Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

WikiProject Aircraft talk — archives

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

2004 [ Mar-Aug | Aug ] — 2005 [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006 [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov - Dec]
2007 [ Jan - May | Jun - Oct | Nov - Dec ] — 2008 [ Jan | Feb - ]

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

Contents

Section ordering

Hi, wikipedia has a regular order of section, among them, these order for sections towards the end:

  • See also
  • References
  • External links
  • Navboxes
  • Categories
  • Language interwiki-links

In my experience, all wikipedia articles adhere to this standard, even if they are part of some WikiProject. I've now been told here that the WikiProject Aircraft tries to change this order and the names of the sections. Can somebody give me a link where it is noted why this discrepancy improves both Aircraft and general wikipedia pages? Because I tend to disagree - but like to read the reasons first. Thanks Peter S. 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • See the page content tab off the main WP:Aircraft page. I don't see what you're talking about. The Related content falls in the Navbox area. -Fnlayson 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the point. Related content is similar to "See also" in most other pages, but is placed differently. The situation looks like it was agreed upon to depart from the general wikipedia section order (rename "see also" into "related content", move it to the end) for a reason that makes some things better. I'd like to know that reason. Thanks. Peter S. 17:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a short answer to a similar question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Related content. For more detailed discussions, you could probably find something in the archives at the top of this page, if you enjoy searching archives! One of the old-timers who was around when the desicions were made should be along today or tomorrow with a longer answer. - BillCJ 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the MoS headings is stated as a guideline and as such is not a hard policy. Also, the Related content is the aircontent template and acts like a Navbox. The Aviation list is added by this template. The list would have to be removed if the section were moved. -Fnlayson 18:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The first point to make is that there was no "decision to depart" from the order given in MoS:headings. The idea that these sections should be ordered in some special way was introduced in MoS:headings by User:Obey on 22 October 2005 in this edit and was, as far as I can tell, an undiscussed change. Meanwhile, WikiProject Air's "related content" section had already existed for some eighteen months. It was originally in the form of a navbox (hence its placement at the foot of the page), but by consensus was broken out into plain text for aesthetic reasons in July 2004 (see here).
The second point (which flows from that) is that the actual content of this section has always been used as something akin to a navbox, not a "See also" section, so it's incorrect to say that "Related content is similar to 'See also' in most other pages, but is placed differently". Indeed, since at least late 2004, "Related Content" has included the article's "See also" section; so this is the section that we're really talking about. It's also worth noting that, in practice, it is very seldom used.
I, for one, would have no problem seeing "See also" moved out of "Related content" and into its own section as per MoS. What would be involved would be a review of all aircraft articles (around 3,000 at the moment) to identify which ones actually have entries under "See also" and move this material, followed by an edit of Template:Aircontent to remove the "See also" section. Anyone volunteering? --Rlandmann 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, very insightful comments. I'd be glad to help. As there are 3000 articles, I think we should write this down as a goal and give us some time go through them all (as finding a single volunteer would be pretty difficult imho). Peter S. 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Taking Rlandmann's final comments seriously (which I didn't), it's probably better to leave well enough alone. As it stands, the "see also" field is not visible within the template when it's not used. We might as well leave it there, rather than to change a long-standing practice, and introduce confusion as to where it should be placed in the articles. I for one will NOT be volunteering to help make these changes. It's also a bit premature to be looking for volunteers, especially as no concensus to change them has been reached yet.
Given the fact the the WP:AIR guidelines were in place BEFORE the non-consensual WIki-wide standards were put it place, I propose making the WP:AIR style the standard for all WIki articles, and forcing them to change to our standards by precedent. - BillCJ 17:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Or reword/adjust the MoS headings guide to allow exceptations as with WP:AIR's aircontent template. -Fnlayson 18:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Come on, Jeff! You're taking the fun out of this! ;) It's actually a good suggestion, though. - BillCJ 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that comment wasn't purely sarcastic - I was just pointing out that as far as I can see, it's a very big job for very little actual benefit and that I for one certainly won't be volunteering. Anyone who does volunteer would have to be someone who feels that the outcome of moving these links from one part of the page to another part of the page was worth the investment of many many person-hours of work. Can we at least agree, however, that if Peter S. wants to undertake this work and/or find volunteers to help him that WP:AIR would have no opposition to this? Can we also agree to update the page guidelines so that any new pages that include a "See also" section put it in the conventional position? --Rlandmann 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think it was completely sarcastic, but maybe a bit more than you had intended. But I honestly don't see why our systems needs to be changed at all. So, yes, if Peter S. tries to change the system in WP:AIR without first achieving a consensus within WP:AIR to do so, then he will have oppostion, at least from me. Second, because the WP:Air position for the "See also" was agreed to first, I consider it to BE the conventional position! Can we please just leave well enough alone? - BillCJ 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool - I'm happy to leave it at that. Peter S., if this really means that much to you, it seems you'll have to build consensus first. --Rlandmann 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. So the suggestion is "update the page guidelines: 'See also' may be put in the conventional position". Pro: Rlandmann, Fnlayson, me. Against: BillCJ. Question to BillCJ: there are about 1,8 million pages (Special:Statistics), I'd guess roughly 20% of them have a "see also" paragraph. You propose that 360000 pages are changed - are you serious? :-) Question 2: both order standards are just different, can you tell me why you think the AIR way is better (not older)? Thanks. Peter S. 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't understand when I said, "Can we please just leave well enough alone?" I meant you leave our style alone, and we'll leave your's alone. Capish? The WP:AIR style is not "better" that the other style, just better for WP:AIR's purposes. The standard style does not work for WP:AIR's purposes, in my opinion. The reasons why are already given above by several users, including myself. So please, just move on, and leave things the way they are, and quit trying to fix something that ain't broken. - BillCJ 06:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't have put it better myself, BillCJ. Emoscopes Talk 07:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, looks like some major balkanization is going on here. It's no longer "we, the folks of wikipedia" - it's now "we, the folks of a certain wikiproject vs some foreign other wikipedia editors". Since the power of wikipedia is in the universal presentation of all articles, I hope you do realize what you are saying is not good for the health of the project. On a general sense: yes it's a small thing. But I think we should even make small things similar because it's more usable if certain sections are always in the same order. Please realize I'm not asking you to go through the 3000 articles. I'm just trying to find consensus. It's not *your* style, it's *our* style: I'm counting me in here because I'm a regular wp editor and that is the only thing that counts. Can you tell me some other reason why you think that the guideline " 'See also' may be put in the conventional position" should not be added? Thanks. Peter S. 20:43+21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are a whole lot of other things going on that aren't good for the health of Wikipedia that are much higher up the list than whether or not every project on WIki should be forced to present info the exact same way, regardless of whether it makes sense for that project or not. The issue here is not that we don't want to conform to some arbitrary standard, but that this style works best for the presentation of information in aircraft articles. - BillCJ 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I realize that there are other things that are important, but with so many participants, we just have got to start somewhere, and this issue is as good as any. You're saying this style works best for aircraft - how? I don't see how a certain section ordering is particularly better suited when we are describing aircraft, when the "normal" wikipedia section order works perfectly fine for things like cars and spacecraft. Can you explain your argument? Peter S. 21:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Because the WP:AIR "see also" section is no the same as the regular "see also" section. Most non-aircraft articles use their "See also section for all WIki articles that are similar content or on a related subject. In WP:AIR, it is bascially a list of articles or concepts that are covered in the articles, or of poele or otrher subjects that might be related, but that are not "Related aircraft" or "similar/comparable aircraft". They may use the same name, but they don't fill the exant same funtion. Taking the "see also" section out of the "Related contents" template and putting it above references will split up the section, and not really accomplish anything. As it is not often used, leaving it in the "aircontent" template allows other editors to know exactly where to put it if they do need to use it. Btw, this style was chosen by consensus, and you need consensus to change it. "It's not in the conventioanl position , so we should move it there" is not a good enough reason to change a system that work for the project to one that doesn't. There are many editors within WP:AIR, and most have not weighed in on this yet. Four or 5 editors is not a consensus, and you have a long way to go. - BillCJ 21:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Again the MoS headings is stated as a guideline and as such is not a hard policy. We have a fine reason to treat it a guide and not follow it exactly. The See also section being a little lower in the Aircontent template is a minor nit. My earlier comments clearly stated the MoS style page could use some tweaking to clarify this, not the aircontent template. -Fnlayson 22:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll go on the record as saying that I really couldn't care less about where "See also" goes, and I don't think that either position has any advantage over the other whatsoever - so please don't count me amongst the "yes" votes!
In practice, the sorts of things that generally go into WP:AIR's "See also" are things that are more tangential to the aircraft being described (for example, famous accidents involving the type), whereas everything else in "Related content" links to other aircraft. In this way, I have to disagree with BillCJ and say that these types of links are actually more like what goes into MOS:heading's "See also".
However (and it's a big however), I maintain that moving it is simply not worth the effort. If we estimate an average of around a minute to review each article and make changes when necessary (sometimes none, sometimes easy, but other times disentangling other navboxes from the "See also" section), that's 50 editor-hours' work to move links from one place on a page and put them in another spot on the same page. As I see it, Peter S., the onus is on you to justify why the advantages of moving are so great that this is a good (and respectful) ask to make of anyone's time; as you're (so far) the only person who seems to have a problem with things the way that they are. All I've seen so far are generalisations about how it would improve the usability of Wikipedia in some undefined way.
As for Balkanisation, surely you can't be surprised? I for one found the tone of your initial posts to be demanding and accusatory, and perhaps others felt the same? Furthermore, to me, they smacked of one of the very worst things that Wikipedia seems to bring out - people perceiving a problem, then telling others what they should do to fix it. If I've sounded harsh at all, I'll admit that this last point is a particular hot button for me!
Hopefully, however, we can all put that behind us, and if you can come up with (a) some compelling reason why this is worth the effort (b) a solid proposal showing exactly what changes are to be implemented and (c) tell us all who's going to actually do the work, maybe you can build the consensus you need to get going. --Rlandmann 23:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I can live with the suggestions Rland has made. If a consenus to change the location follows the proscibed path and achieves consensus, I'll abide by it (as I always try to even when I disagree). I will say that Peter S. has done the right thing in discussing this, and not (to my knowledge, as I have not checked any articles not on my watchlist) tried to impose his ideas/views without consensus. Having dealt with projects and editors how make changes while matters are still being discussed (such as the recent spate of spoiler warning removals from film and TV pages BEFORE a consensus was reached), I am personally grateful to see someone willing to do it the right way, whatever my view of the issues involed. Those who do not wait to establish consensus before instituting their plans are far more damaging to Wikipedia than simply having differing guideliens within some project, and I am glad Peter S is not among those doing that damage. Thanks! - BillCJ 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, if you found the tone of my initial posts demanding and accusatory, then this was not intended. I just read them again and it didn't feel like that for myself. If anyone did: sorry. Concerning effort vs. outcome: the WikiProject Aircraft has already taken tens of thousands of editor work hours - it's huge! If we do the change spread over a few months as part of regular article cleanups, then these few hours will feel as small as they really are.
"Better" and "lots of work" are two different things. Even if you don't want to do the work, we can still agree that it would be better. Let's divide the process. First we agree what's better, then we see how we proceed to changing it. So, in step one, I haven't yet seen a good argument why the "old" way is better. Peter S. 12:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're missing our last points. We don't have have to prove our way is better in order to keep it - you have to build a clear consensus in order to change it! Why this way is preferable has been laid out in nauseating detail above, and if it hasn't convinced you yet, I'm not sure what will. Rlandmann, an admin, has laid out the pattern for you to follow in building a consensus to change the way WP:AIR handles the "see also" section. And given the most recent comments of other editors, you do not yet even have a concensus of the editors participating in this discussion, much less enough editors to be considered a consensus for a Project-wide change. - BillCJ 16:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well again you're missing my point: there hasn't been an argument shown by anybody here why the local way of doing things is better than the global way of doing things. BillC's edit from 21:47, 6 June 2007 did not introduce any new things. "We like it the old way" and "but it's a lot of work" may count inside the community of the people that visit this page here, but they surely are not the rule in all of wikipedia. Rlandmann did not lay out a pattern except "build concensus". I tried, and I've been very nice to everybody here, and in return I've been getting no arguments that count, and received such aggressive words as "capisce" and "nauseating". I'm sorry this is not working out. I feel we need a clearer definition how much a WikiProject can stray away in terms such as formatting and definition of processes. If I'm doing anything more regarding this issue, then it will be outside this page. Goodbye. Peter S. 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Heli-Jet

User:Jetwave Dave has created a new article at Heli-Jet. It currently has NO sources, and no support for the use of the term as described. I am added a {{notability}} tag at this time, and we'll see how the page goes. The subject would probably be better covered on the VTOL page. - BillCJ 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Pop-culture neologism, I think. Once various airline and charter companies are excluded from a Google search for the term, all that's left are references to the Thunderbirds TV series, and (what I think is the origin of this article), Battlefield 2142. --Rlandmann 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The quick fix would be to make it redirect to something appropiate like VTOL. But based on Rlandmann's comments above, it doesn't appear worthy of that.. -Fnlayson 23:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So, AfD? - BillCJ 23:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the term first popped up in the 1950s, but never caught on – chiefly because the implied technology never developed. I can't say I've ever heard of Heli-Jet or Helijet use recently as other than a brand name, per Rlandmann. If it had ever become a common-use term, it would have been difficult for those companies to have branded it, so I wouldn't even rate it a "neologism". Best thing to do is post him a query for a reliable source and invite him here – which I'll do. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've looked through my print references, including the "bible" of the subject, Ray Prouty's Helicopter Aerodynamics, and found absolutely no reference to the term, even in chapters that deal with the type of compound aircraft that you'd expect the term to refer to. If the emminent Prouty doesn't use the term, I doubt it's legit. I would suggest a redirect, rather than AfD, because someone might someday use it as a search term. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I made Heli-Jet redirect to VTOL. Copied the main content to VTOL talk in case something is useful. -Fnlayson 17:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Coordination for improved productivity

Could everyone have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal, and make any comments there. This is an idea that the Military History project uses, and their production of high quality articles far exceeds ours. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help in UC-61 Forwarder article

I came across this article earlier in May and noted that someone had "dumped" an entire uncredited article into the main body of text. I placed a query into the discussion page but no one seemed to have noticed till today. I think the whole thing may belong to the author of the piece at least that is what is claimed by an anonymous user with the 58.160.112.238 IP address. What say you? Time to expunge the offending copyedit mess? IMHO Bzuk 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Cruise Speed (Commercial Jets)

When browsing I noticed that the Cruise speed was given only in Mach number on some articles, where as in other articles the Cruise speed was given in Mach number and mph/kph. This has created some discussion - I would like to get a consensus on which is the prefered format. I would argue that the Cruise Speed should only be given as Mach number. My argument is twofold. Firstly most standard industry documentation gives Cruise Speeds in Mach number. Secondly there is no consitent way to convert Mach Number to a velocity. As I'm sure you are aware the speed of sound (Mach 1.0) depends on a number of factors (temperature, pressure altitude, air density etc..) For example (discounting air density/pressure altitude) at 0°C the speed of sound is about 740 mph (making Mach 0.85 equal to 630mph) where as a temperature of -50°C (not uncommon at FL400) the speed of sound is only 670 mph (making mach .85 = 570 mph) This gets further complicated when you consider pressure & density, When considering this with respect to an aircraft there are other things to consider, for example wind speed, this then brings the question do the speeds refer to Ground Speed, Airspeed (TAS or IAS). Hence the reason jet aircraft crusing speeds are normally given in Mach Number. The litereture that does give speeds in mph/kph is usually the Janet & John bit (i.e. for those who have no concept of the speed of sound). Which is the prefered method of listing cruise speed? -- Rehnn83 Talk 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, aren't the "Janet and John" type part of our readership? I honestly don't see the problem including knots, mph, and km/h in the airliner spec tables, as we already use them for the most part in the specs templates that are used in most non-airliner articles. Simply including the alternate figures is not "dumbing down" the presentation in anyway, nor would it be likely to offend a more knowledgeable reader, unless of course the conversions are inaccurate! - BillCJ 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • One question: Aren't most Mach number cruise speeds for atlitude anyway? And don't airliners cruising at say 12,999 ft go slower than they would at 40,000, meaning that the Mach number at that altitude is even lower? So since the Mach number were using is going to be for altitude anyway, what's the problem listing the actual speeds? - BillCJ 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the concept of mach numbers only. First, as to the comment "most standard industry documentation gives Cruise Speeds in Mach number," maybe that's true in the AFM (though I bet VNE is given in knots, or at least there's a conversion chart - I'll have to dig into my DC-10 AFM - but in general literature, knots is included. For example, this Boeing page that's aimed at the general reader (which, BTW, doesn't even include the mach number), the exact target we should be aiming our articles at. We don't just write for the 10,000 hour ATP! Second, what's the point of being so limited? You talk about the difficulties of converting from mach to velocity, but that shouldn't be an issue, if you're using proper sources, which will provide such information. C'mon, folks, the whole point of doing this project is to provide valuable information in an encyclopedic format...and such speed information is just the kind of thing we're supposed to include. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems the manufacturers didn't provide Mach values on older planes, like 20+ yrs, e.g DC-10. It's helpful to have the speeds listed for comparisons. There's no problem for us to provide conversions and extra data. -Fnlayson 17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As the Consensous (spelling???) seems to be to include mph/kph then I can't disagree. My only argument would be to make sure the conversion from Mach number to velocity is done in a standard mannor (e.g. in a standard atmposhpere). -- Rehnn83 Talk 09:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Statute vs. nautical miles

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Units on whether statute or nautical miles (mph v. kts, etc.) should be used as the standard Imperial units for aviation related pages. - BillCJ 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion I would use standard aviation units first and then SI units second. E.g. Plane X has a cruise ceiling of 40,000ft (12,000m) (I know Russia and soem parts of Chine use a metric levl system - but this is the exception rather than the norm). Or where there are three are more commoon measures in use (e.g. Speed kts/kph/mph) I would list the aviation standard first then the conversions (in paranthesis) e.g. Plane Y has a very low take-off speed 45 kts (83kph, 52mph). Just my two pence. -- Rehnn83 Talk 09:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I would agree, using a bit of OR as justification: I've worked on hundreds of aircraft over the years (and on every type out there except for blimps and hot air baloons), and every single one, no matter what nation of origin, had airspeed indicators in knots. Knots is the standard of aviation, thus should be the preferred usage here, with other units in parenthases, so that folks not familiar with kts can get a sense in their own frame of reference. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with knots is that Airspeed Indicators stayed with "miles per hour" until the 1960s. Some aircraft (Grumman Traveller, for example) use "mph" until the very end of production in the late 1970's. When listing specs for older aircraft, the AI will almost always be in "mph" Hoserjoe 07:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD

There are currently two aircraft-related AfD nominations, in case anyone's interested in weighing in: N396JS and N135CR --Rlandmann 22:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

N202LF is a similar page that's not been nominated as yet. - BillCJ 22:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Done, in case anyone wants to put their endorsements in on that discussion. I've also left a note at the contributor's page, since he's a newbi, trying to explain why this all his happening.AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably another one: Eagle III --Denniss 23:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
While I would respect the decision if someone sends this one to AfD, I do tend to disagree. While the individual helicopters aren't notable, the program could be considered so, and given the kind of news coverage medevac programs garner, references would probably be possible to come up with. FWIW, we have other precedent, ARCH Air Medical Service. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This one might be salvageable if we can find third-party verifiable sources, and we could list the helicopters here, and include some of the legally-usable pics. Alan, you think it's salvagleable? (Written before Alan's comments were posted!) - BillCJ 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The user has uploaded some good pics, but they aren't tagged properly. If he took them, or they are otherwise leagally usable, they need to be tagged. I don't know enough about uploading the pics to help a novice, but if someone could contact him and clarify the status of the pice, that would be good. - BillCJ 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The N202LF content was moved to 2006 Eagle III accident, cleaned-up, and referenced. While I agree that most individual aircraft tail numbers cannot generate useful articles, there may still be some useful content in the ones that are out there, and you should proceed carefully before deleting. The first option is improving the article, next is merging the verifiable content, and deletion is last. Dhaluza 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest I have just read 2006 Eagle III accident and cant find anything in it that makes it notable - aircraft goes up on a non-operational test flight - aircraft crashes ! Can anybody please explain why it is not an AfD candidate, or is somebody going to merge it into Eagle III, thanks. MilborneOne 11:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, now a dozen references over a period of time, with multiple sources, including multiple bylines. Notability is not about some arbitrary standard of sensationalism, it's about whether there is sufficient source material to write a complete article. Besides that, the accident has several unique human-interest angles which make it an interesting story, beyond the mechanics of the accident sequence. As discussed on the AfD page, it is not a good merge candidate, because the accident details would overwhelm the Eagle III article and the result would not be balanced. Dhaluza 13:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have read the AfD (which was for the airframe not the accident!) had another look cant find anything notable about it - just another sad but fatal accident, which is well reported in the local press. If it was a commercial operator it would not meet any of the guidelines to notability. Dont agree that just because there is a lot of source material then there should be an article. You mention unique human-interest, which appears to be second-hand guess work that he missed some buildings on purpose - nice Journalism but as he crashed only 200yds from where he took-of I suspect he did not have many choices and had other things to worry about it. Sorry to say I am not convinced that this is notable outside of Green Bay. MilborneOne 13:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It clearly does meet WP:N, so regardless of what type of article it is, Notability is not an issue. Your arm chair analysis is only your somewhat informed opinion, and the article presents the more informed opinion of someone more qualified to render one. As for the human interest, you obviously missed: Air ambulance crashes at headquarters; rescue personnel accustomed to scooping up the broken bodies of strangers now must do the grim task on one of their own, vainly performing CPR in the ambulance on the way to the hospital with a full police escort typical of a police officer shot in the line of duty (and the pilot is honored after death in the same way). That's not something that happens every day. Dhaluza 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Still do not agree that it is notable, an opinion I am allowed to have, but as you are now starting to make personal remarks I will not persue the point at the moment. Everybody is equal on Wikipedia, nobody is more qualified than anybody else, please remember WP:AGF. Interesting to note that since my original comment the article has been edited 22 time and has been improved, with some points clarifed. MilborneOne 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Reflist changes

User:Java7837‎ has been unilaterally changing {{Reflist}} tags to the <references/> style in several WP:AIR project articles, and in others. A number of editors have tried to address this on his talk page, but he removed most of the comments, and appears to be continuing with his crusade. I don't know ifany formal actions have been taken as yet, but wanted to make the Project as a whole, and the resident admins in particular, aware of this. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The main difference changing from {Reflist}} to <references/> makes is increasing font from small to normal size. So the change adds little value, imo. The user's ref changes might be a bit annoying, but it's not hurting much either. -Fnlayson 23:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alenia C-27J

With the US DOD's selection of the C-27J in the JCA contest on June 13, I have created the Alenia C-27J article. With the exception of the Lead paragraph and specs, most of the content is lifted whole from the Alenia G.222 page. Given the announcement, the page could draw some interest in the next few days. It could still use some clean-up, and the text could be rewritten. Please take a look, and feel free to pitch in. Thanks (and to Piotr, who has already helped!) - BillCJ 15:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Jeff also for his extensive help. - BillCJ 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

More Style Manual conflicts

We've got another editor on Chengdu J-7 who thinks he has to make the article conform to tthe WIki MOS. I could use some help on Talk:Chengdu J-7#Sections re-ordering. I've already reverted twice,and he shows no sign of relenting. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, this guy is dead set on combining the Operation service/history csection with the Operators/Users section, as he does not want to accept the project guidelines. I've used up my reverts, so I will leave this alone for awhile. I guess it's not that big a deal anyway, and the J-7 is just a sub-par copy of the MiG-21. It's certainly not important enough for me to get a 3RR block for a start class page. - BillCJ 18:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Way late, but reworked the sectioning in the main part of the article today. -Fnlayson 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft dispute

We have a single IP user (with multiple IPs who refuses to register) riding herd on the "Comparable aircraft field" in the Eurofighter Typhoon article. THis user refuses to accept that the Typhoon is comparable to the F-22, and keeps removing it every time iit is added. While I have not checked, he may be in violation of 3RR. Other editors and myself have tried to explain from the Page content guidelines that this field doesn't mean they are exactly equal in all areass, but he refuses to allow it. Any assistance, especially from an admin, would be appreciated. Thanks, - BillCJ 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • At least one of them has little patience. He/she did not want to give more than a couple days for dispute and fact tags to work before removing the tagged content. -Fnlayson 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree myself with including the F-22. I think the key here, though, is to help encourage them to participate in the discussion with tags and such, like Fnlayson suggests, rather than shoot from the hip from the outside. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A rather lengthy discussion has gone on for about a week and a half, with all sorts of tags being added. While I'm not personally a fan of the Typhoon, and think it's mostly euro-hype, it was designed in a similar period, and does fill similar roles. I think including the F-22 as a similar/comparable aircraft is inline with the purpose of the "similar aircraft" field. - BillCJ 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Article of questionable notability

Velarus has recently been added, but it has no third-party verifiable sources. The company website seems to be soliciting investors, as the aircraft doesn't seem to be an actual design as yet. I have PRODed the article, but would welcome second opinions. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You might be looking for the AMD Alarus Hoserjoe 07:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Does anyone feel that the use of flags improves our list of aircraft engines? To me, the added visual clutter is actually distracting, and I wonder if anyone else feels the same way? --Rlandmann 02:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it doesn't seem to add much to the list as currently laid out - if it was laid out by country, then some use of flags could be helpful - as is it just looks messy. Nigel Ish 15:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing & voting on adding a rule to limit where flags can be used at WP:Air/PC talk. -Fnlayson 15:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1960s Lockheed scandal

There is an interesting question on Talk:Lockheed Corporation#Lockheed Scandal regarding the Lockheed bribery scandal of the 1960s. Currently, there does not seem to be an article about this. Please comment on that talk page if interested. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Haynes Aero Skyblazer

This roadable aircraft design is now up for deletion. The article was apparently started by Robin Haynes, the machine's designer, in an apparent WP:COI, but it's now got external references. I'd definitely heard of this one before; if anyone can add anything to make the article more keepworthy , it'd be appreciated. --Rlandmann 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture disclaimer

Would it be possible to subst a hidden text note into articles? There are several versions of the following hidden disclaimer:

Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content before adding any "Popular culture" items. Random cruft, including all Ace Combat, Battlefield, and Metal Gear Solid appearances and anime/fiction lookalike speculation will be removed.

