Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 15

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–Apr | Apr–July | July–Sept | Sept–Dec ] — 2009  [ Jan–July | Aug–Oct | Oct–Dec ]
2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ] — 2011  [ Jan–April | May–Aug | Sept-Dec ] — 2012  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ]
2013  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2014  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2015  [ Jan-July | Aug-Dec ] — 2016  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2017  [ Jan-Dec ]
2018  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2019  [ Jan-May | June–Dec ] — 2020  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2021-2023  [ Jan-June 21 | June 21-March 23 | March 23-Nov 23 ]

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

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

---

---

Wikipedia Day Awards

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

Help requested

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

New manufacturer's template

Created this template and added it to the available pages:

Template:Yakovlev aircraft

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

A comment that's worth making here: some of the aircraft navboxes, like this one, have a light grey header area, and some, like {{aviation lists}} have a light steel blue (rgb #bbc4de) header area. I think we should choose one or the other for aircraft templates.

As for this template, I would very much prefer hyphens (or possibly pipes "|") over asterisks as dividing marks. Karl Dickman ^talk 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I followed the lead of Template:Mikoyan aircraft. Another user edited it to "dots" and I like that so I think I'll be using those. - Aerobird 14:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the color issue, and personally prefer light steel blue. Akradecki 02:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually prefer the grey, myself. - Aerobird 14:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And here's another new manufacturer's template:

Template:Sukhoi aircraft

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

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

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

Been reading the Leon Trotsky, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels books again, Emt147? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And now, a direct connection to all of the glorious designs of Comrade Antonov! {{Antonov aircraft}} - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Delta-wing aircraft

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

My advice would be to remove the cateogry if you feel it innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delta is the planform, and has nothing to do with whether or not there are tail surfaces. Such an arrangement is a tailless delta; any aircraft, however, may be designed with a delta wing. If you don't believe it, check the wikipedia article on delta wings. I'd add the category back. ericg ✈ 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the way I've always understood it is as "delta" (=no tail) and "tailed delta"; I'll think a bit/solicit further comments... - Aerobird 01:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Interesting to note that the article delta wing supplies no sources, so I'm not sure how much stock I'd place in it as definitive about the usage of the word. Akradecki 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not a citable source, but google "tailless delta" versus "tailed delta", tailed gets about 30% more hits. Furthermore, 'delta' describes the planform, not the aircraft's configuration. Do you automatically assume that a tapered wing is also swept? That a swept wing aircraft has a tail? None of those planforms have a 'default' configuration either; the RQ-3 Dark Star is a straight-wing tailless design; the McDonnell Douglas X-36 is a tailless swept-wing canard design. It's the planform. ericg ✈ 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delta-winged planforms come in both tailless and tailed varieties; in fact, aircraft with canards usually have them coupled with a tailless delta wing design ... in effect, the horizontal "tails" have been moved to the front. Which approach a designer uses depends upon the particular performance and mission profiles the aircraft is to be designed for.Askari Mark (Talk) 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as a citation for delta being the wing shape, and not the configuration, goes - here's a quickly-searched quote from NASA Technical Paper 2771 of 1988:

The supersonic aerodynamics of delta wings at high angles of attack is presented to ensure a complete review of all pertinent aerodynamic characteristics. Possible applications of the data at these characteristics would be to canards or horizontal tails of aircraft and fins of missiles (11).

There are undoubtedly more references, but to me this discussion is fairly obvious. Simply mentioning canards in the discussion should make it clear; after all, a Gripen is technically a tailed (albeit in canard form) delta aircraft. A design has a delta wing, and can be of a 'pure delta' or 'tailless delta' configuration, just as it can be of a 'tailed delta' arrangement, but the delta itself is the wing planform and isn't specific to either configuration. ericg ✈ 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Douglas template

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

Looks good. One question though: Has it been decided if were to use popular names in the template or not? Not having them would decrease the size of the templates, but some users may not know the designations, but are familar with the names. - BillCJ 01:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The standard has been to remove them. There's not much space in those templates, and they get gigantic very quickly. I went in and removed them, and also pulled the airliners - that's duplicated in template:Douglas airliners and doesn't seem appropriate in an otherwise military navbox. ericg ✈ 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixup, I wasn't sure if the various 'X' planes should be in the various categories or all in a lump, and didn't know about the airliner template. On the names, one concern I would have would be that for some Wiki users, say in the UK or South Africa for instance, 'A-20' or 'C-47' might not ring a bell, but 'Boston' and 'Dakota' would be instantly recognisable.

On another note (slightly along those lines) - should all the various designations for military DC-3s, i.e. C-53 Skytrooper, be included? - Aerobird 13:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good lord, please no! There are at least a dozen! ericg ✈ 17:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A-26 Invader for AID

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

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

McDD template

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

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

List of Civil Operators - Format

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

Pitot-static system article rewrite

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

Good job! Akradecki 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Boeing 737 Users

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

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

Agreed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bangabalunga (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Transformers

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

Personally, I see fairly little use for pop-culture references in an encyclopedic article, and I believe that the ones that are justified (such as Top Gun for the F-14 and Dr. Strangelove for the B-52) are few and far between, and only when the appearance is significant. Gee, there's that concept of notability again! I can't see Transformers as being a notable appearance. Akradecki 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. As I mentioned over there, if it's (1) definitly an "xxxxx" and (2) can be referenced as being an "xxxxx" then why not include it? Preventing it could be seen as starting a slippery slope - who defines notability? What level of notability is the threshold? Game appearances no, TV (live-action, animated, or claymation) si. - Aerobird 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

• shrugs* I reckon I'm fine either way. "It make no defrence to me". - Aerobird 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I give a somewhat extreme example? Consider the UH-1 page...how many movies, TV shows and cartoons have Hueys in them? The list would go on endlessly, far overwhelming the legitimate article. I agree with the consensus to keep the trivia and pop culture to the truly notable (and in answer to the question of who defines notability, WP guidelines do...so since the F-14 got real medis coverage for its use in Top Gun, that makes it notable. I seriously doubt if there will be any legitimate media covering the airplanes in Transformers). Akradecki 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If the list gets out of hand, why not consider breaking it into another article like Cultural references to the Huey (just an idea name). Then, on the article on the main aircraft, list a few of the most relevant and have one of those main article headers letting readers know there are more on another page. Just an idea. I think that the references are somewhat important, and interesting nonetheless but I also agree it could quickly get out of hand. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a lovely strawman argument you've put forth there, but, like all strawman arguments, it doesn't hold water. Sure, there have been several hundred movies, TV shows, and cartoons with Hueys. In how many of those did a Huey play a notable part? Three? Five? I don't think anyone is arguing that carte blanche should be given for every fictional depiction of an aircraft, just that when a bit of media is particularly focused on a certain aircraft, it is worthy of mention provided that the article has a "Pop Culture" section already.--chris.lawson 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps for the purposes of this section the sense of "notability" should be whether or not the "pop culture" item under discussion significantly contributed to the "fame" of the aircraft by instilling recognition of it among a sizeable section of the general republic to whom it would otherwise have remained unknown. This would help screen out those pop cultural items that merely used the aircraft as a "prop" (which is most of them). Its effect would be to limit entries to a few best-seller books/novels, acclaimed films, and other bric-a-brac of modern culture. In this instance, the Transformers would be eligible; however, I'm not sure most of the flight simulator computer and video games and such would. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Possible solution

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

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

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

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

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

Mil (unit)

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

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

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

mil is an angular measurement:

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

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

I'm familiar with the 1/1600th right angle version. A circle being comprised of 6400mils or approximately 17.8 mils per degree. Sounds like the 1/1000th right angle would be the version you're looking for. An old, retired USAF pilot I know talks about setting the depression on the bomb sight in "mils" based on an airspeed and altitude and payload weight. In the U.S. Army, we use a distance formula utilizing mils:

$width=({\frac {range}{1000}})\times mils$
so

$350ft=({\frac {10,000}{1,000}})\times 35mils$

1400 ft at 40,000 if 35 mils is the maximum error. --Born2flie 03:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I wonder if they didn't teach us a modified version of the formula in order to not confuse us with the current use of mils (1/1600th right angle). They tell us that $({\frac {range}{1000}})=rangefactor$

but ${\begin{aligned}width&=({\frac {range}{1000}})\times mils\\&=range\times ({\frac {1}{1000}})\\\end{aligned}}$ --Born2flie 00:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note that mil (unit) was a stubby fork. The better article already existed at angular mil. -- RHaworth 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy accident?

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

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

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

Problem with the specs template?

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

I'll take a look. ericg ✈ 15:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Whoever edited those bits last managed to swap the #if statements so that unless an aircraft had afterburning thrust specified, nothing would show up. It's been fixed. ericg ✈ 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Moochas grassius". - Aerobird 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturer = OKBs vs Factories?

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

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

CASA 2.111 standalone article?

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

The Spanish He 111 article only has about two and a half lines on the 2.111. However, the German article has a good-length paragraph, though I can't attest to the quality as I don't read German. None of my printed sources have anything beyond a brief mention, nor any specs on the 2.111. I'd say if you have a couple of pics and some specs to go ahead and split it off, otherwise wait, and just expand the existing section in the He 111 article for the time being. Also, of the 236 2.111s built, only 100 had Merlin engines, so the first 136 will still pretty much just lisence-built He 111Hs. - BillCJ 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Deutsches Museum's site seems to have rough specs for the 2.111B - and at least 70 (according to another source) earlier aircraft were re-engined with a shipment of 170 Merlins from Rolls post-war. I'll work on a basic stub at User:Ericg/sandbox/CASA 2.111 - if anyone wants to lend a hand, I'll let you guys know when I start the actual CASA 2.111 stub. ericg ✈ 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say go for it, at least the later models were significantly different aircraft. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwings

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

IAI Nesher

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

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

Portal aircraft

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

No, there is no aviation project, and (if enough editors show interest) I think there should be. An aircraft portal, however, may be a bit too specific to be useful. If there is anything people want to see then, as maintainer of the Aviation Portal, I urge them to make suggestions and even add them to the portal themselves. After reading your comment I took a look at the most recent DYKs and added what I believe are the three ones you mention to the automatically updating list here. If there are other thing you'd like to see then I'd like to hear about them. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my other interest was getting involved with the aviation portal. I would like to see however maybye a wikiproject aviation, and have task groups for aircraft, ariports, airliners, etc. similar to the WP:MILITARY or whatever group it is. I think there are some stuff that is being forced into a project on aircraft or airports that would better belong to a general purpose project on aviation. such as the article on First solo flight. there are others and i can bring them up later. I will look into doing some work on the viation portal thoigh. Thanks for the feedback! by the way, what are your suggestions, reccomendation, ideas on starting an official wikiproject aviation? It could better cover famous pilots, etc etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute about image of B-36

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

I looked at both images. They both appear like decent images. However, the first image, Image:B-36-NMUSAF-4.jpg, you can see less of the plane and has a stray person in the picture. the latter picture, Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg has a bit wider view of the plane but is admittable a little blurry. It is a tough call but I personally prefer the latter picture, picture Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg. Hope this helped. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On a random note, I looked through your gallery Rogerd. the image, Image:B-36 NMUSAF 2.jpg might be a great addition to the page. It does not look like it would step on any toes and gives a good close up of the front of the plane. Just a reccomendation though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can really add to this is that Signaleer is prone to breaking the 3 revert rule. Take that as you may. ericg ✈ 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

7500

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

I'd say redirect to Transponder (aviation), myself. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree...redirect. There's absolutely no reason this should have its own article. Akradecki 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Proper location of pop culture

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

I personally do not see anything wrong with it. You have pretty good judgement on that kind of thing anyways. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, would place it after the specs, but I won't object enough to stop ya. ;-) - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just about every article I have worked one up to this point that had a "Pop culture" section has them after the Specs. I actually like it there, as I think it sections it off from the rest of the text, giving it less prominence, especially as WP:AIR stated guidelines are to avoid having the sections. The crufters appear to have no problem finding the section, no matter where it is located. As it appears after the specs in the Page content guidelines, that is the pattern I (and other editors from before my joining the Project) have been following. If there is no consensus, thats OK, or if the concensus is to place it above the specs, I will abide by that. However, in the interest of consistency, I believe it best to chose one way or the other. Consistency, after all, is one of the purposes of the guidelines. - BillCJ 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would personally prefer to see it following the specs. Not being intimately germane to the article, I believe it belongs with the "related content" and "see also" material. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

While i am mostly indifferent, I like Askari Mark's reasoning. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Akradecki 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Askari Mark. Zaku^Talk 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie: Me, (1, 2, 3, 4...) 5! --02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk about the Bicylce shed effect. Great to see 5 people chime in on a topic! Lets get a little more discussion on some more complicated topics (like the new category proposals), etc etc! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's got to be something wrong with this ... too many Wikipedians actually agreeing on something!! Isn't there a policy against that? ;) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Aircraft category update

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

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

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

As I don't deal with categories (aside from occasionally adding them to articles), this isn't my preferred area of discussion. However, nobody has said anything yet, so I'll simply say that whatever you guys come up with is fine. ericg ✈ 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added some comments to the talk page for the proposed changes. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturer names in infobox headers

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

Eric and I have also discussed this, and my position is essentially the same as yours. Karl Dickman ^talk 01:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, putting the manufacturer with the model name/number in the Infobox is redundant and not needed, imo. - Fnlayson 04:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle shed effect, again. Don't put the manufacturer in the infobox header. --Born2flie 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was fairly obvious, but I did basically create the infobox, so I guess some things are clearer than others. [edit: on reviewing Template talk:Infobox Aircraft, it's extremely clear: " |name = #REQUIRED <!--please avoid stating manufacturer in this field; it's stated two lines below -->". I'm not sure how much more detailed this can be. Unless it's something like Cessna 140 or Boeing 757 that has no specific model name, the manufacturer needs to stay 100% out of the infobox name field. There's not a lot of space in these things. ericg ✈ 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Not names, but 140 and 757 are the model "designations", right? -Fnlayson 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps stating the obvious, but if the manufacturer's name is deemed necessary then it shouldn't be linked to the respective article; imo that should be done on the Manufacturer's Name line (where it is useful). TraceyR 07:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like it if the manufacturer's name wasn't linked in the boldface of the first line of text. However, BillCJ has pointed out that on low-resolution monitors, having the link in the boldface may be preferrable. And while I'm at it, the bike shed should go as close to the showers as possible. Karl Dickman ^talk 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Special-purpose aircraft" = what???

Proposed category schema

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

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

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

According to the proposed update, it is

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

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

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

Potential resolutions

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

Category:Bomber aircraft — AC-130 (category includes attack aircraft)

Category:Electronic warfare aircraft — EC-130

Category:Military reconnaissance aircraft — RC-130

Category:Military transport aircraft — C-130, KC-130, VC-130 (& L-100?)

Category:Special mission aircraft — DC-130, GC-130, HC-130, LC-130, MC-130, NC-130, OC-130, WC-130

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

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

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

I'm not sure about merging "attack" and "bomber" aircraft - yes there's a fine line there, but having the B-36 Peacemaker and A-37 Dragonfly both lumped as "bombers" just sounds wrong to me - as does the AC-130 as a "bomber". I guess there isn't enough call for a "gunships" category...

And that reminds me: what about helicopters?

- Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 04:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the AC-130 is more of a special-purpose craft than it is a bomber or fighter—assuming, of course, that the attack category is killed, which it may not be by the time this proposal is ratified. It has about as much in common with the A-10 as it does with a B-52, so it almost needs its own category.

Regarding helicopters, they will be categorised by mission type along with fixed-wing aircraft unless we decide that the twain should be split. Karl Dickman ^talk 05:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Crash naming proposal

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

V speeds proposed mergers

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

Do what you like, but they will probably form a more coherent concept as one article. Anyway, the titles are all poorly-formed other than Vne - Vno is a V speed, but I've never heard it referred to as a plane's Vno speed - you'd just call it Vno. ericg ✈ 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For such an esoteric topic, I can't see why they were separated. BTW, regarding the first line of V speeds, "V speeds or elephants ..." — can't say I've ever heard that one before. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably some vandalism I would have caught in the merge. Kind of funny actually. lol. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org

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

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

I know about the FAS origins, my comment was that Pike stole huge sections of text from several books predating the Internet (e.g. Knaack's encyclopedia was published in 1978) and is presenting them as his own copyrighted writings. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft specs template

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

Hi Chris,

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

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

I think the More General field would be the thing to use unless there are Sweep fields added. -Fnlayson 16:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to adding a line I usually type something like:

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

which accounts for the rogue ")" element. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Aerobird. I got it to look ok with the following i.e. with no end of line tag (which produced a new line with a single ")":

|span alt=16.75 m)<li>'''Width with wings folded''' 23 ft (7.01 m TraceyR 19:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki mirror or stolen content ?

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

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

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

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

Prune {{[[Template:aircraft specifications|aircraft specifications]]}}

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

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

Useful load

Isn't this just the difference between MTOW and empty weight?

Vne, Vs, Vmc

Vno and VC are probably the only V speeds used on a regular basis in our articles.

Hardpoint codings

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

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

would yield

• Hardpoints: 5, with a capacity of 4,500 kg, equipped to carry combinations of:
• • Guns: 12.7 mm machine gun pods
  • Rockets: 70 mm unguided rockets
  • Missiles: AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles
  • Fuel tanks: 4,000 L

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

Wing loading, thrust/weight, and power/mass

Several editors have argued that these values are always calculated by Wikipedians, and therefore constitute original research.

Loaded weight

This figure is cited in many sources, but is usually arbitrary—no universal standard exists for defining loaded weight.

