraft) and sub-categories (airplanes) of means of transportation. (Centpacrr (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

To summarize this discussion, the MoS recommends that, in the circumstance were a term or word has an alternate spelling or style in American English and British English, when possible a term with the same meaning (if such a term exists) should be substituted to avoid potential confusion. I have no problem with this as a general policy.

The confusion in the instant case seems to arise from the example offered being "airplane" which is sometimes also spelled "aeroplane" in British English. Replacing "airplane" with "aircraft" when standing alone clearly violates the MoS recommendation, however, as the two words have distinctly different meanings (see definitions above) and therefore neither can be substituted for the other without also changing the meaning of the text in which it is placed. (The additional citation provided regarding "aircraft naming conventions" does not seem to be relevant to the issue one way or another.)

Therefore "aircraft" would not qualify as an acceptable stand alone substitute for "airplane" as the two terms have significantly different meanings and thus violates the recommendation of the MoS. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

Not involved in the discussion above from another page but just to point out that the term aircraft is used within aircraft projects and has been discussed many times so expect that editors will change airplane to aircraft when they see it. If you want to change general usage in aircraft projects then I suggest you bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft as it is not directly related to just one article. Thanks (MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. My point is that the words "aircraft" and "airplane" do not mean the same thing. One ("aircraft") is a category (or "class") of transportation devices or machines that travel through the air, which would be akin to a "class" in biology, whereas the other ("airplane") is a sub-category (or "type") of the former (i.e., a "powered fixed wing aircraft") which would be the equivalent of a "species" in biology. If the logic that "aircraft" and "airplane" are interchangeable were applied to biology, for example, then that would make the class "mammal" and the species "wapiti" equally interchangeable. I can't believe that anyone would conclude the "Man is a mammal" and "Man is a wapiti" mean the same thing, but that is the result of treating a category (class) and a sub-category (species) as being the same thing. They really aren't.(Centpacrr (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

I have reviewed the entire archives and can only find two references to this issue. One had to do with whether "plane" was an acceptable substitution for "airplane." The other relates to the same argument I am making -- that substituting "aircraft" for "airplane" appears to violate the MoS because the two words have materially different meanings, a position which seemed to have considerable support.(Centpacrr (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

This whole debate is nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill. The assertion that the terms “aircraft” and “airplane” “have significantly different meanings” is not exclusively correct. “Aircraft” can, in some uses, be employed as a broader term than “airplane”, but they can also be completely synonymous – as is frequently the case in common usage. There are certainly a few articles where non-synonymous usage should be employed for clarity, but otherwise either is fine (as is “aeroplane”). Indeed, “airplane” can also include helicopters, although such usage is uncommon (although not illegitimate). As an aerospace engineer, I can attest that “aircraft” is often used in preference to “airplane” in technical writing; “plane”, however, is more a slang term and can lead to confusion in technically oriented text, so it should be used sparingly, if not deprecated altogether. In short, I see no problem using “airplane/aeroplane” for American/Commonwealth-related articles, but the word “aircraft” should not be rooted out and replaced by them except when differentiation is pertinent (which is rare). Askari Mark (Talk) 02:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Askari Mark's analysis completely. Like many English words, the word "aircraft" has multiple meanings. Amongst these is a usage that is entirely synonymous with aeroplane/airplane. Indeed, this is probably the most common usage; few English-speakers would immediately think of a helicopter or dirigible when they hear or read the word "aircraft", despite there being another entirely valid meaning of the word that encompasses these machines as well. As such, "aircraft" provides a convenient US/Commonwealth-neutral alternative to "airplane"/"aeroplane". I further agree that there's no harm in using airplane/aeroplane from time-to-time either for stylistic reasons, or where aeroplanes/airplanes need to be specifically distinguished from other types of aircraft, but the more neutral "aircraft" should be used wherever possible. Indeed, this is what Wikipedia articles on aircraft have done in the overwhelming majority of cases, and there is no great wrong to be righted here.
Finally, it's entirely irrelevant what word Lindbergh chose (except, of course, in direct quotes). We are writing for an international audience in a different time period. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not really have a problem with the use of the word "aircraft" to refer to an airplane when it is already clear from the context that is the type (i.e. "powered fixed wing") of aircraft being discussed. My issue is with the view espoused by some that the term "airplane" is a "prohibited" word that can never be used under any circumstances -- even when it is the most appropriate word for clarity of meaning or stylistic reasons -- simply because the word has two spellings one of which is more commonly used in North America and the other with greater acceptance in Commonwealth countries. What I am proposing is that there is room for the use of both words. I just don't see any value in the application of some arbitrary orthodoxy of political correctness mitigating against the use of a perfectly good and well understood word in common usage throughout the English speaking world when that word is the most appropriate in that particular circumstance.