It would be nice to have one primary version we could place into articles, though of course each disclaimer could be edited if certain other games or other cruft become a problem. - BillCJ 01:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Sounds like you want something similar to {{NoMoreLinks}}? McNeight 03:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is about what I had in mind, and it serves almost the same purpose for its section. Thanks. I wasn't sure it was possible code-wise to do what I wanted, but now I know it is. It looks like a good pattern to follow, and we can adapt is to our purposes. - BillCJ 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the route, after the recent rounds of battling this stuff on the V-22 article, I whole heartedly agree. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Alan, the text you added to the V-22 was good also, and we can add elements of what you wrote to the above text. - BillCJ 03:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Alan's text: Please do not add the many minor appearances of the V-22 in various games. This section is only for major cultural appearancs where the aircraft plays a major part in the story line. Thank you. - BillCJ 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

See below for new template page info. - BillCJ 15:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture: standard consistency

(Copied from Talk:F-35 Lightning II)

With the image of poking a hornets' nest in mind, I still think there is an issue that should be mentioned. WP:TRIV is a guideline which applies to every Wikipedia article, but WP:MILHIST#POP doesn't accurately reflect it, despite the citation: WP:TRIV is about how to handle lists of isolated facts (in a nutshell: integrate them within the context, if possible). Cited facts are not meant to be removed, unless they stray from the article or there are too many isolated ones. Somehow, WP:MILHIST#POP bends the inclusion-by-default guideline into a exclusion-by-default policy with some additional requirements (notable impact, prose discussion... etc.) and I am not sure how much authority such a WikiProject page possesses. WP:AIR/PC bends the original meaning even further, again despite the citation: it now requires "especially notable" appearances. Interestingly, WP:AIR/PC itself backs off through its claimer: "these are only suggestions...you should not feel obligated...". If a consistent standard is desired here, this issue should be at least explained. EIFY 03:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

HAL Tejas Timeline

Hi. With Regards to the timeline discussion at Talk:HAL Tejas#Timeline, I've created a demo project timeline table for the LCA project at User:Sniperz11/Sandbox 1. I'm adding it below.

Light Combat Aircraft Timeline
Year Date Event Remarks
year date event remarks
1969 Aeronautics Committee suggests
a Fighter Aircraft Program		 Program under
HAL
1975 Design studies completed,
project shelved		 Due to lack of
proven engine
1982 date event remarks
1983 GoI sanctions LCA project
through DRDO		 Planned:
 - 1st flight: 1990
 - Production: 1994
 - Induction: 1995
1984 ADA set up
1985 Oct IAF ASR finalised ASR Delayed
1987 Dassault chosen for Project
Definition (PD) Phase
1987 Oct PD commences
1988 Sep PD completed
1989 May Review committee formed
1990 LCA Design Finalised
1990 FSED Phase I commences
1991 Work on TD Aircraft begins.
Fund Crunch slows work
1992 CLAW Team set up
1993 April Full Funding Authorised
1993 June Full scale work begins
1993 BAe & Lockheed-Martin brought
in to advise FCS development
1995 Nov 17 TD-1 rolled out Aircraft Grounded
1996 July FCS tested on F-16 VISTA in USA
1998 May 11 Pokhran-II Nuclear test
  - US announces Sanctions
  - CLAW work in US ends,
  - Material impounded
2001 Jan 4 TD-1 First Flight
2003 May 4 PM Vajpayee names LCA 'Tejas' [1] [2]
2003 Aug 1 TD-1 breaks Mach-1 speed
2004 Mar 31 TD phase ends.
(FSED Phase II)? begins
2005 Dec 1 PV-2 1st Flight
2006 Dec 1 PV-3 1st Flight
2007 Apr 25 1st Production Tejas, LSP-1 flies Reaches Mach 1.1

Askari Mark had suggested that it be discussed here before adding to the page. Do you think it would be OK to add into the page? If so, are any changes needed? Does it need to be shortened? If so, how?

I have mostly used the information from the article page itself, which is quite detailed by itself. The reason I think this is needed is because the section on the page is quite detailed, and includes a lot of technical details along with the project history.

Thanks & Cheers Sniperz11 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh! - far to much non-notable information, lots of unexplained acronyms and abbreviations, I suspect you could remove 50% or more of the entries, most would be of little interest once the aircraft is in service. Might be better with a few lines of text. MilborneOne 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A bulleted list would be good enough to me. A lot of that should be in the text if it isn't already. If you listed what was true milestones (metric conversion?) that'd be much better. Maybe half or so look significant to me. Things like a major study completed, contract awarded, test flights completed, first time in combat, etc. (somewhat made up examples). -Fnlayson 23:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with the table itself, but agree that the level of detail is too fine - I would say unencyclopedic, in the same way that lists of every minor TV appearance of a film star are regarded as unencyclopedic. --Rlandmann 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've shortened it up a bit. Please tell me if any changes are needed. If you think this table may not be needed for the Tejas page at all, please say so as well. Thanks. Sniperz11 07:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Timeline
Year Date Event Remarks
1983 GoI sanctions LCA project
through DRDO		 Planned:
 - 1st flight: 1990
 - Production: 1994
 - Induction: 1995
1984 Aeronautical Development
Agency (ADA) set up
1985 Oct IAF requirements finalised
1987 Dassault chosen for Project
Definition (PD) Phase		 Started- Oct '87
Completed- Sep '88
1990 LCA Design Finalised
FSED Phase I commences
1991 Work on TD Aircraft begins.
Fund Crunch slows work
1993 June Full Funding Authorised
- work begins
1993 BAe & Lockheed-Martin brought
in to advise FCS development
1995 Nov 17 TD-1 rolled out Aircraft Grounded
1998 May 11 Pokhran-II Nuclear test
  - US announces Sanctions
  - FCS work in US ends,
  - Material impounded
2001 Jan 4 TD-1 First Flight
2003 May 4 PM Vajpayee names LCA 'Tejas' [3] [4]
2003 Aug 1 TD-1 breaks Mach-1 speed
2004 Mar 31 TD phase ends.
(FSED Phase II)? begins
2007 Apr 25 1st Production Tejas flies Reaches Mach 1.1

The only acronyms now not expanded in the Table itself are:

  • IAF - Indian Air Force
  • FSED- Full Scale Engineering Development (pro'lly can be replaced with Development, or removed altogether)
  • TD - Technology Demonstrator
  • PM - Prime Minister

now, FSED Phase I in LCA was the Technology Demonstrator phase, involving construction and testing of 2 tech. demonstrator aircraft. FSED Phase II (Prototype phase) was the building and testing of 3 prototype Vehicles (PV). Sniperz11 07:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bump.... anyone, anyone? Any opinions on the above plz?? Sniperz11 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Easter egg links (year in aviation) in user box

I just had an interesting conversation with User:Piotr Mikołajski about the use of links like [[1933 in aviation|1933]]. I had delinked some and he undid my edit. I would submit that these easter eggs are of no value whatsoever and that it would be more useful to use links of the sort: See also 1933 in aviation, and only where the entry linked to contains some relevant information. I believe this is in line with the principle Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. What do other editors think? --John 21:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Easter egg links like that are really of little value. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree - the links take you to the year in aviation page which allows the reader to put the particular event in context of other aviation events. MilborneOne 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
But the reader doesn't know unless he/she hovers over the link where it will lead! I bet over 99% of the time a reader would assume the link would lead only to the standard [[xxxx]] year article. Surely using them judiciously and making them clear would be better. --John 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a link in the related content section of the standard specs box would work. On other articles, a link in the See also section would work. If we are going to create a 19xx year in yyyyyy, then what is the point of having year links themselves? I have done alot of work on this project and have always linked to the years because we need to remeber, that overall, this project is part of the greater wiki community and there is often some merit in doing things the same way the rest of the community does. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
When you hover over the link it says 19XX in aviation so a reader would know were the link went. MilborneOne 21:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said, yes. How many are going to do that though, especially when it is part of a full date (like January 1 1920)? --John 21:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I suspect nobody really clicks through any normal date links as they do not add any real value! but another benefit of the aviation links is when you use what links here on the 19XX in aviation page. MilborneOne 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to improve the XXXX in aviation page to mention the aircraft in question, which would achieve the same thing but actually be useful? --John 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In a perfect world, where we know the date of a first flight of an aircraft type, the year in aviation article should always link back to that type (year in aviation has a specific subsection for first flights), but I think most of us have been a bit slack in making sure that happens. So, in the context of the infoboxes, years should definitely link to the year in aviation article. In the context of general article prose, it probably doesn't matter whether a year is linked or not, but if it is linked, I think it should link to the year in aviation rather than to just the year, since this is the more specific context. If readers want a more general context again, each year in aviation article provides a prominent link to the more general year. It's only one more click. --Rlandmann 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the prevalence (and specific advice in the manual of style) that dates should be coded as [[1 January]] [[1920]], I think very few users would expect anything other than the standard year article to link from 1920. On the other hand, if we could improve the [[xxxx in aviation]] articles, that would actually be useful. We could then avoid these Easter egg links and use See also [[xxxx in aviation]] as a far more useful and encyclopedic way of highlighting these articles.--John 22:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - could you please direct me to where the MOS says not to do this? I couldn't find it. --Rlandmann 22:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, that would be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --John 22:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I couldn't see anything mentioning piped links of this sort. On the other hand, piping to years in aviation has been part of WP:AIR's page content guidelines since April 2004. --Rlandmann 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that that MoS page says "is considered a guideline". So it is not a hard rule. -Fnlayson 22:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Noted, well spotted. In fact there are very few hard rules in Wikipedia. However my argument does not (and never did) depend on it being a hard rule, but on the utility or lack thereof which these links add to the project. It seems at least one major project already deprecates this confusing use of piped links. I think it would be unsatisfactory and inefficient if these decisions were to be made on a project basis, so I have raised it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Piped 'Year in xxx' links. Best wishes, --John 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the "year in stuff" links should not be used in full dates, since that messes up the user preference date formatting, but year only dates are not a problem. I don't get these anti-easter egg comments. Piped links are used all over the place for good reason most times. -Fnlayson 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm copying this discussion over there. --Rlandmann 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Readability

I don't know where I should write my comments - here or in WP:MOS - I'll try here. As I wrote at John's talkpage, there is a lot of benefits from linking to "year in aviation" articles, below is short summary:

Readability
  1. Various countries have different ways to write date and for some people 05-06-1980 date means May 6th, for others June 5th. Date written like 5 June 1980 doesn't leave place for misunderstanding.
  2. John said that users can set preferences for displaying date and he is right. Unfortunately he forgot about zillions of Wikipedia readers who never registered and who can't change any settings. They can't set displaying date to more readable version and they have to "discover" is it May 6th or June 5th.
Usability
  1. Date written like [[1 January]] [[1980 in aviation|1980]] is linking simultaneously to two separate articles - 1 January and 1980 in aviation. In both cases we can click on "what links here" feature and then we two pages (Special:Whatlinkshere/1 January and Special:Whatlinkshere/1980 in aviation) with all articles linking to them. It's very easy way to check linking articles and update / add new entries to both 1 January and 1980 in aviation articles.
Ease of use in project
  1. There is no possibility to flag all dates in See also 1970 in aviation manner because average Aircraft infobox has 4-5 dates - first flight, introduction, production years and date of retirement. Quite often we can see 7-8 dates because there are few retirement dates etc. and there is no room for flagging it via "see also" in Aircraft Infobox. I don't see any reason to make additional entries in "Related content" section too, such change means editing all articles and it will be consuming our time. IMHO we can use these hundreds of hours for copyediting existing articles or writing new ones.

Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 07:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • June 5, 1980 is also clear and most common format in the US, except for military uses "day month year" formatting. -Fnlayson 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
IMHO (of course), the "19xx in aviation" links are pointless and using "in aviation" instead of simply the year prevents Wikipedia from properly formatting the date to user preferences. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. More importantly, so does the Manual of Style. I don't want to get into an argument based on whether the MoS "trumps" a project-based discussion (although I'd have to think that it does), but would rather focus on the utility such links add. I don't find Piotr's arguments at all convincing in that regard. I certainly don't see any consensus here based on either policy or utility that would lead to keeping them. --John 18:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that help for editors of years in aviation articles or increased readability of aircraft infobox for Wikipedia visitors is not convincing for you? Well, I can understand that but it seems that you forgot about Rlandmann's earlier note - piping to years in aviation has been part of WP:AIR's page content guidelines since April 2004. For me it means that consensus was established in April 2004. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a point of clarification here - as far as I've been able to tell, nowhere does the MoS specifically counsel against piping years. I asked User:John above to point out where it does, in case I've missed it, but he did not answer. As I see it, what is not forbidden is permitted. If people want to continue this discussion about the relative pros and cons of how to link dates, please feel free, but don't read more into the MoS than what is there. --Rlandmann 20:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Piotr, what do you understand by the word "consensus"? To me (and to Wikipedia), it means "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over." This is the only merit of bringing the MoS into it. As I've said several times, this is not a legalistic argument I am making but a pragmatic one.
Rlandmann, I am fine (I suppose) with "what is not forbidden is permitted", but what I was hoping for is a clear explanation of why anybody could think this was a useful feature for readers, useful enough to break the usual formatting practice on all other articles on the project. So far I don't see that; I'm definitely looking for something better than long-established practice. --John 21:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the answer to your question lies in the answer to "why would anyone click on a link to a year anyway?" It can't be because they wonder what the number means; it can only be idle curiosity (a good thing!) along the lines of "1927 huh? What else was going on in 1927?" If they're reading about an aircraft, it makes most sense to me to answer that question first and foremost in terms of what else was happening in the aviation world in 1927, particularly since if they then want to know what was happening in the world more generally, they can get there with only one more click. To me, this sits well with the principle expressed in "Links should use the most precise target that arises in the context" (WP:MOS-L). As I see it, the only advantage to linking to the general year page is that the piped links break user-set date preferences. To me, that's a small price to pay, since I find it difficult to believe that anyone has serious trouble comprehending that "August 7" and "7 August" refer to the same thing, regardless of what they're most used to seeing. --Rlandmann 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
John, you've wrote: "If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over". Current style of linking is guideline for WP:AIR project. What do you want else? Another time consuming discussion which confirm these guidelines?
You've wrote: "I was hoping for is a clear explanation of why anybody could think this was a useful feature for readers". You've got three following arguments:
  1. Much better readability for those Wikipedia users who are not logged in. Those users are majority and they can't set anything in Wikipedia.
  2. Linking to "year in aviation" articles where visitor can read more about aviation in particular year. There is no other way of comfortable linking to that year from article.
  3. Help for editors of "year in aviation" articles who don't have to search few thousand articles for info. When someone edit 1945 in aviation article can click on Special:Whatlinkshere/1945 in aviation link and see almost exclusively links for aviation articles.
Could you be so kind and tell us what are your points other than "break usual formatting practice"? I would like to hear more what do you want to do for keeping all benefits for users and editors mentioned above. And remember, there is few thousand articles which will be affected by any changes. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 09:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I don't agree that the supposed extra utility afforded by linking to the year in aviation articles outweighs the date formatting feature. It is a matter for regret that dates cannot be formatted in a different way, but at the present time I think the date formatting takes precedence. Piotr, you wrote "What do you want else? Another time consuming discussion which confirm these guidelines?" Your use of "another" implies there has already been a discussion to decide how dates are formatted on the project and whether easter-egg links enhance articles, yet when I asked you to point me to it, you were unable to. I don't agree with any of your points; point 3 is particularly poor as it emphasises the needs of (some) editors rather than utility to users. Remember, we write for readers, not for other writers. I wish we could get a wider input to this... --John 17:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we must agree to differ; each of us sees one approach as useful and the other as virtually useless. Additionally, you find "long established practice" unsatisfactory, as I find "the vast majority of other articles do it this way" unsafisfactory. We can both even justify ourselves by reaching for the MoS. FWIW, this isn't even an aircraft-specific issue for me; I think it would be better for articles about films to link primarily to "year in film" and articles about albums and musicians to link primarily to "year in music", but as I don't write about those things, that's not an argument I'm having.
That aside, pragmatically this is Wikipedia, and if you want a certain editor or group of editors to change the way that they're doing things, what you really need to do is to convince that editor or group of editors that another way is somehow better than what they're doing. To put it bluntly - so far, I'm not convinced! --Rlandmann 19:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Rlandmann for your reply. This is why I think we need a wider input. --John 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not sure what that wider input can provide, however, unless there is some other pragmatic advantage to the unpiped links that we haven't already been made aware of. So far, the only advantages that you've put forward are that they allow date preferences to work, and I guess, the principle of least surprise. In most cases, the former is a moot point anyway, given that the month and day are rarely provided, and almost never wikified. I'd say that your appeal to common practice and our appeal to tradition cancel one another out (given that they're the same logical fallacy anyway), and neither of our appeals to the MoS are particularly convincing. Sorry John, I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult, but since you're the one who's trying to change the status quo, the onus is on you to produce a compelling argument for change. --Rlandmann 00:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC) PS - by "we" and "our" above, I'm referring to those of us who pipe dates, not WP:AIR in general, which I don't pretend to speak for.
Heh. I suppose my problem is about accepting that there can be a different status quo in a project than across Wikipedia. I'll think about it some more. --John 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I was probably a little unclear. The status quo I was referring to is the fact that most of the editors who provide most of Wikipedia's content about aircraft follow this particular practice (and have been doing so pretty consistently for a pretty long time); that's what you're trying to change. --Rlandmann 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that the supposed extra utility afforded by linking to the year in aviation articles outweighs the date formatting feature.
You may not agree, but I've asked for arguments other than your disagreement etc. - I don't see any. Could you be so kind and provide it?
Your use of "another" implies there has already been a discussion to decide how dates are formatted on the project.
Sorry for being not native English speaking - for me this discussion is senseless time consuming dispute and I don't want another one, doesn't matter what its subject will be. AFAIR you didn't asked me about previous discussion, I've quoted Rlandmann's statement about guidelines 2 or 3 times only.
I don't agree with any of your points
Once again - you can disagree but I've asked for arguments, not your POV. I disagree with many thing but this is not argument in discussion. I wanted to hear about benefits for readers and editors too and I don't see any proposal.
point 3 is particularly poor as it emphasises the needs of (some) editors rather than utility to users
I'm an editor and without few tools I'll not be able to make some edits quicker and/or better in the same time. Templates, shortcuts and "whatlinkshere" tool are features making Wikipedia easier to edit and thus better for readers. Remove flag templates and I'll not improve Operators section. Remove related content template and I'll stop adding links there. Remove linking to "years in aviation" articles and I'll stop tweaking them. Remember about one thing - Wikipedia without editors will cease to exist. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 20:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anchor link bot

User:Anchor Link Bot (a bot of User:Android Mouse) has been adding hidden notices to articles saying "This section is linked from (article), such as here. Just curious as to if this is really necessary. I haven't seen it before, and it just seems like clutter to me. - BillCJ 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I thought the same, but it didn't seem to hurt anything so I've tried to ignore them. ;) -Fnlayson 01:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • All they are is a warning to editors that there are articles that link directly to this section and that deleting or renaming the section would break those links. Harmless and actually useful --Rlandmann 22:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Right. The need for that still seems marginal. But it's not hurting anything that I can see.. -Fnlayson 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BillCJ 22:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lockheed 1960s bribery scandal

A user has asked about the possibility of creating an articel on the Lockheed 1960s bribery scandal. I am looking into doing that. If anyone is interested in participating, you can answer at Talk:Lockheed Corporation#Lockheed Scandal or my talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress serial numbers

Just discovered Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress serial numbers, look like a candidate for deletion, an attempt to list all the serial numbers of all the B-17s. This information is readily available on specialised websites and I would suggest Wikipedia is not the place for it. Any comments, should it be an AfD candidate ? MilborneOne 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, such articles should be deleted. Wikipedia is not the place for entering all available info and for rewriting lists and tables from books. Piotr Mikołajski 11:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, the article is useful, at-hand information and does not reside in the main article. FWIW Bzuk 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
  • You're right but Wikipedia can't be replacement of all aviation related websites and paper articles. IMHO place for B-17 serials and other such detailed information is in magazine articles, books and on external websites. --Piotr Mikołajski 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with aviation websites, and books etc... is that the information on this wikipedia page is not found on other sites (especially the Foreign operators) - took four different searchs just to track down and pin down exactly which s s/n went with what aircraft for the IAF alone / same with Brazil AF. Try finding one reference for the Naval B-17’s and what aircraft were assigned where – right now, this wikipedia article is the one source for this information.