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

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

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

"Top speed" is the maximum speed the aircraft can attain in level flight, typically near or around VNO (normal operations). VNE is the never-exceed speed, typically reached only when the aircraft is in a dive or at high altitudes and mach numbers. ericg ✈ 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how useful "loaded weight" is for the purposes of Wikipedia; frankly, I think that empty weight and max takeoff gross weight are all that is needed — and "useful load" can be readily determined from those. If I were to add something weight-related, I'd probably substitute "wing loading". As for armament, I think that should be a standard separate section for combat aircraft, whether a template or not. It's not so much performance-related as capability-related. If you are going to make it a template, I would divide the "Missiles" parameter into separate AAM and ASM lines, and add another parameter for "Other pods" (nav, recce, EW, etc.). Askari Mark (Talk) 21:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Although in nearly every article wing loading is calculated as the loaded weight divided by the wing area. Several editors have argued against including wing loading and thrust/weight specs, on the grounds that they are calculated by us and thus uncitable original research. Karl Dickman ^talk 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple math is "original research"? If everybody would calculate the same result, then it's hardly original. I could agree if there were a choice of formulae to employ. Max wing loading would tend to get around the "loaded weight" issue. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dying to add more entries to the specs. I'm just thinking of what the average person familiar with published aircraft encyclopedias would expect to find. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing that might be useful to actually add into the specs would be hover ceiling (IGE, OGE, or both) for helicopters. A lot of the service ceiling entries on helicopter pages are actually hover ceilings and I have to remove them. Hover ceiling is generally a more useful spec for helicopters than the service ceiling and is more often stated by the manufacturer than an absolute service ceiling which is more a function of weight and engine performance. As for the loaded weight, I was always taught that it was the aircraft with oil, fuel and pilot, minus cargo. So, it is a true indication of what the cargo capacity is versus thinking that the useful load is its actual cargo carrying capacity. --Born2flie 16:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Engines and armament

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

Plane vs. Aircraft

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

• Plane is a shortened form of airplane. Try a search here for airplane. Aircraft is a more general term referring to airplanes, helicopters, etc. (fixed wing and non-fixed wing aircraft). -Fnlayson 17:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Pretty sure that 'aeroplane' is, overall, less common than plane (or airplane) as it's a Britishism. Keep in mind where the first fixed-wing, powered, piloted aircraft was flown. ericg ✈ 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The question is whether "plane" is proper formal usage suitable for encyclopedic content in British English, because it is not in American English. Dhaluza 14:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Since no-one has defeded this usage, I assume there is no objection to removing informal use of "plane" and replacing it with a more specific and formal term? Dhaluza 14:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Plane is less formal sure. As long as airplane is used first, using "plane" the next time should be OK if the meaning is clear. -Fnlayson 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Keeping it as "aircraft" or "airplane" is fine, plane is considered a colloquialism. Look where it falls in my dictionary definitons: Plane: 1. Mathematics: A surface containing all the straight lines that connect any two points on it. 2. A flat or level surface. 3. A level of development, existence, or achievement: scholarship on a high plane. 4. An airplane or hydroplane. 5. A supporting surface of an airplane; an airfoil or wing. IMHO: stay away from a "plane." :} Bzuk 16:57 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Aviation terms reference

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

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

Infobox for air forces

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

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

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

Thought this [[1913 in aviation|1913]]-[[01-24]] (1913-01-24) might work. But it doesn't look like it.Wiki Date formating :( -Fnlayson 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that a bot is going through the aviation articles changing all of this. I went and read up on the subject, and there's been lots of debate, but definitely no consensus about going to the "user preferences" format. It seems to me that a bot campaign is therefore premature. If there's consensus amongst project members to leave the YiA in there, I suggest we approach the bot owner, quoting the MOS, and ask him to stand his 'droid down. Akradecki 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, seeing dates in the [[####-##-##]] format, especially in infoboxes, makes me cringe... - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is improper for the bot to replace YIA code without consensus; however, the best thing would be to fix whatever the problem is in the first place. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem with a lot of Wikiprojects... if possible, I think the programming of the date template should be modified to link to a "year in..." page if a separate parameter is specified. Zaku^Talk 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Something along the lines of [[1941-12-07 in aviation]] would definitely be nice. I would also like to admit that I convert the dates to ####-##-##, but only for infoboxes. Karl Dickman ^talk 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, perhaps consider that there are other editing chores you could do instead, and leave the date as to the editor's preference. :} Bzuk 06:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

As a side note, I'm not sure why we need more than just introduction / retirement year in the infobox, especially since for most aircraft we only have a year. It's much better to state the years, then explain specific dates (if available) in the text. For first flights an absolute date makes a lot more sense. This would also help strip (SOME) of the YiA problems from our articles. ericg ✈ 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• True. The Year only is generally fine for older aircraft. Full dates matter more for somewhat new aircraft, imo. -Fnlayson 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, giving the full date as a YIA date attracts the unmerciful attentions of the bot. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been having a conversation with the bot's owner over on his talkpage, others who are concerned with this issue might want to weigh in there, as well. The owner has also been invited to justify himself here. Akradecki 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what do you mean by "there is definitely no consensus about going to the "user preferences" format". The consensus is reflected at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia:Piped link. Extensive discussions concern mainly relevance of links to partial dates and the shortcomings of current date preference scheme. Piped links to "years in something" are also frequently mentioned as easter eggs links which shouldn't be used at all but I haven't seen nobody suggesting using them in a way that breaks date preference at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Jogers (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval#Concerns about Jogersbot --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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

New articles

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

How many were improved to GA or FA status? --Born2flie 05:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

F-84 and B-17 got A-class ratings, B-17 became an FA, F-105 became a GA. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome template and discussion template proposal

I designed a couple of templates that we may be able to put to use. First off is a welcome template.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/welcome This template incorporates a proposed template for "Proposals and hot topics" which is

Current project proposals, hot discussions and other news

• Check out the project talk page for the most recent discussions
• Check out the new aircraft related project, WP:AVIATION

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/proposals Any ideas, suggestions, recommendations?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A few things: the welcome template should probably have links to all our major subpages (the tabs at the top of WP:AIR), with a brief explanation of what they are and why they're important. Being obsessed with standardisation, may I also propose that your two templates be called {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Welcome}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Major discussions}}? Karl Dickman ^talk 02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem renaming those templates! I will move them sometime this week. I also like the suggestions for enhancement and I will work on them too! Thanks for the feedback. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done - Templates have been renamed per Karl Dickmans request. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also added links to some of the important pages. Do you think we need links to all of them at the top? If so, I can add the, but I think it will clutter the welcome. Any feedback on the new additions? Any suggestions or does anybody think that it is ready for use?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede that the links could be considered redundant, since they are already present on the main page. In my experience, lists tend to look less cluttered when they're plain text and have no border/background. Preview it and see if you like it. Karl Dickman ^talk 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to follow my own recommendations, I have moved the location of the image, which hopefully makes the template look slightly better. Karl Dickman ^talk 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the picture there. That was a good change. I thought the aircraft icon looked a little out of place, and where it is now looks great! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Need project members' help with an issue

There's a new article that's been created on a UAV, Dominator UAV. As I've been working on the UAV section for quite sometime, I tried moving this article to Aeronautics Dominator to conform it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), but the article's author, User:Headphonos insisted on moving it back, asking for a "vote" before moving. We don't have "B-52 Bomber" or "Mustang Fighter" or "Globemaster Cargoplane", so why should a UAV article be an exception? When I asked the author, his response was "Don't care, the issue is the name, which is correct as per many articles under the +cat, pls don't contact me any further on the matter." Most other UAV aricles conform to the standard naming convention, and I didn't see the need for a "vote" to comply with guidelines, but since that's what he wants, I'll go that route. So, folks, rename to Aeronautics Defender, or leave alone? Feel free to reply here or at Talk:Dominator UAV Akradecki 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

He's wrong per our own naming standards. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to those not following the discussion, I have re-directed Dominator UAV to the Dominator (disambiguation) pages as there is more than one Dominator UAV. A confusion that was also in the original article mixing information between the Israeli Aeronautics Defense Dominator and the American Boeing Dominator UAVs.MilborneOne 11:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have gotten involved in this situation as an administrator. If headphonos keeps being disruptive over the issue, please let me know and I will handle the situation appropriatley! I agree with the renaming, as it complies with project standards. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I also left a note explaning it a litte more in depth on headphonos userpage. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left notes on some individual's pages, but I wanted also publicly thank the project for your response on the note above...it's working together like this that has made Project Aircraft one of the best on WP. Akradecki 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Zeppelin FAR

Zeppelin has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

King Air split proposal

After an exchange on the talk pages of User:BillCJ and myself regarding the length of the Beechcraft King Air article, we've come up with a proposal to split it into two articles. I've added a split tag and copied the discussion to Talk:Beechcraft King Air. If anyone else is interested, comments on the proposal are invited. Akradecki 00:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Announcement

The final article in the list of aircraft belonging to the Finnish Air Force was created today! --MoRsE 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When to Use Aero specs tags

When exactly is a good time to use the aero specs tag. Also when do you remove them. Can you do this with AWB? RED skunk^TALK 00:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bolton-Paul Defiant and Boulton Paul Defiant

Since this page, Bolton-Paul Defiant, is duplicated in the much more authoritive and complete article (BTW with the actual aircraft and manufacturer spelled correctly), Boulton Paul Defiant, I recommend this page be deleted. Bzuk 18:14 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I would have thought that you could delete it without consensus as the company name is not correct Bolton/Boulton.MilborneOne 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never deleted an article- how is it done? Bzuk 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Just redirect it to the good article as I just did with this rather short, non-noticeable article. --Denniss 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Need for members' help with Gloster Meteor, Messerschmitt Me 262 and de Havilland Comet articles

I need some help here. One editor has constantly (12 times under his user name, perhaps many others with an IP address only, since 30 January 2007) reverted the introductory paragraph to read that the Gloster Meteor was the first operational jet fighter. Now there may be compelling arguments for this claim, however, this editor has taken to using the article and the Me 262 article as the forum for his argument rather than taking it to the discussion pages. Since there is no consensus from other editors, I believe that the most effective path would be to have bonafide sources and provide them in the discussion page. From a cursory observation of the same editor's modus operandi, he has also been involved in a similar dispute on the de Havilland Comet article where again he has championed a very nationalist viewpoint which has been characterized as "POV." What can be done? Is there a way to block his constant reversions? Bzuk 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, one could perhaps refer to an offense against the WP:3RR rule and report him/her to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Is it User:Michael Shrimpton that you are referring to? MoRsE 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. Bzuk23:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It all looks a bit arguable, the German and British jets had considerable overlap in their introduction period into service. You need to stick to only what can be cited, POV isn't wrong provided it's somebody else's. Using a technical policy infringement to what may amount to or be perceived as enforcing your own POV isn't likely to do anyone any favours.WolfKeeper 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, if you check the history of this argument, substantial references and citations have been provided on both sides, but the discussion page was only at times the forum for the back-and-forth, which is the key reason for my commentary. I stressed on the discussion page and with the editor that was posting that if there was a questionable point raised that it should first go to the discussion page and get worked out there. Instead, there has been wholesale "chopping and dicing" going on. I do not have an abiding interest in what argument prevails but there is a lack of decorum that is being instilled. Bzuk 23:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Now he's at work on the de Havilland Comet site, changing and reverting areas to suit what he considers his own research. There has to be a method to challenge these constant reversions. Bzuk 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

I say we report him to the 3RR Admins. I've been watching and it's been getting out of hand. Redskunk 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Our friend finally made a major slip- he reverted three "good-faith edits" on the Messerschmitt Me 262 in a 24-hour period, you can now nominate him to be blocked. I would encourage you to do exactly that. Bzuk 20:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked User:Michael Shrimpton for 24 hours for violating the 3RR, and have outlined my position on his talk page. As I have stated there, I am offering the following advice: for those involved in this dispute, try not to make significant edits to the Messerschmitt Me 262, De Havilland Comet, or Gloster Meteor articles. Stick to minor edits, and include with each edit a reference for the information you are changing or adding. One of the most important policies of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

I think that everyone involved needs to take a step back from these articles for a moment, take a deep breath, and make sure that what they are doing is correct. Do not continue to revert each others edits or further action will be required. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply state that because of overlap in their introductions, it is difficult to tell which came into service first? Seeing as how there is evidence supporting both statements this is probably the best compromise. LWF 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree! As I had indicated before, I have no abiding interest in which aircraft is/was "first." I can even live with the statement that the such-and-such airplane was the first fighter and toss the whole "which was operational qualification" out entirely. That wasn't so much an issue as the lack of process or discussion that degenerated rapidly into an edit war. My reversions back to the original, referenced and cited text did acerbate the situation, and that's why I sought help. Thanks to everyone for their advice. Bzuk 5:49 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Despite the 24-hour block, the aforementioned editor is again at work on the [de Havilland Comet]] article, revising it with an unsubstantiated and subjective perspective. Sigh... Bzuk 15:49 15 February 2007 (UTC).

lets make IT A REAL PEACE.

Prof. Shrimpton has provided a possible case for sabotage. Given the skills of the people alleged to have been involved, sophisticated, hard to track sabotage is likely,if it occurred, NOT A libyan style LUGGAGE BOMB.

We are employin g a double standard of article care. Some of the same people debuking Michael supportthe odd government conspiracy theory written into the AVRO arrow article, that I have attempted to modify..The AVRO ARROW "black Friday " is a carefull amagram of truth & err, 'unique truth'.(In reality, the CDN Conservative government HAD EXTENDED THE EQUIVELENT OF 1.6 billion dollars ( 2007 terms) in government funding after production of the Arrow was halted, in an attempt to make the design economically feasible,& to allow AVRO to develop other projects.AVRO was not a a well run corporation.The 'real conspiracy' consisted of a team of American skilled workers & engineers, who produced the Voodoo at 35% of the Arrow's cost, yet made a profit doing so..)

It seems 'who's wiki-ox is getting gored' is our operative rule, & we cna do better .. OPUSCALGARY Opuscalgary 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand what it is that you are on about, Opuscalgary. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andy: Professor Shrimpton is being goaded. |Responded under your talk page, Avro Arrow. thx Opuscalgary 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Better Quality scale.

I've just copied over the quality scale from the Military History Project. I think it makes things more clear as to where to put each article. For military aircraft, when it comes to B and A class ratings, I suggest deferring to them. They have a good system in place to rate articles B or A, and I suggest starting a similar system for reviewing non-military aircraft pages. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Spec tables

There appears to be a low-grade revert war beginning on several airliner pages (notably Airbus A330 and Boeing 707) over the use of Spec tables vs. the Specs template. While I totally understand the need for consistency within the project, I believe we need to develop a consesnus on whether or not airliners should be exempt from the Sero-specs template.

Airliners are differ from the other aircraft, especially military ones, in several ways that make using a specs table more efficient. Airliners almost always have more than one or two models to compare, which a table is good at presenting for comparison. I can't see using six or eight {{aero-specs}} in order to present each major model covered on the page. A table just makes more sense in these siturations. In addition, airliners don't have as much information that needs to be presented as military aircraft, especially weapons. Also, tables make comparisions between the major models easier, as all the data is there on the same lines.

Now, there are several different styles of comparison tables being used on the various airliner pages. To me, some of the ones on the Boeing pages seem to be the best in terms of look and presentation format. If nothing else, I'd like to see the project develop/approve a standard table for use on the airliner pages, so at least the look is consistent across those pages. - BillCJ 00:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you mention the top 3 or 4 tables from the Boeing pages that you're referring to, so we can focus on those? Akradecki 00:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• These all have similar looking tables: Boeing 777, Boeing 787, & Boeing 747. A like different look on this one Boeing 767. But Bill may have others in mind.. -Jeff/ Fnlayson 04:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the look of the 747/777/787 in general, but I also like the fact that the left column in the 767 is bolded. I'd be nice to combine them. Is there a way to make it a template so that the average user can add them, or is this one of those things that no matter how it's set up, you're gonna have to be an expert to be able to implement it? Akradecki 05:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the 747/777/787 and 767 combo would look best. I had the 737 in mind, but the 747/777/787 type looks like a slightly better version of the 737's. As to how to set it up, I'll leave that to the experts. - BillCJ 06:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection

Not sure that the article will meet the criteria, but I requested semi-protection for the Helicopter article due to a recent increase in vandalism. The last 4-5 days has seen at least one incident per day (by my count, but I'm tired). --Born2flie 02:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest I had a look at Helicopter and found a link to Military helicopters. The summary is that military helicopters are helicopters operated by the military, with very little other substance other then pictures of US helicopters. Do we really need this article - do we have one on Civil helicopters ! Comments from team welcomed.MilborneOne 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seaplane = "Water Aircraft" ?