I have been writing professionally for more than forty years and endeavor to chose each word I use carefully for both accuracy in meaning and clarity of style. When I use the word "airplane" instead of "aircraft" I do so for exactly those reasons and thus find it objectionable when it is arbitrarily changed -- at the expense of clarity, style, or both -- simply because it is somehow "not recommended" as not being "neutral."

Both "airplane" and "aircraft" have a place in Wikipedia and should be available for use by all editors without prejudice or fear of arbitrary alteration or deletion. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

The lead of any aircraft article should make it clear what type of machine it was: "The Foo F-123 was a reconnaissance aircraft produced in Barland during the 1940s. It was a high-wing cantilever monoplane with fixed tailwheel undercarriage and seating for the pilot and observer in tandem, open cockpits." It's now abundantly clear that, throughout the rest of the article, when we say things like "The Barrish Army ordered 64 of these aircraft in 1947" that we're not suddenly talking about a helicopter or dirigible. Like I said above, I'm not going to say that aeroplane/airplane should never be used, but I do maintain that they should remain non-preferred terms and only used when clarity or style demands that we do so (and in direct quotes - but that should hopefully go without saying). I've contributed or contributed to many hundreds of Wikipedia articles on aircraft now, and I can't recall ever having to use "aeroplane" or "airplane" even once. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue originally came up in the Charles Lindbergh biography (to which I have made extensive contributions including fifteen original images), and the article I was rewriting and expanding on the motion picture The High and the Mighty in which many different types and models of airplanes/aircraft are mentioned throughout the articles. While both of these obviously have significant aviation related portions, they are still not primarily "aviation" articles. The problem arose when they were "adopted" (for lack of a better term) by the WikiProject Aviation which then attempted to exclusively impose its MoS on them to the exclusion of all other styles. While the WikiProject Aviation MoS seems appropriate for the types of technical articles about a single specific model of aircraft which is already defined in the introduction, it is far too restrictive when applied to other types of entries such as biographies, descriptions of motion pictures, etc. (There is also a stylistic issue of enforced "overload" of a single term when additional options are delimited.) The preference of "aircraft" over "airplane" is not really a problem in technical aviation articles about well defined specific aircraft. It is an issue, however, when it is arbitrarily imposed in other broader contexts. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

An additional question: If the principal reason for "not recommending" the use of the term "airplane" if because there is a difference in spelling between US and British English usage, then how are other similar conflicts in spelling to be resolved? Is the use of terms such as "defense" and "defence"; "license" and "licence"; "standardize" and "standardise"; etc to be equally prohibited? If so, what terms are acceptable to be used in their place. If not, then there is not much of a case to discriminate against "airplane" when it is the most appropriate word. As i observed earlier (see above), prohibiting all words for which there are conflicts in spelling is a bit of a slippery slope. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC))
Check out Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Element_names, Aluminium#Nomenclature_history and Talk:Aluminium/Spelling. The forces of wiki have decided that the spelling "Aluminum" (just one "i") is not to be used, even in articles written in American English, except when it's unavoidable due to a direct quote or proper name or whatever. We aren't there yet with "airplane" vs. "aeroplane"—I think we have room to use the available aircraft word choices from time to time.
Here, we're writing for the globe; it would stand that our word choices will adjust somewhat to fit the audience. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
By my reading of the above links, "aluminium" is specified for its presence in chemistry related subjects. But aluminium and aluminum coexist in the rest of the wikipedia. In articles written in British english you see the former and in American enlgish articles the latter. But we digress. If airplane /aeroplane is an issue in the intro you can always use the more specific monoplane, biplane etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And let's not forget Gdansk vs Danzig (one of the most protracted and bitter edit wars Wikipedia has ever seen).
There are plenty of these sorts of things all over the encyclopedia, and over the years, most of them have found some sort of equilibrium. The central, guiding policy is in the main MoS, under National varieties of English, more specifically in this case "Opportunities for commonality", where aircraft vs aeroplane/airplane is actually cited as an example. And Graeme makes an excellent point - if you're concerned that in a non-technical article, like a biography or a film article, that "aircraft" could be ambiguous and that readers might mistakenly think that Lindberg flew a balloon across the Atlantic, use "monoplane" early in the piece and lay that fear to rest. It's even more informative. Even if you feel the need to state "fixed-wing aircraft" in an article, you only need to write that once before reverting to simply "aircraft" through the rest of the text. But most of the time, I think that most English-speakers will automatically assume "fixed-wing" even if you don't state it.
This is a collaborative project. For whatever it's worth, all of us who've been here any length of time inevitably end up following various rules and conventions that we don't necessarily like or agree with. You're now aware of this convention and the reasoning behind it, and may choose to go along with it or not. However, your desire to see that you or anyone else may choose a particular word without fear of it being changed is simply not realistic on a project like this. If you can't bring yourself to use "aircraft" as a neutral synonym for "airplane", then go ahead and write "airplane", but you must do so in the knowledge that sooner or later someone is bound to come along and change it. Remember the advice on the upload page that "If you don't want your writing to be edited... by others, do not submit it." The moment you hit "Save page", you've relinquished your control over the text and handed it over to the community as a whole. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional spelling and/or usage conflicts