Davegnz 17:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • So merge the major, notable, prominent (however you want to describe it) ones to the main B-17 article. -Fnlayson 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally I don't see possibility to merge notable ones to main article because there is nothing notable in serial numbers. I think that some information can be moved to List of B-17 Flying Fortress operators article, especially those about foreign operators like Portugal, Brazil or Israel. --Piotr Mikołajski 15:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I forgot how long the B-17 article is. That sounds like the best plan. -Fnlayson 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to support Piotr Mikołajski last comments and suggestion. Lists of serial numbers are not really notable, I brought the matter up before somebody decides to list all 13,000 C-47s, 24,000 Spitfires, 10,000 B-25s etc. Davegnz point about finding reference for Naval B-17s as an example, there is no reason why the naval units should not be listed in List of B-17 Flying Fortress operators. If more details are required then if the aircraft are notable enough they should be mentioned under the unit/operators article, although I doubt just a list of serial numbers is notable in most cases. MilborneOne 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a serial number junky, but serial numbers are EXTREMELY useful to aviation historians. There's all kinds of valuable uses for lists of numbers. Since they don't require paper to print, and space is not an issue, why don't we just leave them alone. Books of production lists (serial numbers) are expensive to buy and full of errors. Wiki lists can be debugged and corrected with minimum hassle. I vote to leave them alone Hoserjoe 08:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Going to pick on a couple of points
  • 1 Never suggested doing all 13000 C-47's (my best guess each would need their own page)
  • 2) When I started with the B-17 survivors list, had a lot of difficulties finding out where some of the survivors came from (accurate information) and the more I looked the more difficulties I found (as I mentioned the IAF and BAF are just a couple of examples)
  • 3) hardly any B-17 s/n list give a corresponding c/n and except for what I put on the wikipedia article, I have yet to find an easy breakdown of s/n's to the corresponding F-9 / B-40 / B-17H's etc... Davegnz 16:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree - this is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, which is what we're supposed to be building here... --Rlandmann 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Found another similar page A-7D Production Data, serial numbers, survivors list and partial list of USAF losses. MilborneOne 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to say 99% of which is just a straight copy of Joe Baugher's USAF serial website [[1]]. MilborneOne 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't get my hopes up like that! A 99% straight copy could be speedily deleted. Unfortunately, while this is based on Mr Baugher's work (and cites him), it isn't just a copy and must go through AfD to be removed. --Rlandmann 21:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have proded Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress serial numbers but have just found an older article List of B-17 Flying Fortress serial numbers !! MilborneOne 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not mine :)) big difference being my list has corresponding c/n's and is expanded to include PB-1's as well as foreign operators.Davegnz 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Order Tables

I recently changed the order table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A350_orders I think we need a more modern look to the tables we have been using in the past. I left the older looking table at the bottom of the page for reference. I want to know what the concensus is out there before I replace all order tables on wikipedia. Thank you marcus--Bangabalunga 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The newness is mainly different colors and bolding. ;) Adding the sorting buttons is good and the extra column for press release is great. That emphasizes the need for a source. I'd prefer toned down colors myself, but the new table is fine otherwise. -Fnlayson 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked up colours - are toned down and more readable and more accessible right now. Piotr Mikołajski 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont know if that was toned down. Its brighter to the eyes now.--Bangabalunga 15:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Your change looks toned to me when comparing them side by side. But I'm not a big color user. -Fnlayson 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It was made with better contrast and people with color perception disabilities in mind. Background is lighter but less saturated. Piotr Mikołajski 20:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should take the opportunity here to create a uniform system of noting airliner orders and deliveries which can be applied on all articles. There are a few things I think we should consider:

  • Layout
As Piotr pointed out above, the tables need to be laid out in such a way that they are easy to read. For that reason, I think the green and gold colours used by Bangabalunga were probably not the best colours. Frankly, I don't have a problem with the grey and white currently used on the List of Boeing 787 orders, or the new colours used by Piotr on the List of Airbus A350 orders. At the end of the day, we want to make this as simple to read as possible, and simple colours should aid that.
Another thing to consider is justification of text. Again, I believe the List of Boeing 787 orders does this better at the moment than the List of Airbus A350 orders. Centre justifying numbers works well, but centre justifying text in my opinion makes the table look less tidy, particularly with the flag not being lined up.
The width of the tables should also be considered. Up until recently, the List of Boeing 787 orders was set up to be full page width. This has now been removed. I am not certain which one I would prefer in terms of layout, or if there is any pressing reason why one or other should be used.
Making the tables sortable would be a very good idea.
  • Content
Obviously firm orders should be included. Should announced, but non firm, orders be included as well? At the moment they are, and are either noted by pink highlighting, or an asterisk. If we do keep them there, I think the highlight (doesn't have to be pink if someone thinks another colour works better) is a better way of showing it than an asterisk (particularly if we want to use asterisks for something else, such as conversions of orders or cancellations as on the List of Boeing 787 orders). Alternatively, we could keep the table just for firm orders, which would make keeping track of the totals easier, and note non-firm commitments in another table, or in text.
The intention of the tables for the A380 and the 787 was to use colour codes to show which engine type had been ordered, and then provide a total for each type at the end. The new A350 table seems to have done away with this in favour of a single column where the engine type is to be written in (yes, a bit of a moot point with the A350). If we are going to go for a single column, then the total at the end become redundant. Personally, I would favour keeping the previous multi-column colour coding system.
  • Tables
We need to think about exactly what tables will be needed through the life of the article. In the List of Boeing 787 orders there are three tables at the moment - orders sorted by customer, orders sorted by chronology and placement of leased aircraft. I know there has been a question of whether the two orders tables are necessary, or if they just duplicate each other. They actually show different things - one just shows a customer's total orders, while the other breaks down the individual orders made for the aircraft. If we ditched the chronology table, we would lose a fair bit of information which I believe provides a good picture of the way the aircraft is travelling in orders. I can understand why the question has arisen on the A350 article, given there have been no follow on orders for that aircraft so far.
The placement of leased aircraft is straightforward so far, but it has the potential to get murky if not much publicity is made about the movements of individual aircraft.
Once deliveries start, we may want to consider a way of including deliveries. There is a List of Boeing 737 orders which does this. I'm not certain if that is the best way though - it could end up being rather cluttered. Perhaps a 'delivered' column could be inserted into the current style customer tables?
  • An aircraft census?
Given we are making an effort to track the orders of the aircraft, maybe it isn't too much of a further step to start generating a 'census' of aircraft. There are at least a couple of these already on the internet (Jetphotos.net, which was built up from Bill Harms' excellent work, but which I believe is no longer kept to quite the high standard, and Airlinerlist, which provides its information in .xls format). Most of the information is freely available, and given the power of having many editors, we should be able to keep it fairly up to date. Of course, it would become a fairly lengthy document for many aircraft types, so it may become unwieldy. I thought I'd throw the idea out there anyway, in case enough of us think it is workable.

--Nick Moss 07:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

B-52 Stratofortress trivia up for AfD

The B-52 Stratofortress trivia page is up for AfD here. Please weigh in, whatever your view on the issue. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing help

Is there anyone who would like to help with the writing of aviation articles? I have several sandboxes of articles I've created recently with text-dumps from several sources that need to be rewritten, but, for me, that is the most tedious part of creating an article. I now have 13 new articles that need text added, with several more to come. I keep finding new articles to create, and with watching my watchlist, I hardly have the energy to do the rewriting. While knowledge of aviation and aircraft would be helpful, I'm mainly in need of someone with decent-to-good writing skills, as I can handle the editing for factual accuracy. I know of many other articles that need to be expanded beyond the ones I'm working on (mostly experimental helicopters at this time), so if the work interests you, but you have other types of aircraft you'd rather work with, I'm sure we can find some of those too. This would be a good opportunity for some informal coaching on how to put together an aircraft article. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I can help. But I'm mainly an editor and do a little writing/rewriting. You could use more help and it'd be good place for others to get involved. -Fnlayson 03:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Rewriting is something I'm happy to do. what say I take a copy of your Westland 30 sandbox and work it over? GraemeLeggett 15:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds fine. Working on Bill's page is fine too. That's what I do. -Fnlayson 21:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ditto Bzuk 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
Sorry I missed your post on the 2nd, GL. Yes, go ahead and do whatever you can. Any help is appreciated. I've seen you've already addedn a good amout of info to the main articles, and it looks gret. Thank for the help, y'all. - BillCJ 00:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Airspeed Viceroy

Just wondering if articles like this one one the Airspeed Viceroy should not be up for AfD - do we really need articles that deal with single built aircraft that really did nothing for aviation history. I am sure there must be numerous web sites that can deal with these limited production aircraft.Davegnz 17:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote to leave the Viceroy. That's what Wikipedia is about. It doesn't cost anything to leave it, it's useful to somebody, it doesn't use up scarce server resources, and somebody will be looking for it before you know it. Hoserjoe 08:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Try suggesting merges instead of deletes on these. -Fnlayson 17:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, Dave (and Jeff), I totally disagree with the contention that this particular aircraft article deserves deletion. I can even go further in making the case that one-offs and experimental aircraft do fill a particular niche in aviation development. If nothing else they can often be "sign posts" on which way to go (or not to go- see the Avro Avrocar). FWIW Bzuk 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
    • I didn't say delete. My point was bring up a merge before AfD. -Fnlayson 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I know I crudely bumped you and Dave in together (that's the reason for the brackets to differentiate your response); sorry for the confusion. FWIW, the article looks fine to me and in fact is an interesting tidbit, the aircraft served in the Spanish Civil War as well as participating in the MacRobertson Air Race! I wouldn't even recommend the article for merging, I predict it will now create a flurry of new edits. IMHO Bzuk 18:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Well whoops on me too. I didn't know what you meant by the parentheses. Good luck with that. -Fnlayson 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • In this case, you could argue that it isn't a distinct one off, but a variant of the Airspeed Envoy, (and there were other Envoys with long range tanks which weren't called Viceroys). Although the article shouldn't just be deleted, there may be an argument for merging Nigel Ish 18:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • True merging to Envoy would be way to go unless Viceroy can be expanded. -Fnlayson 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Individual aircraft types are legitimate candidates for articles, even if only one was built, or even none. Many un-built designs have articles here. The modifications made that distinguish it from the Envoy aren't very clear. If they are major, then this is a legitimate "type" and ought to be covered separately, if sufficient content can be added. If it is not a major variant, just a small modification, then I can see merging it with the Envoy page. Either way, the content should not be deleted, as the aircraft is notable. - BillCJ 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Like BillCJ said, WP:AIR's prima facie criterion for notability is a distinct aircraft type. If you were to pull any encyclopedia of aircraft off the shelf, you will find that this is how encyclopedias generally divide up their content. The question here is not whether an aircraft "did anything for aviation history" or not. "Importance" is not directly relevant to inclusion in Wikipedia. While there could indeed be some argument for merging the Viceroy with the Envoy in this specific case (as at least one of my references does), I'm afraid that I don't consider this a suggestion made in good faith, but believe it to be some kind of retaliation for the suggestion made above concerning the B-17 serial numbers article. Davegnz, I would remind you to please not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Rlandmann 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The point being that I can cite numerous articles where only single aircraft were built (which include all the s/n's built) and feel that these articles should be merged together under one category. As far as retaliation, I never brought up this subject before because I figured everyone had a right to edit and create in their own style. I could have easily cited most of BillCJ's articles for out of date information (wonder if he knows the FAA & JAA have an internet site which allows downloads of aircraft manuals with correct information & ratings). I can also cite numerous articles that are in conflict with information published in Aviation Week and Janes - I just do not have the time to fix everyone's elses problems. Do we really need an entry for every aircraft built (or considered)?Davegnz 16:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, Dave, I think your use of my name and your riduculous criticism of using out-of-date data gives away your motives. Running around and nit-picking articles with the same criticisms that were applied to the "articles you created" (note - not "your article"), regardless of whether the criticisms are justly warranted on those articles you're singling out, is non-productive. In addition, you have a pattern of flinging out accusations such as "my data" being out of date, yet you have not at any time approached me or any other editor to seriously point out such "problems", or made any efort to constructivley correct the data. If you feel the data on "my articles" (in spite of WP:OWN) are out-of-date, you are able and welcome to change the data, and cite these so-called more-accurate sources. If you do that, civilly and correctly, you will actully begin to make your presence here on Wikipedia helpful. Leaving data on sites you know is inaccurate because you disagree with the primary editor is spiteful and petty. Btw, I do dispute that data for an out-of-service, one-off model can be "out-of-date", unless we should list its maximum speed as "zero" since it no longer flys. :) - BillCJ 17:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC
Hey bill - tried to fix your article on the S-64 Skycrane using data from the FAA's data base - but you insisted on using the wrong data - why should I continue to fix your mistakes when you insist on posting wrong information (and btw I did have the FAA links listed which you also removed)Davegnz 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, Dave, you're not telling the whole story, and leaving out crucial detils. You completely removed the specs template, and replaced it with a bulletted list contrary to Wiki guidelines, which is what I was reverting. In addition, you placed you "source" far from the specs in the External links section, rather than citing it with the specs, and left the original reference in place, making it seem as if your dte was from there, and leaving me with the impression you had no other sources. I NEVER told you couldn't use the data you added, you simply did not re-add the info in the correct way afterwards, nor did you chose to discuss your reasons for chanign the data, nor ask me mine. Yet we've had PLENTY of discussions over other issues since then. But now, TWO months later, you fling it out as a reason for not trying to work with us. You obviously still have hurt feelings about it, or you would not have brought it up. Btw, I will check you source later today, and make changes where necessary while citing it properly. - BillCJ 18:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See Bill you just made my point - you removed up-today accurate information and its link to the FAA STC and reverted to out of date information just because you did not like its formate. For that I must award you the Home Simpson award for stupidity as well as admitting your stupidy Davegnz 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll stand by my statement as I wrote it, and trust others to judge my "stupidity" for themselves. And I admit I was stupid to think you might - just - possibly comprehend anything I wrote, and respond in a rational fashion. To BillZ's profound relief, I'm done arguing with you. - BillCJ 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I hate to say take this outside but reiterating- Boys, boys, in the words of Rodney King (now, there's a trivia question for you...) "can’t we all just get along?" I think all of you have made valid points but we should remember the reason that we all contribute and participate, it's a pleasurable pastime that does provide a valuable resource to others. Capishe? FWIW, my 1 1/2 cents worth. Bzuk 18:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
  • BillZ, you quoting a drunk/high traffic violator and accused wife-beater (he really knew how to get along, Huh!). Please consider the source. - BillCJ 18:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That's impressive, just wanted to see if you were paying attention. Now despite the dichotomy of the source of the comments, the message has now entered the lexicon of popular culture and may have some bearing on the above spat. My ill-advised recommendation is to call this a draw and move on to more fun activities such as editing the many vandals that are out there? Just a suggestion, mind you... FWIW Bzuk 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC).
  • Neville Chamberlain also believed that sentiment for a time, but thankfully the Great Churchill disagreed. However, Sir Winston would probably adise me to pick my battles carefully! :) - BillCJ 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
President (James) Dale: "Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?" Now if you can tell me where this quote comes from, I'll be even more impressed (truth be told, I'm easily impressed).Bzuk 19:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

The core issue here is always whether a topic is encyclopedic (Please refer to the first of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. At its most basic, this asks us to consider whether this get a separate entry in an encyclopedia? Well, encyclopedias of aircraft generally organise their content under types of aircraft, so that's the model that Wikipedia also uses for its coverage of aircraft. Encyclopedias of aircraft generally have many entries for aircraft types of which only a single example was ever built; Wikipedia does as well. An important difference is that paper encyclopedias have always had to either lump certain types together or omit them entirely due to the physical contraints of paper. Wikipedia doesn't have that problem. We do have the space to cover each type individually. (For what it's worth - Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation gives the Viceroy an individual, stand-alone entry - right there on page 49. Of course, in and of itself, that doesn't say that we must do the same, but it seems hard to justify why a paper encyclopedia could afford a separate entry on it and an electronic encyclopedia can't.)

From a purely practical point of view, this makes sense because it avoids repeating the same information in multiple places, or having to decide excatly where to put it. Maybe the data on the Viceroy should be incorporated into the article on its close relative, the Envoy? Or maybe the article on Airspeed should incorporate all minor aircraft by this manufacturer? Or perhaps the MacRobertson Air Race article should incorporate the details of all the many one-off aircraft that participated? Or maybe it should be described under the article on its famous designer Nevil Shute? Or perhaps even if and when we have articles on the men who flew the aircraft in the race, that's where the data should go - but under which man?

Finally, please understand that no-one here has ever questioned the factual accuracy, or quality of research you've put into your contributions here. I think everyone would agree that on these two counts, this is very impressive work. All that has ever been questioned is whether this is the kind of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. I can't recall ever seeing a single aviation encyclopedia that lists out the serial numbers of every example of an aircraft type; but I can refer you to many encyclopedias that give separate entries to aircraft types where only one example - or even no example - were built.

As for good faith - Davegnz, is it really co-incidence that immediately after MilborneOne called into question whether an article you started was encyclopedic or not, you called into question whether an article started by him was encyclopedic? Or when BillCJ questioned an article you'd worked on, you immediately did the same to articles that he's worked on? That kind of behaviour achieves nothing other than making people seriously question your motives in future - it does nothing but harm your cause. --Rlandmann 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just applying MilborneOne's standard to one of his own article:

  • Is it notable? (no)
  • Do we really need to list every single aircraft produced by a manufacture? (no)
  • Is there more information available on the internet? (Yes)

If MelborneOne can not apply the same standards to his articles then he should leave someone else work aloneDavegnz 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here. This is Wikipedia, and we can afford to have a separate entry for EVERY aircraft that was ever dreamed of, designed, built, flown, or even crashed. There is NO space limitation here! There is NO reason to limit the content. Most of this info is NOT available elsewhere on the net. Wikipedia is becoming the first choice for searchers of this kind of specialised information. 08:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a few points:
  • MilborneOne doesn't have any articles. Neither do I. Neither do you. When any of us contribute an article, we're donating it to the Wikipedia community as a whole, and the community decides what to do with it. (see WP:OWN)
  • On Wikipedia, the word "notability" has a special meaning. It does not mean "famous" or "important"; it means that other reference works find it worth commenting on (see WP:N). By that standard, the Viceroy is notable.
  • We definitely do not need to list every single aircraft produced by a manufacturer, which is the problem some people are seeing with your serial number lists. On the other hand, there's a long-standing principle here that yes, we do need to list every single aircraft type produced by a manufacturer.
  • Is there more information available on the internet? largely irrelevant one way or the other.
Once again, remember that none of us own any of the articles that we contribute. Remember the warning that appears every time you edit an article: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --Rlandmann 19:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
picky Picky Picky - I knew that one but the brain was a little slow - shoould have said an article that her created (or edited or began ) I think everyone one the aviation list knew what I meant...
In that case, my apologies; it's just that contibutors feeling an undue sense of attachment to articles that they've started or made significant contributions to is a very common problem on Wikipedia, which is why there's a whole separate policy page dealing with the issue. I understood your comments to mean that you weren't yet aware of that. Like I said, I'm sorry. --Rlandmann 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
For those who are interested, I have updated the specs on the S-64 Skycrane page. The original specs were from the CH-54B (civil equivalent is S-64F), and were listed as such. Note, I did not add these specs originally, but only copied them from the CH-54 Tarhe page whole when I created the S-64 page. Those specs appear to be accurate for that model, though the rotor area was erroneous. Dave changed some of the figures to the S-64E (CH-54A), but left the rest of them, included the errant rotor area. This is understandable, as the FAA type cert does not list dimmensions! Also, Dave did not change the heading from CH-54B to S-64E as he should have. I have used a printed soucre to update the specs to the S-64E model, and made very few changes overall. I then checked the FAA TC, and found all info that overlapped was identical. I have not added extra data from the TC that is not in the specs template, as most of it is superfluous, such as fuel and oil "capasity" (as on Dave's specs). I put this here as I promised to take Dave's data seriously, even though I doubted his info was more accurate than what was there. The listed data was for the CH-54B, and I really doubt the civil S-64F data is much different. Therefore, the specs as they were are accurate for a model (the S-64F) that is being produced and sold by Erickson. - BillCJ 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
sidebar: Is Erickson actually building new aircraft? I can't find a reference for the production certificate. The last I had seen/heard was that they remanufactured, after the same vein of the FH1100 Manufacturing Corp.

Immediate help needed on Saab 35 Draken article

I have put a temporary page to save the article Saab35 from a troll attack by Omar90. How can you help? This is a rabid troll, can he be blocked?. Bzuk 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

He's been blocked by Rlandmann for now. Hopefully it won't continue after the block expires, but we'll keep watching. - BillCJ 20:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Converted Saab35 into a redirect. It could be deleted since there's already a Saab 35 that redirects (note space). -Fnlayson 21:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jeff. BillCJ has restored the original article. I'll leave this one in place for now and then erase it. Bzuk 21:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC).
    • There's nothing for you to delete. "Saab35" takes you to "Saab 35 Draken" now (redirects). -Fnlayson 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NoMoreCruft template

I have created the new {{NoMoreCruft}} template, which is designed to be "subst"ed into articles. Feel free to tweak it, but discuss major changes on the Template talk:NoMoreCruft page first. Thanks to all who contributed above. Hopefully this will help to standardize our anti-cruft notices. - BillCJ 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Draft notability guideline for aircraft

I've put together a draft notability guideline for aircraft here and would like to get feedback from project members before taking it out there to the more general community. Most of the wording is based heavily on the other specialised inclusion guidelines and is intended to reflect what our current practices here are. I'd very much appreciate any comments on the talk page (including any advice to the tune of "we don't need to do this yet" - I'm just floating it out there for comment at this stage) --Rlandmann 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

FAA type certificates

Above, Dave mentioned using FAA and other agency type ceritifactes for SPecs info. I honestly didn't know these were publically available online. However, in all the specs I've seen on here, don't recall another user using a TC as a source. Is there a particular reason that TCs aren't used here, or are they, but I havn't seen them? - BillCJ 00:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason not to use them - I know I have from time to time. Their main limitation is the relatively few aircraft they're available for, and that the info contained in them is scanty indeed for many older types (very informative on control surface movements, while lacking overall dimensions of the aircraft, for example). FWIW, EASA's database is also publicly accessible here. --Rlandmann 00:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just wanted to make sure it was OK to use them. I'll check the S-64 Skycrane data that Dave had added, and see what can be updated. - BillCJ 03:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 787 discussion

Hello All. A member Edwardlay wants to add the Boeing 787-10 under variants. My self and one other editor dont agree with this since this is not an official variant nor is it launched. One other editor agrees with Edward and would like to add this plane to the variants section. My argument is that if we add unlaunched planes to variants than this will disrupt almost all active Airbus and Boeing articles and maybe other manuafacturers as well. Currently all articles mention only existing models or confirmed upcomming models under variants and that is it. Please come to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boeing_787 for more information and voting. The outcome of this vote will allow for a standard format for all planes. A yes vote for variants may mean as an example adding A350R to A350 variants even though this is an unlaunched plane.--Bangabalunga 09:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we get the designation for Boeing aircraft correct on Wikipedia - I know in the public they are know by 707 / 727 / 737 / 747 etc but officially they are known as B707 / B727 / B737 / B747 etc. Just like Airbus is know as A320 (A standing for Airbus), DC-9 (DC Douglas Commercial), L1011 (L Lockheed), P182 (P-Piaggio) or C152 (C-Cessna), etcDavegnz 16:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The planes are actually designated "Boeing Model 7X7", or "Boeing 7x7". B7X7 is people's shorthand. (X placeholder for 0, 1, 2, etc.) -Fnlayson 18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I've mostly seen the B7x7 format used in European aviation publications. If they want to print it that way, that's fine with me. However, it's quite strange when people try to tell Boeing what the correct designation of their aircraft is. That's a bit like me trying to telling you you spelled your own name wrong! "It's really Geoff, you know! Jeff is just the way dumb Americans spell it!" :) - BillCJ 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While were correcting designations, don't forget about the Bell 206, 212, etc! It's really B206, B212 . . . - BillCJ 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've seen B7X7 used in tables and graphs in NASA and FAA reports. But that's mainly to save space. Bell and other companies have similar designation schemes. (You beat me to the Bell thing). -Fnlayson 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the confusion is that Airbus and Boeing are different, The Airbus A320 is correct but Boeing B737 is not, bit like the BAC One-Eleven is the real name not the BAC 111. MilborneOne 12:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

NATO names in Infoboxes

User:Russavia has been removing the NATO codenames from the Infoboxes of several Soviet/Russian aircraft pages. Not all the names removed were in quotes {"Blackjack", etc.), but I did add them were needed when I reverted him. Some of his explanations:

  • Hind is a NATO code, it is not official Soviet/Russian code, doesn't belong in infobox
  • Blackjack is a NATO code, not belong in an infobox of 'official' info. NATO code is already given in article
  • Badger is a NATO code, not belong in an infobox of 'official' info

The Russian aircraft pages are not the only ones in which we somtimes place "unofficial" names. In these cases, the names are "official" NATO names, and not just ordinary aircraft nicknames. Some readers may only know the aircraft by their codenames, so having them in the infobox can be helpful. I can understand how some readers from Eastern Europe might be offended by some of the names (MiG-15 "Fagot", for instance), but most of the names aren't that way. But to be offended just because NATO assigned names at all is going to far.

Comments? - BillCJ 08:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, I have a lengthy informational post in the works and will post it in the next hours. However, just to provide a counter 'argument' to your revert of my Tu-160 edit, from the edit summary of that revert, you wrote QUOTE: "(Undid revision 143447280 by Russavia - "unofficial" names are used in infoboxes; please discuss at WT:AIR before reverting again)". My counter argument to that revert specifically is that if unofficial names are allowed, then would you revert if I changed it to Tu-160 "White Swan"? As "White Swan" is just as unofficial as the NATO code, but it is known as the "White Swan" in service? Anyway, just wait until you read what I am preparing and then comment on that ;) --Russavia 09:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The NATO code names are official on the NATO side, but not the USSR/Russia's side. So it's not like totally made up nicknames. But whatever you all think is fair. -Fnlayson 13:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
English-speaking readers aren't likely to know unofficial nicknames, but are more likely to know the NATO codename. Remember, codenames were necessary because the Soviets didn't publically release information about their aircraft, making it necessary for NATO to standardize recognition codes to avoid ambiguity. These are not codes made up by bystanders, but officially assigned by NATO. There is no requirement that only the "official names of the country of origin" be used here. If you want to make it so, then try to gain a consensus to change it. Until then, please stop removing the codenames. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Just my two cents: The NATO reporting name should only be used in infoboxes for NATO aircraft. All others should have it only as additional info in the Intro. --Denniss 19:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, no formal guideline exists on this question; but in general WP:AIR has de-emphasised NATO reporting names for Cold War Soviet/Eastern bloc aircraft, and Allied reporting names for World War II Japanese aircraft. These names are important enough to warrant mentioning in the lead of the article, but I think that with the current layout, placing them in the infobox gives them way too much prominence. Philosophically, this has to do with the fact that these are "nicknames" bestowed by a hostile power, which appears contrary to the general spirit of Wikipedia. Practically it's because very few of the NATO reporting codes are recognisable anyway. Sure, "Foxbat", "Badger" and "Bear" are immediately meaningful to most English-speakers with a passing interest in military aircraft; but cast your eye over the bomber or fighter list, let alone the miscellaneous list and you'll see that the vast majority are not. Furthermore, for many of the most popular types, the Soviet designation is far more recognisable than the NATO one to English-speakers anyway. In my experience, most people will talk about a MiG-17, MiG-19, or MiG-21 than a "Fresco", a "Farmer" or a "Fishbed" (even those likely to say "Foxbat" rather than MiG-25 - go figure. Is it because "Foxbat" is a cool sounding word?). Just my 2 kopeks' worth. --Rlandmann 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can read the tea leaves as well as anyone. I concede. You make a good point Rlandmann - I keep forgetting NATO was the hostile power in the Cold War :) . However, what are you going to do about the MiG-29 Fulcrum on the Mikoyan MiG-29 page? Fulcrum is an accepted nickname in Russia, and some may object to removing it from the Infobox there. If this is to be a new guideline, it's going to have to be applied consistently. Exception will have to be allowed on a case by-case-basis, decisided on each page's talk page. - BillCJ 23:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh. To use an admittedly imperfect analogy, we could ask whether German Wikipedia should prominently display P-38 Fork-tailed Devil at the top of an article, or Japanese Wikipedia F4U Whistling Death and Bristol Whispering Death (putting aside the possibly apocryphal nature of at least some of these names...) I don't honestly know one way or the other about the MiG-29; if Фулкрум/Fulcrum can be shown to be in widespread official/semi-official use, then there would be an argument for its use in this way. If it's just a popular nickname, we don't have F-16 Viper or A-10 Warthog either. I note that MiG aka RAC themselves don't seem to use Fulcrum, at least on their website - which is probably the place I'd most expect them to use it, as part of trying to drum up some export interest :) --Rlandmann 23:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The consensual de-emphasis on NATO code names has covered not using them in article titles or as referents in the main text (e.g., “The Flanker was …”). The NATO reporting name is basically to be introduced early in the article, but otherwise generally not used in the text except where variants are being identified or in quotations. I can’t recall anything coming up before about infoboxes specifically, but then they’ve been a “work in progress” for most of the past year.
I’m neutral as to whether the NATO codename is also used in the infobox title. After all, it is an “‘info’ box” and I’ve never been aware that infoboxes contain only “official” information. On the plus side, it’s a handy reference tie; on the negative side, it makes for a longer name in a width-constrained box. If it is retained, I recommend enclosing the NATO code name in quotation marks, which is what I usually do when introducing it in the text, since they are a nickname for all practical purposes: MiG-29 “Fulcrum” would be more appropriate than MiG-29 Fulcrum.
As long as we’re talking about infobox titles, perhaps we should resolve just what does get used for them. Should we just repeat the article title? Simply use the designation? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I understnad your point, the German government did not officially give those names to the aircraft in question, or any other to my knowledge. I maintain the NATO codes are distinct from unofficial names, and for recognition purposes would be useful in the infobox. However, no one else seems to even accept thee is a difference, so why bother? - BillCJ 00:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes - there's definitely a difference (which is why I said it was an imperfect analogy). My problem's not so much with their inclusion in the infobox as the relative prominence that it gives the name. I'd have less problem if a new line were introduced into the infobox for such names. --Rlandmann 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, Fulcrum is not as widely used in Russia as the MiG-29 article makes out it is. The MiG-29 is known by a wider range of people as the Strizh. --Russavia 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
`Going to take this discussion to a different point of view - remember the old saying, "the winner always gets to write history" Right now there is an article on Wikipedia on the "Battle of Antietem", however, is you go to the southern states, it was know as the "Battle of Sharpesburg". What I think I am saying is there should be a place to list all designation (official, unofficial, Allied, hostile, nicknames ect...). Think I made a point several months ago on this very subject on creating one standard for all article names (Why use USAAC B-18 Bolo and then ignore the official JNAF for the A6M Reisen)Davegnz 16:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, been in bed for 2 days with the flu.....the (over) use of NATO reporting codes in article infoboxes and article bodies of aircraft from the USSR and ex-USSR is quite misleading (conflicting), informal (sloppy), unofficial, potentially confusing and should be limited to a bare minimum. I have done some editing on some of these articles, firstly just to clean up the overuse of NATO reporting names in articles related to anything Soviet military/aircraft and some of these edits have been reverted, hence why putting this on the talk page as requested within one of those reverts.

Within the aircraft guidelines it recommends that for "Soviet" aircraft the NATO reporting name be provided within the (start of the) article for easy identification so that people who know the aircraft by their codename have the correct article. I would say fair enough, as other articles not related to aviation also have such indicators in the article lead.

There needs to be a standard for this, particularly as many of these articles are written entirely as if someone at NATO has done so.

I would leave NATO codes out of infoboxes entirely. They are not official designators and infoboxes should only be used for official information. Trivial (unofficial) information should be mentioned in the article body. Other projects do this. Take North Korea, the article is at North Korea, but the infobox only has official names. Most projects are the same way, the aviation project should be no different and should follow that same standard. This will limit the possibility of confusion amongst readers (and editors alike). Consider this. Soviet aircraft were typically not given official names as they were/are in the US/EU (Phantom, Hornet, Sea King, etc being examples), but on occasion they were. If NATO codenames are to be put into infoboxes (as well as in the lead paragraph) what happens on occasions where there were official names. Take the An-10 as an example, and particularly this edit [2]. The infobox had it as An-10 "Cat" (NATO code of course), but officially the aircraft was known as An-10 Ukraine. Which belongs in the infobox? Only 'Ukraine' belongs. 'Cat' has no place there, if Cat was to be there, then consider the Tu-114 which was officially called the Tu-114 Rossiya, but had the NATO code of 'Cleat', thereby Rossiya should be replaced with Cleat. The same goes for the Ka-50 Black Shark, which should be replaced with Hokum. Or what about the Tu-160 which has no official name, but the NATO code of 'Blackjack', and another unofficial (Russian) name of 'White Swan'; why does Blackjack belong in the infobox, but not White Swan? Or what about the An-72/An-74, which has NATO code of 'Coaler', and the very well known, yet also unofficial, (Russian) name of Cheburashka. Or perhaps the An-124 which is called Ruslan, but has a NATO code of Condor, with Ruslan being more well known. Do we get rid of Ruslan and put An-124 'Condor'? Does this confuse everyone? Hopefully it does, because the lack of a standard and uniformity across articles of Soviet (and Chinese) aircraft would be just as confusing to the layperson who has no idea what is what, and an encyclopaedia is supposed to educate not confuse.

And on the over-use of NATO codes in articles in general. The perfect example is the Tu-95 article. Official designators are simply an afterthought of the NATO code names. The problem of placing so much emphasis on the use of NATO codes can be problematic. The MiG-29K and the MiG-29KUB are two different variants yet both have Fulcrum-C reporting codes. This can be seen in many articles, and they really should be changed.

Additionally, I edited Abkhazian Air Force. I was trying to find some info on the S-75 Dvina SAM, and kept seeing this being referred to in other articles as SA-2 Guideline, with absolutely NO mention of what it is actually called. Take example Soviet Anti-Air Defense which mentioned nothing on the actual names of SAMs, but only NATO codes. I edited the Abkhaz Air Force article to reflect this, and also removed the NATO reporting names of the aircraft, as they are not needed. The edit was reverted by User:Askari Mark with a comment QUOTE:

"(By consensus, we identify the NATO codename at first identification since many Westerners know them better than the Russian names; subsequently, only Russian names are used.)"

Looking at the guidelines for this yesterday (which I can't find now for some reason), I do believe that this only applies in the actual article dealing with the subject. i.e. it is not necessary to mention the NATO code name in every article where an aircraft is mentioned. So long as it is supplied in the lead paragraph of the actual aircraft article then this should suffice.

Some of the reasons as to why people will argue they are needed, two of which have already been mentioned above.

1) English speakers tend to know these aircraft by their NATO names and don't know unofficial nicknames. I would dispute this until the cows come home. It would actually be very rare that people these only know these aircraft by their unofficial NATO names. Several points: 1a) Whilst the USSR was in existence it may be true that sometimes the official designations were not known, leading to the NATO reporting codes (starting in WWII with Japanese aircraft I believe), but several things have happened since these days: Glasnost, Perestroika, and finally the Dissolution of the Soviet Union. Official designators are very well known now and information flows freely from the archives and halls of power of Russia and other former USSR states. The only people who would know these aircraft only by their NATO code names are enthusiasts or people employed in the military, in which case they would already know the designation of these aircraft, and I would challenge anyone to prove to me otherwise. Case in point, from my own experiences (which I can't prove but I don't bullsh*t [have no need to]), people I know with no aviation knowledge don't know the An-124 as the An-124 Condor, or even the An-124 Ruslan, but simply as "The Antonov". Even the Il-76 is called "The Antonov", and some people think that all Russian airliners are "Antonovs". Which brings me to this. People I know wouldn't know the Fulcrum from the Flanker from the Frogfoot from the Fagot. As far as they know, all Russian aircraft are "MiGs" They simply would have no idea about NATO code names for these aircraft, so we should change An-124 Ruslan to An-124 "The Antonov", and the Su-27 "Flanker" to Su-27 "MiG". Don't believe me? Try asking some people you know, who would know NOTHING about aviation, aircraft, airlines, etc what I have mentioned and I can almost guarantee you would see the same results from people I know. And these people are not idiots, they just don't know anything about aviation. This is the group of people that these articles should be written for. 1b) Can someone define English speaker for me? Is an English speaker an American? A European? I guess both of these. Does it include Indians, Pakistanis, South Africans and English speaking people from every other non-US/EU nation on earth. And here in lies the problem, simply because this is the English wikipedia, this does not mean it has to have a US/EU centric presentation. --Russavia 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I’m afraid Russavia and I must travel in different circles. For instance, I hear and read “Flanker” frequently, sometimes interchangeably with their Russian designations Su-27 or Su-30. As for folks I meet with no aviation knowledge, they generally ask “What’s that airplane?” and when I tell them, they say “Oh.” It’s all the same to them. I took out a lot of the overusage of codenames from the Sukhoi and Mikoyan articles a while back, but I’ve noticed that if the NATO designation is missing (in aircraft-specific or air force-related articles), people keep adding them back. I’ve also found that most Western sources on (or referring to) Russian aircraft variants developed prior to the 1990s still often use the NATO code names (e.g., Fishbed-C). This shouldn’t be surprising since WWII Japanese aircraft are still better known today by their codenames than their official native designations. The past extensive usage of such code names makes them “historical”, so they’re an integral part of the lore of the aircraft they designate, and a wholesale “remove on sight” approach seems to be overkill. Accordingly, I feel the general consensus on simply introducing such codenames when first used in aircraft-specific and general articles, while eschewing their common use or employment in article titles is a fair enough rule. As for including them in infobox titles, I’m agnostic, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. What is more preferable is that there be a general consensus on just what the infobox title should include. The main options would seem to be to repeat the article title or to use the official designation sans official or unofficial nicknames (or code names). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple suggestion - eliminate all names in the titles and just leave as primary manufacture then designation: ei Sukhoi Su-27, Boeing B-17 & except for the silly British (who insist on giving their aircraft names) this should work Davegnz 17:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that the infobox title should be the same as the article title less the manufacturers name, that would mean most articles would not needing changing! I would also support Askari Mark's conclusion on codenames and nicknames that they are in the article introduction but not the infobox. MilborneOne 19:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Concur with MilborneOne. That's what's been done in the vast majority of articles so far anyway. Additionally, the infobox title can note other models and variants and family members covered in the article but not the article title. --Rlandmann 19:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Historic Warplane Question

History of the Armée de l'Air (colonial presence 1939-1962) in section 6 about Algeria may refer erroneously to the Martin B26 when the plane in use at that time by the Armée de l'Air was more likely the Douglas A26 (renamed B26 after WWII). The picture shows a Martin plane in use by the Free French in WWII. I’m not sure enough to make the correction, so I’m seeking advice. --Kevin Murray 05:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

French Military Aviation published by Midland Counties Publications in Britain 1979 has a section on the campaigns in North Africa - As in Indochina, the B-26 Invader took-on much of the bombing.... I have corrected the article and removed the Maurader image, unless somebody else can prove otherwise! MilborneOne 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The Free French AF used the B-26 Marauder, but the post-war FAF operated the B-26C Invader. Although built as the A-26C, the variant with a glass nose, by the time deliveries to the FAF began in 1956, they had been redesignated B-26C, so that’s the designation which should be used in the article. I believe the French Invaders were only used in Indochina. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Further to my last the full quote was As in Indochina, the B-26 Invader took-on much of the bombing and served with EB 1/91, ERP 1/32, GB 2/91 and EC2/6 at Bône and Oran-La-Sénia. if that helps placing the Invader in Algeria.MilborneOne 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, my beliefs have been expanded! ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help! --Kevin Murray 16:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Spirit of St. Louis

Fellas, there is a newbie editor that has insisted that the flight of the Spirit of St. Louis was the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic and has constantly reverted the article to eliminate the word "solo". He has not responded to the discussion page or to the note left on his "talk" page. These are his only contributions to Wiki articles and he continues to make spurious claims, see: [3] He will not stop the reverting although he has been politely informed that constant reversions without explanation on the discussion page is not considered appropriate. Asking for help here. Thanks Bzuk 13:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

  • It seems that he is making the point that the flight was the first non-stop flight from New York to Paris and that this feat outweighs the importance of the Atlantic solo. As written now the article implies that Lindberg was not the first to fly non-stop from New York to Paris by the placement of the word "solo." I suggest the following: The Spirit of St. Louis was a custom-built airplane flown by Charles Lindbergh to make the first solo trans-Atlantic flight on 20 May and 21 May 1927. This was the non-stop flight from New York to Paris. Other thoughts? --Kevin Murray 14:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Seems to another case of nitpicking the language - as an example in the USA it was called WWI to many other countries, it was called the War to End All Wars" the conflict from 1938 - 1946 WWII or should it have been called WW7 (yes there was 6 world wars before) - why not just call the Lindberg flight "first solo trans-Atlantic flight on 2 ham & cheese sandwiches" and be done with it Davegnz 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Was Lindbergh's flight the first flight from New York to Paris? Yes. Was it the first solo transatlantic flight? Yes. Was it the first transatlantic flight, as this edit states? No. That's the problem. If you can find reliable and verifiable sources that call the "1938-1946 conflict" "WW7", please add a redirect and fill this important gap in our coverage. --Rlandmann 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Can not find the blasted article that lists the other 5 World Wars (excluding WWI) I know one of them was the American French & Indian Wars (it involved everyone fighting everyone else) - still like the title First Solo Trans-Atlantic Flight on 2 ham & cheese sandwiches Davegnz 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, I don't remember those movies with the guys talking about how they fought in the "War To End All Wars" over in France - It was usually called "The Great War" on both sides of the Atlantic until WWII, and then it became known as WWI. "War To End All Wars" wasn't a name, just a description. Btw, the Soviets called there part in WWII "The Great Patriotic War", IIRC. I'm sure Russavia will correct me it I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, would be curious if it's still called that today. - BillCJ 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox "Primary users" entries

Given the limited horizontal space available for infobox entries, I'm wondering if we shouldn't limit entries to just the country name. Take a look at the current entries for Eurofighter Typhoon. "Aeronautica Militare Italiana" is so long that it wraps, making "Italiana" look like a separate entry. "Ejército del Aire" fits — but doesn't identify which country it is. While clicking on the link will clarify the matter, the whole purpose of the infobox is to provide "quick-look" information, not to require further research but rather to enable it. A lot of Spanish-speaking countries have a "Fuerza Aérea" and if we start writing out full, long-form names, we get unsightly and possibly confusing wraps as for AMI. Using just the country name would seem to be cleaner and more to the purpose of an infobox. The only particular complication might be where multiple services are involved, but we could just identify them along the lines of "United Kingdom air force and navy", for which a wrap would be less unclear (particularly if the services are left uncapitalized). Askari Mark (Talk) 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not wrapping for me. But I can see how it can. Piped links such as [[Aeronautica Militare Italiana|Italian AF?]] is the best thing I can think of. That's what's done with USAF and USMC, which have long full links. -Fnlayson 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That's the approach I was thinking of. I just wanted to get a consensus before making any wholesale changes. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that country names might be the most logical; if in the case of just one military force such as the Navy then that could appear in the operators. How many infoboxes use country names compared to unit names? Bzuk 17:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC).
I agree that we should have the country name unless there is only one operator, perhaps we should also remove Other users altogether (they are listed in the article anyhow) - could stop a lot of reversions! MilborneOne 20:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • People would then try to put their fav. user in the primary user field. ;) I think we need to list the english translations for armed force or nation in the Infobox. "Aeronautica Militare Italiana" and "Ejército del Aire" does not provide much info if I can't read that language. -Fnlayson 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

New Article Ilyushin Il-1

Just been checking for new articles and came across Ilyushin Il-1 with a corresponding entry in List of NATO reporting names for bombers. Any comments ! MilborneOne 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like it's a joke or it got vandalized bad. A version of the B-17 with present and future dates, huh?? And Ilyushin doesn't list an Il-1.[4] -Fnlayson 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, its gone now. -Fnlayson 22:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
And the horse it came in on. FWIW, there was an Il-1; it was a fighter version of the Il-2. Thanks for the heads-up, guys. --Rlandmann 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I was guessing the Il-1 was a prototype or something like that. -Fnlayson 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ilyushin Il-10 provides some info on the Il-1, and this page has some specs. --MoRsE 18:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Harrier I pic needed

We currently have no pics avaiable of the first generation Harriers (GR1/GR3, AV-8A/C/S). If anyone has legally-usable pics of these aircraft, I would be grateful if you could post them to Hawker Siddeley Harrier or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier . RAF, USMC, SPanish Navy, or RT Navy, whatever you have. While we do have some Sea Harrier pics, more would be fine if you have them. - BillCJ 15:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

left|thumb - Any good? MilborneOne 19:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! A bit dark on my screen, but it's a good start! - BillCJ 19:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Just might be the screen illumination because it looks sharp and clear on my MacBook. FWIW Bzuk 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

Helicopters in popular culture afd

The article Helicopters in popular culture is up for deletion here. Interested parties (either pro or against) may want to comment. Nigel Ish 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

As expected users are now adding pop culture trivia back into articles, just reverted an addition to CH-47 Chinook but it is a bit like the finger in the dyke holding back the flood! MilborneOne 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to add here is a source for putting the info back into articles User:Trashbag/Helicopters !!! MilborneOne 22:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks to Wafulz an archive copy of the Helicopters in Popular Culture article is available. Contrary to MilbourneOne's belief Pop Culture sections are not going "back into articles" they have existed for quite some time in numerous articles. For me personally it was only until recently that BillCJ was kind enough to point me in the direction of the aforementioned, and now extinct, article. I believe Pop Culture can provide a very important basis of historical documentation of the aircraft are recording. Where else can you see a Boeing Vertol 107 flying in New York Airways colors other then in the movie Coogan's Bluff? I suggest a discussion of this topic before any other members become "deletion happy." This after all will be establishing quite a precedence of whether or not popular culture should exist in Wikipedia as a whole. --Trashbag 22:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Even tho it's not really notable as we define it, I don't mind including the Coogan's Bluff mention. However, I really doubt many people go the the Sea Knight page trying to find the movie it was in with Clint Eastwood, but many probably go to the Coogan's Bluff page to see what type of copter that was the CLint got out of in New York. All that is really needed in a link of the aircraft in the film article.

But the real problem will be in explaing to every gamer out there why his favorite game can't be listed. I have actually had a user ask me why films are notable but games aren't! (I'll try to find the post; it's in one of the 1700 pages I watchlist!) We in WP:AIR work very hard to limit appearences to those that are truly notable, but that is becoming increasingly difficult. Remember, Wikipedia is NOT a collection of indiscriminate list. And since it's becoming increasingly apparant that users like you don't want to abide by the existing limits, you may well find no place for pop-culture on Wikipedia at all. Or at least no place in WP:AIR and MILHIST. - BillCJ 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the aircraft having a notable or major role covers largely covers everything. Being one of several fighter options in a game or simulator and just seeing airplane in the background of a movie scene are minor. -Fnlayson 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Concorde

There appears to be an unusual editwar going on revolving around a disputed photograph. Can someone look at this? FWIW Bzuk 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

  • That's about this one British Airways Concorde taking off. The sourcing and rationale information is contradictory. It says someone created it, but it lists a web page it came from. -Fnlayson 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If you check the original site, you'll see that the copyright owner is the editor who released the picture into the public domain. That shouldn't be a problem for wikipedia.
This is copied from the home page of the site:
First Created: 6 August 1999 Last Revised: 16 July 2007
Copyright © 1999 John Hayles
e-mail: john@aeroflight.co.uk
Aeroflight, PO Box 238, Bristol, United Kingdom
(above unsigned comment by User:TraceyR

However, User:John Hayles does not actually exist, and if you look at the history, you'll see that the comment was actually added by User:Sparrowman980. If he has indeed obtained a release from John Hayles, I can find no evidence of it... -Rlandmann 09:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The link provided on the image page says it is copyright APG Photography, based in Wales! no mention of John Hayles other than copyright holder of the aeroflight website - not the image. MilborneOne 18:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIR own flag templates

BillCJ and MoRsE asked me is it possible to create our own flag templates. I'm sure it's possible from technical point of view but I'm not sure what about WP:Flags project members. Such templates can be sent to TfD as duplicating existing ones.

We use their flag templates currently for Operators section, lists of operators etc. and it's quite comfortable but... Main issue are changes in templates. Recently there was small edit war with Republic of China/Taiwan template which affected several articles in our project. As you know we have few thousand of articles about aircraft and some templates are used in hundreds of them. We have little influence on deletion, change or modification these templates and our own templates can be good idea. Comments are welcomed. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy to help out in exchanging the flags in case we adopt something like this. --MoRsE 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Piotr's right - duplicate templates will probably be TfD'ed pretty quickly; this issue is probably something we don't have much control over at a project-level. For what it's worth, the ROC/Taiwan edit warring has also made a huge mess of the aircraft categories that were caught in the middle of it. It really needs to be sorted out at a much higher level, but that's bound to be a long and acrimonious process that no-one seems to want to tackle. WikiProject:Ships uses naval ensigns instead of national flags; have we ever discussed using roundels for military operators? --Rlandmann 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well one thing that would help is ask WP:Flags project to run a bot to fix templates when they make changes. -Fnlayson 00:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Such bots are runned but bots doesn't fix changed description of flag :o) Piotr Mikołajski 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Several users have proposed using roundels, and a few have added them, but to this point, we (WP:AIR) haven't appproved using them. It might be an alternative, depending on what project has control of the existing roundels. (I don't know who, but if it's MILHIST, that shouldn't be a problem.)
An alternative in using flag templates is to change them in some way to better "fit" our purposes here, but for which the standard flags won't work. Might be a bit arbitrary, but if we can come up with a unique way to do the flags and country names, it would give us the control we need over the ones we use. As for motivation, we can say the flag project disputes are so disruptive (completely true!) that we decided to go with a different layout which required ne templates. We might combine the new layout with using the roundels. - BillCJ 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That last suggestion - combining flags and roundels - may very well give us the "point of difference" we would need to get away with a rash of new templates. I don't think that "control" of the roundels should be an issue; it's a responsibility that's logically shared between MILHIST and AIR. --Rlandmann 02:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
We'll see if anyone has some concepts or ideas to propose. It would be a lot work converting the old templates over, but once it's been done, it should pay off.
One idea, tho I don't know if it's technically do-able, is to add a small half-line or quarter-line space above each flag line. They tend to run together visually, and make distinguishing lines more dificult, as below:
Flag of Austria Austria
Flag of Brazil Brazil
Flag of Canada Canada
Flag of Chile Chile
Flag of Greece Greece
Minor quibble, yes, but maybe what we need to assert the need for our own templates. - BillCJ 02:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Roundels

I'm against using roundels from at least four reasons.

  1. Roundels are much less recognizable than flags. Who will recognize less common roundels when these will be about 20-25px in diameter?
  2. Many roundels are identical, just look at roundels of RAF, RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF in early fifties - all looked identically. Look at early roundels created during WWII - IIRC Russian and American ones were the same.
  3. Roundels are changed much often than flags. Which RAF roundel should we use for Spitfire? :o)
  4. Civil aircraft have no roundels.

Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

All valid points. Of course, most of them apply to flags as well, to a somewhat lesser degree. In each case, only the really famous and really distinctive flags/roundels are meaningful to most people. And, to me, using flags for non-government civil operators emphasises nationality without good reason. --Rlandmann 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Flags are better recognizable and flag is one for whole country. Roundels are often different for air force and naval operators like in Argrentine or France. Your point for civil operators is good but unfortunately we have no other way to group civil operators in case of commercial airliners, especially the most popular ones. Look at List of Boeing 747 operators article without such grouping - one big mess with hundreds of flags. With countries as section we can get few dozens of well editable categories and information is structured. Of course I'll make cleanup and standarization of this 747 article within day or two. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 10:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New Wikia

Just letting everyone know that Airframes is now up and running as a resource for individual airframe histories, serial numbers and registration numbers. I've started by moving the (deleted) B-17 serials article over there. Please come on over if you're interested in contributing there as well! --Rlandmann 23:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! Should be a big help! Rland, what are the rules regarding linking to the new Wiki? Basically the same as for other ELs? - BillCJ 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In a word - yes! Exactly the same; in this case, fine "for further reading" material, but not considered reliable as a source. (Airframes will no doubt evolve its own policies re: referencing and sources. This will eventually either raise or lower its acceptability as a source for Wikipedia articles...) --Rlandmann 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a look and it seems a good start, but I have a suggestion. Before there's an attempt to massively fill in data, some thought needs to be given to the format for how the entries are to be tracked — by construction numbers (which are often hard to track and correlate to other IDs) or by changeable devices such as registration numbers or service serial numbers. There are already differences for each of the aircraft listed so far. Cross-correlation of changing codes needs to be handled in a helpful manner, especially when there are multiples. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Move poll

I'm proposing moving Martin 167 back to Martin Maryland, where it was until moved last week by another editor. Please weigh in, whatever your view. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, since it was a US aircraft that actually had a US designation, the name most consistent with our conventions would be Martin XA-22. --Rlandmann 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I would agree with a move to Martin Maryland, Rlandmann has a valid point about the XA-22, although the RAF operated lot more aircraft and their was only one XA-22!. MilborneOne 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'll defer to MilborneOne's take on this - I was thinking in terms of the recent Douglas DB-7 → A-20 Havoc move, but with one and only one "XA-22" and with 450 "Martin Marylands", the analogy is closer to the Blackburn T.7B prototype discussed in the main Mitsubishi B2M article or the Gloster Gambet prototype in the Nakajima A1N article. --Rlandmann 01:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Martin Maryland would be preferable since it is a much more well-known appellation. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Country of Origin

Is there a particular reason why we don't/can't/shouldn't have a "County of origin" field in the aircraft infobox? I've seen the filed in infoboxes of aircraft pages on interwikik's, and often wondered why we don't do that too. I ocassionally see "American" in the first line of some aircraft articles here, but I hardly ever see "French" or "British" in the first line. I have seen "Canadian" on one article, but it was in front of "Canadair", to distinguish it from the Nigerian Canadair, most likely :) I would think Country of origin is an important fact, and is probably best indicatind in the infobox. SUre, we might have problems with some aircraft with mixed heritages (Harrier II, for example). For Airbus and other large collaborations, we could just use International. Comments? - BillCJ 00:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Great suggestion! But please let's not wiki it to Country or stick a flag next to it! --Rlandmann 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

TOTALLY concur! We could use "National origin" if that helps. - BillCJ 02:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • That's be alright with me. I like that better than in the text. It doesn't seem needed to me, but for someone not familiar with the aircraft and manufacturer, that would be useful. -Fnlayson 03:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What about aircraft developed/built by few countries, like Tornado or Airbus family? Piotr Mikołajski 10:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Strange but I find that is mainly the American aircraft that do not give the country of origin, which I add into the intro text if I notice. But I support BillCJ it would be a lot easier to have a country of origin in the infobox, we could just use International if it has more than one. MilborneOne 11:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
For aircraft developed by more than one country, we could do what Jane's does and note them as "International" (as BillCJ suggested). --Rlandmann 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I would support having country of origin. Heck, we already have that in the infoboxes for firearms over at the Wikiproject Firearms. Although I think that putting international is unnecessary as you could just put the countries of origin separated by slashes.--LWF 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but if individual countries were named we should still note that it's an international joint venture, to avoid confusion with a design originating in one country but being manufactured in others. Given the limited space available in the infobox, "International" just seems neater to me. --Rlandmann 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"International" is what Jane's uses, but I think a more appropriate term would be "Multinational", since there really isn't a true "international" program anywhere. And may we avoid the rush by deprecating the use of flags in the infobox field for this? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable accidents

Having worked with the new Aviation accident Task force on several ariticle s and accidents, I think it might be helpful to add "Notable" to the headings covering accidents and incidents. This may help to alleviate the tendency to add non-notable incidents to these sections. - BillCJ 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure and/or "Recent" if it applies. Neither is needed if there's only a few incidents and accidents though. -Fnlayson 17:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

ceiling merger

I just merged service ceiling and absolute ceiling into Ceiling (aeronautics). I'm the supposed to move all the linked page. Well, guess what, every aircraft on wikipedia is linked to service ceiling. Any help with what to do? Pdbailey 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, move it back! But seriously, you'll probably need to find a bot to do the changes for you. That's beyond my expertise, but someone here will know how.
Again, seriously, another editor on the Talk:Service ceiling page expressed questions and concerns about the move, and steted "if a merge is to take place some concensus is needed". What he was saying is you need to get a consensus before making the move, which you did not do, either by poll or otherwise. The advantage to getting a consensus is that you get others involved, and hopefully some of them have the experience and knowledge to help you with the necessary changes, such as finding a bot to change the links. Considering that these are articles which affect so many other pages, it might have been a good idea to ask some quetions here before making the move.
For now, it's probably best to hold off changing any links until some other editors have weighed in on the move. We'll be happy to help out in anyway, though, whatever the final decision here is. - BillCJ 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There's absolutely no need to change incoming links - that's why we have redirects. The only thing you need to be careful of when moving/merging pages is to check for and eliminate double-redirects. In other words, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having Service ceiling redirect to Ceiling (aeronautics), but if there are any other pages that redirect to Service ceiling, they need to be taken care of, since the Wiki software won't redirect more than once.
In fact, you shouldn't eliminate redirects after a page merge; since if at some future date the article grows to a point where a split becomes necessary, all the wikilinks are already in place. Consider - if you got rid of all the redirects in this particular instance, then if the content of the current article were ever spilt back out, the person making the split would need to review every single link to Ceiling (aeronautics) and try to work out whether that link should point to service ceiling or absolute ceiling. That would be, to put it mildly, a bad thing, since you "can't unmake an omelette" :) Repeat after me, folks: redirects are good, redirects are good. --Rlandmann 01:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the better solution would have been to have merged "absolute ceiling" into "service ceiling"; the latter term is better known and less confusing than "ceiling (aeronautics)", which a novice might think referred to the cabin roof or some such. Such a merge would also obviate all the need for relinking of redirects. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
He merged to Service ceiling, and then moved it to ceiling (aeronautics). Easy to move back if we need to, especially since he moved it without a clear concensus. - BillCJ 02:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Askari Mark, the solution was to merge absolute ceiling into service ceiling, but then the article title, "service ceiling" was inappropriate.Pdbailey 04:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but most folks who aren't pilots, aerospace engineers or airplane afficionados probably have never heard of "absolute ceiling" and probably wouldn't know the difference. I often look to published aircraft encyclopedias (e.g., Bill Gunston's books) as a guide for what a non-expert reader might be familiar with; "service ceiling" is a performance parameter that is extremely common; "absolute ceiling" is rare. Certainly there should be a section on the latter, but I'd probably edit the intro to include a statement like "Service ceiling should not be confused with absolute ceiling, which differs in that ...." This is not only a reasonable treatment of an uncommon term, but obviates any perceived need to fix scads of other links. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, there was not a single objection to the merge, everyone was for it--conditional on a new name for the article. But the name was up in the air with no clear winner. In picking the exact name I was being bold. I have no objection to moving the article after discussion and I'm happy that that discussion is happening here. Pdbailey 04:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see how you could interpret it that way, but the only way to know for sure is to ask the editor in question what he meant. If I misunderstood him, then I'm sorry. I genuinely feel he was asking for more discussion on the issue. - BillCJ 04:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable source?

On the F-22 Raptor page, user:90.240.101.73 added info here with this explanation: corrections from briefings at Paris by Programme Manager Larry Lawson. JN I have reverted it, and asked that he discuss it on the talk page. As I understand WP:ATTR and WP:V, this is not a verifiable source. Any help on Talk:F-22 Raptor would be appreciated (no discussion started yet). - BillCJ 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There might be a published version of the briefing (although it would have been prepared beforehand and might not address the point if it was raised during Q&A); if not, some secondary source is likely to report it sooner or later. Technically, though, the editor did not quite get it right. The F-22 can obviously transmit the sensor data; whether it can be received in a useful manner, however, depends on the receiving aircraft's datalinks and other systems. In time, I would imagine that other aircraft will receive system upgrades to enable them to do this, so it may be more a matter of "not yet" rather than "not ever". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Production data

Can I ask if the production figures given in individual type entries be standardized to the info box rather then text, and also that a separate page written to address how total production numbers are determined (where known). As most will know the numbers often vary wildly due to miscalculations, adding in pre-production airframes, and adding in conversions of earlier blocks. Some entries are wonderful, but usually only for the more well known aircraft. --Mrg3105 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The total built is supposed to be in the Infobox, but if someone wants to mention that in the text, that's OK too. The numbers should have referenced where ever they are. Listing the best info available is all one can do sometimes. -Fnlayson 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 777 up for FA

The Boeing 777 article has been nominated for Featured Article status. Add comments or vote as you see fit at FA candidate: Boeing 777. Thanks. -Fnlayson 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Didn't make it. It needs more development history, flight testing and stuff. See review comments at Boeing 777 FA review. -Fnlayson 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Black Buck

I've been reading various sources on this event in the Falklands War over the last 25 years and know just how complex and fraught a topic it is. Was the (at the time) longest bombing raid ever a decisive intervention, proving to the Argentines that Britain was serious and could strike at the mainland at will, or was it an over-hyped propaganda coup which actually achieved nothing when putting resources into more Sea Harriers would have been better? We seem to have a NPOV problem at Falklands War#Black Buck raids. Any expert help, by which I mean cool heads who understand the strategic complexity involved and preferably have access to good references (which I don't at present), would be gratefully received at Talk:Falklands War#Black Buck Raids. --John 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible corp-spam

Just found the Trek Aerospace Dragonfly page. It has only been edited once since Nov 05, and the only source is the company website. - BillCJ 17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I did some internet searches and most everything is on the company's page, wikipedia/wikipedia mirror site or a forum page. It does not seem to be important enough to get a news article done on it... -Fnlayson 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Jeff. I'll one of our resident admins to look at it, and see if it should be CSDed or AFDed. - BillCJ 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly well-known among the personal air vehicle (PAV) crowd (a little-known field), but there doesn't seem to be much online about it, although I found a few.[5] [6] Offline, there is apparently an SAE Aerospace Journal article on it.[7] There was also a Discovery Channel segment on it a couple years ago. As for whether there's COI, I imagine it would take a checkuser to determine this; I imagine someone at WP:COIN could do this. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently 60 Minutes covered it too (or so the manufacturers say). I'd say this one is borderline, but worth seeing if there's anything else in print. --Rlandmann 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for help in Macchi MC.200 and Macchi MC.205

A new editor, Stefanomencarelli has started to do some editing, concentrating on Italian subjects. He seems to have a good grasp of the subject but not such a good grasp on English grammar. No problem here but there is also some sketchy knowledge about the normal writing/editing/referencing that needs to take place. I will help as much as I can but I would encourage other editors to look over the articles every so often and also help his contributions. FWIW Bzuk 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Generic nav-box

Has anyone esle seen this? Someone converted Template:Harrier variants to the "generic nav-box - ewwww, it's mud ugly! Are we going to have to use this new style, or can the project stick to the previous style? - BillCJ 19:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The same with this edit in Template:RAF WWII Strategic Bombing. Of course I prefer previous style, like BillCJ. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 19:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

A-10 Thunderbolt II

Looks like the A-10 Thunderbolt II article got speedy deleted today because of a claim of copyright violation. See Talk:A-10 Thunderbolt II. Is there any way to recover it and fix things? I'm inclined to think the similar info came from the same source. Any help would be great. -Fnlayson 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. They quite clearly copied us. --Rlandmann 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Gripes

Article sections are supposed to help readers quickly locate the information they're looking for in long articles. I'd like to suggest that breaking up short articles (say 1-2 paragraphs of prose) into the standard "Development" and "Operational history" sections makes no sense. In most of these cases, there's not enough under either of these headings to make a decent paragraph, let alone a whole section. I'm talking about avoiding situations like this where we have a single sentence of introduction, two sentences of "Design and development" and another single sentence of operational history, each in a section of its own. What do others here think? (I'd still recommend leaving these sections within the article - commented out - for use if and when the article expands.)

Secondly, the layout we use automatically creates sections for variants, operators, and the like. In these same short 1-2 paragraph articles, this results in a page with a huge automatically-generated Table of Contents down the left-hand side, our infobox on the right-hand side, and ugly whitespace in the middle (see the same example referenced above). Can we agree to use the __NOTOC__ feature to suppress the auto Table of Contents in these cases?

Finally, using the ;something syntax instead of the :something syntax to lay out variants (and, to a lesser degree, operators) results in a doubling of vertical space in a section - to contain exactly the same amount of content. Compare the variants section here with the one here to see what I mean. Can we please stop doing this?

Whinge over! --Rlandmann 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Formatting with the semicolon simplifies the bolding, but it means putting the other text on the next line. Hence the extra vertical space. Using bullets and bold formatting is not much worse, so we should do it. -Fnlayson 17:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I find that the section formatting example doesn't bother me at all; instead, I see it as an invitation to other editors to flesh them out. As for the list syntax, I agree with Rlandmann and prefer the former example to the latter. Wikipedia articles already suffer from too much white space and the ";" approach simply aggravates it for no clear gain. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, few comments.

  1. Short paragraphs - I disagree. For average editor it's much easier to edit / expand existing section than "inventing it" from the beginning. There is a lot of articles with "invented" sections and all are just extra cleanup work for other editors. A lot of articles are short but can be developed by new editors from different countries - compare initial version of the PZL Ł.2 with the current one or initial PZL P.6 and PZL P.6 now.
  2. __NOTOC__ - I can agree that we shouldn't use it when whole article is visible on standard 17" monitor with standard 1024x768 resulution. When article is longer, TOC starts to be useful and helpful.
  3. semicolon bolding (;) - both of you are against extra vertical space but you forgot two things: this is not paper and reading from the screen is much harder, especially for older users or those with visual disabilities. I've cleaned up several dozens of cluttered articles where someone wanted to keep all things in one line. We are not magazine editors and we don't have to put whole article in just half of the A4 page. We don't print that article so we can use more space and we should take care about uncluttered and easy to read layout. Cluttered layout without white space is against web accessibility and readability.

Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn’t forget them. That WP is not paper and white space can be used to enhance readability do not mean that, say, changing to double-, triple- or even quadruple-spacing – just because we can – will make an article better in all ways. (Frankly, a different font could do that better than anything else.) The key with white space is its effective use, not just having it. Most accessibility tools offer magnification windows to be scrolled over the full-screen image, so white space in of itself contributes little of practical benefit for this purpose; only tools that permit wrapping of enlarged-font size text enhances limited-accessibility usage, according to my friends and coworkers who have such challenges. Besides, most of the examples I’ve seen of semicolon bolding are of lists where the text doesn’t exceed half the normal page width; all it seems to accomplish is more vertical page scrolling. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think for the Operators sections, the ; style works best. Having the county on one line and the armed forces listed below it works better in allowing info such as totals to be added easily. For variants, I can see both views. When writing a list from scratch, the ; saves a lot of typing (1 character verses at least 6). My question is: Is there a formatting shortcut that accomplishes what the ; does, but without forcing the following text onto the next line? THat would be helpful somewhat. As to the issue of whitespace, I view on a 15-inch, 800x600 screen, so I'm doing alot of scrolling anyway. (I'm pretty proficiant with my scroll-wheel.) I do have some mild vision problems, so I definitely prefer the uncluttered look. If we could find a way to strike a compromise - limit the clutter while reducing whitespace - that might be a good soulution. I'm not familar with the formatting options available in Wiki markup, so it may not be possible. At least we should explore some options,a nd see what we can come up with. - BillCJ 22:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against white space; like Askari Mark, I'm against wasted white space, which is all that semicolon bolding in the variants section achieves in practically every case. Actually, I'll go further and say that since semicolon bolding forces the heading of a new subsection to line up with the text of the subsection above it, it becomes visually confusing. For an example of this, look at the final entry here, where the words Breguet de Chasse appears to be part of the subsection above it, rather than the heading of a new subsection. The dot-points that we've always used make the relationship between variants completely unambiguous. I'm open-minded on the operators section, I don't think it really makes much difference there one way of the other, since each line there is usually just a few words.
I see your point but it's personal perception. For me it's uncluttered layout, accessible and readable, for you it's just wasting of space. I disagree with Askari Mark too - readability of articles should be aimed to anyone, people using specialized tools (magnifiers, custom CSS files etc.) are real minority. It's my job and I see that screenreaders, magnifiers, custom CSS and other tools are used by percent of percent users. Unfortunately we are very limited in formatting here and I think we don't find solution via formatting.
IMHO real solution is moving content of really expanded Variants and Operators sections into new articles - List of X variants / X variants (we have to make guideline here) and List of X operators. When you look at articles about well known US, UK or German aircraft from WWII, you'll find that there is a lot mess and overload of info which can easily make good separate article. I've made some such articles like Hawker Hurricane variants or List of Hawker Hurricane operators. With these two articles main Hawker Hurricane looks much better but IMHO still needs copyedit/cleanup in Variants section. - Piotr Mikołajski 08:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the microsections - note that I'm specifically recommending that we leave the standard section headings within the article, but commented out. That way, when anyone hits the edit button, they can immediately see that there are sections reserved for more details on these specific areas, and that they are ready there for them to "fill in the blanks". We're writing an encyclopedia, not a database, and one-and-two sentence sections are simply not encyclopedic, in that encyclopedia articles are generally written in connected prose. Remember too that our primary responsibility is to readers, not to making life easier for our fellow editors, and I submit that all that chopping short articles up into these microsections achieves is disjointedness and a decrease in readability. --Rlandmann 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you don't put commented headings inside that text, all headings are after article text. For average editor it doesn't matter, he have no idea what that commented part means. Look at some changes made by new editors - most of them have real problems with templates, formatting etc., don't expect they will realize that some text is commented and that this text is set there with purpose in mind.
I still think that microsections are better. Quick look on such sliced article makes clear how much info is needed in article and makes it clear where new editors have to put their edits. One big text with commented headings after it looks like finished article and many people can avoid editing it due to different reasons. I'm one of them - look at my edits, I really avoid to write long text sections because my English is IMO still far from being good enough to write encyclopedia quality articles in English. For non-native English speaking person it's really easier to add 1-2 lines than rebuild whole entry. - Piotr Mikołajski 08:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Replying to BillCJ - I guess this could be a compromise - it keeps the simpler editing, but forces section text to line up with section headings. The editor just has to remember to count colons and semicolons carefully in the instances where we describe sub-sub-types and sub-sub-sub-types. I still think it commands a lot of real estate for very little content though. --Rlandmann 22:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I still think that it's easier to count one or two colons and semicolons than counting 6 or 10 apostrophes for each bolded or bolded and italicized text. Oh, and don't forget that bulleting needs a lot of attention too - make space between subbulleted litst and you get mess like in sample below.
  • It's easy
    • It's easy too
    • Well, is it really easy?
    • It seems that something is broken ;)
Maybe we can try this solution which is mix of both:
Name of variant
  • Description of variant
Name of subvariant
  • Description of subvariant
This is still readable and IMHO still easy to use - semicolon and bullet (; and *) for variant, two semicolons and colon with bullet (;; and :*) for subvariant. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 08:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Double and triple ; will acheieve the same indentation we're use to with :. (I just learned that yesterday!) As for the microsections, I agree with Rlandmann. Commenting out the section headings will accomplish the same thing from an editorial standpoint. If possible, we should still try to have separate lead and main sections, but if not, one or two well-written paragraphs should suffice. - BillCJ 22:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Helicopter accidents

I created Category:Helicopter accidents and seeded it with several articles. Please apply this tag to any other articles as appropriate. Dhaluza 01:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • That needs to be limited to accident type articles. Otherwise most every helicopter model article could be in it. -Fnlayson 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I revised the category page so it now says: "Category for articles detailing Helicopter accidents and incidents." This would exclude the type articles, unless details on a particular accident were merged there. If you check the cat listings you will see other articles not specifically about an accident that are included for this reason, such as: Jane Dornacker and Twilight Zone: The Movie. This cat is intended to capture that type of article as well. Dhaluza 09:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Vichy French Air Force

I would need some input here. Could the Vichy French Air Force (Armée de l'Air de Vichy) be considered to be an separate air force from the Armée de l'Air? I'm hesitating to create such an article and would like some input here before I start doing anything. --MoRsE 07:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough of the historical background to comment on it, so I'll stick to the article-content side: I'd say if there's enough content that differs from what is in the current History article, then it might be a good idea to have a separate page. Such content could include organization/structure, aircraft, etc. But if most of this type of info is already covered in other articles, and fits well there, then it's probaly good to leave well enough alone. My two bits (25 cents for non-Americans) :) - BillCJ 07:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
From political and international law point of view Vichy France was France after surrender to Germany. Vichy government was recognized by UK and USA and had legal authority in whole France - both occupied zone and free one, even after 1942. Vichy government ruled up to 1944, later became government in exile in Germany.
Unfortunately it's not so easy because there was Free France movement which became legal government in 1944, recognized by Allies. From my POV it were two separate French governments, more or less like West Germany and East Germany after WWII. IMHO we should show that there were separate armed forces and many French related articles have different info about Free France and about Vichy France, like Morane-Saulnier M.S.406#Operators. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Both the Vichy and Free French air forces were part of the historical French air forces; just think of the Adl'A as being schizophrenic during most of WWII. I'm unclear on what you're trying to create, though. Your links go to extant articles on the Vichy AF and Adl'A. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Individual owners list

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

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

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

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

Per this diff, the editor believes the Five Pillars forbid ANY Trivia or pop-culture refernces in non-related articles. I wish he was right! However, hopefully his actions will get a clarification on the issue, and perhaps we CAN get them banned! - BillCJ 18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Even if I think he is right, this is not the way to go about this. He disregarded any normal discussion and launched into wholesale attacks. There is not even a check on the consensus that you and others had established about making sure that the articles reflect other editors' contributions. FWIW Bzuk 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
I'm an admin. How can I help? Please read WP:AGF, by the way. Just because a user makes changes you don't like doesn't mean they're in bad faith. --Eyrian 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The V-22 Osprey as well. The F-15 Transformers entry was agreed upon on the F-15 talk page and here. The F-22 one was discussed at length on the that article's talk page. -Fnlayson 18:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Check the talk page. Consensus there is clear. --Eyrian 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus there or on any of the pages that had popular culture sections removed. In fact, all of the affected pages showed a long and consistent edit history of editors who had carefully screened submissions in these areas. This recent series of deletions seems motivated by a singular editor's notions about popular culture and not driven by the consensus of the group. IHHO Bzuk 18:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
Talk: V-22 Osprey#Pop Culture, largely uncontested. And these are hardly singular notions, I assure you. These are trivia; unanalyzed appearances in fiction are inconsequential (from teh dictionary definition of trivia) to our understand of the subject. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection (WP:FIVE), and should not collect trivia. --Eyrian 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that trivial information is not acceptable but when many editors have submitted material over an extended period that links the impact of a particular type of aircraft into the public psyche than that transcends the insignificant and trivial. Would you remove a mention of the the Battle of Britain (film) when discussing the Supermarine Spitfire or Top Gun (film) when establishing what the general public knows about the F-14 Tomcat? The fact that all the aforementioned references have been provided and affirmed in many other reference sources gives more credence to the argument that the aircraft type has made a substantial connection with the populace. One of the first reference sources on the Avro Lancaster culminates with the examination of the use of the bomber in the Dam Busters (film). The fact that you are probably not alone in your assertions regarding the value of popular culture is countered by the legions of other editors who have contributed these "pop" references. I maintain that proper consultation or discussion did not take place in the recent exchange of edits and reversions. I do not find your name in the "talk" pages nor do I find a call for consensus. If you wish to do so, please go ahead and I and other editors would gladly abide by the decisions of a consensus on the topic of popular culture. I do not ascribe "good faith" to the type of actions that were exhibited in the last instances. FWIW Bzuk 18:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
Actually, I think that every one of those references should be deleted. And I doubt more than a handful of people associate the F-14 with Top Gun. And, unless there are citations to the contrary, fundamental scepticism is the rule. Whatever you may think that a list proves, it doesn't. To try and use these lists to prove something is, in fact, an examination of primary sources to advance a position; i.e. original research. Again, good faith is a matter of whether an editor is trying to improve the encyclopedia. That is what I am trying to do here. --Eyrian 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I will accept the contention that your intentions are in good faith but your actions belie the fact that you did not approach the discussion pages when making major alterations in an aviation article. As to whether your opinion holds sway, set up a direct and unambiguous request for consensus on the wholesale elimination of all popular culture references and let the consensus decide. FWIW Bzuk 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
I really don't think that deleting a popular culture section is a major alteration to such fine articles. The number of (non-disclaimer) bytes changed was tiny, and all that was removed was a small section. Check WP:AFD if you have any doubt about where these references are headed. Indeed, one might say that it's better for the lists to become over-long, as they will eventually become bindingly deleted. Their obvious faults are made even clearer when brought to their natural conclusion. --Eyrian 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
In your lawyerly way, you're avoiding the question. Any revision, including removing a section, that changes the article in a substantive way is a major revision. If you felt these changes were necessary, then they should have been addressed in the proper forum, the "discussion" page of the affected article. If you want to remove all popular culture references because that is your "bent" then request a consensus for other editors to "weigh in." MOTS Bzuk 19:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
When I see original research, I remove it. When I see vandalism, I remove it. When I see violations of the BLP policy, I remove it. When I see violations of notability, I nominate them for deletion. I don't think that every change made in compliance with policy needs to be discussed on the talk page; that's just approaching bureaucratic paralysis. Please read WP:BOLD --Eyrian 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the key issue here is a difference of interpretation of Wikipedia Policy. You beleive it doesn't follow policy, and are thus acting accordingly. However, there are MANY editors, admins included, who disagree. Can you cite a single sentence that explicitly forbids sourced, notable pop-culture appearances? If you can cite such a CLEAR statement, I'll join you in taking ALL the pop-culture sections out of the articles. You may be able to string some policies together to imply they sould not be allowed, but again, that's interpretation. WP:AIR and MILHIST have tried to form guidelines restricting pop-culture to "notable" appearences because they are not in fact forbidden. I and a lot of other editors in these 2 projects wish they were, but they aren't!
The best course of action for you at this point is to stop removing the appearences for now, and get a clarification on Policy on the issue. (I've not been around long enough to know how exactly to do that, or what it would be called.) If it comes back that is its in fact forbidden, again, I'll help you take it out. If it's allowed, or at least unclear, then I'd support you in trying to get it expressly forbidden, or at least allow Projects to do so on their own. - BillCJ 19:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Bill I wholeheartedly agree with you, and as you know, I was not fighting for the retention of the "Popular culture" references because, as you know, I have been as vociferous as any other editor in removing trivial and inconsequential submissions. I felt that there was an "attack" taking place by conceivably a very knowledgable and skilled editor but one who had not taken the proper course of action in seeking a consensus to underline the actions taken. I can see that there are strong feelings and emotional stakes here but I just as strongly felt that what needed to happen was to protect the articles (as is) first and then asking for direction from the group. FWIW Bzuk 19:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
Please voice your opinion here. --Eyrian 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd characterize it more as a "campaign" than as an attack, with the former being a more "neutral" term. In addition his is risking far more with continued reversions that a regular user, because, as admin, he would be held to a higher standard by any reviewing admins or 'crats if they felt his actions were over the line. I do agree something ought to be done, but that way is not the way I learned/was taught to do things on Wikipedia. - BillCJ 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll confess, I don't think I take the 3RR as seriously as I might. I don't like to block people for it (though I could've, several times). --Eyrian 19:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
All of the justifications about "boldness" and the statement that major changes need not be discussed appear disingenuous. When the "campaign" had all the earmarks of an editwar by an editor who had not previously made major contributions to the articles, what would you expect others to think? All of the above commentary about the reasons to exclude popular culture could have very easily been brought to this or other forums or individual discussion pages to seek out a consensus for change and the simple expedient of checking the edit history for the sections being deleted would have quickly indicated that robust checks and balances had already been established by a number of editors and that the topic of establishing notoriety was an ongoing one. Nevertheless, this is my penultimate word on the "campaign", "crusade", "mission" or whatever. FWIW Bzuk 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

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

Let me weigh in here as a regular Aircraft Project editor and an admin:
  1. There seems to be a persistent confusion, making "pop culture" references synonymous with "triva". WP:FIVE is then cited for wholesale deletions of pop culture sections. First, that's a false equality. The deleting editor should take it upon himself to justify, on the talk pages first, why pop culture sections are necessarily trivia. To make such an equality is an opinion, not a point of guideline. Second, WP:FIVE says "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection" (emphasis added). That's a statement of the overall nature of Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that WP can't have any information in it that could be considered by some to be trivia.
  2. Eyrian, please respect consensus, and what's more, please join in the conversation rather than just voicing your opinion but cutting material out. And when I say "please respect consensus", what I mean is please respect the official policy of Wikipedia:Consensus, which says that if you make a change that is reverted, like your have done, don't revert the revert, but instead, take it to the talk page. You get one shot and a change, and if others disagree, you can't keep trying to force your opinion on the rest of us...you must take it to the talk page.
  3. Major aircraft are bound to become not just vehicles for transportation, but cultural icons. The F-14 and Top Gun are a good example. The Navy participated in the filming, spending a lot of money on gas, not all of which was reimbursed by the film company. Why? Because they viewed it as a great marketing/recruiting tool, and the numbers they got as a result proved they were right. Hueys have become a symbol of Viet Nam. Blackhawks have become a symbol of U.S. intervention. So when these aircraft show up in major pop culture artifacts, that is very arguabley notable (which would then make it not trivial).
So, in conclusion: 1) stop the edit warring! 2) talk! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, WP:Trivia says to avoid/minimize trivia sections or lists, not that they are prohibited altogether. -Fnlayson 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point...for Eyrian's benefit, I'd like to quote one line from that: "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, it is recommended (when possible) to integrate items into the article text." I would have expected an admin to respect that point. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I can assure you, I'm well aware of the appropriate guidelines and policies. I've long maintained that Popular culture sections are not trivia sections. Trivia sections contain isolated facts that are about the subject of the article. Popular culture sections contain references in other works (which are generally trivial). I don't generally remove trivia sections. Please note the difference between a trivia section and trivial references. --Eyrian 17:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
        • They why are you deleting such sections wholesale, without discussion? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Because Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Entries in a trivia section can be integrated into the article. Bare-mention pop-culture references cannot. The former can be useful, the latter never can, and will always remain trivia. Therefore, per WP:FIVE ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection"), it has to go. --Eyrian 18:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Ok, I'm confused. First you say that pop culture sections are not trivia sections. Then you say that you're removing pop culture sections because they're trivia. So, I go back to my earlier statement...the guideline for trivia sections says you shouldn't simply delete whole sections, and the consensus policy says that after your change is reverted once, you should take it to the talk page. Don't over-use WP:FIVE - it's an intro page, not a policy or guideline page. It speaks of the whole encyclopedia, but doesn't prohibit some material that's considered trivia. Bottom line, please respect the principle of discussion and consensus, even when, in the end, you don't agree with the consensus. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
              • As I said (and made certain to differentiate explicitly), there is a difference between a trivia section about the subject of the article, and the trivial cultural references. And the five pillars transcend policy; policy is written to enforce those pillars. Consensus isn't relevant when it goes against the fundamental tenets of the encyclopedia. It doesn't, for example, matter how many people want original research to be acceptable, it's just not the way things work here.--Eyrian 18:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

..and, prithee, who might yee be that you have such a sweeping generalization about the doodlers here resident. FWIW Bzuk 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
  • Whoah!! Whatever happened to Assume Good Faith? It seems rather extreme to leap from a discussion about what the best way of dealing with items of tangential importance to the main article to suddenly start talking about conspiracies and threatening un-named editors with having their contributions purged from the system. Discussion is needed - and not just here - about what constitutes Trivia and what can be kept if properly cited, and how to control the build-up of such items without overloading the original articles or driving off (mainly new) editors who don't understand why something that they feel is important or relavent (even if most don't) has been deleted. Nigel Ish 18:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing that was removed from the aforementioned articles could be considered "doodleing" or solely the work of a few keystrokers. You should check before casting blame. -Fnlayson 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone notice the comment that "Consensus isn't relevant"? My doth think the lady does protest too much? Definitely my last addled thoughts on this subject. FWIW Bzuk 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

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

You, my anonymous friend, do not have a clue and to characterize the editors who responded here as part of the clique of conspirators wanting to keep trivia in and act as "thugs", is so completely off the mark, that it defies comment. The editors whose work you malign have been absolutely resolute on the topic of keeping trivial and non-notable nonsense out of aviation articles, yet recieve this type of baseless attack? FWIW Bzuk 03:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC).
BillZ, this is apparently the same guy who thinks "lost" aircraft, when referring to damaged/destroyed airframes, means "they got lost due to navigational error." After we had the SR-71 page protected, he began posting notes on people's pages about me being a "vandel" (his spelling). I believe you may have got one of them, and he sent out at least 2 today. As long as he keeps ou this kind of behavior, I wouldn't tak anything his says, does, or comments on seriously. To the anon IP, I say this: If you really want to contribute seriously to Wikipedia, register, stop acting like a dork, and treat people with respect. Everyone should have a second or third chance to get beyond their mistakes. Don't ruin yours. - BillCJ 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

BAC One-Eleven

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

As I recall, the proper designation is "BAC 1-11"; "BAC One-Eleven" is a colloquialism. The issue certainly should be resolved on the talk page. Unfortunately, not all IP users read it. The best we can do with them is keep reverting and in the edit comment continue inviting them to discuss it on the talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The proper name in One Eleven which is why the article is so named. I have provided a reference to the UK type certificate on the talk page. Although as you say the IP user does not appear to read it. Interestingly he/she only changes the intro and infobox despite the fact that the term One-Eleven is use throughout the article. Have changed it back with comment as suggested. Anybody know of suitable template or words to put on the IP users talkpage to invite them to discuss. MilborneOne 07:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the reversions are made without explanation or clarification and certainly whenever a major change is made in an article, it should be first discussed on the "talk" page. Perhaps having the article temporarily protected from IP editing may alleviate the problem. I still find it irksome when "anons" hide behind IP addresses and yet make major revisions. IMHO (speaking from my god-like stature of course) [:¬∆ Bzuk 07:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC).

Questionable EL

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

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

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

Explain to me why that is spam, so that I know how to define it. Those pages don't seem to be heavy with ads, but do seem to have a lot of images. Why wouldn't a surfer want to find a link like that, as they are reading cool Wikipedia Articles of airplanes they like? --Colputt 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good question. It's simple when someone seemingly connected to the site puts those a site's links in multiple articles (spamming). I'm not sure about the sites themselves, since many have some type of ad banner or pop-up ads. -Fnlayson 01:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

@Colputt - it's general policy to be sparing with external links (see the policy here); partially because of the ephemeral nature of the web (remembering that we're trying to create something of lasting value here, re-usable by others far into the future), and partially so that our articles don't get overwhelmed - we simply don't need or want a link to every man and his dog who has a website with a few photos of a MiG-21.
Wikipedia has an ongoing problem with people who want to use the encyclopedia simply as a means of driving traffic to their sites (see here). This is viewed as a form of abuse, and always follows the same predictable pattern that occurred in this incident - the insertion of multiple links to the same site across a wide range of Wikipedia articles (as Fnlayson noted above) - several dozen in this case; some articles were given several links to various pages of the same site. When this sort of thing occurs, it's regarded prima facie as less of an attempt to improve Wikipedia, and more of an attempt to advertise somebody's private website.
There are many kinds of external link that are really helpful in aircraft articles - links to manufacturers, airlines, air forces, and museums spring to mind. There are also some private websites that really stand out for their treatment of their subjects - Rob de Bie's site on the Me 163 for one example. In the words of our external link policy, these do indeed "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail".
In this particular instance, however, the website offered our readers nothing that they couldn't easily and immediately obtain from an image search engine. Furthermore, since (unlike, say airliners.net), it seems very doubtful whether the site's creator has licences for the images that are being reproduced on the site, this sort of link is undesirable both because we don't know how long it will be before they get a take-down notice, and because it's at odds with the respect that Wikipedia gives to others' intellectual property. --Rlandmann 03:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank You Rlandmann, it makes much more sense to me now. It is another thing I will keep in the back of my mind as I create new articles in my own quest to find the noteable US Military Aircraft of the 1920s and 30s. --Colputt 02:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There's more in the WP:EL policy page. Like no forum pages. -Fnlayson 03:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Novi Avion

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

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

Fokker ribs requiring some meat

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

I've got these on the back burner. Some of the models described are prototypes or one-off developments of existing designs that should simply redirect to articles we already have; others can and should be at least stubbified as distinctive types of their own. For the time being, I was even wondering whether this information could simply be merged into the main Fokker article until someone has time to sort it all out? Any objections? --Rlandmann 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
IMHO that would be the best thing to do. Normally we wouldn't break them out into separate articles until there's sufficient information available to do so. Perhaps we should add a section (maybe someday to be a separate article) on "Fokker prototypes". Askari Mark (Talk) 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be enough significance for these designs to rate a separate article. They probably fit best within other major Fokker articles. FWIW Bzuk 05:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC).
Agreed in most cases; but there are a very few I noticed when I first ran my eye over them that are indeed unique breeds that would (all else being equal) be eligible for separate articles at some point in the future. But for now, I think I'll go ahead and merge them. --Rlandmann 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I created the new template because of the serious fundamental problems with Template:Aircraft specifications when dealing with anything other than the most mainstream of aircraft. It's worse than useless with whole categories of aircraft including lighter-than-air, sailplanes, and many aircraft of even slightly unconventional design (including God forbid anything that might have rotors and wings...)
Furthermore, the design of Template:Aircraft specifications is based heavily on addressing problems that never really existed; the reason why units are specified as "main" and "alt" rather than coding them directly as metres, feet, etc was to address the concerns of a single voiciferous user in 2005 who never contributed a single aircraft article in his entire time on Wikipedia and yet was deeply concerned about the units this project was using. Likewise, the template is seriously bloated with fields for things that are rarely if ever present in our sources and even more seldom actually contributed to articles; such as airfoil sections and power-to-weight ratios. These were inserted as part of a "top down" effort by certain editors who felt that these should be included; when pragmatically, virtually no contributor was ever contributing them.
Template:Aircraft specifications is fundamentally flawed both practically and philosophically, and I've been trying to refine something better. Template:Aerospecs now working well (I think) across an incredibly diverse range of flying machines; and I guess now that the question has come up, I'm asking the project to endorse it at the very least as an acceptable alternative to the current abomination. In time, of course, I'd like to see the one completely replace the other, but it's very early days yet to be calling for such a radical and widespread change. --Rlandmann 11:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Why does the Aerospec template not have an layout example on the talk page or below the code? -Fnlayson 13:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Template:Aerospecs does appear to be less intuitive than Template:Aircraft specifications (of course - this may be because I'm used to Template:Aircraft specifications. One MAJOR problem with Aerospecs is that it does not allow for citing sources - Citing is important and not allowing citing of the specs makes it harder to see whether correct/sensible data has been used and to fill in gaps for missing bits of information (and citing this information) - in a worst case , using a template that doesn't allow citing runs the risk that good information could be deleted as uncited, something we all should want to avoid. Nigel Ish 15:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It is good that it adresses some of the shortcomings, but I am a little concerned that the layout and appearance is a little different. --MoRsE 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
@Fnlayson - Template:Aerospecs isn't properly documented yet, since I'm still treating it as a work-in-progress. Up to now, I haven't been inviting anyone else to use it (although I've noticed at least one other editor doing so). If and when the template receives any sort of sanction for general use, I'll be more than happy to document it properly. If you read it in the context of Template:Aerostart, which I use for setting up articles, it will make more sense, since it's commented in that version.
@Nigel - I'd also like to think that the level of intuitiveness is a matter of habit; after all, what's more intuitive - specifying dimensions as "alt", "main" and "original" or "m", "ft" and "in"? As for citing - specifications are flat, uncontroversial facts, and not the sorts of things that ought to require direct citation. WP:CITE asks for citations only for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". If a specification is controversial for some reason (for example a claim about speed or range), then this controversy is surely noteworthy enough to be discussed in the body of the article and ought to be cited there. However, having used it in well over 400 aircraft so far, I've yet to find a specification contentious enough to warrant a direct citation (exactly the kind of thing I've been hoping to learn about the template).
@MoRsE - How do you see the layout differing? I've tried to ensure that it's the same to minimise any possible disruption to the project while I work on this. The appearance is slightly different for, again, some quite deliberate reasons; practically, because certain fields in Template:Aircraft specifications are quite clearly over-precise compared to most of the sources that provide the specifications for most of our articles. The worst offender is identifying gross weight with MTOW. MTOW is a specific gross weight, a regulatory concept related to airworthiness and certification. When a source specifies a weight as gross (or even "maximum") it may be quoting an MTOW figure, but in a vast number of instances (particularly for historic aircraft) there's no grounds for simply assuming this. I have similar but lesser misgivings about identifying maximum speed with VNO; in many cases this will be anachronistic and/or irrelevant. More generally, I hold that the field names simply don't need to be wikied, since most of these links are of very marginal utility ("service ceiling" is perhaps the only one of the basic specifications whose meaning is not necessarily immediately obvious to someone without specialist knowledge) and to my mind this is outweighed by their eyesore value! --Rlandmann 21:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So - referencing information isn't important? If information isn't cited - how does anyone know what source has been used and how credible it is - We shoudln't just shrug our shoulders and say "Well its somewhere in one of the references - it doesn't matter where!" People do make mistakes sometimes - and having proper sources can help to see if mistakes have been made. Nigel Ish 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
No less, and (significantly) no more important than any other piece of uncontroversial information here. Insisting on a direct cite for specifications considerably over-reaches WP:CITE. There's no policy that demands this, not even any guideline that does. The [1] current[2] vogue[3] on[4] Wikipedia[5] for[6] wanting[7] to[8] cite[9] every[10] individual[11] fact[12] or[13] set[14] of[15] facts[16] in an article is, to my mind, inconsistent with building an encyclopedia (though perfectly at home in a term paper). All it really achieves is a general decrease in readability, since the sources are generally not easily checkable by other editors, let alone casual readers, and I designed the template on that premise. As I said to BillCJ below, if people want to add citations, the template in no way prevents them from doing so, but it does dispense with the misleading illusion in Template:Aircraft specifications that this is somehow mandatory. My personal belief it that over-referencing is nothing more than a fashion -one of many that comes and goes here over the years. But that last point is of course just my own 2 cents' worth. --Rlandmann 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Just re-reading that - it may come across as more fierce than I really mean it to be. Yes, over-referencing is a "hot button" for me - but I know that this is an unfashionable view at the moment - the last thing I want anyone to feel is that I'm somehow attacking them personally, so please read my remarks in that light! :)
I am guilty of using the new template! I find it a lot easier to use. I dont see a need to cite directly in the template as source documents I use are always listed under references. I would support its adoption. MilborneOne 21:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the new template overall, but I do think it needs to be expanded to include a few of the options in the old one, sucha s armament and avionics. In particular, I don't see why the ref option should not be included. I find it very useful when adding data, and I like to know where data came from, as we all know of sources that are notorious for bad data. Having the ref in the specs makes it clear in no uncertain way where the data came from. You don't have to use it, but I really don't see the need for excluding it. I do like the eng/met toggle, which is nice, and saves alot of work if it needs to be changed from one to the other. - BillCJ 22:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Armaments are already in there (in a much more flexible form than in Template:Aircraft specifications). Avionics are deliberately not, since this is another example of information that seems quite reasonable in include in theory, but in practice is (a) seldom provided in sources (b) seldom contributed even when it is available and (c) isn't the sort of information that's ever shown in the specifications sections of encyclopedia-calibre works. As for specs, if for some reason anyone wants to provide a reference for specs, they can of course do so by inserting ref tags the same way they would do with any other piece of information, so the option is already there by default; it's not excluded in any way. On the other hand, building such a section into the template tends to make it look like a requirement, which really over-reaches WP:CITE. --Rlandmann 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't having ONE ref line in the specs be alot better than people adding refs after every indivilual spec they want to references? THe alternative is putting one or two sources just above the template itself, but it's going to be done is a hap-hazard form. THe ref line formatting ensures some uniformity in that. I can see how you'd be against over-referencing, but I honestly fail to see how excluding the ref line is going help that any. To me, the specs are an important part of the info we present, and I also like knowing where the specs I added came from, as my memory is pretty bad! I personally think sourcing specs should be required, as I like to know where they come from without having to hunt through a bunch of sources. However, I can live with it being an option - I just don't understand excluding the line at all, as that would needlessly complicate the whole situation. Now as far as the format of the ref title goes, I'm OK with how it looks, but wouldn't have a problem with a diferent style either. - BillCJ 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
BillCJ, your logic is inescapable! Much as I despise the trend, if people are going to provide a reference for the spec section, it makes sense that it should be in a standard format and not, as you say in any haphazard format. I've just implemented a ref parameter in the template that will output a citation in the same format that Template:Aircraft specifications uses (ie "Data from"). --Rlandmann 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Every once in a while my logic comes out that way by accident! ANyway, life on WIki is about compromise. I could I'd give up the avionics field in exchange, but I don't ever use it! - BillCJ 04:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry - nobody else does either! :) --Rlandmann 05:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Just for your information, there are some templates that possibly could be worked into the current one (with some modifications of course), these are Template:M to ft in and Template:Ft in to m. This could save (me for instance) some time to try to figure out how many feets and inches a certain metric length is. As for the templates, I would love to see the adapted template include the data for helicopters as well, whether it be the new or the old one. As for the Template:Aerostart, it is very good if you manage to fill in all information required. However, if you don't, the appearance seems a little unfinished, with some part of data required (met=) and a lot of whitespace due to the invisible headers, see e.g. [8]. As for Rlandmann's question, I believe now that it was merely the links in the older template, which were missing in the new one, that caught my eye. This is easily corrected though. --MoRsE 06:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I realised the problem with the whitespace and rectified it some time ago, although some older articles still display the problem. (met=) is indeed required; there may be a switch that I'm not aware of that could force the template to assume SI units unless specified otherwise? I'll take a look. This template already supports helicopters and always has; however, some editors have been deleting unused fields from actual articles - so perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from? I'll very vigorously resist any attempt to "correct" the new template by installing links into the field descriptions, for the practical and aesthetic reasons I gave above. --Rlandmann 07:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I now remember why I made the switch compulsory rather than using an if/then/else - so that the template could be saved in the code of an article "dormant" in the few rare cases where we had no meaningful specifications available (like here). --Rlandmann 07:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(I think I got the indent level right) To my mind the issues to be addressed here are
  • that we will end up having two templates for the same role - not good
  • that an editor, having his own concerns as to the content (the units issue aside), developed a template that addressed these concerns rather than working to have them implemented by extending the existing template
  • that a work-in-progress is spun off into numerous articles before it is complete and properly documented for others to use. (with the result that we have 400 now using it which is more than necessary for testing and refining).

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

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

  • It's highly unlikely we're going to end up having two templates for the same role; one is almost certain to win out in the end. In any case, even if it didn't; it's really no big deal if one lingers on for a while until natural attrition picks it off. The difference to users reading aircraft articles is (deliberately!) trivial. And I think, when you've converted articles back to the old template, you've seen that conversion is pretty straightforward if anyone cares to do it. Well, unless you have to decide whether a non-rigid airship is best described as fixed wing or a helicopter that is... :)
  • The fixed-wing/helicopter and prop/jet switches in the existing template render it fundamentally and fatally flawed. A "clean sheet" design, whether Template:Aerospecs or something else again really is the best approach. I admit that I made a conscious decision to tackle all the initial design and implementation single-handed, mostly because I believe that the old template suffers badly from its design by committee roots (ie, incorporating lots of features that various people thought were good ideas but which no-one, not even themselves, ever really wanted to use - or in fact did use).
  • Well, it's not really all that long ago that I implemented the last batch of changes to properly accommodate lighter-than-air craft; but yes, I guess I'm satisfied enough now to ask for the project to endorse it as an acceptable alternative to the old template. I was aiming to get to the end of the letter "C" in the list of missing aircraft before raising this but I don't suppose it makes much difference now. Again, to my mind, one of the problems with the old template was that it wasn't tested for long enough or (specifically) across a wide enough range of aircraft before being released for general use. The flat, uncategorised, random nature of the "missing" list makes it ideal for this sort of test - you never know quite what is going to come up next in the alphabet!
  • Granted that aerospecs vs. aero-specs is unfortunate - a plain blunder on my part pure and simple. Thankfully, in practice there really seems be little chance of confusing them. Nevertheless, I'm more than happy to rename the Template:Aerospecs and do all the cleanup in existing articles that use it if others here have concerns on this point.
  • "Propeller" and "Hardpoints" are two beautiful examples of the bloat that exists in the old template and the flawed design philosophy at its very roots. Everything I said about the "Avionics" section above applies equally to these two; and they illustrate my "design by committee" accusation very well indeed.
  • Documentation for Template:Aerospecs has always been intended once the template was ready to present for official sanction. Since that has now de facto happened, I will now make this a matter of priority and the template and its use will be fully documented by the end of the month. (I have personal reasons that will limit my Wikipedia time after tomorrow for the next week or two, so unfortunately I can't promise to attend to it sooner). Notwithstanding this, I was delighted to see how quickly, completely, and consistently User:MilborneOne was able to pick up the template, even in the almost complete absence of documentation! This makes me hopeful that the new template is indeed more intuitive than the old one - perhaps that user might like to share his experiences of getting to know the template? To everyone else, "Try it! You may like it!" :) --Rlandmann 19:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The new template is easier to use, I noticed that Rlandmann was using it and thought I would give it a try. No problems most of it is self documented, it handles the main/alt problems a lot more elegantly then the old template. Armament is a lot better - it was free format before it is a lot better controlled. There was a lot of entries in the old template that are never used, they just dont appear in most general reference material. It is a lot easier to create for example helicopters. Sorry I keep saying easier but in my experience it is. MilborneOne 20:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been using the new template recently (along with Template:aerostart) and have found it/them to be immensely easier to use, and, after creating 16 new aircraft articles of varying types, the only item the template hasn't covered so far is when the cruise speed is based on a certain altitude (and I don't even think that's an important enough variable to include). I'll help with the instuctions page to get this thing running.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Adding a 'max speed more' or 'max speed alt' field could handle that. The Aircraft spec template has 'more' fields for descriptions. Anyway, just a thought. -Fnlayson 13:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of countries in Operators section

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

My proposals:

  1. We shouldn't use full and official name of countries:
  2. We should use the different name of country for highlighting major differences like:

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

Concur. - BillCJ 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
No guidelines that I'm aware of. I'd say that #1 is obvious and #2 makes good sense. In both cases, I think you've also illustrated what most of us have been doing most of the time anyway. --Rlandmann 20:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad to hear that. Who will revert changes in both Defiant articles to fit to this standard? I don't want to do that because it could be considered as an edit war. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 22:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the simplest forms best - just the country names are all that is needed in an infobox. In the Operators section itself, the country name is all that is necessary, but if used by multiple services (RAF & RN) or government faction (Free French AF), it would be fine to note that as well. Long forms of country names should be left "for official use only." Askari Mark (Talk) 01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted Boulton Paul Defiant. I won't do it a second time. Is this what is called a POV issue? I see that he is changing a number of instances of British India to India. Perhaps there is no real answer to this one. I do prefer the extra information conveyed by the descriptive version (British India), over what may be the simple version. This is the reason why Wikipedia will never be accepted universally, becaues even the Wikipedia editor community can't agree on the intent. I prefer Vichy French and Free French over French for those periods of World War Two (which is also called many things). Just like there was once a Republic of Texas where it is now the State of Texas, a distinction should be made. What does the source say? --Colputt 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I wish I had been informed that there was a consensus discussion going on so that i would be able to post my explanation. The following is what i had posted in my talk page to the message left by Ptior . - Reg the point India Vs British India Even in the time of the British - they never called it "British India" or "British Raj" - Everything went by the name India. Forexample, the government was "Government of India" and not "Government of British India" or "Government of British Raj". Similarly there as the "Indian Railways" and the "Indian Air Force" and not the "British Indian Railways / British Raj Railways" or "British Indian Air Force". Even when the Brits created the Indian Air Force they never called it "Royal Indian Air Force" but simply "Indian Air Force". We can argue about the semantics of who ruled what. but as far as terminology is concerned. only "India" existed and not "British India" or "British Raj". jaiiaf 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-50/Ka-52

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

Aircraft Specifications

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

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

Serious Problem going on with 4th generation jet fighter

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

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

Units

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aircraft re-branding

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

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

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

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

Not to belabour the topic, but the most recognizable name will "win out." Even though Boeing used the "717" designation for essentially the family of Douglas DC-9/MD-80/90, most observers still use the DC-9 appellation. FWIW Bzuk 17:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC).
  • 717 only for former MD-95, not the MD-80/90 etc. -Fnlayson 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Rebranding is a recurring and thorny problem indeed. Gulfstream’s bizjets are another good example. My preference would be to cover them as they are most well-known, unless there is a significant redesign associated with the new brand. Redirect the rebrand to the main article and add a para. or subsection noting the change and explaining the reasons (if known), and mention it in the intro lead. (BTW, w.r.t. BillCJ’s example, I flew on a Super 80 during a business trip last week. It’s interesting to note that the only designation exposed to the flying passenger is “Super 80”.) Askari Mark (Talk) 22:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the C-130 is now built by Lock-Mart, but by general consensus and common use, it is still known as the "Lockheed" Hercules. Mark Sublette 19:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 19:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Survivors

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

added CH-54... Yeah there are quite a few article/list/etc of these out there. --Trashbag 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
When I created some of my survivors listings (B-17, B-24, P-47, A-20, B-47) tried being consistant - but editors being editors did not like my formate as so after a period of 1-3 months they got screw'd-up. One of the reasons the P-38, P-38 survivors listings have not been posted - btw, since I started the survivors seriers it was ment to be MFG, designation, popular name then SurvivorsDavegnz 14:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference sources in other languages

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

I too would like to know what sources are preferred. I tend to prefer subject dedicated books first (such as ME-109 by Martin Cadin), then encyclopedia books (like The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft), then non-fiction accounts (such as Biplane to Monoplane Aircraft Development 1918-1939). Magazines and Journals are cool, but I don't have much access to those. I don't like advertisements, like the 8x11 picture cards that Lockheed puts out to jazz up their fighters. They usually have some odd information on them. What about un-published sources, like national archives or Military General Orders? Is that a bad thing? I read somewhere that Wikipedia prefers error-prone "published" sources over original research. If you don't research and find original sources to validate the "published" stuff, don't you just end up with a bunch of junk? I would always assume the best source is the one closest to the subject by local locale or language, translated to English sources would be worse by definition. What we do here looks just like the "Research Papers" I wrote in school, isn't that the very definition of original research? --Colputt 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's where to get started! Wikipedia:Citing sources Emoscopes Talk 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Bzuk’s original questions, the answer to the first can be found at WP:RSUE and the last at WP:RS. With respect to the latter, in general, it’s not so much in what form it is published, but the expertise and professionalism of the author and the “forum” in which the source is found. Scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals are considered best, along with books by recognized experts in the field; online discussion forums and blogs are considered unreliable (although they may have experts commenting in them) because there is no independent, third-party review of the author’s writings. Sources like national archives or Military General Orders one has to be careful with, since they are what are known as "primary sources". Wikipedia prefers we write about what others – typically experts in the evaluation and critiquing of such sources – have written about them and the subject matter to which they attest. In essence, yes, what we write here is very much like the research papers written in school, but what is different is that we do not make original observations or conclusions; we write instead about what experts and professionals have written on the subject, since they are (usually) better qualified than we are. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Attack helicopter change of focus and/or merger

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

  • The proposed Armed Helicopter will cover gray areas. Sounds like a fine idea. Seems like renaming Attack Helicopter to Armed Helicopter and adding the other info would be the way to go on that. -Fnlayson 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer keeping the Attack helicopter article separate, but trimming it back just to cover the AH-1 Cobra forward. It is a well-known term, and as such deserves some coverage. However, if the concensus is for it to be moved and merged, I'll live with that. - BillCJ 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If the Attack Helicopter article is kept as is, the Helicopter bombing article could be reworked to a Armed Helicopter one covering bombing and attack with a main article link pointing to the dedicated Attack article. -Fnlayson 22:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so are we pretty set on the Armed Helicopter/Attack Helicopter distinction? Does anyone have a good working definition they can put into the Attack Helicopter article? When I get some time I could also start the Armed Helicopter one and move the Helicopter bombing part into it. -- Thatguy96 16:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I would suggest moving Helicopter bombing to Armed helicopter - that way we keep the edit history of the earlier article active, rather than orphaning it as a redirect. Minor, but just somethibng I prefer to do. - BillCJ 16:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, too. BTW, after dealing with all sorts of edit wars and incivility elsewhere, it is such a breath of fresh air to come here to this project and be around editors who discuss things like adults! Thanks, guys! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
An attack helicopter is one designed for ground attack role with major weapons and some armor. Versus modifying/upgrading utility or transport helicopters by adding weapons. It's a primary role vs. a secondary one as well. -Fnlayson 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What if the secondary role becomes the primary role? The UH-1C and UH-1M featured upgraded engines for increased power primarily for the gunship role. What about light helicopters where the primary role is gunship, even if the aircraft's original role had been observation or liaison (as in the case of the H-6 and MD500 series)? True, neither were designed ground up as gunships, but the UH-1C and AH-6J, for example, were both subsequently operated almost purely in this role. -- Thatguy96 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The AH-6J has a lift alter-ego in the MH-6J, so it isn't an aircraft design operated almost purely in an attack role. It is a version of that design and series that is modified for a mission. --Born2flie 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The helicopter is no longer designated AH-6 when it is configured for the lift role. Technically, the AH-6J's primary role is attack, regardless of the fact that there are other versions that are used in other roles. -- Thatguy96 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Your statement links the UH-1C and the AH-6J together in being designed for one thing and operated solely as another. There is no UH equivalent to the UH-1C operated in any other role, this is not true of the AH-6J. They are not the same in that respect. I can agree that the "AH-6J" is operated as an attack helicopter, but your statement implies that like the UH-1C it was designed for one thing and turned into another. The H-6J was envisioned from the beginning as being able to be used as both a multimission platform as well as an attack platform for the purpose of streamlining the logistics tail; the same reason why the UH-1M, the UH-1H, and the AH-1G all shared the same engine and why the UH-60 and AH-64 do today. --Born2flie 08:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit I think I agree with you, but I'm actually not entirely clear what you're saying. When you say there is not UH equivalent to the UH-1C operated in any other role, do you mean no UH-1s that were essentially developed specifically for the gunship role? No other UH series aircraft that were developed as multi-mission platforms? Also, to say that the UH-1C was designed for one thing and turned into another sort of confuses the reality. The introduction of the 540 rotor system, the biggest change from the UH-1B to UH-1C, came at a time where the helicopter was being used almost exclusively in the gunship role. To say the UH-1C was "turned" into a gunship, belies the fact that the UH-1D had entered service before it, leading to the doctrinal shift to short fuselage UH-1 (204-based) aircraft for gunships and long fuselage UH-1 (205-based) for transport and utility roles. Like I said, I'm not entirely clear on what you're getting at, but I think I might be in agreement with the basic idea. I disagree on one point, however, and I think I can quite easily compare subsequent models of the H-6 to the UH-1. The AH-6J and MH-6J are both part of the H-6 family, which started with the OH-6A. -- Thatguy96 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I mean, there is no AH-1C and UH-1C, there is only the UH-1C and it was operated as an attack platform. UH-1Bs were armed as escorts when the UH-1D began operating circa 1962-63. The biggest complaint was the lack of power and speed of the UH-1B when it was loaded with armament. This prompted the improvements of the UH-1C which began being delivered in place of UH-1Bs in 1965. This is not the same for the AH-6J.
The UH-1A and UH-1B were first armed as escorts in 1961 to help escort H-21 and H-34 aircraft, just as a note. -- Thatguy96 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
en masse, then...--Born2flie 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, UH-1As were first deployed as gunships in October 1962 and totally replaced with UH-1B models by March 1963 (UTT Hel Co unit history, 1962-1964). Meanwhile, the first UH-1As were deployed to Vietnam as MEDEVAC (57th MEDEVAC) as originally intended by the Army. --Born2flie 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. Just rechecked my sources again and they say the same thing. -- Thatguy96 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The OH-6A production series III (according to Jane's) included the provisions for the XM-3 armament system. While this is not an "original" design feature, arming the aircraft was available from early on in its lifespan. The AH-6J is a descendant of the OH-6A. But, it was designed as part of the J-series variant with both attack and lift configurations, so it is not similar to the UH-1C which has no lift counterpart designated anythingH-1C. The J- and M-series H-6s are the first to unify both the lift and the attack airframe as the same series of variant, while the H-1 attack and lift series have been maintained as separate versions due to their differing airframes, as well as roles. Although, the USMC utilizes the UH-1N in a light attack role, and will be using the UH-1Y in that role, as well. --Born2flie 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I still don't exactly see what you're getting at. I agree that the H-6J has two versions, one ostensibly for lift and one for attack. How does changing the role prefix on paper make it unlike the UH-1C? The multi-mission modifier only comes into usage in 1977, before that M had been used to designate missile carriers (since the USN had aircraft with a special designator for such a mission when the shift in systems occurred in 1962). It was also used for mine-countermeasures for a short period after that. I'm actually surprised the M prefix hasn't been allocated to the USMC's upgraded UH-1Ns and the UH-1Y (which would have made them MH-1N and MH-1Y). They don't require an more of a modification from their light attack to light lift roles than the H-6J does. That the Army requested and received special role modifiers for the two aircraft, when M would sufficed for both aircraft is interesting in of itself. The first special operations H-6s were in fact direct descendants of the OH-6A and even received separate series designators, MH-6B and AH-6C. The Air Cavalry OH-6As also had a standard armament fit, noted in the official TO&E, and never received an AH-6A designator. A similar thing happened with the AH-58D Prime Chance aircraft, the production examples of which were redesignated back to OH-58D, with a new name (Kiowa Warrior rather than simply Kiowa). I would challenge the idea that this is the first time lift and gunship have been unified in the same airframe. -- Thatguy96 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The difference is your statement on whether or not the same series (alpha identifier after the design number) being used for any other mission qualifies as "almost purely" being used as an "attack" aircraft. Your proofs continue to be that if forward pointing weapons are mounted on the aircraft, then it qualifies as an attack aircraft, but your initial statement implied that it was a single series of aircraft designed for attack purposes when the original design was not. Since the H-6J was designed in two configurations, I disagree with your initial assertion. As for the AH-58D, the role of the helicopter was not attack, but observation/reconnaissance. Even though it was employed in light divisions as the primary "attack" platform, its main role continued to be observation. --Born2flie 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I implied the entire UH-1 series was designed for the gunship role. The UH-1C and UH-1M specifically were operated only in this role, however. That's not an entire series, that's two models. In my mind this is exactly like saying that the original OH-6A was not designed for attack but the improved AH-6J was. The UH-1 series was not intended for attack, but the UH-1C and UH-1M were. They just didn't change the role modifier letter in the designation. To compare the UH-1A/B in my mind to the AH-6J is inaccurate. -- Thatguy96 23:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think I'd have to give a lesson in aircraft designation. We refer to it as MDS: Mission, Design, and Series. I actually learned it as MTDS: Mission, Type, Design, and Series, as it applies to helicopters. AH-6J and MH-6J are both the J-series of the H-6. There is no lift variant to the UH-1C, although the aircraft is capable of carrying troops. I apologize, because I thought you were familiar with MDS and didn't understand that you would be confused by my talking from the MDS perspective. --Born2flie 01:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to give me a lesson in how the MDS works. I understand that. Its the exact terminology I was confused on. Still doesn't respond to my point though. What does changing the role modifier prefix or the series suffix do to the general argument here? What does it really matter that there isn't an AH-1C? The UH-1C and UH-1M were not deployed with units to be used in a utility role. You say right there that there is no lift variant of the UH-1C though it was capable of carrying troops and cargo and did so on occasion. That there wasn't an MH-1C (because there could be in 1965-6) or a CH-1C doesn't seem to change the fact that this was done. Why was it UH-1D or UH-1H and not CH-1D/H? Because someone decided and got it approved. There have been a lot of non-standard designations and otherwise conflicting reasonings, it shouldn't change a discussion on the reality, where a helicopter originally designed for one role had variants created and used almost purely in another. -- Thatguy96 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The C-series H-1 was designed with improvements to increase high/hot performance for the continued use of the Model 204 UH-1 aircraft in the escort role, since the Model 205 UH-1 had taken over as the primary hauler. However, the H-6 J-series was designed as an improved airframe for multiple roles. C-series H-1 designed and intended for one thing which would qualify as almost purely. J-series H-6 designed and intended for more than one thing...not quite almost purely.
It is obvious, to me at least, that neither one of us is going to convince the other regarding this distinction. --Born2flie 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not unconvinced of the distinction. I agree with the distinction. I'm debating whether it matters or not, which I feel is where we seem to be confused. You're basing your argument on intent of design, whereas I'm basing mine on actual use. I actually agree with you with what you're trying to say. I don't dispute it. What I'm trying to say is that for purposes of a revised attack helicopter article, finding a definition of attack helicopter that accounts for helicopters not intended for the attack role initially but used almost exclusively in this role, is important. In my mind a revised attack helicopter article would have to include the UH-1C and UH-1M, along with AH-6J and more traditional purpose built gunship helicopters. -- Thatguy96 16:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna go with, you still don't understand what my objection is. I understand your point of view; if they hung forward-facing weapons systems off of it and even thought about using those weapons to attack a target, you feel that aircraft can be justified as needing to be part of the attack helicopter article. Got it. Not really my concern. Anyways, I'm done; basically because I'm just really tired of explaining the point to you. --Born2flie 18:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I still like the 'designed for attack' part. But you got me on the roles thing. Would that be considered a light attack thing like with airplanes (light attack vs. heavy)? -Fnlayson 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that this stuff is what would make the article comprehensive, exploring the range of attack helos...some are designed that way, some are modified later as dictated by needs. If refs could be found, that's even worthy of exploration on an economic basis...do you purpose-build an expensive attack helo or retrofit existing equipment? After all, economics has killed some purpose-built attack helos. Role transmutation, from secondary to primary in the case of the UH-1C and M are also excellent subjects for discussion. Sounds like a rich subject! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Merge/redirect Aircraft/Assessment page

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

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

Tailless

User:Steelpillow has been adding the cat tailless to aircraft articles. In particular I have reverted his change a couple of times on both Avro Vulcan and Concorde. As both these aircraft have vertical stabilisers they are not tailless like a B-2. Steelpillow is quoting the wiki article Tailless aircraft that states the criteria for tailless is no horizontal stabiliser. Looking for other opinions please. MilborneOne 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I wrote that wiki article. Next, to explain a little: the term "tailless delta" is widely used to describe aircraft such as Concorde, the Douglas Skyray and so on (The quickest way to see what I mean is to google for things like "concorde tailless delta"). This in spite of the fact that these planes have vertical tail fins. Technically, I guess the term "tailless" is used as a kind of fallback if an aircraft is not conventional, canard or tandem-wing but just lacks a second horizontal plane. - Steelpillow 21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this has been discussed elsewhere before (in the past 12 months at least), but I don't recall right off where. Historically, the term "tailess delta" has been used to describe aircraft such as the F-102/F-106, B-58, the Mirage deltas, the Vulcan, and Concorde. I should have books from 25-30 years ago with that description that I can cite (will chack later). It is only recently that technology has allowed aircraft without vertical tails to even fly. The XB-35 is probably the only plane without some sort of vertical fins, because the props were able to provide some vertical stability/control, but the converted jet-powered XB-49s had to have fins. - BillCJ 22:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
A ‘tailless delta’ is, in a sense, more a planform description than one of an empennage arrangement, per se. A completely “tailless” design – one without a vertical fin and rudder – is extremely rare because some other means of effective pitch (and to a somewhat lesser extent, roll) control is required. With a tailless delta, usually elevons or flaperons or some such supplants the missing horizontal stabilizers, while the vertical tail is retained; these are often augmented by leading-edge flaps or canards. Now whether this Wikipedia category covers only strictly tailless designs or (more likely) includes tailless deltas and such, I don’t know. It depends on how whoever created it chose to define it. If there’s not a ‘tailless delta’ category, then ‘tailless’ probably was meant to be broadly interpreted. Frankly, I’m not sure why people want to “micro-categorize” aircraft features, so I haven’t really paid any attention to such things. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There are some pretty standard categories that are long-established in the industry. By way of a little more explanation: if we take "tailless" literally, then any canard or tandem-wing aircraft is tailless. This is not what the "tailless" classification traditionally refers to - like many technical terms, it is not to be taken in its literal linguistic sense. As I mentioned above, it is something of a "left-over" pot for designs which have no second horizontal plane. The "tailless delta" sub-class just happens to be by far the largest class of tailless types, has the most literature, and so is the easiest to use as an example. But the same arguments apply to all tailless types.
Someone has added the Category:Delta-wing aircraft as a sub-category of Category:Tailless aircraft. This is quite wrong. There are many delta-wing designs with tails, such as the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, Gloster Javelin, Saunders-Roe SR.53 to name but three. I agree that endless sub-categorisation, such as "tailless delta" is not helpful (there would also be "tailless swept wing", "tailless straight wing", "canard swept wing", "canard straight wing", "canard delta", "swept tandem wing" and on and on). It seems to me that the sensible way is to put each design into its several relevant categories. For example Concorde would go in Category:Delta-wing aircraft and Category:Tailless aircraft. If somebody is yearning for say a "tailless delta" category, this would be made a sub-category of both the tailless and the delta categories, and Concorde et al. re-categorised accordingly.
If anybody does not like this scheme, please discuss it here before making further changes that might have to be hunted down and reverted. Do I have to dig my books out of storage and hunt down some cast-iron references? -- Steelpillow 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
In a word, yes. Bzuk 20:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC).
OK, exactly which bits need citations? -- Steelpillow 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Start with "tailless." FWIW Bzuk 21:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC).
While we are waiting for some sort of official defintion I see that the SR-71 has now been declared tailless. Sorry does seem right. MilborneOne 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you meant not right there, I agree. Seems like the delta wing at the aft end would count as its 'tail'. -Fnlayson 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I explained above that the term 'tailless' has a specific technical meaning, and is not necessarily what 'seems right' in everyday language. The SR-71 has no second horizontal plane and, like the Concorde example also discussed above, is a classic 'tailless delta'. -- Steelpillow 21:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, you're explained a definition. But there's been nothing provided to say that is wide reaching, standard, etc. -Fnlayson 21:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
(Moved to the right to gain some room!) We also have to remember that in wikipedia most of the readership do not have degrees in aeronautical engineering and we have to make categories and articles clear to the non-technical reader. MilborneOne 21:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it'll be a few days before I can get at my books. Meanwhile to see what I mean, google the aircraft type plus 'tailless OR "tail-less"'. For example the SR-71 even gets a hit on our own SR-71 page. The point about the readership is of course precisely why an encyclopedia should get the technicalities right - its very purpose is to explain these things. -- Steelpillow 19:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

F-22/Typhoon fan-boy war

I'd like to formally request that the F-22 Raptor and Eurofighter Typhoon pages be fully protected so that the experienced editors here can try to work on a solution to the ongoing edit disputes. This fan-boy edit war has gone on for several weeks now, and shows no sign of letting up. Most of the participants in the daily reverts (save a few hot-headed regulars such as myself) are IPs or new users. I think it's time the "grown-ups" settle this. - BillCJ 06:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support BillCJs request - it is all getting a bit silly. MilborneOne 11:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Somebody needs to protect these pages for a few days. This is getting ridiculous, none of the edits is even trying to be constructive. --McSly 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
New trick is randomly entering arguments at the top of the page and in the middle of previous discussions which makes it even more nonsense on the talk page. Can somebody archive the talkpage block the IP users and we can start again with improving the article.MilborneOne 11:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Support BillCJs request - I'm beginning to think any article with a B class or greater rating should be locked from anon editing. And I'm a new guy. --Colputt 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't yet made up my mind on Bill's request, but if it's enacted, it needs to cover the 4th generation jet fighter article as well. I'm finding it's best to doublecheck all IPs' posts there as the reasons given in the edit tags often do not reflect what's actually being done in the edits. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please notice this intelligent edit summary? How long does this silliness have to go on? - BillCJ 03:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
How long? Oh, as long as Wikipedia allows unregistered editors to edit ... and then only by editors who do register. Sigh. My only reservation against protection is that there are some IPs who are actually making constructive contributions (including reverting the bad ones); seems a shame to punish them along with the trolls. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is a shame, but I'm not proposing permanent protectionk, just one long enough for the serious editors to work out a solution. The edit warriors are doing most of their "discussions" in edit summaries right now. Hopefully a lockdown will encourage them to use the talk page more constructively, and if not, at least they won't be able to revert the good changes for a time. - BillCJ 04:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking over the edit histories, it seems to me that vast majority of the problems are indeed IPs...actually, I found almost no users outside the WP:AIR cabal (wow...we're a cabal now!). So, I've semi-protected the pages for 1 week. If edit/fanboy warring breaks out with registered users, I'd be willing to do a short-term full protect, but lets see if the Project guys can't get this straigtened out...at least this way, ya'll can still actually edit the article and get it cleaned up. Some detailed talk on the appropriate talk pages about proposals, section-by-section, what's wrong and what should be fixed, just for the record. Have fun storming the castle! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Great. The talk pages are still open (doubt they can be protected), much better! Thanks Alan! -Fnlayson 04:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
NP...Keep an eye out for User:Wikzilla...he dropped a hot-headed response on my talk page, threatened sockpuppetry, vandalized my user page and got himself a 48 hour block. He's been making questionable edits to the affected pages, but I'm leaving fixing the content up to you folks...that way I won't compromise my ability to work administratively if the need arises. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Kitplane01 is still at the edit-warring, adding the disputed info again. Can something be done? Thanks. - BillCJ 06:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I need a favor from you guys...Wikzilla turned out to be a somewhat prolific sockpuppeteer, and has now been blocked indef. However, he's decided that his purpose in life is to bombard my talk page with messages while IP hopping (Bill...you know what that's like, eh?). I'm protecting my user page for now, but I really have to leave my talk page open. It's about bed-time here in SoCal, and I'll be working on the helo in the morning, so if ya'll would do me the favor of reverting any IP crap that shows up on my talk page, I'd be much obliged. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

List of what you can put on popular culture

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

National Flags and Multinational Consortia

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

I support adding the 4 flags rather than using EU flag . Estonia is an EU member , Adding the EU flag means Estonia is an Air crafts manufacturer. And this is false. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the EU flag is not appropriate. I dont like adding lots of flags - we should use the flag of the country where the aircraft is built and flown from. The Saudi typhoons will come from the UK production line. Have the same problems with Airbus the A319 for example is German and the A340 is French. With Eurocopter the EC155 is German but the EC725 is French. Sites like the UK Civil Aviation Authority aircraft register use this convention as the country of origin. MilborneOne 10:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, if you add only one flag, editors will keep adding the others (or substitute the EU flag in this instance). In most cases, the flag tends to be "tied" to the company, rather than the airplane. Occasionally there are also multiple production lines involved; Egyptian F-16s, for instance, came from both US and Turkish lines (and the early EPG deliveries are even more complex). Askari Mark (Talk) 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Askari Mark is right , if we add only one flag we will never stop the random editors from keepin adding other flags . But whats wrong with adding 4 flags anyways ? there is room enough in the table. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added all the Eurofighter consortium members' national flags on the Royal Saudi Air Force page. Editors are encouraged to see what it looks like and think about what might serve best: 1) No flag(s), just a link to company; or 2) all the member companies' national flags. I've listed them by country alphabetically, but an acceptable alternative would be to list them in order of descending ownership share (although, if I recall correctly, two of them may have the same share). Askari Mark (Talk) 01:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
In that table on the article , the Column's name is Origin . That means GmbH or BAE systems are not the correct data type for this column's fields . Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, the manufacturer is already identified with the model in the Aircraft column there. Why repeat the manufacturer in another column? If it is a problem, just remove the Origin column. Its benefit is marginal, imo. -Fnlayson 17:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft dope

It seems to me that the Aircraft dope page could be expanded into something worth keeping. For example a bit of history, from the doped linen of the WWI era to modern synthetic fabrics. Then, there is the contrast between the usual technique of colouring the dope vs. the German use of printed fabrics in WWI. Room for a bit more on compositions and methods of application, too. The snippet on the LZ 129 Hindenburg page about loading it with graphite also bears reference. I'd suggest re-identifying it as a stub. Any more opinions? -- Steelpillow 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You can add a hold-on tag, and then the discussion will go to AFD. That will give time to discuss what can be done, and improve the article in the meantime. I don't know righyt off, but is there another topic this could be merged into, or even covered elsewhere already, perhaps in more detail? - BillCJ 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"Hold-on" is meant for speedy-deletion candidates. In the case of PROD-candidates, just remove the PROD tag and provide a reason in the edit summary (and the talk page if you feel diligent). An AFD action would only ensue if someone still felt it should be deleted and felt strong enough about it to initiate the AFD action. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I mixed the two up. Thanks! - BillCJ 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved


Clean-up help request

I just ran across the Jet airliner page, and it is a mess: No sources whatsoever, yet it reads as a well-written, though very biased in places, article in certain parts, leading me to believe it's based on another article from somewhere else. It's been around for about 4 years, but had no project tag at all. I've done alot of clean-up, but more eyes and heads would be useful. Feel free to check the previous versions to see what I deleted, and restore anything you believe is worth keeping if you can source it. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The history bit is could make a good article but the more modern bits probably need some work, the language is a bit wierd. Jet airliner is not a common phrase but would be alright for describing the history, never heard the term Jetliner used (must be a north-americanism).MilborneOne 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably. Jetliner is just a shortened form of the other. Both are not common now with almost all airliners are jets, except for regional turboprops. -Fnlayson 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I just read the article, it reads like someone "cribbing" from another source. BTW, MilborneOne, "jetliner" came from the Avro Jetliner but was commonly applied to the de Havilland Comet in its early years, as well as other jet airliners. The term fell out of favour later but its origins were indeed, from North America. FWIW Bzuk 13:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC).
Not sure about the cribbing, but I suspect that the "period jet-set" bit is absolute tosh. I googled "747 jet airliner" and got "about 414,000" hits, so the term evidently is still in common use and the bit about it not applying to modern widebodies is, er, wide of the mark (grin). I'd say put down those scalpels and grab your chainsaws. --- Steelpillow 20:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion was about the term "jetliner" not necessarily "jet airliner" but surprisingly, the term is still in common usage if not in use by the aviation community. A google search I did on "jetliner" today had 803,000 hits! FWIW Bzuk 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

Engine article guideline?

I know what to do for an aircraft page, but what is the guideline for an engine article? What is a good example of an engine article? Rolls-Royce Model 250 needs some help. --Born2flie 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the same basic outline would also apply: Introductory paragraph, Infobox, Design and development, Operational history, Variants, Operators, Specifications. I like the Rolls-Royce Merlin as an example. FWIW Bzuk 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Boeing 747 up for GA

Boeing 747 article is up for Good Article review now. Needs some work to address review comments. I could use some help crafting a Design section. I think a lot of the info is in the article, but various places. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First impression- it looks very good, accurate, well-referenced and a large amount of graphic and textual information. The citations are a bit "wonky" and the references were all wrong. I fixed the format, but do you want me to go further? FWIW Bzuk 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Sure, do what you can. Any help is appreciated. Only book titles are italized in references, right? And article titles are in quotes. I started removing the excess italics. -Fnlayson 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a Design section mainly on the basic aspects and safety features. -Fnlayson 21:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it failed GA review. It'd better than it was. Also, a user added a fact tag for it being known by the "Jumbo Jet" nickname. -Fnlayson 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bede BD-5

This article needs some attention as it appears to be the rubber ball between some editors' feuding over WP:SPAM claims. Need some other people's opinions. Maury and Alan have already tried to help the situation but have run into a tagteam from the "spam cops." FWIW Bzuk 17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC).

Allison T40

Does anyone have any sources they could add to the Allison T40 article? It was created in May 2007 by a user who has not edited in over 4 weeks. It is an engine that is worth covering, and I'd hate to see it deleted just because it has no sources. Also, I am considering moving the page to Allison T38, and expanding it to cover that engine. Given that the T40 is basiacally two T38s in a twin-pack (much like the PT6T), I think this is the better name. We'd need some good sourced info on the T38 before moving it tho. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Lockheed XF-104

Hi guys, I have created a new article on the Lockheed XF-104 if you would like to stop by and fix/add things, cheers Nimbus227 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a problem here- it is an good article, well written and illustrated with a suitable reference list but here are the issues:
  1. It is not adequately referenced in that I mean there are no citations provided.
  2. It is not linked to the main F-104 article; and
  3. I am not sure why there is so much detail on what was essentially the prototype aircraft? FWIW Bzuk 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your constructive comments.

  1. The references are there, I just need to learn how to link the ref tags, this is my first article so forgive me if I make the odd mistake.
  2. It was originally linked to the main F-104 article in two places, Bill CJ has rightly added more and cleaned the article up generally.
  3. I looked at the other 'XF' articles to gauge the right length, some of them are longer and list survivors etc. I would hope that a page of detail on the birth of a fairly significant aircraft design is not excessive.
  4. It really needs a three view of the type (not the main variant) if anyone can find one.

Thanks Nimbus227 12:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A first article- are you kidding- it was great and the subtle changes now incorporated have made it even stronger. FWIW Bzuk 13:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC).
Thanks and thanks for the three view drawing. Lockheed used to have a historic photo archive on their website but seem to have only the more modern aircraft now, I have a photo of the wooden mock up which would be nice to post if I could get the proper clearance. Cheers Nimbus227 15:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST MOS

MILHIST has put together a MILHIST MOS that they are taking comments on. I think WPAIR, and perhaps even WPAVIATION, should take a look at this. Perhaps we can join/adopt the MOS, if it can work for us as-is, or with a few adjustments. If it needs more changes to suit us, perhaps we can use it to dorm our own MOS. SOme of what the MILHIST MOS covers is already in our Page content guidelines, but there are some areas we haven't dealt with yet, such as Notability (tho som guidelines for this have been proposed). Any comments?

  • That'd be something good to have. At least outline the basics. Copy their pop culture requirements to cover commercial only aircraft. Include guidelines for notability (does this model/variant get its own article?). -Fnlayson 18:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Found page

I just ran across this article, List of people who have died in incidents involving DC-3 aircraft. It needs alot of help, esp refernecing, and might be better off merged with another page (possibly a list of DC-3 incidents). - BillCJ 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it'd be best to merge it with DC-3 incidents article. But I'm not finding one right now. -Fnlayson 17:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tailless references

OK I grabbed a few books more or less at random, let's see what they have:

  • Barrie Hygate, British experimental jet aircraft, Argus Books (1990).
Page 11, De Havilland 108: "Originally planned as a half-scale model of the proposed DH.106 airliner, which ... was of tail-less layout".
  • Lloyd S. Jones, U.S. Fighters, Aero Pub. (1975).
Page 142, Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet: "The third radical design resulting from the Army's proposal R-40C was Northrop's N2B tail-less fighter".
Page 317, Douglas F-6 Skyray: "All the horizontal flying controls were attached to the wing trailing edge, classifying the Skyray as 'tailless'."
  • A. H. Lukins, The book of Westland aircraft, Harborough (date not recorded).
Page 41, Pterodactyl 1A and 1B: "TYPE—Two-seat sude-by-side tailless 'pusher' monoplane".

So there we have it - "tailless" and "tail-less" used interchangeably, even within the same book, but definitely used in the sense defined on Tailless aircraft.

Sorry to take so long about it. -- Steelpillow 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the XP-55 Accender and the Do335 Arrow or the Me163 KometDavegnz (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Formal AFD notice

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lockheed XF-104 - BillCJ 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles

Your comments are appreciated on this proposal. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Formal TFD notice

Template:Aircontent is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 21#Template:Aircontent fir "violoting MOS". Why is it that these deletionists feel they never have to discuss anything? - BillCJ 02:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Someone complained about that template's See also field violating the MoS or Layout guide here before. -Fnlayson 03:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned in my comments to the TfD, I can't see the problem, and just tested it successfully. Since the template is a part of the Project, it sure would have been nice for the nom to discuss things here first. Oh, well. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that the TFD has been closed, I do think it worth discussing the proposal by McSly (I think) to split the template in two. Basically, this would entail removing the {{airlistbox}} navbox portion of the aircontent template. We could then place the aircontent template minus navbox in the WP:MOS-recommended position just above the references, and have the airlistbox just above the cats and below the ELs, and at the bottom of the navbox stack (usually the company boxes). Personally, I prefer the current position of the combined aircontent template, as I have used it for over a year now in that position. However, this issue will probably continue to crop up every few months, as so perhaps at least discussing a change is warranted. Also, I'd prefer to se the "See also" section under the References, since to me the references are part of the text. In fact, I may even propose doing that at WP:MOS if we decide to move the Related contents section up. - BillCJ 08:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds like the plan there. Removing the Aviation Navbox is the easy place to start. -Fnlayson 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. However, I am a bit disappointed to see that this kind of behaviour appears, since it implies that the project owns the articles. The project guidelines are not set in stone indefinitely, and from the comments at the TFD, it seems like this project's guidelines are set in stone while the MOS is not. Technically, though, nothing is, but I'm just saying that the MOS has a lot more community support than these guidelines do, and it is this project that is at fault for not following the bigger guideline. I have no objections to proposing a change on WT:MOS; just prepare yourselves for some mixed comments and criticism. :-) O2 (息 • 吹) 02:26, 22 October 2007 (GMT)
As you did not state the above reasons for your change, I reverted them. I thought they were the first of a campaign of yours to unilaterally begin changing aircraft article pages to your own preferences. I was wrong. Hopefully next time, you'll make a better effort to identify tests and examples as such, and avoid further misunderstanding as such. As far as I know, most of the Project guidelines were written before (although many editors use caps for emphasis, as edit summaries allow no other format style, I'll use italics since you are incapable of dicerning the use of caps for Shouting or emphasis) the MOS guidelines were put in place. Up to this point, no one has made any serious proposals to change them to match the MOS, as most editors have resected the Projects' rights to do things a little differently. The way to change guidelines on Wikipedia is to engage in discussion with the concerned project, and try to gain a consensus to adopt the project-wide standards. It's not about things being set in stone, but following the proscribed methods that cause the least disruption. Filing deletions against project templates is certainly disruptive, and will hardly make the rest of your arguments any more appealing. So please, tone down the attitude, and you might just get a fair hearing here. - BillCJ 02:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That comment does not AGF. To you it might be disruptive, but I implore you to read WP:CCC, since it does not appear that you are open to any changes. O2 (息 • 吹) 03:22, 22 October 2007 (GMT)
LOLOL. Did you ever read my lengthy discussion on proposals before you began throwing your bombs at me here? My suggestions stand, and if you would like to discuss them, you are welcome to do so. I don't have to support changes to discuss them, and I have a long record in the project of supporting decisions I disagree with. Now, let's try to discuss the issues here from this point on, and allow others to participate, and hopefully come to some kind of concensus. That is how Concensus changes on Wikipedia. - BillCJ 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Back to the split issue. The current situation, with the SA section in a variant (relative to the MOS) position as a solution to having information in two places. Links to relavent lists appeared in the SA section which occurred higher in the article, then again in the nav boxes at the very end. Common sense then broke out and the idea was hit upon to move the SA section so that the nav boxes are an extension of the SA section. Because it's proper to have the nav boxes at the bottom of the article, the SA section was necessarily moved there. Now, to this proposal. Yes, we can split the template in two, but I'm not sure what that's really going to accomplish. Are you also suggesting that the SA section be moved back to its MOS-specified location above the refs? That will then again split the information apart. I personally favor leaving the SA at the end, and having the nav boxes as an extension of that section. If this location situation is kept, I'm not sure I understand what the point of splitting the template is. Some further explanation by the proposer as to the benefits would be appreciated. Oh, and one side comment regarding the 787 article. The point of having a MOS, or Project layout guidelines, for that matter, is so that there can be a standard of consistency. If all the thousands of aircraft articles are formatted per the project guidelines, then we do have consistency. For one editor to come along and change that, ie make it inconsistent with the rest of its kind of articles, and in the name of "consistency" to boot, how has the project been helped? This was my thinking in supporting Bill's reversion to O's unilateral layout change. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I should have brought this up last night, after seeing O's explanation of his 787 changes on the TFD page, but did not get to it by the time I went to bed (5AM), and forgot today: On the layout change in the 787 article, it might be better to do this on a sandbox-type page, so that a regular article is not disrupted, so to speak. Many of the regulars use userspace sandboxes, and can easily set one up to illustrate desired changes here. - BillCJ 04:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, the MOS' Guide to Layout clearly states that the order of the standard appendices can be manipulated. Within that guideline, the project has determined to standardize an order within its own guidelines. --Born2flie 05:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Then, there is this interesting little discussion involving WP:MOSHEAD. --Born2flie 05:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

English/American spellings etc.

This is probably not a new subject but we were having a light hearted discussion in Talk:Lockheed XF-104 as I started the article in British English and discovered that the apparent convention is to use the form of English of the country that the aircraft belongs to, e.g. US in the case of the F-104. It has been suggested that an icon or template (perhaps one exists) be placed on the talk page to denote which form of English will be used throughout the article. Perhaps others would like to comment or advise on this idea and clarify the convention at the same time. Cheers Nimbus227 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That was not just for this particular article BTW but intended for future articles or even to be applied to existing articles where there could be some 'transatlantic spelling' inconsistences going on. Nimbus227 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is a WP:Aircraft convention; articles on aircraft from non-English-speaking nations follow the "first author" rule. This actually follows from the standard WP:MOS which prefers the "native English" of the subject article, if there is one. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The main thing here is about adding a tag or template to indicate spelling type (US, British or Canadian) used. Do you think this is a good idea or not? -Fnlayson 04:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd support a template header to go at/near the top of the talk page with the other templates. It could be a simple text template statin: "This article is written in (parameter) English. Please try to conform to this variant's spelling and grammar." THere could be a simple parameter to insert a specifed country into the template. Alternativley, we could add a few icons/graphics, or even mroe text such as "If you are not familiar with the variant's grammar and spelinng rules, do the best you can, but indicate in your edit summary that you need help in that area." I am sure someone could come up with flags that are displayed for each country when it's selected, but right now I think we ought to just come up with a simple, functional template we can use right way, and then discuss changes and tweaks later. PS, I have no clue how to write the program at this point, but could adapt an existing one if it had similar parameters. - BillCJ 05:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Help

I need help with sourcing this image which is from the Israeli Air Force site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 October 2007

The IAF website the picture is from has the following license:

License Agreement

The Israeli Air-Force ("IAF") offers the information in this web site on the Internet network ("Service") and the user is confound to this license agreement. The term "User" refers to any person whom contacts or interacts with the service, or possess an account from which a connection to the service is performed.

According to copyright laws, including the Israeli court as well as international treaties, the copyright of IAF publications, including all information published in this service belong to the Department of Security and Israeli Defense Force. These copyrights also apply to text, images, illustrations, maps, sound samples, video or audio bits, graphics, "Flash" applets and software applications ("The protected material").

All rights reserved to the state of Israel. Department of Security, 2003(C).

Doesn't look like you'll be able to use the pic unless the IDF and Department of Security release it into the public domain. --Born2flie 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, this picture record one of the Lavi test flights, I assume that I can use the Israel Aerospace Industries pictures-or that it the same problems as the IAF one's?--Gilisa 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)--
You can't assume anything, it is the user's responsibility to research the license of images. I just went and checked what kind of license IAI puts on their website, and it says, "No content from this Website may be copied, reproduced , republished, modified, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way." So unless you get the image from a different IAI source, and that source has a very specific license that allows it to be used, you're pretty much out of luck. Sorry. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New article, Lockheed NF-104A

Here is another F-104 related article for you guys to look at, hopefully it will not get nominated for AFD like the last one. It could use a three view of the type, cheers. Nimbus227 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)