Someone who I'm fairly certain is not a participant here recently page-moved seaplane to Water Aircraft. I sort of doubt this move would have any support, so I un-did it, but I'd like some commentary on it (preferably on the seaplane Talk page) from other project participants.--chris.lawson 03:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just finished going through and doing some cleanup work on that after the move back, but it probably would be a good idea of someone (or two or three) went over it again. Also, I see that the responsible editor acknowledged (on his talk page) that he won't be doing that again. Akradecki 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Noticed a few creeping in during the last few days in military operators paragraph (but strangely not in civil operators) (for example Blackburn Buccaneer). I though we decided they were naf and added no value! can somebody please remind me what the project policy is. MilborneOne 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

...but they look so pretty. Sorry, most of them have been from me; didn't know the policy. Bzuk 23:27 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Guideline or concensus, not policy. --Born2flie 01:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the previous discussion centered on the use of flags in the Aircraft Infobox only. I seem to remember it being accepted as OK to have them in the main text under operators. THe primary objection in the Infobox was that the flags take up limited space; the main text does not have that problem. I did not really care for the flags in the text at first, primarily because of all the coding, but now that they are using the little flag templates, they aren't that much trouble to deal with. And as Bill (Bzuk) said, they are pretty! So I am for keeping them in the text, but definitely not in the Infobox. - BillCJ 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This question has triggered something that's been in the back of my mind for a while...the project needs a FAQ section so that when items like this are discussed, and consensus is reached, we can record it there so that we don't have to dig through pages and pages of archived talk. Akradecki 17:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! I've created a link to this yet to be created page in the page tabs, so people can begin adding previous questions and concise answers there now.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. The new page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/FAQ - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be a way to capture project-unique consensus guidelines where they can easily be found. We especially need to make it easy for new editors to find. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies - so flags are a no no in infoboxes but OK in military operators. Perhaps we should be consistent and make the civil operators the same, that is list by country then operator. Support the FAQ idea - stop me asking daft questions ! MilborneOne 21:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Task force proposal

Akradecki recommended that I present this to the Project. So, without further ado, I would like to propose a Rotorcraft task force with the following Goals and Scope:

Goals

• To improve the quality of Rotorcraft articles
• To represent the interests of Rotorcraft within the WikiProject Aircraft.

Scope

Articles dealing with any of the following topics:

• Rotorcraft (Helicopters, Autogyros, Gyrodynes, etc.)
• Subjects relating to the function and operation and nature of rotorcraft.

I guess the reason is that there are many of us with different interests within the scope of the Project, and mine happens to be Rotorcraft in general and helicopters specifically. The task force would work to apply the WP:AIR guidelines to the rotorcraft articles and continue to work with the concensus found within WP:AIR. There are many key articles that need improvement and it will be the immediate goal to improve those articles to at A-Class and hopefully GA- or FA-class. For the task force proposal, see User:Born2flie/Rotorcraft task force. --Born2flie 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Implemented and moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Rotorcraft task force —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevor MacInnis (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Help requested

I just discovered the IAMI Shafaq article this weekend. It is in dire need of attention, though probably of low importance. I moved it from Shafaq to its original page name, and have made some minor changes. Anyone who can, please take a look and see what you can do. Even if everyone just makes one or two changes, taken together, it will help alot. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Air data

(Entry moved to the "airspeed" discussion page WhatIsTrue 13:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) )

Images

There are many images on wikipedia related to aircraft. Do you think it would be appropriate to add a clas to your project template for images and tag images as such? That way, we could have a good idea of what images are associated with the project etc etc. We could also add a section to the project for featured pictures related to the project such as [todays picture of the day] or other high caliber pictures. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, and I'm not sure if any other projects are doing this yet. I'll take a look around and see what's what. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I also am not aware of any. I gladly tag them fo rother projects and am involved in many others. Another thing I was thinking about regarding to this project is I would like to see every article on an aircraft have at least one appropriate picture. I think pictures add so much more value to an article than almost anything else we could include. Any others have ideas on this goal? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the project template so that if you add it to a page that is not an article, just enter NA for the class and it will automatically put it in the relevant subcategory of Category:Non-article aircraft pages. See Image talk:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg for what I mean. As for the adding pictures to every article, I certainly agree, but am not sure how to go about promoting this. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The NA function has always been available. I have used it for numerous templates etc etc. I guess what I was proposing is either a.) a project image template or b.) a permutation of the template to allow pictures and an appropriate ciategory for pictures to be included in the images. On the pictures issues, I would love for some other project members to weigh in on this one, what is the best way to promote it? Maybye start by figuring out how many articles do and how many articles dont have images? Just an idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about images that are on En:Wikipedia? How would this work for images at Commons? It's my understanding that it is preferred that images be uploaded over there rather than here so they can be used in other language WPs. As for an image for each article, I heartily agree, and have been shooting even the most mundane aircraft (can't get more mundane than Citation CJ!) whenever I see one that's needed. Akradecki 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I forgot about the commons, that is a good point. Guess that wont work. However, would creating a maintenace cateogyr, "airraft articles without pictures" be helpful in a goal of making sure very article has an appropriate picture? If I have not stated that yet, I think that would be an excellent goal for this project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would indeed find that helpful, because that would give me, and presumably other editor/photographers a target list. Akradecki 00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:WP India uses image-needed=yes to put these type of articles in Category:India articles needing images. And Template:TrainsWikiProject uses Imageneeded=yes and Imagedetails= to describe specifically what type of image. Something like this could easily be added to our template as well. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea! Who does our template maintenance generally? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone really, but for this type of thing I have some experience. I'll add the options in now. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

←Thanks! Can it be set up so untagged have "unknown image status". ones with yes be in a catregory "aircraft articles with images"., ones missing them with "aircraft articles requiring pictres". Of course, the cats can be named appropriatly, just a suggestion though. thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Articles can now be tagged: see the new instructions at Template:AircraftProject. An example I've already done is Talk:Avro Jetliner. It will add the article to Category:Aircraft articles needing images, which, to also get help from outside the project, is listed at Category:Wikipedia requested images and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Same thing can now be done with the new template {{WPAVIATION}}. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Category:Cessna to Category:Cessna aircraft

(Found this over at Talk:Cessna, thought it would be of interest here Akradecki 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)) This proposed change would bring the category in line with other categories in Wikiproject:Aircraft such as Category:Piper aircraft, Category:Grumman aircraft, etc. Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Aviation

I've gone ahead and created the project. Lets move this conversation there. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Major proposal: WP Aviation

A funny idea has been floating around in my head lately. Wikipedia has no Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. A lot of the stuff this project takes care of (such as Federal Aviation Administration, and Douglas Aircraft Company) don't follow our stated page content guidlelines, and would be better served under that project, if it existed. If that project was created, the Aircraft Project would naturally seem to be a sub-project of it. The best way to have interaction between a sub-project and a parent project is, I think, have the sub-project become a "task force". Since we now have a "Rotocraft task force", a "Fixed-wing task force". That would free up editors involved in airplanes to focus on airplane articles. I'm not suggesting destoying this project, but what if this project was renamed "WikiProject Aviation", and any project work specifically aimed at fixed wing aircraft was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Fixed-wing task force. Crazy idea, I know, and would involve a lot of work moving pages and reorganizing content, but an idea none the less. Comments? *flinch from expected attack* Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That certainly is an interesting idea. Under the "Related Wikiprojects" there are several that would naturally fit as sub-projects under an Aviation umbrella. Maybe some feelers over on those talk pages might be an idea, too. Of all the wikiprojects I've seen, AIR is by far the best organized and has the most extensive resources (a subtle tip 'o the hat to all those involved in making it so!), so we have a lot to offer other related projects that might "come under our wing" if this were to happen. Akradecki 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested we start a wiki[roject aviation before, move aircraft, airports, under it. I think it would be a great idea! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If nobody draws it up, i would not mind drawing up a proposal to create wp:aviation, and how each part would fit into it and then get feedback on the proposal. I really like this idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Trevor, I like your outspokenness! I disagree that WP:Aircraft needs to be renamed as WP:Aviation, I do, however, agree that a WP:Aviation would benefit the entire Aviation portion of the encyclopedia. I would say that WP:Aviation could be the parent for WP:Aircraft and WP:Airport and WP:Airline or even WP:Air-anything. I'd be perfectly content, however, to continue to participate as a member of a task force that belongs to WP:Aircraft. The only question is what would WP:Aviation's goals and scope be, and would it attempt to ecplipse any current project's goals and scope? --Born2flie 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in the middle here, but I wanted to respond directly to the questions above. I believe one of the primary goals is to bring the complex and well-thought-out infrastructure that we have to the other areas of aviation on the encyclopedia. As I've stated before, I believe that Aircraft is probably one of the best set-up projects around. The result is a comprehensive set of standards and guidelines, and a dedicated group of editors who make these guidelines stick, even when the going gets tough. What we need to do is to clone our project up one level, so that the comprehensive guidelines are consistent throughout all aviation articles. Right now, the subject is quite fragmented by the various projects. For instance, I've done editing in aircraft crash articles, and some are covered under the Airline project, some are left floating out there with no one except WikiProject Disaster management covering them (if this gets going, I can even see the place for an "Aviation Safety Task Force" to cover accident articles). One of the hallmarks of a world-class encyclopedia is seamless consistency, which is probably the most important thing we can bring to the table. Akradecki 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that an oxymoron, an Aviation Safety task force covering articles about accidents? I'd prefer Aircraft Accident task force, something that doesn't tie "safety" to crashing, especially since very little in those articles about crashes meets the intent of what an accident investigation is really for.

Anyways, I think we're puffing WP:Aircraft into something more than what it is, a project that covers the articles about aircraft. Aviation is as much about the infrastructure as the aircraft that operate within that infrastructure, and we don't have a corner on the market of good ideas. Aircraft are popular, but dictating to the few people who do write about the other aspects of aviation has a risk of ostracizing or even chasing off editors who are working to improve the encyclopedia just as we are, and in areas we really don't care about (if we did, we'd be writing in those areas). If we were going to adapt to their guidelines and standards for their subjects, that would be fine, but I wouldn't want to start making all of Aviation look like Aircraft simply because we have numbers and we're organized and we like what we come up with. If we take it that far, you can mark my words that the project will mostly be fighting everybody just to maintain guidelines and accomplishing very little.

Also, keep in mind, that you're talking about expanding the scope well beyond WP:AIR's scope and when you do that, you will dilute the organization and strength that you are counting on right now. It would be more beneficial to gain concensus within each of the projects to have their say in what WP:Aviation will be and then to work within all the groups to achieve common guidelines or whatever you think the goal of WP:Aviation should be.

My $.02. YMMV. --Born2flie 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some excellent points. With the "safety" thing, I was hoping in the back of my mind that maybe, since this is an encyclopedia, accident articles could be nudged to be more than just a news story of aluminum hitting rock, and relate what was learned from it, how things in the industry were changed by it, etc. Just a pipe dream. I do hear you about the danger of ostracizing others. You mentined adapting to their guidelines in their areas, I guess what I was getting at is that in a lot of areas, both covered by another project and orphaned areas, there's a distinct lack of guidelines and organization. I don't mean any disrepect to the other projects (I belong to a couple of them, too), but there is a lot of room for growth there, and we already have the standards set up. I was envisioning it more of us offering the infrastructure to them rather than marching in and taking over.Akradecki 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking something like wikiproject military history is set up, with the task forces. There is alot of stuff, related to aviation, that falls outside of aircraft and airports project currently that are getting stretched to fit in it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the Portal:Transport/WikiProjects template on the Portal:Transport page, you will see that Aviation is the only black link on the list. So creating this would bring Aviation in line with all the other projects on the portal. I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding and it would fit in under Aviation as a sister project to Aircraft. Dhaluza 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That might actually be a good way to start, but in the end I think we'd want Aviation out from under Transport as its own parent project. All the other sub-projects under transport are much narrower in scope, with several focusing on narrower aspects of ground transportation.

TO begin with, we might start an Aviation Task Force to put together the proposals, and to give a place to begin organizing the various orphaned articles. We also ought to coordinate with the Airlines and Airports projects, and get their participation on putting the parent group together. To be honest, Gliding should really be a Task force under another project, one that might include aother aspects of aviation-related sports and activities, such as airshows, private plane interests, etc. - BillCJ 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What, we're thinking all the other Aviation related projects will just become task forces? I don't find that realistic. --Born2flie 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft, AIrports, and AIrlines would all be projects under a parent project, as they are now under Transport, but instead would be under Aviation. I just meant the Gliding would probably be better as a task force under another project, perhaps Aviation Recreation, which would cover similar topics not currently under a project, or now under various other non-aviation projects. - BillCJ 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I guess it was really more a question to Chris in re: to his, "I was thinking something like wikiproject military history is set up, with the task forces." I mean, that's where I got the idea for Rotorcraft task force, but it blends. Aircraft and Rotorcraft, it was kind of like a no-brainer to cover a subgroup of the project without needing to be its own project. I can see Aviation as a parent group, but having it come out from under Transport? I don't see that. It still fits and belongs, especially the way the encyclopedia is constructed right now; Aviation is a form of Transportation. Once again, I'm devil's advocate because I am not against WP:Aviation. --Born2flie 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the origianl proposal to mean coming out from under Transport. I do see the whole topic of Aviation as being much more than just a sub-set of Transportation. I can see reasons for doing so, but I was only advocating for what I though was being proposed. It does not bother me either way which way we go. As pointed out above, WP:AIR is under the Aviation topic under Transport, so it makes sense to just make it the parent of AP:AIR under the Transport "grandparent" project. WOrks for me. - BillCJ 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I created WikiProject Gliding primarily to bring people from the Gliding community into the WP community, so I would prefer it remains a separate project with it's own identity. Gliding is a sport organized internationally under the FAI Gliding Commission. The scope of the project includes gliders, which is a category of aircraft, but that is only one small part. The current project scope covers:

• Articles on aviation, aerodynamics, airmanship, aviation history etc.
• Articles on aircraft, especially gliders, motor gliders, flight instruments, and aircraft systems,
• Artilces on airports, especially gliderports
• Articles on soaring birds
• Articles on meterology, especially mesometerology and soaring weather phenomenon.
• Articles on air sports, especially gliding and gliding competitions
• Articles on geography, especially pertaining to soaring sites, and geographic features that support cross-country soaring.
• Biographical articles pertaining to aviation pioneers related to gliding, and notable glider pilots.

I do think we could have joint task forces to work on areas of overlap such as airports/gliderports and aircraft/gliders, as well as aviation in general. Dhaluza 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal outline

Here's my idea of how the various project should be organized. This is just one idea (my original was, by the way, to have just one project, Aviation, and anything sub that a task force), but I think its a good framework to work on:

• WikiProject Transport
  • WikiProject Aviation
    • Scope
      • Aircraft technologies, eg aileron, jet engine
      • Categories of aircraft, eg airliner, interceptor aircraft, helicopter
      • Government agencies, companies
    • Sub-projects
      • Aviation accident task force
      • WikiProject Airlines
      • WikiProject Airports
      • WikiProject Aircraft
        • Scope
          • Specific Aircraft articles
        • Subtopics/task forces
          • Rotorcraft task force
          • WikiProject Gliding

Would fixed wing aircraft benefit from a task force, or is having WP:Air separate from WP:Aviation enough. Are there other areas of focus that would benefit from a task force? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think breaking aircraft down into to many "task forces" is a bit far out there. I think they all fall under aircraft and breaking it down too far will just spread the project out to far. I dont know what it means above when Aviation is under transport. I think aviation should stand by itself though. Aviation is used to fight wars, so the argument could be made that it should be a subset of military history. (Although, I am not making that argument, it is just to show that I dont feel viation falls under transportation). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)`

I also think the scope of aviation should be expanded to include

• Famous individuals in the world of aviation such as the wright brother, clyde cessna, or other famous aircraft desingers
• aviation specific terminologies and such (there is actually a categtory for aviation terminology)
• Any articles related to the history and or development of aviation.

I think that these are important (and hope that it is not a bad case of scope creep). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you for the most part, especially on WP:Aviation not being part of WP:Transportation. But for now, your outline looks good to me. I see no problem starting out under tranportation for the time being, esp since WP:AIR is already there. We don't have to fight for our independence today! :)

As to a FIxed Wing task force, I think it works fine as it is. We can use the taks force for things which need special attention, such as Rotorcraft, as outlined by the originator of that idea, Born2Flie. ANother group which might benefit from a Task force might be Airliners. As the recent discussions on the Airliner specs have shown, they have their own unique requirements, and some editors spend most of their time in that sub-group anyway. Just a thought, but again, it doesn't have to be fought now. - BillCJ 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is actually already a project for airliners. WP:AIRLINERS, not sure if you were aware of that. Has anybody posted to the other projects that are related ([WP:AIRPORTS]] and WP:AIRLINERS to see if they want in on this discusison? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know there is a WP:Airlines, but the link you gave is red, and a quick search and parousal of some airliner talk pages turns up nothing. If they do exist, they aren't doing a very good job of advertising their existence, or on the airliner pages either! But yes, I agree we need to talk with the other projects on this. - BillCJ 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That was my bad, I was thinking of WP:AIRLINE, not airliners. oooooops. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think however that airliners beongs under aircraft. The argument can be made that there are many different models and verios with different specs and such but the same could be argued for regular aircraft. the differents might be more sublt but fo rexaple, there are many many verisons of the Cessna 172 )I am not aware of how they are all different). The same could be said about many other aircraft as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on my suggestion. Yes, Airliners should be under WP:Air, but just like Rotorcraft, they might benefit from a dedicated task force. But it's just a suggestion. - BillCJ 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I gotcha now. yea, I would not be adverse to having a task force for that. So, what is a propsoed list of task forces? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I went and read through WP:Airline's project page. Other than major accidents and fleet listings, it seems that this project is more geared towards the airlines as companies rather than airliners as aircraft, so I don't think there would be conflict. That being said, the airline company aspect seems like it would naturally fit under the WP:Aviation umbrella as well. Akradecki 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Task Forces

I would like to take this section to discuss which task forcese would seem appropriatl to have under a WP:AVITION, should it come into existence. I would like the outcome of this discussion to be included in the proposal/plans for creaton of a Wikiproject aviation. Listed below is what we have now. If you have one you would like to propose, add it to the list and creat a heading for it! Explain why you think it should be included. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't believe that WP:Aviation should replace WP:AIR, so there should not be any aircraft related task forces under WP:Aviation, since they would all fall under WP:AIR. --Born2flie 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikiproject Aviation - Proposed task forces
  • Airliners
  • Rotorcraft
  • Gliders (or Gliding)?
  • Fixed wing.