While looking through various other aircraft and aviation related articles I find that there are a number of other American/British English spelling and/or usage conflicts that, in the light of the "airplane" issue, I am puzzled on how to resolve. A few there are:

  • defense/defence
  • license/licence
  • stabilize/stabilise
  • standardize/standardise
  • airfoil/aerofoil
  • air mail/air post
  • airdrome/aerodrome
  • windshield/windscreen

...to name just a few

Is there a standard for the usage of any of these, or is this just up to the whim of each editor? (Centpacrr (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

Generally, the main spelling conventions in use relate to the topic. In writing about a UK-related subject, the British spelling predominates, as in Battle of Britain while other articles with a U.S.-focus take the standard spelling norms of the country in question, for example, the P-51 Mustang. Some of the oddities of language include the Canadian variations, which often have a mix of both U.S. and UK spelling, while Polish, German and French topics can typically be written in either a British or American style, see World War I and The First World War War as an example. The Australian topic is another slightly odd variant as where once UK spelling was prevalent, now U.S. spelling has become more dominant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC).
BTW, "airdrome" and "aerodrome" are now considered arcane and are replaced in the UK by "airfield" or "airport" while in the U.S., the term is no longer in use, but it strangely remains the terminology for Transport Canada in describing a "location where a landing is possible." "Water aerodrome" is still current in Canada (I know, just an aberration...). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC).
(edit conflict) I'm not aware of any specific advice on any of the examples you've provided. We therefore follow the main MoS, under "National varieties of English" (often referred to by the abbreviation ENGVAR). The policy can be summarised to say that:
  1. all national varieties are equally acceptable
  2. articles should follow one variety rather than mix-and-match them through the course of the text
  3. common, neutral terms should be used where available
  4. articles primarily about a topic closely tied to a particular English-speaking country should follow the spelling rules of that country
  5. that, all else being equal, articles should be left in the national variety of English that they were first contributed in.
So, if you were writing about a subject closely tied to the United States, policy asks for US English wherever a neutral alternative can't be found, and in subjects closely related to the UK or a Commonwealth nation, for British/Commonwealth English wherever a neutral alternative can't be found. And in articles that have no close tie to either the US or British Commonwealth (for example, an article about a French aircraft), yes, it's up to the original contributor to choose one set of spellings and vocabulary or the other, and subsequent contributors are asked to remain consistent with that initial choice.
In the context of the discussions above in relation to aircraft vs airplane/aeroplane, I'm left wondering whether this was a genuine request for information, or an attempt to make a point? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is both. I was indeed looking for guidance (which you have provided), but also trying to make the point (that the guidelines seem to support) that "airplane" appears to not be nearly the spelling and usage pariah subject to adamantine revision to "aircraft" (even if that materially changes the meaning) as I had previously been lead to believe. In articles relating to aviation (or any other) subjects primarily associated with the United States, I now understand that the use of the term "airplane" is actually neither prohibited nor really even violative of the of the guidelines.