Airliners

• Support I support the inclusion of an airliners task force. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rotorcraft

• Support - I support the inclusion of a rotorcraft task forces. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gliders or Gliding

• Support as Gliding - I support a task force dedicated to this but think it should be named the Gliding task force as opposed to Gliders. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support a joint task force on gliders between the Aircraft and Gliding projects to, among other things, standardize article format. Dhaluza 23:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Wing

• Oppose - I think this will be the bulk of the project and creating a task force for it will be redundant and un-necessary. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that, since Airlines (note it's Airlines as in the companies, not Airliners as in the aircraft type) and Gliding already have their own projects they should remain such and not require a task force. As part of this edit, I've clarified my links in the project organization chart above. Also, I only consider WP:Aviation to be a sub-project of WP:Transportation in Wikipedia organization only. It will likely not have any overlap in members/rules/policies etc.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of a gliding project? Do you have the link to it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding. - BillCJ 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isent gliding a subet of aircraft? Like rotorcraft? If rotorcraft were a task force (which I feel it should be), then i also feel that gliding should be as well. Would it be too much to create one for each group recognzied by teh faa (would that be to north americancentric). The ones I am refering to are fixed wing aircraft (the bulk of the porject as i am assuming), rotorcraft (should be a task force), gliders (should be a task force) and maybye lighter than air (another possible task force). DO you think the gilder project would be extremly adverse to being a task force/subset of the aircraft project? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the users above mentioned that he had created the Gliding project. I think he did this on his own without consulting any other project. RIght now there are only 5 names on their participant list. THey may have a larger vision for their project in mind, but it wouldn't hurt to ask them if being on of our task forces might be better for them, in the short run anyway. - BillCJ 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I will go ahead and do that. I guess i see gliders as a subset of aircraft like a caboose is a subset of a train. You wwouldent have a seperate wikiproiject cabooses (as far as I know) that made sense. It would make much more sense to have it in a hierarchical order. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gliders are a category of aircraft, like airplanes/aeroplanes, rotorcraft, balloons, etc. But the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding has a much broader scope (see above). Dhaluza 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but right now you are a very small project. It might make sense to start out as a task force, or at least have a Glider task force under WP:Aircraft to handle gliders for you, but which is also a task force under the Gliding Project. Which ever way you decide to go is probably fine with us. We just didn't want to leave you out entirely of the discussion. the Aviation Project will have a broader scoope than WP:Aircraft, which will remain a project under Aviation. So having the Gliding Project under Aviation (not AIrcraft) is probably best for the scope you have in mind, with or without a Glider Task Force under WP:AIR. - BillCJ 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal Recap

Ok, so this is how I see the discussion heading so far:

• WikiProject Aviation
  • Scope
    • Famous people, e.g. aviators (Amelia Earhart), designers, (Burt Rutan), aviation pioneers (Wright brothers)
    • Aviation terminology, e.g. stall, Mach,
    • Aviation technologies, e.g. aileron, jet engine
    • articles about aircraft types, e.g. airliner, interceptor aircraft, helicopter
    • Government agencies, companies e.g. Cessna
    • Aviation history
  • Sub-projects
    • Aviation accident task force
      • Scope
        • Aviation accidents and safety
    • WikiProject Red Bull Air Race World Series perhaps change to Red Bull Air Race World Series task force
      • Scope
        • Red Bull Air Race World Series pilot/races/aircraft
    • WikiProject Airlines
      • Scope
        • Airline companies eg Air Canada, Qantus
      • Subtopics/task forces
        • WikiProject Defunct Airlines perhaps change to Defunct airlines task force
    • WikiProject Airports
      • Scope
        • airports, eg Montréal-Mirabel International Airport
        • airport services and technologies, eg Fixed base operator, Baggage handler, Instrument Landing System
    • WikiProject Aircraft
      • Scope
        • Specific Aircraft articles, eg fixed-wing Cessna 172, lighter-than-air LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin, anything not covered by a task force
        • Aircraft lists
      • Subtopics/task forces
        • Rotorcraft task force
          • Scope
            • specific Rotorcraft aircraft articles
        • Glider task force Joint TF With WP:Gliding
          • Scope
            • specific glider aircraft articles
    • WikiProject Gliding
      • Scope
        • Articles on aviation, aerodynamics, airmanship, aviation history etc.
        • Articles on aircraft, especially gliders, motor gliders, flight instruments, and aircraft systems,
        • Articles on airports, especially gliderports
        • Articles on soaring birds
        • Articles on meterology, especially mesometerology and soaring weather phenomenon.
        • Articles on air sports, especially gliding and gliding competitions
        • Articles on geography, especially pertaining to soaring sites, and geographic features that support cross-country soaring.
        • Biographical articles pertaining to aviation pioneers related to gliding, and notable glider pilots.
      • Subtopics/task forces
        • Glider task force Joint TF With WP:AIR
          • Scope
            • specific glider aircraft articles

Let's modify this list. Are there any topics missing? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its good. However in the future, i would not be adverse to adding a lighter than air task force under the aircraft project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added in the Gliding Project under Aviation, and included the Joint Glider Task Force with WP:AIR. - BillCJ 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to confirm: the items under the scope of the gliding project refer to articles specifically related to gliding. The list seems to me to be a little too broad. For example, its written that airports fall under the scope of WikiProject Gliding, but I don't thing that that should be so. Airport articles are not considered to be part of the scope of WikiProject Aviation, even though airplanes need them to take-off and land. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's deliberately broad, and there is a lot of overlap not only within aviation, but also with other subjects like meteorology. But the overlap is limited to topics specifically related to gliding. Dhaluza 02:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally like the joint task force idea for the gliders. I think that is a great way to do that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there already is a List of gliders which still needs to be merged with List of glider manufacturers.Dhaluza 02:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I go away on a business trip for a week and you guys "change the world"! :-) Good idea, though! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Aviation

I've gone ahead and created the project. Lets move this conversation there. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Link: WP:Aviation talk -Fnlayson 04:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ATR

Anyone else care to join me in cleaning up the ATR article? It still needs some serious help, although I've done quite a bit on it.--chris.lawson 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess! Looks like someone didn't realize there was a ATR 42/72 page, and tried to put the info on the company page! There wasn't even a link to the aircraft article. Thanks for the heads-up; I'll do what I can. - BillCJ 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, boy, did I get that one wrong! Actually, some just restored the old ATR 42/72 page that was previously merged into the ATR page. Since there was no real discussion on the merge, I missed it. Probably best to discuss this on the ATR page. - BillCJ 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the merge was about a year ago, IIRC, and there wasn't much discussion on it. As I noted on the ATR Talk page, I don't think there's enough material to justify two separate articles, but if people think there is, be my guest.--chris.lawson 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To me, it seems strange having a company and 2 aircraft on the same page. That's why I misunderstood what was going on when I first saw the page. I'd support a split, but we should have a better disscussion this time. - BillCJ 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

CASA 2.111

I've finally spun this out of my sandbox and into the Real World of aircraft articles. If anybody would like to help - or if anyone has books on the He 111 or CASA - please throw in some content! ericg ✈ 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Project tags

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

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

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

Aircraft engines

I added aircraft engines to the project scope, to clairfy that this should not be covered under WikiProject Aviation. The jet engine was originally used as an example under aviation technology in the proposal, but as a major airframe component, I think it would be better to categorize it with aircraft. The points I added to the scope are:

• Aircraft engine technology e.g. jet engine
  • Aircraft engines e.g. Pratt & Whitney Wasp

Any objections? Dhaluza 21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that WP:Aviation would take over that sort of article, leaving this project to only take care of specific aircraft (i.e. Cessna 172). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Aviation says it covers "Aviation technologies not part of an airplane (e.g., Airport Surveillance Radar)", so I suppose WP:Aircraft still covers those technologies that are part of an airplane or else go into it. This seems to be a grey area left behind by the reorg, so perhaps the "masters of mayhem" can enlighten us further to their intentions. ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that it is still covered by the Aircraft project. --Born2flie 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Project banner

has the project banner been set up to add the capability of specifying a task force (like the milhist one)? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that rotorcraft task force is already amended to the banner, I don't think Trevor has added in the other task forces just yet. --Born2flie 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A Single Project Banner for use by all aviation related projects

I've created a project banner at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. This banner can replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses, such as categorizing articles under specific projects. It is based on the banner user by the Military history project ({{WPMILHIST}}). An example of it in use is at User talk:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner, and you can see that by using the various parameters, all aviation articles will be combined under the aviation project at Category:WikiProject Aviation articles and when tagged properly, in their respective Category:Rotorcraft task force articles, etc. It will also allows us to introduce other areas of the Wikiproject, such as "collaboration of the month", and take advantage of the larger total number of users throughout the projects. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#A_Single_Project_Banner_for_use_by_all_aviation_related_projects. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I like it. Not sure about the Wright Flyer icon, but if there is one thing that can be used by Americans to signify Aviation, I guess that would be it. --Born2flie 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A request for help in the Amelia Earhart article

Fellow editors, your advice and help is needed here as another editor has constantly reverted the introductory passages of the Amelia Earhart despite the contentious nature of the statement that is made. The fact that the issue of Earhart's flying skills is addressed later in the article is not the real issue. Please read over the exchanges and then hopefully you will see a need to intervene. The aforementioned editor has constantly rebutted any arguments that show a different referenced source to the one that is purported to be the authoritative source. I have real reservations over the reliability of the TIGHAR information that is presented but irregardless it is the disregard of other editors' work that is the source of my consternation. Bzuk 21:38 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Please provide a link to the editor and some diffs. I will be glad to get involved from an adminstrative standpoint. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A380 cite

We've got a low-grade edit war brewing on the Airbus A380 page. User:Skyring has been removing the {{fact}} tag from a line about the A380 being called the "Super Jumbo". His repsopnse is that it is a common term, and to just "Google" it. I'm not sure that qualifies as a verifiable source per Wiki policy, but I am hesitiant to get involved in this given my lack of familiarity with citing rules. COuld someone, preferably an admin, take a look at this issue and see what can be done? Thanks. - BillCJ 01:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Googling in itself counts as a particularly good verifiable source, because the result of Googlin can vary with time. However some of the links returned by Google could be. So I think I will add one. -- Cabalamat 02:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if the term is coined by Airbus or just used in reference to the A380 being the preeminent jumbo jet in the market. --Born2flie 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hawker Siddeley Harrier - assistance required

I had Hawker Siddeley Harrier moved back to the original, and correct, article name, Hawker Siddeley Harrier, as there is no hyphen in the company name (well, apart from in WP!) However, it would seem - Special:Whatlinkshere/Hawker Siddeley Harrier - that there are a LOT of redirects that need sorted. Is anyone savvy enough with bots or AWB to do this in bulk? I spent a lot of time manually sorting out redirects via Hawker-Siddeley and I would prefer not to do it all over again! Regards Emoscopes ^Talk 05:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had Russbot help me with such things in the past, you can contact the owner at User talk:R'n'B. Akradecki 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I knocked off a few remainders linked to the (now) redirect Hawker-Siddeley Harrier. MoRsE is running others down with a bot. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I believe I got all in the article pages, I also changed all Hakwer-Siddeley's into Hawker Siddeley. If anyone noticed some mistake that I did, please notify me and I'll try to undo it.--MoRsE 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Test pilots

I was considering creating a list of Chief Test Pilots for the Short Brothers article; it has been suggested there that perhaps a general list of test pilots might be created, which would go beyond the list of notable test pilots here. This project would be the sensible place for such a discussion. I'm not really thinking about full biographies, just a few important details for each, e.g.

• general info (date of birth, death etc, country of origin)
• test pilots' school attended (if applicable)
• companies worked for
• aircraft flown for the first time
• other aircraft tested
• major achievements (e.g. major 'firsts' such as VTOL, supersonic, carrier take-off/landing etc)
• military service (if applicable)
• decorations, honours etc. etc.

Would it be part of the test pilot article, a separate page there, a separate article, included in the list of project lists? Loads of aspects! Any comments? Thanks. TraceyR 10:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think that a list of some sort would be most appropriate, but I would also question the inclusion criteria. Notability must be established, and how are you going to decide? There are thousands of active and retired test pilots, who to include? For other subjects, the standard of notability is having a wikiarticle. That sounds like it won't apply, as these will be mini-bios, so that implies inclusion of guys that don't have wikiarticles. Maybe having been honored? I started an effort to write bios for all the test pilots honored on the Aerospace Walk of Honor, and there's a lot more to do there. There's other awards that have been issued, as well (such as the SETP awards) that might give you a source as well. Akradecki 15:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I take your point - it could be a very long list! IF it were to happen, some structure would be required, e.g. by decade or company within country. I'll think I'll stick to my original plan for the time being. And your point about 'notability' is very topical: since I raised the question a few test pilots have been added to the test pilot article and, although there is a WP article for most of them, they are perhaps not all universally considered notable e.g. does 'piloting' the first private space vehicle accord notability as a test pilot? (Is space flight 'aviation' in the strict sense of the word?) Does piloting the British Concorde on its first flight? If so, where is pilot of the French Concorde, which flew first? etc etc. I can already hear the sound of edit wars! TraceyR 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparable Aircraft guidelines

• Do we set guidlines for Comparable Aircraft? I've looked through this project page did some searches and haven't found guidlines; only discussions on the footer templates and other related stuff. Thanks. -Fnlayson 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• OK, I got pointed this page: WP:AIR related content. It says Comparabile aircraft "are those of similar role, era, and capability". Are more details needed or would that overcomplicate things? - Fnlayson 00:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What about adding 'similar size' to that? -Fnlayson 22:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    I would say that similar role, era, and capability would be the driving factors. Similar size would be too broad a criteria to meet the intent. Perhaps you had a more specific aircraft article or example in mind? --Born2flie 14:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• These things were brought up about the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet on the talk page. -Fnlayson 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Similar capability can somewhat cover similar size anyway. -Fnlayson 03:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Images offered for use

Hello, I would like to offer my original avation images to any Wiki you see fit. They are a little raw, but feel free to use them if you can.

They are mostly of various airports and museums in the US. There are some pretty detailed ones of the Connie and 404 from Kansas City. I also have scans of my timetables as well.

If this is not relevant to your contribution area, please post this or pass it to who you think could use this info. Please delete this post if it is in an irrelevant area.

Thanks Chris Cummings chris(at)chriscummings(dot)cc

Older site with Full-Size Pictures: http://www.chriscummings.cc/air/

Newer site with full collection: http://www.chriscummings.cc/air2/

Airline timetables: http://www.chriscummings.cc/timetables/

User:Irisreg I would suggest that if you wish to make your images available for use on Wikipedia that you upload them to Wikipedia Commons with the appropriate licence. MilborneOne 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Multiple engine aircraft

I just noticed this category, surely it would be much more useful if it was split up into 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6- and so-forth. As it is, it discriminates against single and multiple engined aircraft, and that is it. What does this really achieve? Emoscopes ^Talk 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If broken down might help someone find a 6 engined plane if they couldn't quite remember the name until they saw it. GraemeLeggett 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - there are/were some with 5 engines too (it would help with quiz questions!). TraceyR 18:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the original intent was to break things down along the lines of official categories of aircraft (licencing authorities grant airman certificates for single-engine or multi-engine craft, with no differentiation among the multi-engine craft). I, too, would be in favour of further breakdown for the reasons Graeme and Tracey outline.--chris.lawson 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I created the category for the reason specified above. Im not sure if breaking down further would be that valuable. Similary, would you break an aifrcaft down into category:300 passenger aircraft, category:400 passenger aircraft. I might see a category Category:passenger aircraft or category:cargo aircraft or even category:multi purpose aircraft, however I think further breaking it down by the number of engines is a bit extreme. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you already are breaking aircraft down by numbers of engines; only your chosen categories are "single" and "multiple". This would be the same, in my book, as breaking them down into "single passenger aircraft" and "multiple passenger aircraft". I think that by breaking down by the number of engines, people with a particular interest in, say, trimotors or four engined bombers, might find it easier to navigate around. This would not disrupt the existing system, as any aircraft in "2 engined aircraft" or "5 engined aircraft" would still be a member of the higher category "multiple engined aircraft". Emoscopes ^Talk 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conversion templates

Hello! This is to announce that several templates for automatic convertion between metric and imperial units and for displaying consistently formatted output have been created: {{km to mi}}, {{mi to km}}, {{m to ft}}, {{ft to m}}, {{km2 to mi2}}, {{mi2 to km2}}, {{m2 to ft2}}, and {{ft2 to m2}}. Hopefully, they will be useful to the participants of this WikiProject. The templates are all documented, provide parameters to fine-tune the output, and can be substituted if necessary.

Any suggestions, requests for improvement/features, or bug reports are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be good to add these to the Units tab off the project page. -Fnlayson 17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

These are great for dimensions in a body of text. Thanks!

Using them with the specifications template produces the following (in this example {{ft to m}}):

• Length: 30 ft (9.1 m) ()

even if the "alt" entry is omitted. Presumably the specs template would have to be modified to suppress the null entry when using your conversion templates. That would be very useful! TraceyR 23:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow what exactly you mean by the "alt" entry and what exactly should be suppressed. Could you, please, clarify? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

For aircraft articles there is a template for entering specifications. This is a section from that template:

{{aircraft specifications ... |length main=30 ft|length alt=9.1 m |span main=23 ft 6 in etc. ... }}

The entries length main and length alt generate the line:

• Length: 30 ft (9.1 m)

It would be useful to be able to write:

length main= followed by a call of your {{ft to m}} template, without the specifications template generating its own brackets to hold the alternative dimension + units which you also provide. I hope I haven't confused you with the above! TraceyR 15:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Better than the explanation I was planning. Another thing I would add is that (by agreement) the main can be metric and the alt imperial or vice versa - according to the age and origin of the aircraft or the source of the data. GraemeLeggett 15:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, folks. I can't say right off the top of my head if I will be able to account for this or not, but I'll look into it as soon as I finish with some other activities. I'll let know here if I have any questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, pounds to kilograms {{Pound avoirdupois|number}}, e.g. {{Pound avoirdupois|55}}. Others at Conversion templates. -Fnlayson 02:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to do other templates as well. Thank you for pointing me to the appropriate category, though. I did not know this task has already been attempted. Luckily for me, the templates in that category seem to be rather rudimental, so my work has not been in vain. I will probably be deprecating old templates as I go.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was simply one conversion template, so that '3 m' and '9 ft 10 in' could be converted back and forth without the need for the proper convertor. Otherwise, use in the aviation templates would wind up being on a per-use basis. ericg ✈ 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at {{Convert}} then (not my doing). The reason why I went with separate templates for each conversion is because intensive use of a universal template such as {{Convert}} creates a heavy load on Wikipedia servers. In the end, however, it's up to users (you :)) to decide which template works best for their needs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ëzhiki, wow! Thanks for the link. Your templates make a lot more sense for inline use, but Convert might work really well in a large-scale template like our specifications. I'll look into it. ericg ✈ 19:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Convert needs the original unit to be piped separately and wouldn't work for the format at all. ericg ✈ 19:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Alas! The ft to m etc specify the value to be converted as num, which rules out ft to m|30 ft 8 in. Many values for wingspan, length, height etc specify feet and inches, e.g. 30 ft 8 in rather than 30.67 ft. I don't want to seem to be looking a gift horse in the mouth, though - the templates are still very useful for getting the specification alt value in a sandbox environment.

When the templates are used in the body of text a thousands separator would be very handy (i.e. in the output; not essential in the input).TraceyR 23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I completely overlooked the need for "30 ft 8 in"-type of conversions. I don't know if that will be easy to implement or not, but I will certainly try adding this capability! As for formatting the output, that particular bug has already been fixed→{{convert|30000|ft|m}} produces 30,000 feet (9,100 m).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! Thanks. TraceyR 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Following up on the request above, I have created {{ft in to m}}, which, I belive, should cover your needs quite adequately: {{ft in to m|30|8|abbr=yes}}→30 ft 8 in (9.35 m). Please let me know if there is anything I missed. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Categories

Somebody has just added the E-3 Sentry into the Category:British command and control aircraft 2000-2009, I thought that these categories were for British or whatever country built aircraft not operated by the relevant country. Just seeking clarification please. MilborneOne 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK somebody has deleted the cat now. MilborneOne 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Blohm + Voss Bv 142

Is any of us an Admin capable of moving this article back to Blohm & Voss BV 142 to fix the company name and a/c designation or should I post at Requested moves? --Denniss 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

IAI Kfir

There is a dispute regariding Sri Lanka and the LTTE going on on the IAI Kfir page. It has been protected. Mediation is not my strong suit, so any help to establish a concensus there would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have resolved itself. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

CT-114 Tutor and Canadair CL-41

Can someone remove the redundant CT-114 Tutor article or tell me how to do it. The larger, more expansive article (Canadair CL-41) should be the primary article. Bzuk 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Pick the title that is correct, and merge in any information (by copy & paste) absent on it from the incorrectly titled article. then simply redirect the incorrect title to the correct one. I'll leave your wiser judgement to choose the correct title. An admin can always move it back should there be a mistake. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a really hard time just finding the article! Looks like someone has done a few moves already. According to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) page, your main options on names should be: CT-114 Tutor, Canadair CL-41, or Canadair Tutor. I'd give preference to the first one, as that is the official designation and name given by the primary customer. If you need help with the cut-and-pastes, let me know, though I can't make admin-only moves (not an admin). - BillCJ 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fighter Aircraft "Generations"

In light of all the confusion over what constitutes fighter "generations" and what aircraft belong in which, I've outlined what I believe them to be, according to my experience and understanding. While this constitutes "original research," frankly, there are no formal definitions and darn few informal ones. At the least, I hope this can end some of the feuding over whether a particular IOC date or technology or upgrade places one fighter in a "pot" and not another. If you're interested in this issue, my post can be found at Talk:Fighter aircraft#Defining Jet Fighter Generations, and I will answer questions about it there. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Air Force revert wars

There appears to a daily change then revert of the fleet numbers of the Royal Saudi Air Force, far more then the 3RR allows. Anybody known what is going on, I was thinking of deleting the quantities and then invite somebody to change it back with a citation but a bit of research shows that this is happening with a few air forces recently refer for example Special:Contributions/Ammar_shaker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MilborneOne (talk • contribs) 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Apologies for not signing above - pushed save to fast !. Thanks to User:Askari Mark for getting involved. MilborneOne 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! The edit war seems to have settled down ... or at least they're pausing to rearm, since they've posted nothing on the Talk page yet. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "was"

There is a revert war going on on F-104 Starfighter between a regular editor and an IP. The issue in question is whether using "was" in the first line of the article implies that the Starfighter no longer exists. THis could go on forever, so I would suggest someone familar with English grammar is needed. THe IP is registered in Germany, and uses British English spelling, so may in fact be a German. I don't know German, so it is possible that there grammar rules on past tenses are different then ours. Or the user may just be woddenly litteral. I know this usuage is common, but I can't explain why it is correct grammatically, just that we do use "was" that way, especially in an encyclopedic context. - BillCJ 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good question. I've wondered if old out of production planes should described with a 'was' vs. 'is'. -Fnlayson 17:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought that that was already the norm. A look through the archives may turn up a previous discussion on this, and at any rate a general rule should be decided upon. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited the lead paragraph to make the point without allowing it to continue as a simple "is" vs. "was" edit war. Now it may just become a seriously back and forth editing of whole sentences. New lead clarifies some difficult wording of the second sentence though. --Born2flie 17:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph reads well and despite the controversy over whether the aircraft is implied not to be in existence, the fact that the article is essentially an historical article should require the past tense throughout. Bzuk 17:50 17 March 2007 (UTC).

For whatever it's worth, I agree with all of the above. It sounds like we have consensus, at any rate.--chris.lawson 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on usage. I believe the proper usage is to employ past tense for actions or events transpiring in the past, and to use present tense for the present and for describing what something is. "The F-104 is an American-designed fighter aircraft" is proper, but "The F-104 was an American-designed fighter aircraft" is not; likewise, "The last F-104 was retired in ..." is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Askari Mark (talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC). (Man, that HagermanBot is fast!) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD assistance

A few weeks ago, I created the Boeing VC-25 page as a split off of the Air Force One article, in order to better focus on the VC-25 aircraft itself. At first, I intended to split the pop culture items too, keeping those related to the callsign in general on the original page, and putting those about the aircraft on the new page. It was not easy, and somewhat arbitrary as to what went where. Not long after the split, users started adding items to one page that were already on the other page. I realized then that two lists were not going to work, and tha the simplest solution was to have an Air Force One in popular culture. So that is what I did.

Now, however, it is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force One in popular culture. I have much more explanations on that page. Thanks for at least looking. - BillCJ 19:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The trend is continuing to nom such articles...I've already posted this on the Rotorcraft task force talk page, but ya'll might want to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture and voice your opinion. Akradecki 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They tagged AH-64 Apache in popular culture article as well. (testing the Hagermanbot@03:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Defining Jet Fighter Generations

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

I would like to invite other knowledgeable editors to review and comment on what I've posted at Talk:Fighter aircraft#Defining Jet Fighter Generations so that we can have, as a guideline, something that is well-rounded and represents a consensus of our "in-house" experts. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

BAE Systems evolution

Anybody known where the adding of BAE Systems evolution is being talked about, I cant think it was done with concensus, it is being added to company articles like Auster and is far to big and in some cases not really relevant to have the whole history of BAE shown in some of the early companies.MilborneOne 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the graphical version Image:BAE Systems evolution.png with a templated tabular version so that it can wikilink nicely into all the aircraft companies within its scope. It is really to illustrate the consolodation of the UK aviation / aeronautics industry into one entity; the present day BAE Systems. I realise that it is quite large, and for that reason I purposely included a "Hide" option in it so that it can be collapsed. In my opnion it is a nice way to kill 2 birds with one stone; summarise the last 50 years of the UK aerospace sector and provide a navbox around it. Emoscopes ^Talk 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S, for those who wish to inspect it, the template is at Template:BAE Systems evolution Emoscopes ^Talk 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

With hindsight, it makes sense to move the template into the end of smaller articles such as Auster or Hunting Aircraft where there is not a dedicated history / evolution subsection. Emoscopes ^Talk 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My other main problem was with Auster was a large bit of the page had this template on it when it really had nothing to do with BAES evolution. It became Beagle and when it went to the wall the designs right were sold not the company. Did Scottish Aviation take over the design authority for Auster ? MilborneOne 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The footnote mentions that Scottish Aviation took over some assets of Beagle rather than merged with it, I couldn't think of a different way to represent this. I'm sure you will agree that the template isn't too intrusive at the bottom of the page where it is located now, and there's always the "hide" feature if you really wish not to see it. Despite the name, this isn't really just the evolution of BAE systems (the title is a throwover from the graphical version), in my eyes it is more of a timeline of consolodation in the aircraft industry. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My hat's off to Emoscopes for all the work of putting this together! Askari Mark (Talk) 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Doff your cap in Mark83's direction too, he has been keeping me right with the history of it all. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Open for requests

I have decided that my new task that I am going to devote myself to on WP is to put my orthography skills to good use and supply commons-friendly 3-view drawings of aircraft. If you would like a sample, please see Image:Blackburn B-20.png or Image:Supermarine Spiteful.png. If you have a request for me, please leave it [[If you would like me to produce a 3-view drawing of an aircraft for an article, please make your request here; here. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Flettner Fl 282, Focke-Wulf FW 61, Vought-Sikorsky 300 --Born2flie 12:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• It looks kind of like your scale is off - any reason why two feet = one meter? ericg ✈ 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I can't count! Well spotted, and I have fixed this. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. :) I also have some experience doing vector 3-views, although mine are not as detailed as Emoscopes', and I'm also open to any requests. Emoscopes, do you want to coordinate on this? Maybe create a subpage where we can handle requests? ericg ✈ 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

CF-5 change to Canadair CF-5

A request to rename is made but an admininstrator is needed. Coment: Bill (BZuk), in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), particularly this portion (In general, best practice is probably Manufacturer, followed by either Number or Name, whichever seems to be more common.), I recommend we rename this article Canadair CF-5 or CF-5 Freedom Fighter. If the names are current redirects we can't overwrite, I can ask an admin who works with the Aircraft Project to move it for us quickly. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Canadair CF-5 would be the most appropriate name. I wanted to stay away from the nomenclature, "Freedom Fighter" because it NEVER was used. I will post to the Aircraft Forum and get an admin to make the change. Bzuk 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

• Why not use the Canadian Forces designation, CF-116 Freedom Fighter? Just wondering. It does not really matter to me. -Fnlayson 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was another case of an air force designation that no one ever used. Bzuk 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

• That's was my guess. The UK Apache is titled WAH-64 but got designated Apache AH Mk 1. I think it'd help on the CF-5 to mention the designation in a second sentence like with the WAH. -Fnlayson 02:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Move completed. Thanks Chris K.! - BillCJ 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chris K., the article was moved successfully.Bzuk 2:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Non-grammatical category

Someone has created a new category called Upcoming aircrafts. I don't know anything about categories, but I do know a little about English grammar, and this is driving me nuts! HELP!!! - BillCJ 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed the link. Double brackets don't seem to work for Categories. It'll take an admin to change the name, I believe. -Fnlayson 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link here. I'll ask Chris K. if he can do that. - BillCJ 23:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the plural of aircraft is aircraft. Bzuk 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Mine too, why I asked for how to change it! - BillCJ 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Italians are fair game

Just an FYI. According to the information provided in the {{PD-Italy}} template, Italian images published before 1976 are in public domain (copyright expires 20 years after the date of creation unless the image is famous, and US copyright only covers images that were copyrighted from 1996 on). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

New Infoboxes

A new editor, User:James Hetfield, has created new versions of the standard Aircraft Infobox with specific company headers (Boeing and Airbus). He has a discussion on them, and making new boxes, on the Aviation Project talk page. I have tried to express my concerns there that the original infobox was meant to be standard for easy updating, among others reasons. Feel free to chime in there whatever your opinion on the new boxes. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the usage and made them subsets of the existing infobox, but I nonetheless feel they provide little or no benefit to the article. ericg ✈ 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Does not compute

Notice any similarities here?

SBD Dauntless: The Dauntless was one of the most important aircraft in the Pacific Theatre of World War II, sinking more enemy shipping in the Pacific war than any other US or Allied aircraft.

SB2C Helldiver: Although production problems persisted throghout its combat service, pilots soon changed their minds about the potency of the Helldiver, and the SB2C would go on to sink more enemy shipping in the Pacific war than any other US or Allied aircraft.

One of these does not belong - the question is, which one?ericg ✈ 05:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Found this site which says,

The SB2C sank more enemy shipping in the Pacific war than any other US or Allied aircraft.

It's a webpage for a model on the aircraft, take it for what it's worth. --Born2flie 14:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like somebody needs to dig into some good paper references from the bookshelf to sort this one out. Emoscopes ^Talk 16:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall seeing similar claims for both aircraft - I have one Reference for the Dauntless that says '...and went on to sink a greater tonnage of Japanese shipping than any other aircraft' - from American Warplanes of World War II - Donald, David (Editor) (1995). American Warplanes of World War II. London: Aerospace Publishing. ISBN 1 874023 72 7. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) - not sure how far I'd beleive any such claims Nigel Ish 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The only source I've got with me at school is the combined 1945/1946 Jane's. I looked up the aircraft, but it doesn't have any post-war summaries of their actual performance, only wartime background and specifications. ericg ✈ 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the statements in both articles are unsourced, it's probably best to just remove them, and add the correct one back when we find several verifiable sources for one or the other plane. - BillCJ 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image placement

There seems to be a disagreement as to image placement on the Sopwith Dolphin article. Can editors please help in sorting this out. Is there a mos standard that is applied to the first image after the infobox?

Copied from my talk page: "Hi Bzuk, I'm in doubt. Do I understand correctly that standard says there is no images put between {{Infobox Aircraft}} and first sections' heading? I couldn't find any reference for that, but from my point of view it's logical - it's easier to edit one section than whole article. If I'm right, could you be judge in Sopwith Dolphin article? I don't want to revert someone's revert. Regards and TIA, Piotr Mikołajski 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)"

My reply: Good question. I know when I saw that note on the Sopwith Dolphin article's edit history, I wasn't sure what the "standard" is and made a mental note to check back later. I will do that now and get back to you. BTW, fantastic work on the aircraft articles you have been editing.

M Van Houten, I am not sure about the answer to the question posed above by Piotr Mikołajski. Is there a "standard" as to placement of images in MOS? Bzuk 11:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

• The MoS images section does not go into to that much detail. I don't think this project's guidelines mention that either. But putting the images in the first section makes sense. It is easier to edit them in a section and multiple images links can cluster things at the top. -Fnlayson 13:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Eurocopter Colibri

Ksyrie believes that the alternate nomenclature for the Eurocopter Colibri is the HC-120. I've provided verifiable sources that demonstrate that CATIC (via Harbin) has a subordinate role in the development of the aircraft and that the HC-120 will be a Chinese-assembled variant. The Australian Aerospace production line will provide EC 120 production for the rest of Asia and the Pacific rim, a fact which also seems to relegate production of the HC-120 for the internal Chineses aerospace market.

The nature of my dispute is that I feel Ksyrie has taken a less than neutral position on this article and is promoting a nationalistic or regionalistic viewpoint. The HC-120 is already listed as a Variant and CATIC and Harbin feature prominently in the lead-in proportional to their involvement. I believe that Ksyrie's edits serve only to mislead as to the nature of Harbin's involvement in the worldwide production of the EC 120 and attempts to simply give the HC-120 a treatment of greater importance in the article. (Reposted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Rotorcraft task force) --Born2flie 03:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Our own welcome template?

One of the things I try to do is drop a {{Welcome}} template on the talk pages of new users that I come across, and I've realized that articles within the scope of our project attracts its share of new users, many of whom would probably be interested in joining the project, if they knew about it. To that end, I have created a project-based welcome template, {{AircraftWelcome}}. I'd like to invite project input on this...both in terms of its usefulness and its wording. Akradecki 17:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A great idea, Akradecki! My only suggestion would be to boldface the user's name (i.e., the {{BASEPAGENAME}} part) to make it stand out in the welcome. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea...done! Akradecki 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I also designed one earlier.