My question now is what is the policy regarding existing articles that appear to violate the same nationality usage and spelling guideline ("articles primarily about a topic closely tied to a particular English-speaking country should follow the spelling rules of that country")? For example, the article on the US (Farmingdale, New York) designed and manufactured monoplane Fairchild FC-2 nevertheless utilizes the Commonwealth spelling "licence" (for "license"), "standardise" (for "standardize"), and "modernised" (for "modernized") throughout. Am I to understand that the spelling rules guideline recommends reverting these three words from Commonwealth to American spelling as the subject of this article is clearly a US manufactured airplane, or is the Commonwealth usage in this case simply "not recommended" but otherwise acceptable even though it is not in conformance with the WP:ENGVAR's stated precepts? (Centpacrr (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

As Rlandmann explained, "it's up to the original contributor to choose one set of spellings and vocabulary or the other, and subsequent contributors are asked to remain consistent with that initial choice." Since the original contributor was a Canadian and the spelling variances of the country includes a mix of U.S. and British spelling, that was the style chosen, although there is no problem in changing these words to a U.S. spelling convention in that particular article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC).
Well, you're not going to find a commandment "thou shalt never use 'airplane' in an article" written in stone anywhere, but the policy of using a US/Commonwealth-neutral term wherever one is available could scarcely be any clearer; particularly when it uses aircraft/airplane/aeroplane as a specific example.
In practical terms, what it means is this: you are, of course, free to contribute articles using whatever words you see fit. You can, however, expect that other editors will routinely change "airplane" to "aircraft", especially in higher-profile articles, or ones that are more heavily aviation-related. These editors will be able to rely on ENGVAR as a justification of their choice. On the other hand, any systematic effort to change instances of "aircraft" to "airplane" is likely to be seen by other editors as against either the letter or the spirit of ENGVAR, and would likely eventually result in administrative action as disruptive behaviour if it went on long enough.
As a published author, you will know that most publishers have a house style, and that if you submit a manuscript to them, you can expect your submission to be edited to match that style. Wikipedia works in much the same way, the main difference being that rather than having an editor-in-chief making those calls, we do so as a community.
As to your new question, I must disagree with Bzuk and say that as a US-designed and built aircraft, not only could the British English used in the FC-2 article be replaced by US English, but in fact that it should be. Since you seem to have taken an interest in the article, I'd encourage you to go ahead and make the changes you note. I hope that it's superfluous to add that this encouragement does not extend to using the word "airplane" anywhere in the article, but I feel that I need to say it anyway. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I certainly have no interest or intention to be disruptive, only to be accurate. There are many places where "aircraft" and "airplane" can be used interchangeably because the context of the article makes the meaning clear, and I have no problem with that. There are other instances, however, where that is not the case, and the substitution of "aircraft" for "airplane" makes the article less accurate or even misleading. In those cases I find it inappropriate NOT to use the more accurate word.
As I mentioned above, this first became an issue with me when I was in the process of making extensive original contributions in two articles which were not aviation specific, but have elements of aviation included in them: the Charles Lindbergh biography, and the motion picture article on The High and the Mighty. In both of these there were times that I selected "airplane" over "aircraft" either for reasons of more precise meaning, or sometimes for stylistic considerations (i.e., in order to avoid using one term too often in the same sentence or paragraph). These usages were selected carefully. If they are arbitrarily changed by others strictly because of the "neutral spelling" issue, but also has the effect of materially changing the meaning, then I will change them back to what i wrote originally. I really do not see how that possibly can be considered as "disruptive" behavior, as I am simply restoring the original more accurate language.
My interest in the FC-2 article arose from adding an image and a paragraph about this airplane being the first to carry Air Mail for Pan American Airways. It is while doing this that I noticed the inappropriate use of Commonwealth spellings which have now changed. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] New additions to infobox

EZ1234 has begun adding quantities of aircraft acquired to the “Primary users” listings, as well as revising the list from all-time highest users to current users.[6] We should probably discuss whether these two changes to the infobox are ones we want to make. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this was discussed a number of year ago on the templates talk page although the guidelines are still not clear. I dont think that the infobox is the right location to list quantities used by operators that should be in the appropropriate operators or variants section. The primary user is not so easy as it is the natural inclination to list the largest current operator not the largest ever user. This could end up with somebody like Greece as the biggest C-47 Skytrain operator and not the United States! (again the use of country is recommened in the template guidelines but this does not happen often) I would suggest that military aircraft should list the primary (that is the largest) operator of all-time but that in the case of current airliners still in service then some recognition of the largest operator today should be made. Interestingly the template has a note that more users is not to be used (at all) if their is more than three - that might solve some I want my country in the list disputes if the more users is removed from those articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with only three users, adding the factually correct number in brackets is harmless and would also show that the order of operators is correct. The F-104 article infobox is currently wrong. Hope we don't need to start adding refs in the infobox to justify the numbers though. Nimbus (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Messerschmitt Me 262

On two occasions I have added a citation needed tag in the introduction to the above article, where it states The Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe (German: "Swallow") was the world's first operational turbojet fighter aircraft, without any verification of the statement. Unfortunately it seems I have offended some regular article editors and the tag twice been quickly removed without any explanation apart from "see the talk page". I think it's very important that such a claim - to be the worlds first jet fighter - is verified from reliable sources and the criteria are established - in the article and not as some personal opinions or points of views on a talk page. I feel that my third request for a citation will be similarly removed, so this is a heads-up to other project members if they feel that this is an important issue, they may want to watch the article. Regards Emoscopes Talk 10:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find the talk page any help in understanding the reason for removal. I'd have thought there would be a source ready to hand for the claim. If the exact phrasing is open to confusion

or dispute then it needs a cite even more.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't too hard to find a citation, Emoscopes. o_O I think the problem's fixed now. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Operation Nickel Grass

I could use some follow-up from some admins regarding this diff. It is related to this edit, among others, which User:Ahunt had previously reverted. Any help, especially from and admin, would be appreciated, as an article of this size with ONE citation is ridiculous. - BillCJ (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

three citations please remember... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
and ps why take this direct to a project page before trying to use ANY article talk or user talk pages???? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ONE citation, 3 sources. - BillCJ (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

everyone (who is anybody) on this project page has surely heard of Walter J Boyne many times already... so why are we having this discussion? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No question on the reference provided. But the whole article has only 1 inline reference. Given the amount of text, a ref improve tag is not too much to ask. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess I just think its a bit aggressive for the level of problems... if I inline cite back to one of those three refs throughout the article, would that be acceptable? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Good, {{nofootnotes}} is a much better tag. Yes, footnotes or inline references are the idea. I doubt if too many editor here will catch issues with Operation Nickel Grass if it were brought up on its talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Jeff, {{nofootnotes}} secifies that there are NO footnotes, so somone probably would have removed it, or changed it to {{refimprove}}, as you and I both add this tag to several articles every week. As far as {{refimprove}} being "a bit aggressive", I didn't write the tag, I just use it. Per WIkipedia policy, anything in the text that is not cited can and should be fixed or removed, and that is what the tag is there to remind people of. It's not an AFD, which is aggressive. But of course, Jeff, you knew all this already! ;) If someone "genuinely" thinks the tag is too aggressive (as opposed to just being "disruptive"), then they should post on the templates talk page, and try to get it changed to something "less aggressive". - BillCJ (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bombardier Challenger 850

I just ran across the Bombardier Challenger 850 page. It's been there for two years now with little work, mosly because it was never linked properly. THe page ought to be expanded to cover the Challenger 800, and perhaps moved to Bombardier Challenger 800. Thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Active aircraft template

I recently removed a template Template:Currentlyactivevehicles that had just been added to List of active United States military aircraft and was reverted by same user. The template provides links to Watercraft / Helicopters / Land vehicles / Aircraft of only four countries Germany / Russia / United Kingdom and United States. Cant see any value in the template particularly at the top of the article as it assumes you only want to link to vehicles of those four countries. I have found at least two articles linked from the template List of currently active United Kingdom military helicopters and List of currently active United States military helicopters which are just duplicates of information in the related aircraft lists so I have prodded them as duplicate information. Anybody have any views on the template ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your take on it. Even if you were only limiting it to major military powers, these would become impossibly huge. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks nominated for TfD. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images cat