Whta do you think about it? There is a thread farther up that explains how it works. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris, looks good! I assume that the intent is to use it to welcome people who've signed up for the Project? Mine was for people new to Wikipedia to get them to come check out the project. Maybe there's a way to get the two to look similar, so that if the newbies come join the project, they get the second one welcoming them onto the team? Akradecki 22:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, i see the difference! I like yours, i was thinking of one like that too. I run into editors at several different aircraft related articles and think they might not know about WP:AIRCRAFT. I like yours! It looks good. However, what if the editr has already been welvomed to wikipedia? I think it should be a little more specific of an invite to the project, and project policies and guidelines etc (and less related to wikipedia in specific.). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should come up with an invitation-oriented one? I was also musing the situation with the IPs that edit...maybe combine an invitation to register with an invitation to the Project?Akradecki 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

That makes alot of sense (about the IP's). I like it! I dont have alot of time now to work on it but this week i will put some more effort into developing a series of welcomes/invitations! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed this discussion when I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Outreach. Check it out, this welcome template should be worked into it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Liberator B Mk I

A newbie editor recently created this very detailed but completely unreferenced article about this variant of the B-24 Liberator. Besides being unreffed, it isn't anywhere close to being wikified or meeting our page configuration. It almost appears to be a copyvio, though I haven't found a web match (maybe straight out of a book?). I'm inclined to think that this level of detail isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia, but would like to get other project members' input before doing anything with it. Akradecki 17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• That looks like an aircraft list for the most part. It is too specific, in my opinion. Seems like the B-24 article should cover this stuff. Edit: It might was well be renamed 'List of Liberator I aircraft' or similar. - Fnlayson 19:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely unsourced. We need to try to talk to the user, and explain the problems. Most of the info, assuming we can source it, should go into the main B-24 page. If he's not open to listening, then we could AFD it, and replace it with a redirect to B-24 Liberator. I doubt it would survive an AFD as-is. - BillCJ 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for an AfD if you can just integrate the content and replace it with a redirect. ericg ✈ 18:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was only mentioning an AFD in case he didn't support a merge. There may be other less drastic measures to prevent him from recreating the article tho; I'm not that familiar with the processes. - BillCJ 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I think the notable parts of the RAF usage would go over, but the detailed list of aircraft could come out (might put it on the talk page for archival purposes?). Akradecki 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not leave the article as is and request a reference source. It is a very detailed account but isn't that the very definition of "encyclopedic?" I think the editor has done a reasonable job in presenting the information and I do not think that the article is copied out of a book as he has made numerous attempts to edit information. The reason he put up this page is that he was constantly being reverted when he tried to establish the B 1 as a variant. One of the comments I noticed directed him to put up an article rather than place a redlink into the original article; I think he did just that and is still working on it from what I can see. IMHO, I think this is a good learning experience for the editor. Bzuk 19:45, 18 April, 2007 (UTC).

• Well, the first thing he needs to learn it to cite his sources. Without those, it's all OR, no matter what article the info is in. - BillCJ 21:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a link from the B-24 Liberator Variants section to this detailed history of the (lend-lease?) use of the aircraft? If you look, the F-4 Phantom II article, an FA-Class article mind you, links to a more extensive variants article than is contained within the article itself. There is precedence and it hasn't detracted from the Phantom article, it seems. This particular article seems to fall more under the purview of the Aviation task force of WikiProject Military History, since it is more about the historical use of a single variant which, according to a quick appraisal of the article, many aviation history buffs would find notable. It is a completely unique utilization of the aircraft. As always, my $.02 --Born2flie 21:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look at the article - just hope nobody wants to document all the few hundred RAF Liberators to the same level! There appears to be a number of errors in the article and I am not really sure that they were called the Liberator B Mk 1 but just Liberator Mk 1. There were other Liberator Is AM258 to AM263 which are not mentioned. MilborneOne 22:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Please cite some of the errors you found that deal specificially with the Liberator I within this serial number range - the other s/n mentioned AM258 to AM263 are NOT Liberator I's but LB-30A (a variation of the YB-24) - the Liberator I is a variation of the B-24A. Also note the the RAF was specific with aircraft designation ALL RAF aircraft had the aircraft name (ie Liberator) a type designation (ie B=Bomber, C=Cargo, F= Fighter, GR=General Recon, PR etc..), then the model designation (ie I, II, IV etc) - the only oddball aircraft was aircraft from other sources (why was the LB-30A not given a RAF designation as I do not know). As far as my sources been collecting B-24 information for over 25 years (long before there was a internet) and I do have the detailed histories of over 3000 B-24D's many of the sources are dead (verbal) microfilm (US & British Gov), duplicates of logbooks, etc... Trying to take the history of the B-24 to a new level, instead of a cold, inpersonal look at one of the most important aircraft produced in WWII, trying to bring new light and a depth of detail never before seen before. Where else can you find out which Liberator sank what U-boat (and who was the pilot vs who was the captain)! For the past 40 years the history of the B-24 (and most aviation history) has been static with few new facts to back-up just what was happening - everyone has been reciting and recycling the same facts (often inaccurate) that were first published in the early 1960's - my attempt is to shine new light on this subject area.Davegnz 16:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This article needs to be cut back to the bare minimum of notable incidents and aircraft, with verifiable sources cited for each item, and merged into the B-24 Liberator article. I mean, do we really need to know that AM926 (ex 40-2365) flew into hill on ferry flight on 10 December 1941? That's not notable in any way, and there are many entries like that. While we appreciate your hard work and research, Wikipedia is not the place for information of this much detail. - BillCJ 17:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • if Wikipedia is not a place for such information then why are articles on Nine-O-Nine (B-17) (category "World War II notable aircraft") acceptable?? If you want to keep recycling the same old trash then you are doing a great job - Wikipedia is as I understand it a clearing house for ALL information and not just repeating the same tired nonsense. If you are researching B-24 Liberators this information is important so a person does not have to search countless web sites just to find the information one is seaking - this is the definition and purpose of Wikipedia. Maybe deleting the surviving aircraft is also applicable to your terms - hey the survivors are not important (unless you are researching that particular aircraft)Davegnz 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Where on Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is as I understand it a clearing house for ALL information" stated? That goes totally against the policy that Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of items of information. You can't just decide what you want Wikipedia to be when it goes against stated POLICY, not just guidelines. As to "Nine-oh-nine", it is a "notable" individual aircraft, and so has place here. But we can't and shouldn't list EVERY individual aircraft ever built of any particular type. We've given you some leeway as you are new here, but you need to READ and UNDERSTAND Wikipedia poilices, and start following them. - BillCJ 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

-> Not going to get into a screaming match from Bill, but from the link you sited the following is what Wikipedia is not: 1.Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, 2.Travel guides, 3.Memorials, 4.Instruction manuals, 5.Internet guides, 6.Textbooks and annotated texts, 7.Plot summaries, 8.Lyrics databases, 9.Statistics. What I have posted does not fall under any of thes categories -

-> From the same source: Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge.

-> If Wickipedia can have Lost in Space's: The Great Vegetable Rebellion or Spock's Brain (every Star-Trek episode is detailed under Wikipedia) or even individual aircraft Tanker 910 then what I have created/edited is well within the boundries of Wikipedia. Davegnz 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• not screaming, just emphazizing the points for you to pay attention to (not using caps so as not to be accused of screaming henceforth). that list is not meant to be comprehensive, but lists types of things wiki is not. the first part on the the section is clear: wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. that something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. the other main point you keep ignoring is notability, and planes flying into hills on training missions, etc., are not notable. that clearly limits the scope of the compile humuan knowledge statement. that statement's context is about posting pesonal feelings and opinions, which are not "knowledge" per se. rather than trying to rewrite naming conventions or invent tables for aircraft-survivor lists, you might put in some time taking out the non-notable items in the liberator article, and properly citing your sources, among other improvements. i tell you from personal experience, enduring the "articles for deletion (afd)" process is not a fun experince, but you are very close to having an opportunity to experiance one. btw, if you truly feel the article you mentioned above are non-notable, then nominate them for deletion. However, the difference between tanker 910 and a liberator flying into an english hill is one is truly notable, the other is not. as for the star trek episode, that's for the proponents of the article to justify. - billcj 19:08, 17 may 2007 (utc)

Just to correct a statement about UK designations above, type designations were not standard until later in the war - still would argue that they were designated Liberator I including the LB-30s. For example AM259 when civil registered as G-AGCD was described as a Consolidated-Vultee LB30 Liberator I .MilborneOne 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again old rehashed history - LB-30 was a Consolidated Aircraft contract designation for direct purchase aircraft (B-24) except for the AM258 to AM263 series of aircraft (which never received a Military designation from the RAF and instead used the civilian designation) the Liberator I were considered by Consolidated to be "Lib I / modified B-24A's" in contract talks. Technically speaking, the B-24C could be considered the LB-30B, The B-24D could be called the LB-30D, etc... - but since these models were not direct purchase, but lend lease USAAC aircraft they were given a RAF designation (ie Liberator I, II, IV etc...). If you wanted to, you could assign an LB number to the Consolidated B-32 Dominator as well as the Corvair B-36Davegnz 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Range terms

Is there a Wikipedia page that describes Range terms for military aircraft? I found Range (aircraft), but that's basic info. I'm referring to terms such as ferry range and combat range. This web site [5] has a short paragraph on range. Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Over-hyphenated

Hi everyone. I hope you are taking in the slightly amusing edits from a newbie editor in the following: XF-103, Lockheed supersonic Lockheed L-2000 airliner, F-101, F-102 and F-106 articles. Every-second-word-is-hyphenated which gives me a laugh but nonetheless, the editor seems to have a good grasp of the subject matter but does not have any attribution or citations and injects his own "this editor thinks..." comments into the articles. Again, a bit supercilious and presumptuous but the spelling and typo errors are the most annoying characteristic of the edit submissions. Any suggestions? I have already tried humour, slightly sarcastic comments in the edit history but the edits keep coming unabetted from at least two ids (the same person judging by the exact same over-hyphenated style...oops, I'm starting to do it)Bzuk 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

"4.5 and 5th generation Fighter Aircraft" template

Ugh. I just found this popping up on several aircraft articles I watch: Template:4.5_and_5th_generation_Fighter_Aircraft. Has anybody else seen it? Can't say I like the proliferation of nav boxes, but this seems to be of little value given it's such a trivial subject; worse, it begs for the addition of "4th", "3rd", etc., generation templates ... and for every other secondary or tertiary descriptor. Also, I thought the use of flags in footer nav boxes was deprecated. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is a fairly trivial nav box. I know nav boxes have often been a source of heated debate, and I am generally a proponent of ceratin nav boxes, however I find this one a bit unecessary. Have you contacted the creator? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this template is a pretty bad idea overall, it's ugly as sin. Whether flags in navboxen are deprecated or not, they damn well should be. ericg ✈ 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it really goes against this projects "look and feel" for nav templates. Somebody should propose it for deletion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just nom'ed it for deletion...please add your comments at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 25 Akradecki 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Another one

The same user has also created Template:Modern Attack Helicopters. While perhaps less contentious, it was still created without project discussion, and uses flags. There are already discussions over whether the Huey (AH-1!) is "modern" or not! - BillCJ 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC) - BillCJ 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of deleting this one as well. --Guinnog 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Boeing military aircraft templates

Jeff and I have been working up the new Template:Boeing military aircraft template. However, it has proven to be very large and cramped, so much so that I am hesitant to place it on the article pages as is. I would appreciate comments and constructive ideas on Template talk:Boeing military aircraft.

We could create Template:Boeing combat aircraft for the fighters, bombers, attack helos, patrol, and experimental combat planes. Template:Boeing military aircraft would remain for the other types, but with the title line changed to "Boeing military tranport and support aircraft" (or something similar). Also, we could work Template:707 military variants and Template:B-29 family into the new templates to avoid having too many boxes on the 707 and B-29 families pages, if it wouldn't make the templates too big again. - BillCJ 04:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonanble split. I have not checked to see how even that'll be. But that's not important. Anybody got any comment or further suggestions here? -Fnlayson 03:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The template have been created, and are at Template:Boeing combat aircraft, Template:Boeing support aircraft, and Template:Boeing Vertol. Any assistance placing the templates would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Logos on Infoboxes

I have been informed by User:Zscout370, a Foundation admin, the we can't use logos in the aircraft infoboxes on airliner pages as it violates fair use policy. (See discussion atTemplate:Infobox Boeing Airliners.) He removed some of the logos himself, and locked Template:Infobox Boeing Airliners for several days (he has since semi-protected it). I removed one other logo. I just wanted to make the project aware of the issue.

Without the logo, I'm not sure the sub-templates need to be at the top of the infobox. - BillCJ 06:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This sort of crap (specifically by User:Betacommand and his robot are why I am not currently participating in Wikipedia from an editing standpoint. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Airreg

Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — A. B. ^(talk) 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't help. What's your beef? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for help on attacks on Percival Mew Gull

Friends, neighbours, countrymen, lend me your ears... Seriously, I have made some edits to the aforementioned Percival Mew Gull article that seems to have stirred up some trouble. The editor, PontiusPilot may also be operating as an anonyn with 88.111.107.83 and 88.109.125.193 IP addresses. I had posted on the editor's page a mild rebuke for using a personal attack but that only resulted in the anonyn's taking on the attacks. Can an administrator block or semi-protect this page from the attacks? Thanks. Bzuk 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

"So what have you got in that bag?" "Ears!" (Sorry, couldn't resist! - BillCJ 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The guy's definitely a dick, but the bigger problem here is that the article is grammatically... difficult ... to read. By difficult I mean almost impossible; specifically, there are tons of commas in some places and a distinct lack in others. I made some edits that may help, but it needs a buttload of work. ericg ✈ 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The aforementioned editor has returned with more personal attacks. I can't figure out what he/she is about? At first I thought it was a kid, but then some of the submissions are of a high quality akin to that of a historian (referring at one point to "my archives"). What is the next stage to address this issue? Can an admin pick this up? Bzuk 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

It seems to have worked itself out... there no longer seems to be a revert war going on. I'd possibly attempt to discuss their edit summaries with them privately, but moving it to an admin doesn't make sense at this point. ericg ✈ 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The question was not about an edit war, which can be handled easily but about inappropriate personal attacks which are still occurring (with more comments made today). Bzuk 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks to everyone who worked on this issue. It seems to have been resolved amicably and with the editor's return, he/she has again made substantive contributions to this article and others but has now become a much more responsible contributor. Thanks again, everyone. Bzuk 14:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What condescending crap...! The only difference is that the daft editing has subsided.... lol 88.109.67.212 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pic caption debate

Image:EC 135.jpg has been on both the UH-72 Lakota and Eurocopter EC 145 pages with the following caption: A Eurocopter EC 145 (German ADAC air rescue helicopter), a version of which was selected as the LUH. I reverted his deletions twice, and he has reverted my reversions twice. I requested discussion after my second revet, but he just reverted again.

His edit summaries:

1. Removed unnecessary commercial advertising spam from image caption.
2. Revert irrelevant link to commercial organisation which has nothing whatsoever to do with article.
3. Please stop reverting my good faith edits. The wikilink to the commercial company adds nothing to this article.

I know we have links to articles on operators of aircraft in captons on many other pages, whether or not they are commercial companies. The company name is clearly marked on the helicopter, so why not link to it so that reader can know what the company is. If I though the user would stop with this company, I might not pursue it any further. Howver, given that company articles are linked in many other captions of pics, this could become a crusade for this user.

As I told the user in my second edit, "to my knowledge, it is not against Wiki policy or guidelines to link to existing articles on companies whose aircraft [are] in photos". Any help on this matter Any help resolving this matter would be appreciated, whatever your point of view. - BillCJ 00:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If the company has a wikiarticle, it is entirely appropriate to have a wikilink to the article. Linking to a wikiarticle is not spam. I'll watchlist this one, too. Akradecki 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. - BillCJ 03:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see some of other editer's points in the edit summaries, but not arguing about it. I prefer less details to keep the caption relatively short. But that caption is short, so no biggie. -Fnlayson 05:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks like reasonable wikilinking. I'm much more irritated by the obvious captions, e.g. "P-51 Mustang in flight" (no shit, I thought it was "P-51 Mustang eating a ham sandwich" until I saw that helpful text). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was taking a walk in the park. Glad there was some clarification in the caption! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Survivors

Been doing a lot of work on fixing aircraft survivors sections, done B-24 Liberator, P-47 Thunderbolt, CH-54 as well as Boeing B-47 Pages (added survivors to main TBD page as well).

• I would like to put these guys into a table, but, after seeing how wikipedia needs the information formated, find it very hard to edit (verticle editing is difficult, especially when I am used to reading left to right, so for now this is my format:

• Aircraft type - s/n - current registration, history, current markings (Bold) numbers and or marking first double space then name, current museum, current location, then condition - (D) display (S) Stored (R) restoration (W) wreck (F) Flyable

• example: * B-24J-85CF 44-44052 (N224J), ex RAF Liberator GR VI KH191 No 8 Sqd, ex IAF aircraft (T-18), " Q2 M Witchcraft ", Collings Foundation. Stowe, Massachuttes (F)

• Aircraft type - s/n - registration: B-24J-85CF 44-44052 (N224J)
• History:: ex RAF Liberator GR VI KH191 No 8 Sqd, ex IAF aircraft (T-18)
• Current Markings: "Q2 M Witchcraft
• Current Museum: Collings Foundation
• Current Location: Stowe, Massachuttes
• Condition: (F) Flyable

Any questions?Davegnz 17:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that "ex RAF" should be identified as "ex-RAF", names/titles may be best expressed in italics, e.g. Witchcraft and spelling has to be precise, e.g. "Massachusetts" instead of "Massachuttes".

My take on your template:

• Aircraft type/serial number/registration: B-24J-85CF 44-44052/N224J
• History: ex-RAF Liberator GR VI (KH191), No 8 Sqd, ex-IAF aircraft (T-18)
• Current Markings: Q2 M Witchcraft
• Current Museum/holdings: Collings Foundation
• Current Location: Stowe, Massachusetts
• Condition: (F) Flyable

Notes: (D) = Display (F) = Flyable (S) = Stored (R) = Under restoration (W) = Wreck Bzuk 17:53, 13 May (UTC).

Sorry you dont like editing vertically, but table data can be kept in one line. Just have to say in my opinion your textual information is hard to read, particularly the bolding is distracting - a table format is easier on the eye for simple tables. But to contradict myself the history of an aircraft like the example above would be better as just textual information The aircraft was delivered to the Royal Air Force in October 1944 as a Liberator GR. VI with serial number KH191 and served with No. 8 Squadron RAF, in 1948 it was transferred to the Indian Air Force as a training airframe .... MilborneOne 20:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

can you demo on the CH-54 page - I do like table (the CH-54 table was great) just trying to edit using the wikipedia method is hard on the eyes - also, you were missing the current markings column on the Skycrane survivors.

Have only used bold on current markings - same with italic only on s/n.

• Also, when you have as textual information gets redundent (ie served with, served with line after line after line) - trying to make the information quick, readly digestable without a lot of verbosity (especially if you are doing 30 + survivors it can get annoying as well) - better to get in and get out, get the information and leave then spend 10-15 minutes hunting through a lot of text information Davegnz 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A table with rows and columns would be better when there is more than a few. A table like the List of Abrams disabled in the M1 Abrams article. -Fnlayson 23:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, but editing using verticle text is a pain - MilbourneOne mentioned that a table can be created in Wicki but with horizontal editing - can you give a quick exampleDavegnz 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • OK found Wiki-ref card detailing tables give me a few days to play with and make changes on Skycrane then get everone's opinion on my new tablesDavegnz 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of a table with 1 row.

Aircraft number	History	Markings	Holder	Location	Condition
B-24J-85CF 44-44052/N224J	ex-RAF Liberator GR VI (KH191), No 8 Sqd, ex-IAF aircraft (T-18)	Q2 M Witchcraft	Collings Foundation	Stowe, MA	Flyable

More rows can be added in the same format. -Fnlayson 00:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Information on survivors can differ greatly, depending on the source and amount of info available on each individual aircraft. Some will have little info, while others may have alot. Trying to shoehorn all the info into a table or template format is not a good idea. The bulleted-text format works just fine the way it is, and is much less confusing to edit. - BillCJ 00:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Depends on what one wants to list. A table is not meant for sentences. Either a table like above or a bulleted list will take up much less space than a block form. -Fnlayson 03:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The table format also looks as convoluted awkward as the other proposal. I think BillCJ's comments are the most "on the mark" and I would propose that his format is the most suitable. Example below:

• B-24J-85CF 44-44052/N224J, ex-RAF Liberator GR VI (KH191), No 8 Sqd, ex-IAF aircraft (T-18), marked as Q2 M Witchcraft, Collings Foundation, Stowe, Massachusetts, (F) Flyable. Bzuk 01:13, 15 May (UTC).

OK did a test on the CH-54 Survivors page - want everyone opinion on what looks best - Bulleted (as originally created), Table with highlight (as above) or table with no highlights.Davegnz 16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should go back a step and look at what the Survivors page should be, I would think that surviving B-24s that are in museums and are flyable are reasonable to list but the CH-54 for example lists a lot of still commercially operated S-64 helicopters that are not particularly notable or perhaps encyclopedic. I dont think we would attempt to do a list of UH-1 survivors (in the thousands), but you might list preserved examples that are on display. On the examples above I think we are trying to enter to much data either in a table or bullet format. Perhaps we should just leave out all the padding

• B-24J 44-44052 flyable operated by the Collings Foundation and registered N224J.

If it was notable for some reason than more information could be added either in a separate article, the main article or just outside the table or listing. MilborneOne 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Did not believe that soooo many CH-54's were converted to civilian use and still flyable - thought maybe 10-20 but nooooo. Have to think about the UH-1's however (ROTFWL).
    • As an aviation historian (as I think I said in one of my earlier posts) very very important to know the history behind the aircraft (not that I am going to list every owner (especially on some of the P-51"s) but the military background is necessary.
• My decision on how the list is going to be is the bulleted list - doing the tables is much too much like work (also remined me of doing graphics on a Radion Shack TRS-80 of Commodore 64 way too complicated.)Davegnz 15:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this discusison can be archived somewhere.Davegnz 15:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Page rename preview

There are two aircraft articles which use infomal names in the title that I would to see renamed. I am just testing the waters here to see if I should bother with proposing a formal move for each page.

1. YF-17 Cobra - The "Cobra" name was used by Northrop for the P-530 design, but not the follow-on P-600, on which the YF-17 is based. Simple to rename it as Northrop YF-17.
2. YF-23 Black Widow II‎ - "Black WIdow II" was never an official USAF or even Northrop name. The name "Gray Ghost" appeared in early publications on the YF-13, but it was not official either. Renaming is not so simple, as the name Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23, while correct according to our naming conventions, is a bit long. One alternative could be Northrop/McDD YF-23; while shorter, it is a bit unorthodox, and certain long-time editors have objected to such names recently. The other option is simply Northrop YF-23, but this leaves out McDD, who was a primary partner, not a subcontractor. One final option would be YF-23 ATF, but I don't think this is an obvious choice.

Any comments? - BillCJ 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought renaming the the two articles would not cause much of a problem, it is highly unlikely that somebody would search for YF-23 Black Widow II if it was not the official or common name. As long as what you choose re-directs from YF-17 and YF-23 which is what I suspect most people would search for if they did not know exactly who built it.MilborneOne 20:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• It seems Northrop had a bit bigger role than MDC, maybe like Lockheed Martin does with the F-22. So I think "Northrop YF-23" will be OK. -Fnlayson 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. - BillCJ 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would favour Northrop YF-17 and Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 as the choices for names. Bzuk 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree with Bzuk. --Rlandmann 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that Northrop YF-17 and dropping the "Black Widow II" nickname for the YF-23 are the correct way to go, but I'm neutral on whether it is given as "Northrop YF-23" or "Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23". It's generally referred to as the former, just as the F-22 is most often referred to as the "Lockheed F-22" or "Lockheed Martin F-22" in general usage, although Boeing has something like a 1/3 share. I do notice, though, that the YF-23 article bears almost no mention of McDD's role or share in the program; that really needs to be addressed if the joint name is decided on. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to propose moves for both articles, and take into consideration the concerns addressed above, esp. McDD's role in the YF-23. Please weigh in on the talk pages. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Going to put in a request on the aviation pages (its a biggie) when the pages are named can we settle on one format: Would like to see the B-24 Liberator page changed to Consolidated B-24 Liberator. Same with the B-17 Flying Fortress changed to Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress etc...Davegnz 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There are clear guidelines already in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). -Fnlayson 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree...there's already guidelines, and disagree with the idea of "B-17 Flying Fortress changing to Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress". for us to change such a long-established convention, I'd have to see some pretty compelling arguements, a lot more compelling than just Davegnz wanting it that way. Akradecki 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

type in B-17 in search engine will get:

• B-17 Flying Fortress, a famous World War II heavy bomber
• B-17 Flying Fortress (computer game), a flight simulator
• B-17, Queen of the Skies, a solitaire board wargame

an Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings code describing the Steinitz variation of the Caro-Kann Defence

• "Vitamin B17", a name given to Laetrile by those who claim it prevents and cures cancer
• Saab B 17A, Saab B 17B and Saab B 17C, Saab 17 series of fighter bombers made in Sweden in the World War II era.

Davegnz 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with renaming US Military - I dont think we should disturb the guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) they have evolved by concensus over a number of years. Entering just B-17 in the example above gives you the right article with one click so I see no value in rocking the boat. MilborneOne 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just typed in "B-17" and it gave me exactly what it should: the disambiguation page B17. No slight intended, but I get the impression that since he quoted the whole dab page above, Davegnz doesn't understand the role of dab pages on Wikipedia. They exist to direct the reader to the appropriate place when a search term can refer to more than one subject. I don't see how changing the naming convention will change this - "B-17" is more than an airplane, and dab pages are intended to deal with this kind of issue. The fact that the first entry on the page is the one to the plane shows that things are set up as the are supposed to be. Akradecki 18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I really sympathise with Davegnz. It's always seemed crazy to me that we have one convention for US military aircraft, and a different convention for every other aircraft that ever flew. However, changing that now would be such a Herculean task as to make it completely impractical IMHO. If we were ever to do it, it would probably require a group of volunteers to get stuck into it for a couple of weeks; it wouldn't be a fun job at all... --Rlandmann 07:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize too. However, my preference would be to change the US aircraft pages in line with everyone else's. Really, the designer's name should lead the title; aircraft don't invent themselves, and it's the designer(s)' creativity, investment and hard work that brings them about. However, I've been there and caught the javelins for proposing it before, so I'll demure this time. ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear - yes, it's the naming of US military types that would change (in my ideal world - as Davegnz is suggesting). I just don't want to be the one to do it! --Rlandmann 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Related development scope

Yesterday, User:Rlandmann removed the B-52 Stratofortress, Boeing KC-135, and Boeing 707 links from the B-47 Stratojet page per this diff. His edit summary stated: None of these aircraft were developed from the B-47, which is what WikiProject Aircraft uses this section for.

My response was: WP:AIR is only that strict with the infobox's "developed from" and "variants" fields; we show much more leeway in Related content section now. I can show many examples of this practice, and believe it is now time we modify the "Page Content" guidelines to reflect the existing consensus of many of our editors, myself included. I don't have a new proposal formulated as yet, but welcome any suggestions/proposals to do this. - BillCJ 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the key issue is what does "related developmnt" mean? Can it include those models produced by the same company that are indirectly related through the sharing of certain design elements, or even concepts? It is well documented that Boeing built upon the technology of the B-47 to produce the B-52 and the KC-135/707. Does that merit there inclusion in the "Related development" field? Yes, by using that logic, we might could include all Boeing's airliners to date, so there has to be a limit to how far we go with this. Another example in the Northrop YB-49 and the B-2 Spirit. While not sharing any design specifics, the B-2 did build on the YB-49's technology, as is also documented. - BillCJ 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think sharing of signficant design elements (hardware) and possibly design features should be the limit. I would switch the 367-80 for 707 above myself. -Fnlayson 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, putting 367-80 in place of the KC-135 would be good too. - BillCJ 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the "Related development" field originally tied together closely related designs, generally members of an immediate family. This function has since been taken up by the relevant fields in the infobox and is therefore pretty redundant in this position now. My concern, however, is that placing too-distant relationships in this line as it stands probably implies stronger connections than there really are.

Some possible solutions:

• Deprecate this line, and move its contents to the infobox when encountered in older articles (or re-instate the original function of this line, and remove those fields from the infobox)
• Change the name of this line to something that better reflects what it's (purportedly*) now used for. Something like "Design legacy" perhaps? Easy to do with the parameterised template...
• Add a new line to the related content section and/or infobox to designs influenced by a particular aircraft but with no direct relationship to it.

If a new guideline is developed, it would probably be useful to incorporate a test into it; for example "If you can say: 'The Foomaster FR-13 was a rocket-powered interceptor developed from the Foomaster X-1 research aircraft in 1943', then the X-1 is a related development. If you can say 'The Foomaster FR-13 was a rocket powered interceptor built in 1943. It built upon the experience Foomaster had gained with their X-1 research aircraft' then the FR-13 is a legacy of the X-1 design." Crude examples, not well-worded, but hopefully an example of what I mean. --Rlandmann 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC) * I say "purportedly" not to be difficult, but because I'm not convinced that it really is common practice to include distantly-related designs here. My casual observation suggests to me that this usage seems to be mostly confined to popular or otherwise "cult" aircraft, where some editors seem to want to add as much as possible to both the "comparable" and "related" lines.

Another thought - a new or repurposed "Design legacy" line might also provide a useful place to gather links to the technologies themselves rather than (just) to aircraft that used them; eg a link to Podded engines, if that's the significant design feature in question. --Rlandmann 08:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

hold on I thought the B-52 was just a jazzed-up WWII design (like the B-36) and wasn't the B-47 based on both the B-45 as well as the pogo stick trials Martin did with their B-26 (Middle River Stump Jumper);)?Davegnz 15:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "Related designs" rather than "Related development"? THat widens the scope a bit, and is more in line with the way many editors use the field anyway. "Design" includes more than just the immediate designs the aircraft was developed from or developed into, but would encompass shared design elements. I think the text needs to be pretty strict on what it does lets in, tho. As to the B-47/B-52/367-80 question, I do think that example is borderline, and I could honestly go either way on that one. - BillCJ 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Borderline issues are always useful, since they best highlight areas of ambiguity or imprecision. I agree "Related designs" is better; but my feeling is still that the word "related" implies quite a close link between the aircraft in question. Think about the effect if it were put in prose:

• "The F-82 Twin Mustang design was related to the P-51 Mustang" or
• "The design of the Bf-109 fighter was related to that of the Bf-108 sports plane" or
• "The designs of the Boeing 707 airliner and KC-135 tanker were related"

are all obviously true.

• "The B-52 Stratofortress design was related to that of the B-47 Stratojet"

is also true, but really requires some qualification and explanation

• "The design of the Boeing 737 airliner was related to the B-47 Stratojet bomber"

is also true with even more qualification and explanation to explain that the connection by now is quite a remote one.

The thing is, the footer doesn't provide scope for explanation (nor should it!) so whatever word we end up choosing needs to reflect the degree of closeness that we want to express in the line. --Rlandmann 19:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• A more descriptive section title such as "Related designs" will help, but the guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content should fill in the gaps. Some signficant needs to be expressed there so somewhat basic designs/features such as 2 different aircraft sharing common landing gear does not mean they are related designs. -Fnlayson 20:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather like Rlandmann’s formulation, but I don’t like using the term “legacy” with is open to even broader interpretation than “related design”. For instance, all fixed-wing aircraft designs are a “legacy” of the Wright Flyer (although hardly anything built these days is really a “related design”). I’d prefer something more along the lines of "If you can say: 'The Foomaster FR-13 was a rocket-powered interceptor developed from the Foomaster X-1 research aircraft in 1943', then the X-1 is a derivative development. If you can say 'The Foomaster FR-13 was a rocket-powered interceptor built in 1943. It built upon the experience Foomaster had gained with their X-1 research aircraft' then the FR-13 is a related development." Personally, though, I’d rather keep the sorts of references we’re discussing here limited to “major variants” with separate articles and actual “derivative designs”.

To my mind, the C-135 and B707 are derivatives of the B707, while the KC-135 is a variant of the C-135 (and also thereby a derivative of the 367-80). However, it is generally clearer to “map” derivation through prototype series or production series aircraft separately. The relationship between a prototype like the Boeing 367-80 served as a concept demonstrator for the “derivative” production aircraft designs; this is a somewhat different and more “intimate” a relationship than one simply of design influences. In any case, in this light, the Boeing 367-80 and C-135 are both “related” developments or designs to the B707.

Perhaps the way to look at it is from the perspective of their relevancy to the immediate story of the aircraft that is the subject of the article. The “Related aircraft” subsection offers a handy guide for the reader to go to the immediately preceding and following “chapters”, whereas the “derivatives” are elements in the family genealogy (or heritage, if you will) discussed in these articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Survivors discussion revisited - When are they notable?

(Note, this conversation started on my talk page, and I'm copying the applicable parts here) Regarding all the new "survivors"...I'm a little concerned. We're not a directory, and I'm wondering if we should have some kind of soft limit...documenting survivors when, say, less than 10 have acutally survived. When dozens survive, the notability of the survivors seems to be somewhat diminished. Akradecki 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not an aircraft directory. Survivors should be limited to notable models. Other than that, this project is not here to contain the indiscriminate collection of surviving aircraft, there are other databases that can be obtained from. I saw one the other day and almost nommed it for deletion. This is even a step further than trivia sections. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What is considered notable in aircraft - if you what to use the criterea that the aircraft has done something notable in its past then using that standard, you would eliminate 99% of all aircraft listed in any entry. For example:

• • Under B-29's you would have just two aircraft listed under survivors Enola Gay and Bocks Car (maybe Fertle Myrtle - buts that's debatable).
  • OK how about the B-17 - well you would have just one - Memphis Belle (notable because they made a movie staring this aircraft) - you would loose The Swoose - she's not notable, the only thing (under you standard) is that she just happen to be lucky and survive WWII. OK how about Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby - nope, sorry, again all she did was happen to survive being scrapped (which is the case for all the surviving WWII aircraft) - how about the B-24's, you might make a case for Hadley's Harem (nose section in Turkish museum)(Polesti Survivor), other then that, you would loose Witchcraft and CAF's Liberator I AM927 (again all they did was survive the mass scrappings) - you would have no P-47's, P-38's, B-47 or B-52 survivors listedDavegnz 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? Sounds like a plan to me! - BillCJ 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I thinkg Dave is being a bit over-reactive...I think there are a few more notable survivors, but that gets to the heart of the point: We need clear notability criteria. For instance, there's only one or two CH-54s that I'd consider notable...we don't need a list of every airframe flying, especially since they're still being built. AKRadecki 17:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Someplace I stated that yes the CH-54 section got a little bit long, but, does not include the new built Skycranes just the ex CH-54's. Still do not know the military history behind these airframes however. Still feel that these two articles need to be merged Davegnz 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My "two bits worth" is that there can be a distinction between the significant (notable) surviving airframes as well as a list of survivors. If only a few examples exist such as the Handley Page Halifax, then a case can be made that they are all significant. However, if there are more than ten surviving airframes, a representative list may be more appropriate. I know that sometimes lists as started as in the Douglas B/A-26 Invader which included only a few entries originally "ballooned" into a much more extensive directory but then editing the list was not considered necessary.

My usual approach to the expanding "survivors" list is to place a large directory of survivors into a "sub-article" linked to the main article, as in the exampe of the "P-47 Survivors" which at one time only had four-five aircraft listed but when it began to overwhelm the main body of text with the section acquiring complementary photographs and references wherein it could stand on its own, I moved it into a new article, linked the survivors with an introductory passage on the main P-47 article and designated "see also" or "main article" tag to direct readers to a new link and then all new entries into the directory were redirected into the "P-47 Survivors" article. FWIW, Bzuk 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC).

On a not directly related to this thread, I have proposed Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors for deletion at AFD to get sommunity input on the encylopedic value of these articles. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there’s a need for Wikipedia to list more than “notable survivors – although we might indeed be well-advised to better define that – but we have to keep in mind that the sheer scarcity of a very few survivors can sometimes make them “notable” in of themselves. It is, after all, why warbirds are such an attraction at airshows – they remain pieces of “living history” whether in flyable or static condition. As such, probably every aircraft in the inventory of the Confederate Air Force is a noteworthy example of its breed. For aircraft which survive in relatively large numbers (such as the DC-3/C-47), a comprehensive listing of survivors might (as of 2007) be eye-numbing, so the idea of a rough cut-off – above which only individual aircraft noteworthy on their own merits are included – might be a good idea. For many historical aircraft, there are aficionado sites we can link to which are dedicated to tracking, maintaining and updating extensive listings of surviving and lost aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Two part answer:
* 1) Surviving C-47 would be daunting, plus as you mentioned many airframes are still working (plus C-47 is not consided a rare aircraft) - True airliner DC-3's maybe (more C-47's built then DC-3's)
* 2) You mentioned numerous aficionado sites on the internet - problem is these sites only give bits and pieces of the background on these airframes no one place (except what I have compiled which gives it all) - If having aficionado sites was a cause for deletion then accordinly; the Star-Trek / Lost in Space, Quantum Leap entries should be deleted (plus do we really need a wikipedia entry for every Star-Trek episode ever created) (also does this not violate Wikipedia policy on exposing plots)

• I agree both that aficionado sites run the gamut of quality and thoroughness of coverage, and that having a reliable, well-researched site for capturing historical information on surviving – and even non-surviving – aircraft would be a boon to aircraft aficionados; however, these noteworthy objectives do not necessarily mean that Wikipedia, per se, is the right place to have them. That’s why there are a variety of other sister wikis, like Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, and (perhaps most relevant to this issue) Wikispecies. I most like BillCJ’s suggestion at New Wiki-hosted site idea as perhaps the best avenue for the extensive historical material at issue here, not least because it would support original research, which Wikipedia does not. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Concur. - BillCJ 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill sounds like you would have been happy in 1946 to scrap every single B-17, B-24, P-47. you have no sense of aviation history nor helping others with preserving aviation history - since you can not be bothered then WHY are you even bothering those of use that are making an attempt - like George Carlin said "you do not like what I have to say, there are alternatives - change you dial or turn off you radio" just leave me alone Davegnz 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dave, it's not about what I like or don't like, but what Wikipedia does or does not allow, and its policies on notability and verifiability. Follow the policies, and we'll leave you alone. - BillCJ 15:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a notable survivor should follow any other guideline of wikipedia for notability. It is the subject of multiple trivial sourceS? Was there a famous story with one particular warbird? A publiushed story of heroism? Things like that make it notable. It being a cool old airplane with only a few left, that does not make it notable (as much as I am fascinated with cool old airplanes). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Chris quick trivia question for you " does an WWII aircraft that crashed because its navigator got lost (on a unimportant mission) and is found say 20 years later considered notable. More then likely you just said no, so you have just eliminated "The Lady Be Good" from your listDavegnz 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought - if the list of survivors is to big for the main article then it is probably to big for wikipedia. I would suggest they are many resources on the internet that list surviving aircraft. of all united states military aircraft, british military survivors. Not sure we want to duplicate the hard work on those sites. If a list of survivors can be sustained in the main article without being deleted then it is probably about right. Any aircraft that are really notable probably can justify an article of its own, Enola Gay etc, they are 15 B-29s with their own articles (refer Category:World War II notable aircraft). Also note that Lady be Good (aircraft) must be notable as it has an article! MilborneOne 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

List of survivor list articles

I am creating a list here of survivor list articles. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Republic P-47 Survivors
• Boeing B-47 Stratojet Survivors

NTSB aircraft info

I just found a ton of detailed aircraft configuration, design, and construction information, along with fleet size and history data in an NTSB accident report, which I transcluded to the Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-4 article. The NTSB reports could be a valuable resource for creating and expanding aircraft articles. Dhaluza 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Help need in photo images being systematically deleted

This morning, Strangerer and Jusjih went on a tear and began tagging all the images from the World War 2 in Color collection for speedy deletion. As some editors may appreciate, this collection of wartime photographs is based on government (as well as private sources) that represents unique images from the Second World War. I have replaced some of the images- P-51, Hawker Typhoon and Henschel HS 123 as a test to see how far they will go in eliminating the extant Wikipedia images. Any suggestions? 12:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I was up late last night when it all started, but I didn't think to put {{holdon}} tags on the image pages. That would stop the CSD (at least it should, assuming these guys will follow the rules). You probably need to place proper tags and sources on all those images, rather than trying to re-upload them, as they have already tagged one as a duplicate. Other than that, I don't know what else to tell you. They should not be CSDing the images, but these image deletionists feel they are justified in their actions, and thus exempt from WP:AGF. - BillCJ 14:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The BAE Hawk operators map got deleted too. I believe it was a user made image. It doesn't seem like anyone had a chance to add the license info with no warning added the Hawk article beforehand. -Fnlayson 02:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This just shows how really important proper tagging of images is. And, I would also suggest, that such images be placed in Commons, not here. AKRadecki 02:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just checked over at CAT:CSD and didn't seen any currently tagged for speedy. It'd probably be a good idea for everyone to periodicly check this area out while online, and if one shows up, add {{holdon}} and focus your comments on justifying the keeping of it, and editing to include PD licensing where applicable. If someone can give me some image names, I can see if I can recover them. AKRadecki 02:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Even more curious is the fact that the image tags were stripped off the images and the aforementioned editor justified this action by claiming that World War 2 in color images were: " Re: Template:PD-WWII-in-Color ==

From the template itself:

“

This is an image from ww2incolor.com. License [1]: Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners. This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions).

”

Hope this helps. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, all the images were very obviously government photos from wartime.Bzuk 04:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

New Wiki-hosted site idea

I have been thinking of this for awhile, but haven't really put any ideas down on pixel as yet. The whole issue of the aircraft survivors has got me thinking on this again. The Wiki Foundation offers space to projects that will follow its policies of open editing. Given that Wikipedia's scope is (correctly) limited as an encylopedia, is it possible that some of us on the WP:AIR project, or perhaps WP:AIR or WP:AVIATION themselves, could ask for hosting space for an exhastive database/encyclopedia on aviation. THe name Avipedia shows no hits in English on Google, so that could be a good title.

This would be a serious site, meaning I don't envision any pop-culture crap, and would still reqire verifiable sources (also Foundation policy to my knowledge for such sites).

I honestly don't know what would be requied for such a site, or what relationship it could maintain with WPAir or WPAviation. I would love to limit such a site to registered user editing only, but I doubt the foundation would allow that, given its Open Editing policy.

Comments? - BillCJ 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, i posted a similar concept at the afd. I think it would be a good sepearation of encylopedic, vs. "useful resources for an enthusiast". -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A bit like Scramble's Aviation Wiki [6].MilborneOne 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but more open, not associated with a publication, and closer in concept to what we already do here, but with a broader scope. As Chris said, "useful resources for an enthusiast". Chris, I must have missed your suggestion there, or I might have commented on that page. - BillCJ 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• If Wikimedia Foundation (mediawiki.org) doesn't work out for this, try MediaWiki (wikia.com). -Fnlayson 19:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikia was what I was trying to remember, and couldn't. That might be our best bet. I'll see what I can find out. - BillCJ 19:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I really like this idea, Bill, and I can offer a good justification for doing it: The simple fact that really valuable reference websites have a tendency to die off. A good example is World Air Forces which had a tremendous amount of info on historical air force inventories and aerospace companies. I emailed the guy who built and maintained it, but it bounced back to me as undeliverable, suggesting to me that he may have passed on. I can identify several other excellent, informative, and unduplicated sites that have also joined the "big hangar in the sky". Something like the Wikia approach would better preserve such work — and frankly I have no problem with enduring advertisements to be able to develop and preserve such irreplaceable original research for that. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. We might out to set up a separate discussion page somewhere, and try to hammer out some basic ideas we can present to Wikia. I'd also like to now if there would be any restrictions on linking such a site to Wikipedia articles, such as a page on aircraft survivors in the Wikipedia article on that particular type. That's only a minor part of the reasons for creating such a site, but that issue is the impetus for bringing it up now. - BillCJ 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Wikimedia Foundation is wikimedia.org; it probably wouldn't host this project (as too narrow and topic-focused in scope; WMF really prefers big expansive "encyclopedia; dictionary; library" type projects not linked to any specific field or topic. (I'm not involved with the new-projects request system, but I know that's what they'll say...)
  • MediaWiki - mediawiki.org - is the hosting software, not a hosting provider, and would only be useful if you want to run this yourself.
  • The people you'd really want to speak to are Wikia - wikia.org - who do commercial hosting of wikis; they prefer free to edit, but run ads to offset hosting costs. They'll take anything that isn't hideously stupid and has a community willing to work on it. (There is no formal connection with Wikimedia, but a lot of people are involved with both, and we get a steady trickle of money from them) Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture

I need help with the Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture page. It is the Pop-culture page for 4 Harrier articles. I am not justufying its existence, but I do try to keep the Cruft out of it. (It was split off from the Harrier Jump Jet page, and I could support merging it back.) Anyway, I have a user wondering why I keep deleting "Metal Gear Solid 2" from the page, with comments at Talk:Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture#Metal Gear Solid 2. Any assistance in backing up our guidelines on non-notable games would be appreciated. - BillCJ 17:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed that the two articles be merged. Please weigh in on Talk:Harrier Jump Jet#Requested merger, whatever your view. Thanks - BillCJ 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Aviation lists

Yesterday, I reverted an edit that would force this box to be displayed collapsed by default, by a user concerned with its irrelevance to the airport articles that it appears in (whose point I concede!). While I think that this bloated list needs some severe pruning back, I find it very useful in articles about aircraft, and (a) don't want to have to expand it to use it and (b) want readers to know it's there. Please share your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation --Rlandmann 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Davegnz

Please check his recent article moves, it does not seem they are in compliance with WP:Air naming standards. Special:Contributions/Davegnz --Denniss 07:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not surprising, but also not surprising he claims they are in line with WP:AIR guidelines. Can we block users for the inability to actually understand the policies and guidelines as they are written? I don't know of one he's gotten right yet. - BillCJ 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Actually, I just found one he got right: Douglas DB-7 to A-20 Havoc. Whether you agree with the proposed move or not, at least he did propose it correctly! (Yes, I know he couldn't move it because A-20 was a redirect.) - BillCJ 08:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but I suspect you could get him a slap across the wrists for abusing the "Move" function for controversial, undiscussed moves. Emoscopes ^Talk 07:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Input requested for Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors

In a recent AFD here, Piotr Mikołajski fixed up the article on the Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors to make it only contain notable aircraft as opposed to all the wrecked or restoration ones. Both me and other editors liked the new version. I withdrew my afd nomination and moved the new copy over the old one. editor viewed my edits as vandalism and prodded the article. Because of this I would like this projects input on which is better, the old version or the new version. Also, any input on format would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tough call, both versions are useful and although there seems to be a raging argument over the use of survivors articles, I wonder whether it would be prudent at this time to revert to the original version as "survivors" which is all it was intended to do and then incorporate the notable B-29s into the main article, the B-29 Superfortress. I know this changes up the request but I believe that the editor who submitted/created the initial survivors article did provide useful information and devoted a great deal of time to compiling the list of aircraft. As far as I can see, there is no other data base on this topic that comes to hand except in some specialized references sources. Not that any editor "owns" an article or has "last rites/rights" (:}) but I do think that what we have now are two very useful resources. FWIW Bzuk 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Can we all work together on this - think both verson are great. I tried to do a notable section and a new link to B-29 Superfortress Survivors Listing. A history on the remaining aircraft would be fine but for the historian, or someone traveling, or someone looking for what left (or a historian on one specific aircraft) a comprehensive listing is needed.

Link to the website with the comprehensive list in an external links section. That is appropriate. There are websites with all the information. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We had a debate on this subject - lots of input - found lists are acceptable in wikipedia / then the original purpose of this debate was destroyed when the article was changed away from being a listing. Lets return this article to what it was originally created then have Piotr Mikołajski do a seperate article on there histories, linking everything together. this would be an acceptable solution (and since I do have a lot of history I could either help of send him to where the information is) (and if Piotr looked on my article as it was initially created - the links that have been added did give the history on much of these ships.

I would accept this compromiseDavegnz 17:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If only a subset of them are notable, then those should be the ones included per wikipedias notability standards I would think? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Already had this debate - lets move onDavegnz 17:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• WP:Notability is a Policy, not a guideline. Just because you've chosen to ignore it doesn't mean the discussion is over. - BillCJ 18:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would like to list all 25 aircraft which are displayed in museums now... and nothing more. When I collect sufficient info and history of each exhibited aircraft I'll add it there, not earlier. I see no sense in publishing info about each airframe or wreck which can be restored to museum of flyable standard and maybe one day will be restored. I could understand listing such wrecks when there is no complete aiframe for display, line in case of Bv 138, Fw 200 or dozens of other WWII era aircraft. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in my original posting in the initial afd, wrecks are complete airframes (60%+) not tiny pieces or major components. Been doing aircraft rebuilding for 30 years and know what is and what is not restorable (btw there is a fw200 being restored) been seeing a lot stuff coming out of Russian being restored from nothing but piles of wreckage Davegnz 17:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

if i had only 60% of the airplanes I fly, I am pretty sure they would not work. 60% is not the complete airfram. I would accept a compromise where we create a listing with history. There is no need to have a list, then have a seperate list with mosre information. Create 1 list. Also, determine which ones belong in this list. Not every single one is notable. I would be all for inclusion of all the notable aircraft on the list, not just every one left in existence. There is a webpage that covers that. Perhaps we could like to that website in our related lists section of most aircraft? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• My understanding of the general procedure at WP is that any item on a list page should by itself be notable; however, for an article the notability of the topic must be established and then any verifiable information is legitimately included. Therefore, I would think that a list of verifiable airframes would be a legitimate appendix to Piotr's revision which seems to be in the form of an article. --Kevin Murray 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am ok with an expansion to include more notable airframes if notability can be asserted. I am not ok with inclkuding every wrecked airframe, every airframe under restoration. I am 100% ok with a listing of aircraft currently on display at a museum or elsewhere of public interest as long as there is some information to make it encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• I like Piotr's version, Piotr did a sterling job! Let's go with it and stick with recording whole aircraft/airframe survivors' history. Let's also put Dave's original list in an archive file behind the Survivors' Talk page for future references. Also, the full 'Deletion' article and discusssions should be archived as well.... as there were excellant points of views and statemnets made. We have a very good cadre of editors in this group, lets make a real difference by adding a few extra guidelines for this Project and expanding aviation and aerospace history for Wikipedia. LanceBarber 05:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Piotr Mikołajski has done an excellent job with his revision of this article (and note that the same can be done with the earlier version), but I tend to agree with Bzuk, that both do indeed contain useful information. My growing preference is for the more comprehensive listing of and information on survivors be included in a project such as BillCJ has proposed at New Wiki-hosted site idea. My preference for Wikipedia articles, though (given what Wikipedia is and is not), is to have something like Piotr’s version as a major “Notable survivors” section in the main article, rather than as independent articles. (That still begs the issue of how WP:AIR wants to define “notability” for such purposes, and we might want to more broadly and specifically discuss the points I made in Survivors discussion revisited - When are they notable?.)

The older version, though, does suggest to me something that is clearly encyclopedic on its own merits – albeit does not go quite as far as Davegnz would like – a list of survivors that can be viewed by the public at museums, etc. Such a “List of B-29 Superfortress survivors”, for example, would be quite valuable for anyone desiring to locate the nearest available viewable example. Articles on (and pics of) what was seen at a particular museum are always popular reading in aircraft aficionado publications and websites. (As a side effect, it might help us to get open-source images that the No-Fair-Use nazis are so eager to delete – and are doing so en masse.) I’d also recommend a “List of exhibited aircraft” category to help manage them. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

List of surviving CH-54 Tarhes

Now that the B-29 list is settled, I'd like to address this one. This is a bit different of a situation, in that it's not as significantly historic of an aircraft, only 7 on the list are in museums, and the rest are actively working, many rebuilt as S-64s. To me, only the 7 preserved examples have any sort of notability that can be assigned to them. Given that there's only 7, I'd suggest moving them back to the main article, and redirecting the list back to the main as well. Thoughts? AKRadecki 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I would also recommend placing the list of civilan rebuilds on the S-64 talk page for archiving purposes. - BillCJ 18:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion - since the S-64 are rebuilt CH-54 recommend that both articles be mergedDavegnz 13:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are all still flyable and not in museusm, how are the notable? I was willing to compormise due to the notability of the B-29. Are the numerous till flyable non displayed models encylopedia worthy? Remeber, notability needs to be established for each item on the list, other than the fact that it is an instance of a notable helicopter. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here to help

I'm available to assist with this project. Please give me an assignment. --Kevin Murray 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, how do you feel about writing about UAV's? There's a huge project languishing, and a bunch of articles that need to be formatted or created. If interested, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction. AKRadecki 22:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Rotorcraft task force could use more help if you care for that stuff. Just watching some articles for vandalism and such is a big help. In any event help out where you can. -Fnlayson 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)