Just found a cat I have not seen before Category:Airplane images - should it be Aircraft images !! MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:E dog95 has been categorizing all the airplane images he can find in that cat. He is also categorizing photos of helicopters under Category:Helicopter images. The cats themselves are all collected under Category:Images of vehicles. The "airplanes" category makes sense as he has different cats for other types of aircraft. You couldn't change it to "aircraft" as it would not allow a separate category for "helicopters" and presumably "gliders", "balloons" etc. His project makes a lot of sense as it provides a way to find photos within Wikipedia. I am waiting for him to hit the "glider" photos I have uploaded! - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It should come as no surprise that I agree completely as to the establishment of Category:Airplane images. "Airplanes" is a sub-category of "Aircraft" as would be "helicopters", "autogyros", "airships", "gliders", "lifting bodies", and a variety of other types of other man made flying machines. "Aircraft" is a all encompassing category to which all of these appropriate sub-categories belong, and into which it should be divided to better manage searches for the various types aircraft that exist. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
No problem with the good work - I presume the airplane category is only for American or Canadian aircraft and that the British aircraft will be in Aeroplane images !! MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest the same thing, if not so succinctly! - BillCJ (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with all above that this is one case where "aircraft" is not synonymous with "airplane"; but parallel categories simply to reflect different national vocabulary makes no sense. This was created as "Airplane images" and should include all aeroplanes, regardless of origins, and "Aeroplane images" should redirect to it. However, as a child category of "Images of vehicles", this really should be "Images of airplanes", which I'll take up at WP:CFD if anyone wants to comment. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links in P-61 Black Widow

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

maybe what I need to do is convert the P-61 survivors section to a stand-alone article - that way everyone is happy and and it fits with the scope of the rest of the survivors series.Davegnz (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure we need a separate article for four airframes, not sure either that the survivors articles are exempt from WP:EL. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable or not?

What do others here think about the notability of Princeton University's Variable-Response Research Aircraft? By the article's own description, it's a highly-modified Ryan Navion. Google hits don't seem to bring up anything substantial on the machine itself. As it stands, it would fail the proposed aircraft notability criteria. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with not, and move the info to a variants section on the Ryan Navion page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Trevor - it is a Navion variant and belongs on that page. It is not the X-15 - there isn't enough material for a full article there anyway (and what is there needs some serious editing, too). I say move to the Navion page and make the current page a redirect to Ryan Navion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree not notable but add relevant material to Navion article as a variant. MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Same, treat it as a "one-off" experiment and link it to the North American/Ryan Navion, which BTW, needs some work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Mach Numbers

Just a note that an IP user has been adding Mach numbers to the specifications on some aircraft articles which I have reverted. I dont think that the maximum speed of a 1919 Handley Page Type W needs to have or Mach 0.15-0.26 depending on altitude when the speed is already in km/h and mph, dont have a problem with adding alternate speeds like kts but I dont think Mach no is encyclopedic on most of these aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I traced back some more of what he has been up to. Some was okay, but I removed a number of items, mostly unneeded mach numbers on very subsonic aircraft and unsourced/non-notable accidents. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Mach numbers only become important as you approach transonic speeds with the effect they have on flight and contol, anything below Mach 0.9 is probably not worth noting. As the speed of sound is altitude dependent they do not always match the height at which other speeds are given. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update to project banner

I've updated the banner, hopefully improving it and automating a few things.

  1. You can still rate the article however you please, but the template won't accept a rating higher than start in some cases:
    1. If you rate it A-class then you must also use "|A-Class=yes"
    2. If you rate it B-class you must also complete the B-class checklist, and all items must be "yes"
  2. The sub project parameters can be shortened to "|Aircraft= , |Airports= , |Airlines= , |Gliding= , |Rotorcraft= , |Air-sports= , |Defunct= , and |Accident= ; but the old forms still work.
  3. Every article B-class and below that hasn't had a checklist completed is in the new category: Category:Aviation articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
  4. Banners placed on pages in the Wikipedia or User space are automatically tagged NA-Class
  5. Banners placed on Template, Category, Image, or Portal pages are automatically tagged with the appropriate class.

- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you complete the B-class checklist and all are yes, then the article automatically gets a B-Class rating, that can't be downgraded unless you change one of the checklist items to either "no" or blank it. This will help to identify where articles need improving. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New images

Please see my contributions on commons for images taken at the Historical Aircraft Restoration Museum, mostly classic pre and post WWII biplanes, and lots of WACO images in particular. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

These are excellent photos; thanks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC).