Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Badges?

On a similar subject to 'Roundals' (does not get my vote BTW) I noticed some squadron patches creeping in to the F-101 Voodoo article. It's a non standard section, the images are probably (hopefully) on Commons, do we send them back there? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To quote, "We don't need no stinkin' badges!" - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite, however I just noticed that a very active project member added them! Just worried that it will set a precedent. One of my favourite films BTW! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually they were contributed by three different editors. They actually aren't squadron badges, but official aircraft type badges that were sanctioned by the manufacturer and worn by all RCAF/CF and USAF crews. I figured that were historical and of interest enough to find a home in a gallery at the bottom of the page. There is actually one more in the series, "witch doctor". - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that's ok then! Still a non-standard section and God forbid, a WP forbidden gallery. Just worried that it might open the flood gates for 'racist fanboy' stuff! On the fence. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought a single example in perhaps the service section, and the rest under commons, or how about a montage of the four of them rather than a single image for each?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The survivors section is overburdened in that article too.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That is easy to fix as there is already a F-101 Voodoo on display article. We just need to cross-check and make sure that all in the 101 article are on the list and then remove it. An initial look indicates that some need to be transferred. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"List of ... survivors" articles

IIRC, there were discussions on WPAIR, and in a combined Move discussion, which determined that the aircraft survior list articles should begin with "List Of". Per this example diff, some of the moves to the "List of" titles have been reverted in the past cuple of months. Oddly, the user reverting the moves gave this edit summary: "moved List of B-25 Mitchell survivors to B-25 Mitchell survivors over redirect: This discussion regarding titleing has been discussed - adding "List of" was discarded as pointless. Numerous "List" pages on wiki exsist without having this lable st)" My memory on the consensus of the discussions is distinctly different, but I haven't been able to find the discussions. Thanks. Note that I have reverted some of these articles back tp the "List of" titles, but I will undo the moves if I am mistaken of the consensus. - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

At the moment most of them are lists, they could become articles but would need a lot more textual non-fanboy content. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While I can see both sides of this and could easily live with either, I do have to say that renaming article without discussion is a bit ill-done. It’s not the kind of thing one needs to be “bold” about. The rationale in favor of which way to go could just as easily and validly have been “Numerous "List" pages on wiki exist having this label”. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I do believe (in full good-faith) that there is a preexisting concensus on the issue - I'm just trying to find it! I don't make a habit of having discussins with myself, and then claiming there is a consensus to support it, when either the consensus is the opposite of what I claim, or non exists at all. I truly thought the consensus would be easy to find when I made the recent move reversions (I had been watching them since the moves), but I've yet to find it. I then asked hare, and have not made any moves since. While I would support a new discussion, we don't need to "reinvent the wheel" if a concensus already esists! - BilCat (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe its in here somewhere? There is a lot of conversation which must be taking up project member's time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary! Simple search paramenter, but I couldn't think of one! The main discussion seems to be here, and is the one I was thinking of. I found this comment quite telling: "Checked other wiki pages and found "Lists of solo albums by The Beatles", "Lists of video games" ect... - in agreement that a name change to "List of Chance-Vought F4U survivors" would follow wiki rules and would be acceptable. Davegnz (talk) 11:56 am, 16 September 2008, Tuesday (10 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)" Btw, while there seems to be a clear consensus, "survivors" was not preferred, but there was no consensus on a viable alternative. I'll wait a day or so, and then complete the renaming unless other issues onb the titles are raised that need to be dealt with first. - BilCat (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Like other child articles the titles should reflect the original section titles, List of Foo survivors or List of Foo aircraft on display where Foo is the original article name. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I'd be interested to see where Foo fighters are on display. (LOL) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• And the Foo Fighters. :-) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - change the title to (example) B-24 Liberator Survivors Listing. Cleaner, looks professional, keeps the main article as well as the sub article (Survivors) on the same page when seaching for a specific type of aircraft. I would like some on the lines of Aerography (like discography the list & catalog of a particular musician) but adding the word Listing is not going to end the world Davegnz (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave, please provide a link to the the discussion in which the "List of: format was discarded - a discusion in which more than just yourself participated! As posted above, you supported this format yourself in the main discussion on the issue. If you continue to revert moves contrary to the above consensus, further actions will be taken . - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to recusitate Aluminum Overcast

Despite the PROD and AFD effort, I took it as an exercise to see what can be done to create "a silk purse from a sow's ear" and in the case of this stub article, I spent a few hours simply gathering information and was surprised at how much there was on the individual aircraft. I have very little interest in the subject but wanted to use this as an exercise in research gathering. Please look at: as it is now and then to see the changes made. A coupla questions: should we be bothered if the original article simply fades from the scene? should stubs be looked at for possible expansion? am I completely nutz? (the last question is of course, rhetorical as I have ample evidence as to the answer there...) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Much better now and I think worth keeping, what an article might become is a factor at AfD, problem is who knows what an article might become without doing hours of research unless it is a well known subject?! Well done Bill, glad I don't have to answer your last question! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Better article appeciate your effort - still dont see anything notable in its history! particularly as it was delivered to late to have operated during the war. Most could be a note in B-17 survivors or an article on the EAA. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That aircraft is mostly notable for its work with EAA as a "flying museum aircraft", not its wartime service. I think the article needs to emphasis that aspect. - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I accept that, although that is not clear in the article. Perhaps we need to make it clearer what makes an aircraft notable to have an article of its own. I dont have a strong view on what the citeria should be but it should be robust to use in the future particularly to defend or otherwise AfDs. Lots of aircraft could be considered flying museum aircraft. Perhaps if an aircraft is still airworthy after 50 years it deserves an article! (although that could include some KC-135s and some B-52s!) The original comments a few days ago were about B-25 Made in the Shade (aircraft) which is flyable and more than fifty years old but so are lots of P-51 etc. Just need to agree on a citeria on individual aircraft articles. (but note I did create Avro Vulcan XH558 which is only 49 years old!!) MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Continental Airlines Flight 128

Continental Airlines Flight 128 has been started to cover a severe turbulence incident. There were a few injuries serious enough for hospitalization and more minor injuries. This does not seem notable per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:Air/PC accidents & incidents guidelines. Should this article be tagged for Proposed deletion or AfD? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is almost a daily occurrence and despite the notoriety of this particular incident, it is a minor event, hardly worth mentioning a year from now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

I agree - not notable. Our project consensus standards are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_and_incidents and this doesn't make the grade there. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing and "whitewashing" accusations

I could use some fresh eysd and opinions at Talk:Lockheed Martin#strong bias here and Talk:Lockheed Martin#Corporate Whitewashing. The talk discussions should fully explain the situation. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

With your edit summary, I was sorta expecting F-22 Raptor. :) I'll keep an eye on the LM article to see if it flares back up. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The F-22 would be a more geunine controversy than protesting polling machines and recruiters, but it's better covered on the F-22 page, and that's all it is about. - BilCat (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft notability

Tempted to prod or AfD Made in the Shade (aircraft) which does not appear to have any notability as an individual aicraft. Perhaps the data should just be in B-25 Mitchell survivors but as that is currently in a stunted fan boy style it may be difficult to incorporate. Any thought, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Prod away. The state of survivors article has no bearing on the quality of the individual plane article; a summary is all that is needed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be tempted to incorporate it into B-25 Mitchell survivors or Commemorative Air Force and just make this article a redirect. No need to wait all that time for a prod then! - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What about Thunderbird (B-17) or another Fortress Picadilly Lilly II? Do we have a good guideline?GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline on individual aircraft is at Wikipedia:Notability_(aircraft)#Individual_aircraft and this article doesn't make the cut as far as I can see. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

From my reading Thunderbird and Picadilly Lilly II don't make it either, neither does Aluminum Overcast. Necessary Evil (aircraft) Jabit III (B-29) and most of the others in Category:Individual aircraft of World War II look suspect at first glance. Memphis Belle (B-17) I recognise. what's the appropriate mechanism Prod or AFD? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Although all of the aircraft mentioned have a history and "provenance", that they are essentially stubs, makes it difficult to make a case for retention. I would encourage anyone with adequate reference sources to make an effort to provide a reasonable rationale for their continuation as an article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

History does not necessarily make for notability. I've prodded Aluminum Overcast. It's barely more than a line or two.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

...Note the aircraft history and recognize the role it plays in the EAA? I agree that the length of the submission does not allow the reader to see its notability. Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

I've removed the PROD on Aluminum Overcast to give time for discussion, and possible improvements to the article, per BZuk's observations. - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's obviously a more complex situation so I've started a formal Afd for it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just on a related subject, I am trying to tidy up the mess that is List of B-17 Flying Fortress survivors and while changing a shed full of external links to references I also deleted some of the content. This involved removing wrecks and aircraft that only exist as a panel of nose art. User:Davegnz disagees and has reverted the changes with the edit summary POanel are historic, on display at museums - just because not intacts flyable or anything else does not mean that not part of the B-17 history. I was led to believe that while we had real (and flying aircraft) then wrecks, noses, and small bits of painted panels were not notable. I would agree that some of these cockpits can become notable if no other complete aircraft survive. Also listed was an aircraft that no longer survived but big bits are in a number of different museumns. Looking for other opinions and perhaps some better guidelines rather than remove then again. But you have to consider if painted panels are listed with a complete history of the related aircraft as part of a list of survivors then perhaps it might be time to get our coats. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that B-17 Survivors is an AWARD WINNING ARTCLE and you consider it a mess - Why do you go and creat you own articles instead of waiting everyones time with this nonesense Davegnz (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I just remind you about personal attacks and WP:CIVIL, please comment about the topic in hand and not other editors. Not sure where you get award winning articles as it doesnt meet requirement for a GA or FA by a long way. MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't intact or on the way to being mostly intact - how can it described as a survivor?GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We have guidance material that was developed by consensus some time ago on that at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_on_display which says:

Aircraft on display
Aircraft on display should be information on non-airworthy aircraft that are on permanent public display. It should not include partial aircraft or aircraft not viewable by the public. When a large number of aircraft are still preserved the list should be limited to the most prominent ones.

Survivors
Survivors should be information on aircraft that have survived following the retirement of the aircraft type from normal military or commercial use. It should include airworthy aircraft and any non-airworthy aircraft not on public display but otherwise notable.

As can be seen there, aircraft parts are not considered "aircraft on display" or "survivors". Graeme is quite right - calling left over parts "survivors" is ludicrous! - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

They are good guidelines, we narrowed it slightly in the engine project so that survivors only covers flying examples. We can write guidelines until the cows come home, some editors will not follow the spirit of them however. Common sense will prevail hopefully with these individual aircraft articles, I looked at one and it wasn't notable or even mildly interesting. There is probably a place on the web for these articles but I suggest that it is not here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Survivors is not only Airworthy aircraft, Display aircraft or Aircraft under Restoration. Susvivors has to include the historic footprint (ie meaningfull identifiable artifacts on display). MilborneOne want to eliminate historic artifacts on display at a reconized museum (ie nose art panels) - my comment is how many museums and how many wikiarticles list partial collections are historic treasures (ie Mayan pottery, etc...). MilborneOne also want to eliminate underwater wreck sites (which like museums are being advertised for divers to visit ((underwater museum))) (including B-17 Black Jack which was the subject of a major PBS television special) from the listing. It is clear that MilborneOne has missed the past 15 years in Warbird History: 30 years ago there was less the 10 Hawker Hurricanes in the world, less then 20 De Havilland Mosquito anywhere, etc.... Right now, there are individuals who have recreated the jigs and fixtures to take what was once only a pile of metal and restore it to operational condition. This includes Spitfires (Isle of Man), Hurricanes (England, Canada), P-51's (England, Canada, New Zealand), Mosquito's (Canada, New Zealand), P-40 (New Zealand, Georgia), I know of a company looking at the jigs for the B-26 Marauder. So todays wreck is tomorrows award winning aircraft. The B-17C is also the only know survivor of that series Davegnz (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave, a 'survivor' to me is a single 'living' entitity (aircraft/person), not pieces scattered through museums or even rusting in the swamps of the Phillipines, I watch the warbird documentaries sometimes and it is fascinating to me but that doesn't mean it is ok to write an article on every single piece of old aeroplane that exists on the planet. Perhaps I could ask where do you draw the line on what is notable or what is not? I own a share in, maintain and fly a 65 year old aeroplane that has an interesting but not particularly notable past history, I would like to write an article on it but common sense says that this is not the place for that. So I sympathise but there are project and Wikipedia wide guidelines which often overrule what we would actually like to do, I feel that your insistance on not abiding by the spirit of them (and this subject is not the only one you disagree with) is causing friction. It is almost as if you do not want to collaborate with fellow aviation editors, which surely is the basic principal of a Wiki? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have two aluminum tubes and some AN bolts in my garage that are off Ultraflight Lazair S/N 725. The Lazair is the most produced Canadian aircraft ever designed and therefore very notable, so surely my garage should be mentioned in the article "survivors section? - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not be a smart ass - I am talking about documented, original significant remains. Wikipedia does have a history of listing in articles of interest, this type of information. Take a look at USS Monitor recovery section. The underwater wreck is considered accessable (thus included in the listing) as well as locations of parts of significient interest (conserved and are on display ) Davegnz (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a panel from an Argosy in my Garage! I just like to make it clear nothing stopping Davegnz writing an article on painted nose art, what I didnt like was reading about the history of an aircraft as if it was a complete survivor only to find at then end oh by the way we have only a five foot panel left. As for underwater wrecks wikipedia is not a travelguide for divers, although the subject of using aircraft as dive sites would probably not be a problem. A list of aircraft survivors or aircraft on display is not the right place for wrecks and small bits of aircraft. Restorations could be notable if they were the only one a type brought back to life but yet another modern P-51 or Spitfire is not really notable to the original aircraft type. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a tavelguide - then you better start deleting all the museums of the world, all the cities listed in wikipedia etc... Gee and how long did it take for you to read 24 word then to hit in large text NOTE: You write as if you spent an entire day trying to figure out the big words and wasted many many hours of your valuable life only to find out that this single line reference was talking about a artifact Davegnz (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Davegnz: please go and read WP:CIVIL, this sort of behavior, including insults, is not an acceptable way to conduct yourself. If you persist in uncivil behaviour you will be blocked from editing. - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite the discussion on this page Davegnz has added back nose art and reverted other improvements. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there is clearly no consensus to do that, so as an admin, appropriate action should be taken. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought that Davegnz, or anyone else for that matter might like to consider – any artefact, or part of an aircraft, belonged to one that evidently did not survive! --Red Sunset 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fragments of wrecked aircraft are rarely going to be notable where there are surviving complete examples of an aircraft. There may be odd exceptions however, like Lady be Good, or at a stretch, the buts of Rudolph Hess's Bf 110 preserved at the Imperial War Museum.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hotel 900

This article is named for the callsign of the helicopter operated by the Sussex Police Air Operations Unit. The article is supposed to be about the helicopter. I have made a move recommendation to rename the page to Sussex Police Air Operations Unit on the article talk page. --Born2flie (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

I am tidying an article but need help identifying this aircraft which appears in this article. The file name calls it a P-47 and the caption originally said so, but now simply says "A plane used for patrols" which is unsatisfactory. Anyone know what it is? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a North American O-47 observation aircraft - 47 yes, P no!.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tks. I've fixed it. Also changed the next caption from B-24 to B-25. Quite a bit of difference! Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a "Fighter"?

We have several articles on non-bomber fixed-wing combat aircraft. These are based on what some might call an overly restrictive definition of the term "fighter" that is at odds with general colloquial usage. The Fighter aircraft article covers both pure air-superiority (earlier known as "pursuit") aircraft, as well as multirole "fighter-bomber" aircraft, but not dedicated ground-attack aircraft. However, "fighter-bomber" redirects to Strike fighter, which states that the term "strike fighter" is "almost synonymous" with the term "fighter-bomber" – as well as a politically correct euphemism for a "bomber aircraft" – yet does not explain what the remaining small difference between "strike fighter" and "fighter-bomber" is. The Ground-attack aircraft article assigns the term to aircraft essentially dedicated to the CAS role, but it also provides a long list of effective synonyms – including "attack aircraft", "fighter-bomber", "tactical fighter", "tactical bomber", and "strike aircraft".

These are muddy waters, indeed, and it is not difficult to find resources that refer to fighter-bombers, strike fighters, and ground-attack aircraft (including the A-10) as "fighters", generically. Reasonable cases can be made both for consolidating these articles and for the status quo. I would like to encourage the development of a bi-project consensus on which approach to take, in order to gain maximum value from and minimum potential rework of the efforts of those editors working on them. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also Interceptor aircraft, which often lumped with fighters. That's a minor point compared to the ground attack/strike side. I think improving "Ground-attack aircraft" article is the main thing. The Strike fighter article has a narrower scope. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem is combining historic usage with modern. What if we had more articles, with tighter definitions and chronology on each? In that case, we could reserve the Fighter aircraft page for basic introduction and redirection. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In the 'see also' section of interceptor aircraft there are links to five more 'fighters', probably a good time to rationalise things. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew I should have looked for more, but I had an errand to run. I do tend to think that Strike fighter should be merged into Ground-attack aircraft, at the very least. Binksternet has a couple of ideas that might be built upon. A tighter definition approach, though, might "squeeze out" even more articles and, as we're finding, there are already quite a few. Certainly some of these could stand consolidation — or at least better cross-referencing. There might be a better place to address the basic introduction Binksternet suggests: there's also a rather lame article, Military aircraft that could be further worked up. I found that looking for "Combat aircraft", which links there but isn't addressed there! Askari Mark (Talk) 00:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In WWI there were basically three military aircraft: pursuit, observation and bomber. Even though things got more complex in WWII, it is easy enough to differentiate the nomenclature from our current vantage point. In the 1950s and '60s a lot changed with jet power but old weaponry was still in use here and there, so definitions were muddy. From the 1970s to now, many air warfare concepts fell away with pilots not able to observe their target with Mark I Eyeball. I think our articles should be vertically stacked through the different eras of warfare, so that a WWI and 1920s pursuit aircraft article does not share the same name space as WWII fighter/interceptor/Zerstörer nor does it touch the air-to-air missile era. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're suggesting replacing the current set of articles (or just breaking up the "Fighter aircraft" article) into a series of "periods" in the evolution of "Combat aircraft"? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So to get back to the original point (the rest can be sorted out later), do we retain the current, artificially exclusionary usage for the term “fighters” or do we go with a broader, more colloquial usage? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting keeping the Fighter aircraft article but remaking it into a brief summary of all the types of aircraft that a) were not primarily bombers and b) able to engage enemy aircraft. Something like this layout:

• Fighter aircraft
  • Pursuit aircraft (WWI)
  • Fighter aircraft (WWII), including Interceptor fighter (WWII)
    • Night fighter (WWII)
    • Attack aircraft (WWII), including Ground attack aircraft (WWII) and Tactical bomber (WWII)
    • Zerstörer (or multi-crew fighter) (WWII)
    • Fighter bomber (WWII)
  • Jet fighter, including Interceptor fighter (jet)
    • Strike fighter, including Tactical bomber (jet)

What did I miss? Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just toss it all into MILHIST's lap and let them sort it out. It seems to me that an offensive A2A capability is the primary determination for the aircraft to be referred to as fighter. --Born2flie (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor point is Pursuit just American terminology dont think it was used in Europe. MilborneOne (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Pursuit aircraft could redirect to an article at Fighter aircraft (WWI). Binksternet (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Born2flie: How about aircraft like the A-10 and Ju-87, which are often referred to as “fighters”? Perhaps the definition should encompass tactical offensive combat aircraft (differing from bombers as solely theater- or strategic-level A/G aircraft)? It’s interesting to me that (non-bomber) military aircraft developed expressly for ground attack often get referred to as “fighters”, yet COIN-type aircraft adapted from jet trainers (e.g., AT-33, A-37, Alpha Jets), transports (AC-47) or civilian aircraft (F337G) rarely are.

@ Binksternet: Could you provide an example of what you consider a “tactical bomber” that should be included as a fighter? I anticipate you aren’t meaning something like an A-26 or B-25, but perhaps a P-47?

@ All: One option is to capture this in the Fighter aircraft article, as Binksternet suggests. Another approach would be to describe aircraft types and roles in the Military aircraft article with top-hat links to the existing articles. Thoughts one way or the other? Askari Mark (Talk) 20:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never really heard the A-10 referred to as a "fighter", and I certainly would never have thought of it that way.

The Air Force's aversion to the A-7 was that it had no A2A capability. I'm not sure what that assertion is based on, I can only imagine that it was in reference to sighting systems or missiles or both, although the aircraft carried a Vulcan cannon. Working on that assumption, I can see that being designed and equipped with a weapon capable of offense doesn't necessarily equate to being a fighter. Based on the Air Force's structure at the time, the A-7 and A-10 were both tactical aircraft, and the Tactical Air Command was structured with Fighter Wings, Groups, and Squadrons. It would've made sense to rename the organizations according to the role, but placing a non-fighter into a whole community of fighters may have necessitated the practice of referring to the aircraft as fighters, although their design, designation and role speaks otherwise. --Born2flie (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think in some ways the differences may be cultural and semantic in nature. Whenever we had A-10 pilots visiting our bases I noted that they considered it a fighter, but that no one else did. This is not unique, in one CF squadron I served on, the T-33 pilots considered themselves fighter pilots, but the CF-18 pilots considered them trainer pilots or just "targets". - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's as good an explanation as I've ever heard, but the "loose" usage has not been limited to Americans (here: US & Canada). My suspicion is that it is because to non-cognoscenti they look like other "fighters" and their actual function is moot. How should Wikipedia treat them, though? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"How should Wikipedia treat them, though?" The same way anything on WP is supposed to be treated: By citing reliable and authoritative sources. And when they conflict, we present all the views from those sources. I know we'll have to make editorial decisions about how to organize the articles, and that's mostly what the discussions have been about, but we still need to start with the authoritative source, and build from there. Now, what sources? I haven't a clue! Are there aviation encyclopedias that are generally accepted as authoritative that we can cite? Does Jane's have somthing like this? If not, then the better general encyclopedias, such as Britannica, would be next in line for consulting. - BilCat (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tactical bomber or attack airplane that is also considered a fighter: A-36 Apache, the slightly modified version of the P-51 Mustang. Very much able to address A2A problems. I did not mean to include the A-26 nor the B-25. The P-47 falls into the fairly well-represented category of pure fighter aircraft designs that just happened to be good at ground attack. Hawker's Typhoon and Tempest are in that bunch. Regarding the Ju-87 Stuka, few, if any, historians consider this aircraft to be a fighter. The Stuka is much like the Il-2 Sturmovik in that the ground attack mission was foremost, and any ability to attack other aircraft in the air was either defensive in nature or secondary in importance. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen references to the Ju 87 as well as the Il-2 as fighters. The former are more common in contemporaneous sources, though, since it achieved a unique place in the European-American public as the Stuka dive bomber – but other dive bombers have also been called fighters. I agree with Bill that a reliable source that laid it all out clearly would be preferable, but I cannot recall ever seeing one; usually, it's just taken for granted that readers know what is meant and only specific roles get described (or just listed). Unless someone knows of one, it may be up to us to decide upon a narrow or loose definition. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

List of passenger jet airliners by length

Hi. I was looking around for some sort of list that I could compare the sizes of passenger airliners. As the list of airliners by seat capacity was recently deleted, I thought I'd go about making my own list - ranked by length. It can be found here. It's still a work in progress (as you can see, the list currently only has Airbus, Boeing and Douglas/McDonnell Douglas airliners included) but I was wondering if this would be worth continuing to form an article. Opinions are welcome. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 06:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to meet all the citeria that caused the seat capacity article to be deleted, paticularly that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts. I suspect it will be proposed for deletion soon. MilborneOne (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I don't really mind. It's not actually an article yet, it's just a user subpage of mine, so it won't get deleted. Thanks for letting me know. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any opinions on this? I'd still like to work on it and source it and everything... I'm not going to give up because one editor says it will get deleted. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While it looks mostly harmless I am just concerned that it may lead to "List of passenger jet airliners by wingspan", "List of passenger jet airliners by height", "List of passenger jet airliners by first flight", "List of passenger jet airliners by number of wheels", "List of passenger jet airliners by gross take-off weight", "List of passenger jet airliners by number of lavatories" etc. Is length really a useful way of classifying aircraft? To whom is this useful, other than hangar designers? - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur: length is fairly indiscriminate - after all the Bristol Brabazon is nearly No. 20 on the list - but that wouldn't be much use if you were trying to illustrate something about aeroplane development. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We have the giant aircraft template which may help, {{Giant aircraft}}, not exactly what you are looking for perhaps. If I was trying to compare lengths then I would just surf the 'specs' sections. Could also see a problem with extended variants, the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and its later 'MD' variants had many fuselage extensions, the longest looking quite strange compared to the first DC-9. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also the List of large aircraft linked from that template. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I fully agree with Ahunt in the speculation that it is likely this will lead to different ranking alternatives, however the fact it is not useful to any particular group of people should not determine whether or not it exists. Is List of tallest buildings in the world or List of longest tunnels in the world useful to anyone other than engineers? Of course it is... People wanting to know the rankings of the tallest buildings and longest tunnels.

GraemeLeggett, I specifically named the subpage and clearly clarified the list as for jet airliners only, to eliminate the numerous other piston-engined aircraft.

Thanks to you all anyway... --timsdad ^(talk) 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The main difference between List of tallest buildings in the world or List of longest tunnels in the world, and airliner length, is that the bulindgs and tunnel's distiguishishing feature is length/heigth, while in aircraft, wingspan is often greater. Aircraft are generally ranked by size in relation to weight, not length. That's why the others are questioning the usefulness of this list. - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bill here, if this list is necessary I really think it should be by gross take-off weight, since GTOW is used for certification and most other categorizations. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

However, there is an alternative: the tables in List of large aircraft could eb expanded to include dimensions and weights, and those could be sortable, with redirects from likely titles. I could see the usefulness in that, though I'm not recommending it at this point (and I could not create such a table!). - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that, in addition to the current, unranked, list in that article, we add several other ranking alternative tables (e.g. one each for length, wingspin, GTOW, etc...) That would be very time consuming (not that I'm opposed to doing this) and would probably lengthen the list considerably - possibly even too much. However, if there are no realistic alternatives I'll be quite happy to take that up as a project to work on. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The current tables in List of large aircraft are sortable, ie. if you click on the symbol in the "Aircraft" or "First flight" columns, they will be rearranged in the list successively in ascending or descending order. Currently, the "Notes" colum is very wide, nd this would probably need to be replaced if more columns were added to cover dimensions. The table could then be sorted according to each dimension (length and wingspan being the primary ones). - BilCat (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I realised what you meant when I took the time to study your comment a bit more closely. I think that's quite a good idea, and I might go about creating that list in my sandbox as soon as I can. Do you think the list should be limited somehow? Because it's not possible to limit it to the longest 20 airliners and the largest wingspans at the same time. However, if more details are added to the current aircraft at List of large aircraft, the rankings would be rather innacurate. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dassault SSBJ

I rediscovered this (proposed) aircraft when looking at the General Electric F414, and I think there might be enough information out there to make a page for it (which I'm willing to do). Any reason why I shouldn't make the page? SidewinderX (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

'OR' alert!

Might be worth checking these contribs as a lot of uncited 'OR' is being fed in: [1] This message is brought to you by the OR police! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Glasflugel redirects

It appears from the list of gliders in Glasflügel that we have a complete set where quite a lot of them are redirects (to Glasflügel) and should be empty redlinks, not encountered this problem before, it looks like the redirects need to be deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion?. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Me again, I wasn't sure what to do but realised deleting the re-directs would throw up some alarm bells somewhere.Petebutt (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked how best to deal with them in the redirect project. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer was that the only way to fix the problem is to nominate the redirects for deletion. They suggested that we remind editors of the red link guidelines. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have listed them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#August 14 Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Streamlining

An editor has changed the link from Streamlining to Streamliner on a few aircraft articles (like Beechcraft Staggerwing). Probably because Streamlining was linked to Streamline. As far as I am aware Streamliner is an American term related to railway engines etc. Really need to point it at an article that talks about aerodynamics etc to stop it being changed again. Any ideas, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Parasitic drag? Looks like the noun is being confused with the adjective 'streamlined'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem also includes that Streamlining leads to a DAB page, none of which apply! I have removed the link and left "streamlining" unlinked. - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks seems a reasonable move for the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I just couldn't find a better place to link it! Sometimes the best wikilink is no wikilink! - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Horten H. or Horton Ho

With very little discussion save edit comments, a whole range of Horten aircraft articles have been moved to a new designation. Again, can I ask for opinions here, as the Horton Ho series seems to have been well entrenched and now the articles are all over the place in terms of the designations, both in the article title and the body of text. FWiW, see article Horten H.XVIII which has existed since 2005 under the designation Horten Ho XVIII. Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

Again, apparently undiscussed either here or there, I note the German article retains the original spelling. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith & Kay in German Aircraft of the Second World War has Ho I, Ho III and Horten I, Horten III etc interchangably- note that these are NOT RLM 8- numbers although the Horten III, IV, V, VI and VII also had 8-numbers although some of these were also allocated to other aircraft. Green and Swanborough, in their article in Air Enthusiast 39 refers to them as H I, H II etc (i.e. space not .).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem New Articles

Two new articles found: Fairchild 100 only one sentence, and Heinkel HD 43 just a copy of specs, worth rescuing or proding? MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, since our aim is to have articles on all aircraft types I would say keep 'em, but someone with refs needs to go and fix them! - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a ref and some structure to the Heinkel article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit more to Nigel's start to the Fairchild 100 article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

Fairchild 100 looks a lot better after a good team effort, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a multi-project manned working group to focus on Black Projects

I recently completed a sweep of the pages tagged with the black project template that fall within the scope of the military history project. In my report to milhist on the pages, their content, and the questionable material and sourcing in some articles I received a reply from the a contributor at WP:SPACE suggesting the milhist formally incorporate a working group to oversee these black project to better ensure that they stay free of original research and unreliable sources and ensure that the pages conform to the best of their ability with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The more I think about this suggestion, the more I am of the mind that it would be a good idea not only for WP:MILHIST, but for WP:SPACEFLIGHT and WP:AIR. The vast majority of the black projects covered break down into one of four distinct categories - space based recon satellites, advanced recon and fighter/bomber aircraft, military R&D programs, and signal/electronic intelligence programs - and each of our projects is best suited to cover one aspect of these black projects.

Working groups at milhist are considered to be a step below our task forces, so if your project members agree to participate we will not have to create a bunch of new pages for the working group, we can attach this working group to either the military technology and engineering task force or the Intelligence task force and use the existing task force as a base of operations.

For this reason and for the potential for better improvement and monitoring of our black project articles I am interested to know if there are any members of this project who would be interested in joining such a working group. As the working group must exist within the milhist project I would ask that all interest parties place their replies on the main milhist talk page, noting the project you are from (if you are coming from a project other than milhist). Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments/suggestions, at this point this is very much in the planning stage, and any feedback/input would be welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect template

Could an admin look at Template:Jetspecs, and consider semi-protecting it, as with many other templates? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Supermarine Aircraft at AFD

The following article is at AFD: Supermarine Aircraft. Any feedback would be welcome. The AFD can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarine Aircraft. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Project participation

There is a discussion and poll about project participation going on here. Please take a look and share your opinions. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(Bump) Anyone? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Airliners

All this discussion on random facts about airliners I had a look at the Airliner article which is a bit of a mess. It has some really iffy sub-articles like Short haul, List of regional airliners and Regional jets which is just another list. Like to suggest that it could really do with starting again with a bit of balance, perhaps break out to a History of airliners might be a good start (at least it could mention Aircraft Transport and Travel conducting the first international passenger flight!) that could do with development of the aircraft by decade. Just mention that as the Airco DH.16 had only four seats and a MTOW of only 4,750 lbs it is not an airliner according to the article. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that most of us are too afraid to go anywhere near airliner stuff, as you have noted it has turned into a royal mess. As long as the involved aircraft articles are kept reasonably tidy then it doesn't bother me. I see that airline company articles are high up on the reader count scale, should be taken into account when editing high profile articles. Hopefully members of the airline project can get together and improve the situation. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much fancruft involved in airline articles! That is why I am working on obscure ultralights instead! - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The best airline review I've recently conducted was for an obscure (albeit major for that market), foreign airline. The problem I'm finding is that much of the average airline article is built on the airline company press releases, or on the aviation news media outlets that base a lot of their reporting on press releases. I also see similar reference issues with a lot of airport articles. --Born2flie (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

P.Z.L. P.7 and more

A editor has begun to change all the PZL-related articles to a P.Z.L. nomenclature which is not how the company identifies their aircraft nor company, or how Polish authors designate the type. See:PZL. What to do? Should people scream at the top of their lungs, no wait, that's reserved for health care reform town hall meetings in the US. LOL. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's wrong and it will cause linking/redirect problems, strictly the Rolls-Royce RB series should have dots between the letters and numbers, as should the de Havilland types and others, the DH 'problem' was discussed a while ago. Life's too short. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Within the body of the article, the editor has not changed the designation to P.Z.L. so it looks decidedly odd to have two different forms of the same name. I still vote for spittle-laden yelling! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I noticed that. Seems to me that if all the current articles are 'PZL' then a consensus standard has been established (also appears to be correct) therefore a new consensus needs to be established to change them all, n'est'ce pas? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article back. Such a change would affect tons and tons of wikipedia articles, we would basically have to change PZL to P.Z.L. in all other aircraft produced by that manufacturer articles plus well wherever PZL is mentioned. Wikipedia is not a jungle, if this guy wants to make this mammoth change he needs to first explain why most sources are wrong in using PZL, list his sources etc, etc. Loosmark (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's probably where this contretemps should stop for now until some discussion takes place revolving around the rationale for the change. The alteration of pre-World War II PZL aircraft names to a new P.Z.L. standard may actually be following the correct designations considering that the editor has already indicated that reliable verification from tertiary sources in Poland is available. One change recently made to an article included the complete re-naming of the aircraft in the article to the new designation which is a great deal of work but if the editor is prepared to make that type of commitment, the wholesale changes can be effected. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Companies do not help, was SNECMA, now Snecma etc, even Rolls has dropped the dot between RB's and numbers now. There is a 'most common name' guideline somewhere here I think. Can't remember all the WP shortcuts! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It was me !!! Yes I have based my edits on a single source, but a very well respected one, and the way the source has been written provides the evidence of the correct format for P.Z.L. pre-war designations. I have issues with some other Po;ish articles such as PZL-Bielsko used for SZD gliders, where PZL-Bielsko is a modernism which was never applied to SZD gliders during their production runs (yes most were built at PZL facilities at Bielsko but production was not exclusive to Bielsko. Just another point in the argument:- Do we seek accuracy or give in to the american attitude of "I can't be bothered with what things were, this is what they are now!"Petebutt (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME, it's easy really, here's the bit that's relevant to us:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

We are 'specialists' in this case. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For aircraft there is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), but this doesn't help in this case. It should be updated when a decision is made tho. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly , the naming convention does not say use a fictitious name because we can't be bothered to be accurate!!!Petebutt (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The PZL-Świdnik company uses PZL in the company name, see:PZL and a number of authorities also use this designation, see countless William Green tomes, Tomasz J.Kopański's PZL P.7, PZL P.11c, Adam Zamoyski's The Forgotten Few as well as Janusz Żurakowski's Nie tylko o lataniu. Żurakowski was a contemporary PZL P.7 and P.11c pilot and he uses the PZL designation throughout his memoirs. The contention that the terminology is "Americanized" as was mentioned in a note on my talk page, is unsupportable. The many Polish and European-based authors, historians and researchers have merely adopted the standard used; it is a common practice in ethnology that words change through the process of common useage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

All of the unilateral changes now being effected on the range of PZL-related articles need to stop, as a consensus must be established. Have any of the changes been accompanied by a supportable motion or request? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

---

OK, time for my Polish trzy grosze'... or 0,03 PLN if you prefer ;)

Dear Petebutt, I can understand your need to create perfect articles but don't you think it's better to talk about such changes before you make a lot of mess? Especially when you have only one source? Book of Jerzy B. Cynk was great... in 1971 when it was released. But believe me, book released in 1971 is really outdated. It was published almost 40 years ago and we have a lot of new and much better researched sources here in Poland. In recent years (2007-2008) Wydawnictwo Stratus released three volumes of Polskie Konstrukcje Lotnicze series where all aircraft created before 1939 were carefully described as well as their manufacturers. All aircraft from Państwowe Zakłady Lotnicze are now written as PZL - i.e. PZL.37 or PZL P.11 (P. for a/c designed by eng. Zygmunt Puławski only). BTW - it would be nice not to see changes like this one where you've put wrong designation of Łoś bomber. If you want to correct anything, you really have to have sources much stronger that one old book and your own POV. That's the only way to create valuable encyclopedia.

OK, let's back to main subject. Of course you may find P.Z.L. designation in some sources. Company logo between 1928 and 1929 had dots... but later ones had not. You may also find some pre-war manuals (like that for P.11a fighter) which say P.Z.L.. Main issue is that manuals weren't published by company but by Departament Aeronautyki Ministerstwa Spraw Wojskowych. As any part of bureaucracy world Departament Aeronautyki' was quite careless about many details too. For example manual mentioned earlier says about P.Z.L. typ P.11A, kind of designation which war not used. Even more, this manual says about P.11A, another about P.11c. It means that pre-war military manuals are not the best sources for such details like dots or upper/lowercase.

P.S. We had also some official spelling changes in Polish language since 1939 so the only correct designation is PZL, not P.Z.L. Any future changes PZL to P.Z.L. should be treated as vandalism. If you want to see some proper names of Polish aircraft and gliders, you may go to my personal page and look at the To-Do list.--Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of commercial aircraft

Another random list of a very small sub-section of commercial aircraft at Comparison of commercial aircraft has been added as a link to mainly airline articles. Just asking for opinions before I prod it under not a random collection of facts. Probably a few thousand commercial aircraft missing from the list and a random comparison criteria! 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup totally random, Prod away! - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article, now at List of commercial aircraft, has been de-prodded. The de-prodder is a regular editor, and recommends giving this one time. I think its redundant to other lists that already exist, and the we should send it it AFD. Comments? - BilCat (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is similar in some ways to my list of passenger jet airliners by length (or at least what I was planning to do with it). The discussion can be seen above. I just thought I'd note the comparison, though I feel that neither this article or mine haven't really got a place on Wikipedia. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs an AfD, I will do it later when I have more time, unless somebody does it first! MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've saved you the trouble (or, more accurately, Twinkle saved anyone the trouble) of nominating it for AfD. The nom can be found here. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Similar theme is List of airliners by Maximum Takeoff Weight. MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commercial aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Houston We Have A Problem

I just had a look through these three articles:

• Slingsby T.8 Kirby Tutor
• Slingsby Kirby Tutor
• Slingsby Tandem Tutor

and I think we have a problem of duplication here, although my knowledge of these types is lacking and that text of the articles doesn't completely sort it out. Do we need to merge some of these or do the titles and details just need fixing? - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Kirby Tutor and Tandem Tutor are different gliders the confusing article is the Slingsby T.8 Kirby Tutor which tries to deal with not only the T.8 but others that were given the military Cadet name. Suggest rescue anything from Slingsby T.8 Kirby Tutor and redirect to Slingsby Kirby Tutor which also meets the naming convention. Just thought of another idea that is to move Slingsby T.8 Kirby Tutor to Slingsby Cadet to give an overview of the military variants (Cadet name was given to more than one Slingsby type). MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Slingsby Aviation#Aircraft shows that more than one article uses the T.# model designation in the article name. --Born2flie (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Only a few, they should be changed in the spirit of the naming guidelines. MilborneOne (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK both Kirby Tutor articles were created by the same user! I have redirected Slingsby T.8 Kirby Tutor to the earlier Slingsby Kirby Tutor. The Tandem Tutor is not the same type. I also created a disambiguation page for Slingsby Cadet which was three different types. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those- it seems to make better sense now. I had read them all a couple of times and couldn't sort out whether they were duplicate articles or some degree of overlap or what! It definitely needed a subject matter expert to sort it out. The disambiguation page was a help! - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nth Generation Fighter

So I made the mistake of looking at the Fourth-generation jet fighter page... wow. First, the talk page is mostly ancient, I guess it needs to be archived a bit. Second, at a terrible lump of made-up, rumored, and uncited information. I half feel like it should killed to make an example of a not-good article. With that out of the way... there are a couple of distinct complaints. First, is there an official (or anything like it) definity of a "4th generation fighter"? Is there anything more to it than instinct (like F-15 vs F-22 for example)? More than just what an article in AvWeek said the airplane was? If so, that needs to be front an center in the article. If there is going to be a 4th and 5th gen article, where is the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen articles? Also, the design section considers a bunch of factors that may or may not be 4th gen traits, and doesn't explain them well. Does anyone watch over this article or work on it? Is there any point? - SidewinderX (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The post WWII fighter generations are covered in Fighter aircraft. For whatever it is worth, there's a discussion above about that article and its relationship to related articles in section "What is a Fighter?". -Fnlayson (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You might find this essay useful: Defining Jet Fighter Generations. Unfortunately, there is no formal, "official" definition, which is unfortunate since there are some very uninformed opinions out there. It's actually a professional "consensus", and the earlier the "generation", the fewer sources there are to explicitly "prove" that a given aircraft belongs in one vice another. I performed a major rewrite of Fighter aircraft last year and found it to be a never-ending battle to keep fans of particular aircraft from "promoting" them to the next generation (or half-generation). I haven't really worked on it since and made a point of staying away from the daughter articles because the contentiousness is quite full-blown there. Suggestions are always welcome, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Aviation contest

As many of you are aware from the invitations I sent out, there is a new contest starting in the Aviation project. If I somehow missed you, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest. I created this contest for, what is provisionally titled The Peter M. Bowers International Award For Meritorious Service in the Pursuit of Aviation Knowledge or PeMBoInAwMeSPAK, with the aim to motivate increased quality in aviation articles and improve participation in the Aviation WikiProject by offering a form of friendly competition for project members. We already have 20 members signed up, if you would like to take part you can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the competition will start soon; if you can't take part, come out and help the competitors by assisting in their peer reviews, article promotions, etc. Hope to see you there! - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A teeny style question?

Would it be normal to abbreviate the Eighth Air Force to 8th Air Force? Looks wrong to me? This form is in Rolls-Royce Merlin which I am having a good look at. Thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Because of their badge (which uses a numeral) it is often written that way. - Ahunt (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, same with the Second Tactical Air Force often being referred to as 2nd Tactical AF or (as can be found in official documents) 2 TAF = more a matter of taste and common sense rather than style, especially if the item is wikilinked and the abbreviation is consistent throughout the article. Minorhistorian (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, either way seems ok then, the emblem in the article infobox has the full word 'eighth'?!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mirage

Strange article just created Mirage F1AZ should it be redirected to Dassault Mirage F1, although that seems to have gained a South Afican theme as well! MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair to redirect to the main article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks article has been redirected. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce Merlin Featured Article nomination

I've started a preliminary voting procedure at Talk:Rolls-Royce Merlin#FA Nomination? if anyone would like to add their thoughts either way. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Propeller

Propeller is a bit jumbled at the moment, covering both aircraft and marine (screw) propellers. Since the aircraft propeller is a key component on many aircraft, would it be etter to split this off to Aircraft propeller? (Currently a redirect.) This would give us better control over the article, and allow for more expansion. - BilCat (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote for "prop job", which would be be etter (nicce niew variatchion onn de wurd). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

Airscrew?, Propeller (aircraft) using the disambig form?GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Units and the specs templates

With the little units war happening at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft), I'd like to bring up a few things. We need a units section for the style guide. I added a section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Content#Units that needs expansion. I think this will be usefull in explaining why we don't always use metric, etc. Does anyone have a link to specific discussions on this?

Also, why are we still using two differing specification templates? They are both being widely used, which doesn't help if we're trying to promote unity and a specific style to use. Can we perhaps come to an agreement on merging the two? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both points!! - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I added this dose of common sense Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines#Units when we set the engine task force guidelines up, is this what is missing? What two templates are we talking about?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we get these anti-US customary unit crusaders every so often. This one is only 16 years old, but thst doesn't excuse misreading thee MOS.

As to the specs. RLandmann created the second one (aerospecs) to get round some issues with the first one. WWhile it is more flexible, esp in met/Imp units, it doesn't have all the features some editors want. I acutally prefer the layout of the original. Whatever we choose, both specs are each used on hundreds of rticles, and it would probably be a big job to update them. It still needs to be done, however, and will only get worse in time. I'm definelty for a single specs template with the best of both. - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary: That is perfect - incorporate that!!! - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my invoice is in the post! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The two Specs templates: {{Aircraft specifications}} (original) and {{Aerospecs}} (RL's template) - BilCat (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done the units guideline thing, the second one looks more complete at first glance and it has the selectable met/eng?? units although I am forever confusing it with {{Aero-specs}}. We have 'jetspecs' and 'pistonspecs' for engines, logic would say that this should be renamed 'aircraftspecs'? Just in case we are not confused already!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to confuse aero-specs/aerospecs. One issue with the second one is that it does not include knots/nmi functionality, AFAIK, and there are some other features it lacks. Overall, I do like the switchable met/eng feature. - BilCat (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well we should fix it and ditch the first one perhaps? I am also confused by the relationship between the 'style guide' and page content, I think the 'style guide' is something that was brought upon us and Trevor is doing his best but there seems no obvious link between the two pages. If established editors can't keep up with the changes then new editors don't have much of a chance either. We have just the one page in the engine task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines, which acts as both a content and style guide (it may be over-simplified but it seems to work), WP is full of general style guidelines that we all use in the aviation articles. I am fond of rules and guidelines myself but there must come a point when it becomes overwhelming. I think what Trevor is trying to do is create a style/guideline page that is intended to end the continual 'why can't I use roundels' type questions that we see daily, sadly even with 'perfect' guidelines it will still happen. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Page content tabs on the subprojects are actually just transcluded pages from the style guide. WP:AIR/PC is Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft). As for the two specs templates, I prefer to use {{Aerospecs}} only because I hate how you have to manually type in the units for every item in {{Aircraft specifications}}. If someone could give a list of what each one does that the other doesn't, then we just combine the two lists and code the new template. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. I like the Units addition to the style guide, but it also needs a paragraph on using feet for altitude and runway length. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an old PC page that is still readable? All for fixing the template and sticking with just one, must have a proper look at the differences. Where do feet and runway length come in to it? I'm a bit lost. Surely the 'unit' advice I entered earlier sets the primary unit in an article (unless a different country is involved?!!) Trying to stay with it all! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is units info at both WP:WikiProject_Aircraft/page content and WP:WikiProject Aircraft/Units now. Why not move all that to the Units page and leave only the link on the page content page? -Fnlayson (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that units should be in one place. There are two elements to the units we use. First is which units we prefer to use (metres rather than cm for dimensions, yards and metres for altitude, lb and kg for weight etc) the second is the order in which to use them. The second is trickier because of changes in practice. British aircraft used mph then later (post war) knots for speeds. Any new British aircraft would now probably be built to metric dimensions but used to be in Imperial units. US aircraft fuel tanks in US gallons but British pilot notes for these aircraft would use Imperial gallons. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Preferred specs template features

Overall, the {{Aerospecs}} template is good. It lacks, on purpose, the ability to add nautical miles/knots measurements, which would be useful becasue some sources don't include statute mile measurements, and not everyone has the time or ability to do conversions at will. My other issue is that the "|eng1 type=" and "|eng2 type=" fields are supposed to be used for the name of the engine AND its engine type - a separate name field for the engine's name would be nice.

Also, if a third engine options could be included in the coding, for those rare aircraft with three types of engines (I can't think of any right off, but I think Have seen a few.)

In addition, {{Aircraft specifications}} included a separate section for propellor/rotor info, including propellor company name (like Hamilton Standard or Dowty), and diameter. Rotor info is included already in Aerospecs, but not info for propellor. Ofent users try to squeeze this info into the engine fields, which just makes a mess - having the separate info would be good.

Finally I'd prefer the older one's named fields for armament to the newer ones (armament1, 2, etc.).

That's all I can think of for now. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the newer Rlandmann spec (Aerospecs) it is alot easier to populate when creating new articles. But I would suggest we should use that one but take into consideration BilCats comments above (and perhaps some of the glider requirements - could that be another bolt on at the bottom!). MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My preference is for the unit handling of the aircraft-specifications template (ie that it is open for any units - see my note on units above) and the use of the more_xxx= that formats the addition of qualifying statement after performance values and the generic more_performance= and more_general= to add data that isn't already catered for. There are three ways that we can go about moving to a single template - move all to either of the current templates (after modification to carry extra params) or create a single new template based on the other two and migrate articles to that one. A tool that helped migration in any case would be useful. (The migration of military vehicles to the weapon template, left infoboxes without a full list of params for later expansion) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Whlie having "open units" is very felxible, it takes away the Eng/Met swapping capability. Perhaps those functions can be combined, or maybe have a "More" field for each set of values. I also like the generic more_performance= and more_general= fields, and I meant to mention them above. Whichever template is used as the base, it might be best to create a new name for it, so we'll have a better idea of which articles have been updated. {{Aircraftspecs}} seems like a good choice to me; we can rename it later if someone thinks need to have a more comprehensive name. - BilCat (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Specs for gliders

Can we please ensure that we include specs useful for gliders like these with km/h, knots and mph:-

Sport Glider /Sailplane specs template

• Crew
• Span
• Length
• Height
• Wing Area
• Aspect Ratio (no units)
• Aerofoil Root (no units)
• Aerofoil Mid (no units)
• Aerofoil Tip (no units)
• Washout
• Empty weight
• Loaded Weight
• Ballast
• Wing Loading (Loaded Weight)
• Wing Loading (Ballast + Loaded Weight)
• Vne (Velocity never exceed)
• g limits
• min sink rate
• min sink airspeed
• Best L/D ratio (Loaded) (no units)
• Best L/D airspeed (Loaded)
• Best L/D ratio (Ballasted) (no units)
• Best L/D airspeed (Ballasted)

and/or

Transport Glider specs template

• Crew
• Capacity
• Span
• Length
• Height
• Wing Area
• Aspect Ratio
• Aerofoil Root
• Aerofoil Mid
• Aerofoil Tip
• Washout
• Empty weight
• Loaded Weight
• Useful Load
• Wing Loading (Loaded Weight)
• Vne
• g limits
• min sink rate
• min sink airspeed
• Best L/D ratio (Loaded)
• Best L/D airspeed (Loaded)

ThanksPetebutt (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Aerofoil Root, Mid and Tip can already be handled under "airfoil=" for aircraft-specifications so a similar facility needs to be in any future template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I look, Vne "never exceed speed" and "useful load" are also in aircraft specifications template. Aircraft specifications has "empty weight" "loaded weight" and "max takeoff". aerospecs has empty and gross weights and "capacity" could be used for useful load. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

New sandbox version for testing

I've started work on the new version in the Aerospecs sandbox here. The testcases will be here, and the new doc will be here. I've just barely started it tonight, but will hopefully incorporate all necessary items over the weekend. Right now I've just added knots and nmi to the |met or eng?=met side of it. Later I plan to add (among other things:

• knots and nmi to the |met or eng?=eng side
• |airfoil= (from {{Aircraft specifications}})
• |more_xxx= (general, performance, power) (from {{Aircraft specifications}})
• |loaded weight= (from {{Aircraft specifications}})
• |max take-off weight= (from {{Aircraft specifications}})
• |eng1_name=, |eng2_name=
• |eng3.... option
• span options for bi- and tri-planes
• prop and rotor section (from {{Aircraft specifications}})
• more performance items (Vne, combat range, ferry range
• change armament items to |guns=, |bombs= etc
• |avionics=
• others I can't think of right now.

I'll cross things off this list as I do them. I also agree that once it's ready the name should be different than the two right now, and then when the two old ones are deprecated, we can rename the new one "Aircraft specifications", which I think is the best name. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 06:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Having had a quick look, my first two questions are 1) How does it control the display of knots, mph and km/h? 2) can we have the paramater names less abbreviated - its a template so its use is mostly cut and paste and theres no crushing limitation on characters in a parameter name is there?

regarding test cases, I think we shold between us be able to come up with some fairly rigourous test examples, besides the mainstream: mixed propulsion (B-29, SR-73) and lift (Fairey Rotodyne, F-35 Lightning II) GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now the |met or eng?= parameter still controls what's first. So you will be able to have for example "1 kmh (1 mph, 1 kts)" or "1 mph (1 kts, 1 kmh)". Allowing a third option of "1 kts (1 mph, 1 kmh)" is do-able, but with a lot of coding, so I'll get the other stuff done first. The parameter names can easily be changed, do you have any specific ones that should be done first? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 15:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it would be a lot of work; go the other way and add the missing stuff into the aircraft specifications template. Hardcoded units isn't in other templates that I'm aware of in widescale use (weapon, ship)GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also the power orginal= parameter for engines to handle those German Pferdestärke (horsepowers) that engines are sometimes given in.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added |power original= . I'm working on allowing the third option I mentioned above. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My sandbox now has the third option to have kts or nmi first, then mi/mph and km/kph. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a good job. At the moment though, the display of speeds breaks - under UK ( I suggest you drop "eng" because it could confuse with engine/engineering) units there is no display if you leave the knots value value blank even if you've provided an mph value and a similar effect with kts as primary unit if you give knots and km/h but not mph. Under metric units, without a km/h value you get partial display - something like "...km/h (57 mph) " if you leave the km/h value empty but there is mph AND knots. Have you considered splitting into two "switches" - one to handle the feet/metre display and one to handle knots/mph/km/h? There is also a minor niggle with feet and inches. If you have a value like 7 feet (dead), you have to give ft=7 in=0 as parameters to avoid a display of "7 ft in". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How about using imp (Imperial) instead of eng? IIRC, US Customary measuerments are generally considered a subset of the Imperial system, and that shouldn't cause too much confusion. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll change it to "imp", and I'm going to make sure all subunits (inches, etc) do not show if not entered. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a bit of a eureka moment. I've started using the {{convert}} template, so that if you enter |length m=x or |length ft=y, the template will spit out the conversion to m/ft. Therefore you only need to decide which one to use and you can omit the others. I've started with the met section, see the Template:Aerospecs/testcases. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The convert template is good and has a lot of options. That should help out here. Thanks for all your efforts. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It will also cut the size of the template by about a third, and cut about 1,000 bytes from any article that would have used all parameters. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

New article help

Just found newly created Focke-Wulf Fw 62 which was just one line and some ext links. I have added infobox and some cats but appreciate any help improving it. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

New article UTVA 65 could to with a little help as well! MilborneOne (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PZL.50 Jastrząb and other redirects

In recent months I've made cleanup in Polish aviation area. Names were corrected with most recent publications, old myths were removed. Unfortunately Petebutt "improved" several articles with old designations. Probably our disscussion about PZL designation was not understood by him and he made exactly the same kind of edits in PWS and RWD articles. I was able to correct P.W.S.10 and move it to PWS-10 as well as several remaining PWS and RWD aircraft. Unfortunately I'm not able to correct mess made in PZL aircraft. Can anyone (admin probably?) correct following names:

• PZL 4 to PZL.4
• PZL 5 to PZL.5
• PZL 12 to PZL.12
• PZL 16 to PZL.16
• PZL 19 to PZL.19
• PZL P.23 Karaś to PZL.23 Karaś
• PZL P.37 Łoś to PZL.37 Łoś
• PZL P.38 Wilk to PZL.38 Wilk
• PZL P.43 to PZL.43
• PZL 44 Wicher to PZL.44 Wicher
• PZL P.50 Jastrząb to PZL.50 Jastrząb
• PZL P.54 Ryś to PZL.54 Ryś

I'm not sure but is it possible to block all renaming attempts? Correcting such details is very important but takes a lot of time. I'm sure that another editor equipped with book older than he will try to "improve" these articles once again. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 02:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Trevor, thanks a lot! I'm really happy to see correct names. Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Survivors articles rename

User:P199 has suggested that List of Supermarine Spitfire survivors be renamed to List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires as the former is grammatically incorrect. Pointed out that List of Foo survivors is standard naming for daughter articles, P199 suggests that they should all be renamed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A number of suggestions have been made for alternate title formats for these articles, but the current one has always been the default, as none of the other options have ever gained a clear consensus. He's welcome to propose a group renaming, and we'll see how it goes. Once a decision is made, I'd recomend move-protecting them so the "owner" of the "Survivor series" doesn't come up with his own consensus again, and move them to something else! :) - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have initiated the renaming process on Category talk:Survivors (aircraft). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the RFC Bot has messed up flagging the move RFC, but I think the fact that it's been listed here should suffice. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Having had a seconfd look, it appears that the movereq template was not "substd" and there may be elements of a positive feedback loop in play. Outside my understanding - could a expert have a look?GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For those wanting a review, the previous discussion on this matter (September 2008) is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Lists of surviving aircraft. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like I opened an old discussion. But this time, it only involves changing the term survivor to surviving. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Articles

It looks like Aérocentre NC 1080 and SNCAC NC.1080 cover the same aircraft - looks like some merging might be in order.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Aérocentre NC 1080 is the older article, but I don't know which should be the primary title. The company article is curretly at SNCAC. Note that only one NC 1080 was built! - BilCat (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Aérocentre" is a nickname for the SNCA du Centre (SNCAC), so SNCAC would be the proper name for use in this article. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. We probably ought to do a Hist-merge to SNCAC NC.1080, assuming that title is completely correct. We'll need an admin for that. - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to hold off a little while on that. I've tried to find some consistency on SNCAC's style of nomenclature without much success. English-language sources mostly report it in the style of "NC.1080" or, less often "NC 1080"; however, French and German sources I've examined seem to prefer "NC 1080" and Spanish sources "NC-1080". I checked JAWA for 1950/51, the earliest postwar edition I have access to, and it uses the style of "N.C. 1080" – which I've also seen sometimes in French sources. Does anyone have information on contemporary usage by SNCAC? Askari Mark (Talk) 18:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill Gunston uses the form 'SNCASO SO.6000' in his 'Fighters of the Fifties' book (1981), not quite the same organisation or aircraft but it's related. That is our Sud-Ouest Triton which is a redirect from SO.6000 Triton. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

With this format Bill Gunston would have called it the 'SNCAC AC.1080'! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

An admin can still do a histmerg now, and we can move it later if we settle on another name. I don't think Milb1 does histmerges, so I'll either have to find another admin to ask, or tag it for hist merging. Either way, we need to merge the text of the article soon anyway. I have to go out, but I'll look t it later tonight. - BilCat (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked in EADS' history files and found that their usage is all over the place. For instance, they give the SNCAC Cormoran as "N.C.211 Cormoran" in the article, but its title reads "Sud Ouest Aviation/Sud Est-SNCAC NC211-Cormoran". Looking at the other aircraft they have for the 1940s, we have the "SNCASO S.O. 4050 Vautour" (although the title and link use "SO-4050"), "SNCASE S.E.2010 Armagnac", the "Sud-Est SE 3000/3101", and "SNCASO S.O.6000 Triton" (linked and titled as "S.O. 6000". Such a mess. Since EADS is the inheritor of these firms’ legacies, the textual style they seem to use most often, e.g., "N.C.1080" or "N.C. 1080" might be the closest to "official" usage. Or not. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked Palmentier's Aviation française site, and he uses "S.N.C.A.C. NC-1080" – yet another style. Wikipedia Commons has an illustration, titled [SNCAC NC.858S], but notice the museum's display which reads "SNCAC NC – 858 S". Pick your poison, I guess. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Lockheed L-133 Starjet

A user has created Lockheed L-133 Starjet. It has citations, but most seem to be from single-user/fan-type pages. Does anyone have anything from authoritavie reliable sources? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. FWiW, but I've only got authoritative sources, where you find dis "authoritavie" sources? France? Bzuk (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

• No, Quebec! :p - BilCat (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

See: Miller, Jay. Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works: The Official History. Leicester, UK: Aerofax, an imprint of Midland Publishing, 1995 (revised edition). ISBN 1-85780-037-0, Pace, Steve. Lockheed Skunk Works. Osceola, Wisconsin: Motorbooks International, 1992. ISBN 0-87938-632-0 and Pace, Steve. X-Fighters: USAF Experimental and Prototype Fighters, XP-59 to YF-23. Osceola, Wisconsin: Motorbooks International, 1991. ISBN 0-87938-540-5. Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

• Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the images I'm pretty sure that this project was featured on Discovery Wings (UK) in one of the 'Planes that never flew' series programmes, they used CGI animation to show it flying. I had a quick look in my 1946 gas turbine book but didn't find anything although the project was probably classified at the time. Guess from the title that it never flew! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added some specs to the article from Putnam's Lockheed Aircraft since 1913. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Hudson River mid-air collision

This article has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the debate on that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Hudson River mid-air collision. There is also some background discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#2009_Hudson_River_mid-air_collision. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't pass, AfD it in 6 months when the news hype has died down and it will likely go without as much whimpering. --Born2flie (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point - Note to File - Bring forward to Feb 2010! - Ahunt (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Project members can note that this AfD is now finished - result was keep. However I think that this AfD did indicate problems with the guidance on these accident articles at WP:AIRCRASH. It is pretty clear that they are too vague. - Ahunt (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

See you in 6 months. Reading the NTSB press release, I would like to note that they used statements similar to my argument against keeping the article.

“ Any opinions rendered at this time are speculative and premature. - NTSB press release ”

Demonstrating that the arguments that this accident was going to have effects on procedures were rife with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CRYSTAL, and were thereby grounds for eliminating the article per WP:NOTNEWS. --Born2flie (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to AfD it again in February! - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody will be able to effectively AfD it in February. FAA revised the procedures for the corridor. Regardless that the changes won't effectively prevent the same result from occurring under similar circumstances, it now provides the effective criteria that will sustain notability for the article under all the current proposed notability guidelines, both in this project's page content guideline and those being proposed for the aviation accident project. --Born2flie (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Helicopter Tour Operators

We still have the Liberty Helicopter Sightseeing Tours stub hanging around, whose only claim to notability appears to be the Hudson River collision. How many helicopter tour operators are there in the NYC area? Do we articles on any of the others? Should we? And what project covers them? WPAIR, WPAirlines, WPAVIATION? I don't know. - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that they fall under WP:AIRLINES by virtue of it being an aviation company that flies passengers for a fee (fare), despite that the aircrat depart and arrive at the same location. Does it meet notability?...? --Born2flie (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be WP:AIRLINES but I sent it to AfD anyway - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty Helicopter Sightseeing Tours. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Project Banner

Just had a discussion with User:Sturmvogel 66 after they reverted my addition of the project banner to the Ilyushin Il-16 article. When I questioned why they had removed it, it was because they did not want the article assessed yet. Not something I consider when looking for new articles! Do we need a way of stopping assessment or will and inuse/underconstruction banner on the main article page stop it being assessed? MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A misunderstanding of the system I would think, 'one liners' can be tagged with a project and assessed as stub class at any time surely?. I think it says something like If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it on the edit page! I suppose the answer is to develop an article in a sandbox until happy that it is ready for wider examination next time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Drawings of wing configurations

I have been adding some drawings to the Wing configuration article. They are from different sources and in different styles. I am thinking of redrawing some or all to a standard style, and would welcome comments on your preferences on its talk page. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Bzuk moved to Wing configuration talk page -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Virgin America Article

If we don't get enough outside participation to create a landslide in a particular direction for the current dispute here then mark my words this article along with the ones about LA, LAX, and the rest of the Virgin brand are about enter a serious rough patch that won't end until the argument gets fully resolved. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be carried over from WT:WikiProject Aviation#Objective Third Party Opinions and/or Expert Needed at the Virgin America article(No attention paid yet at Airlines so trying here as well). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"are about enter a serious rough patch that won't end"? This "argument" has been going on for well over a year! This dispute is well into Bike shed territory. No one else seems to care about it, so work it among yourselves. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Carrier-based aircraft

Any naval aviation experts understand the recent edits to Carrier-based aircraft! I think I would prefer some history on the development of carrier based aviation so I am not sure what build quantities add to the article. Just looking for other comments, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's one article that doesn't know what it is meant to be doing! At the moment it looks like a random list of Carrier based aircraft. It needs major rework to turn it into something useful.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I created the article here with this edit summary: "Created article with material split from Naval aviation article; not intended to be a list article, but that's basically what it is now". One option is to move it to List of carrier-based aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold, and split the list off of Carrier-based aircraft to List of carrier-based aircraft. This way we can deal with the list on its own merits, or lack thereof. I'm not sure it the quantity built for each type though, but they are referenced. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - dont think qty built has any relevance just need to be carrier based. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• True. The number built should be covered in the individual aircraft articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, number built doesn't belong there. I haven't seriously looked through the article (carrier based, not the list), but there seems to be plenty to add there like a discussion about enhancements for carrier suitability (strengthened landing gear, corrosion resistance, etc.) The Joint Strike Fighter provides a nice case study for the difference between land based and carrier based aircraft. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Where do one-offs like the Fleet Shadower designs fit in to the List of carrier based aircraft? I can see merit for inclusion although there were only 2 of them. In such cases the number produced gives an idea of how greatly each aircraft type was rated. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be easier just explain with text, like prototype only or did not enter service rather than list the numbers built. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger.

I made a post here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Missing_articles re: my merger of the other redlink aviation list to the big list so if anyone has any comments/disagreements please feel free to express them on that talk page. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

F-117 Assessment

I just added a little chunk to the F-117 article, and I noticed that it is currently rated as "C-class". The ding on its b-class checklist was citations, but now (with my 4 additions) it has 56 citations... is there some other problem with it, or can another editor read over it and redo it's b-class checklist? - SidewinderX (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really case of number of cites, but where the cites are located. The F-117 article has some paragraphs that are not cited. Not much left really. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I more carefully read through the article and added an inline citation request or two. If there are other spots that could use it, would you mind marking them? It'd be nice to bring this up to B level. - SidewinderX (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

CC-22 SSBJ

Presume hoax article CC-22 SSBJ unless anybody knows better! I will have a look at it later when I have more time unless somebody else can look first. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User has also created The Lion-22 !! MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

His history and user pages show that he is a purveyor of hoaxes. I have WP:PROD both articles as hoaxes. In fact going over his history he seems to also be a vandal. I have warned him. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually in reverting his vandalism I believe there is ample evidence that this is a vandalism only account and should be blocked. - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for upgrading the PRODs to CSDs - I think it is well warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay I note that User:Shimgray has now deleted both of these articles. - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The "user" has aslo been indef blocked. He's either a vandal who knows what's he's doing, or (assuming good faith here) just completely off his rocker. Either way, he doesn't belong on WP! - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing his talk page schizophrenic rant - it was amusing but had to go. I have to admit that I have never before seen a blocked user argue that he should be unblocked because he owns Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It was an interesting, if delusional account of the individual's various exploits and holdings, if nothing else. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Survivors articles rename 2

Due to technical difficulties, this rename process needs to be tried again. This time, see: Talk:List of Supermarine Spitfire survivors. You can review a related discussion on this matter (September 2008) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Lists of surviving aircraft but keep in mind that the rename only involves changing the term survivor to surviving because it's not grammatically correct. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bravo November

A user has created an article about Bravo November a notable RAF Chinook. I have suggested on the article talk page that the article should be renamed Boeing Chinook ZA718 in line with other individual RAF aircraft articles. ZA718 was only coded BN during the 1980s certainly in recent years it has operated as EQ and was certainly not painted as BN for the recent DFCs. Just mentioned it here as I suspect it is not being watched by many project members. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A Storm of duplicate articles

Storm Aircraft Rally and the recently created Storm Rally appear to cover the same aircraft. Should they be merged?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Done! - BilCat (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible linkspammer alert

User:Bryan TMF has been adding links to www.taiwanairpower.org in several article. I do note that there is Bryan Chen liasted as a contributor on this page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of his article submissions to the body of the text appear to be accurate but do not have references cited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Being "liasted" sounds painful, I hope we can help the individual?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC).

Never mind. All my stuff is withdrew from the F-5 page. Hope that restore the peace in the F-5 wiki page. Gee, just try to help with the page that lack of the largest F-5 operator in the world at one time, but I guess that's not good enough. And the external link page itself is the direct reference to the F-5E/F in ROC/Taiwan Air Force with all the information. What else can you ask for? Never mind. Sorry to intrude into your little empire.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan TMF (talk • contribs)

Bil, why did you show so little tolerance for this? Clearly the guy wanted to help and he posted some decent material that as far as I can see is 100% accurate. I'm reinstating the link and content. Perhaps you could drop him a line and try to patch over this? You obviously didn't intend it but I think you're harsh reaction has put him off the project already. New guys should be helped to understand how to use Wikipedia, not smacked around for technical violations. John Smith's (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Note the user was ONLY adding the link to articles at first. That's the reason for BilCat's first post above. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I only added the link after finished added contents to the articles, since that's the the way I work. There's not that many good websites on Taiwan/ROC military in English, and I've working on those English sites in the past, including contributing to globalsecurity.org's Taiwan section few years back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan TMF (talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• It did not appear that way before, but that is correct. You added the Ext. link in a separate edit after other changes. References need to be with the text so that other users can follow. Formatting references per WP:CITE would be best. At least add the link after the relevant sentence so other editers can do the formatting. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that the user is trying to promote a site he is involved in, which is of unknown quality. The site does not appear to list its sources, and is not an official ROCAF site, hence is probably not reliable as a source. Those issues are why I posted here in the first place. Note that he has added links and material to several other articles, but I did not remove that material, on purpose, to give this note a chance to work. Also note that only one user responded before the user posted here, and those comments really didn't address the issues. Those issues still need to be addressed, and if I contact the user directly, that's what I'll be addressing, with appropriate warning tags against linkspamming. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest few military websites list their sources. Ones like naval-technology.com are used frequently - they don't have sources either. Just because a site is glossy doesn't mean it's right. But unless you have a reason to doubt the site I wouldn't write it off. After all there's precious little on the Taiwanese military in English - don't look a gift horse in the mouth. John Smith's (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The question of 'what makes this website a reliable source?' has been rightly asked in a current Featured Article nomination that I am involved with. When I examined the links used as references closely I had to agree in some cases that their reliability could not be proven (although I believed the information to be correct). Even websites that do quote and list their sources can be questioned (as I remember was the case with the F-4 Phantom and Joe Baugher). A website may look good and contain lots of useful (and often correct) information but when it comes to 'the crunch' reviewers will question it. Using only books for references is not necessarily good either as it does not give the reader the option to verify facts unless they can access the book, I like to see a mixture of both types of sources personally. You could imagine a whole article unwittingly based on referenced facts from one website, lots of text, good wikilinks and grammar etc. only to discover at a promotion review that it is all unusable. A sobering thought. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that I can quote references, but most of them are in Chinese, which I doubt that many people can read Chinese or find them interest. The research part of taiwanairpower.org is here, at http://blog.taiwanairpower.org/ which uses US CIA declassified info from NARA(National Archives and Records Administration) on U-2, and other documents from NARA on aircraft transfer/sales earlier than 1970s. The site itself is in half English and half Chinese, and you will able to see the scanned declassified documents yourself. That's the best I can do on references, only other way is for you to go to NARA and make a personal visit there to verify all the info. Good thing I didn't add the section that at least 80 Taiwan F-5E/F pilots were sent to North Yemen from 1979 to mid 1980s to help North Yemen government under a secret US project to boost North Yemen's air force after North and South Yemen had border conflicts. The group of Taiwan pilots flying North Yemen F-5E/F did draw blood in air combat, but the ground air defense and radar installation personnel sent there also suffered from losses. Only detail references to that secret episode are in 2 Chinese books. And if I put that in, nobody here going to believe me, right? Taiwan Air Power website existed since 1996, formerly under the name of Military Aviation of ROC. If you ask around, it's the best source of Taiwan military aviation in English.talk —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

Thanks, Bryan. All I am trying to do is help establish that the site is reliable enough to be used as a reference on WP. As Nimbus mentioned, reliability can be a big issue. Per WP:RS: "Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on third-party sources." Note that the WP:RS page mentions nothing about scarcity of sources on a certain topic being acceptable as a reason to ignore the guidelines. In order to estabilsh whether this cite meets this standard, perhaps we should post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and see how that goes. If the site is accepted, I'll be happy help cite the existing info, and to help add new information from the cite. - BilCat (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

On an ancillary note, although English language sources are preferred for en-Wikipedia, editors can provide references from other sources including ones in Chinese. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm jumping in here "late", but here are my two cents... Bryan: If the source of the information ultimately comes from a declassified document, cite that document and include the weblink to the scan or the archive if you can. If you're able to cite the original document rather than a website the cites the same document you'll have a much strong reference. -SidewinderX (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've spending hours now updating on U-2, F-5 and few other pages with citing references. But MBK004 just told me that with my conflict of interest, I'm not going to able to do it any more. Guess this might be the end for me here, pretty short stay. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Bryan, that shouldn't be the case. You can add in references to the declassified documents, even if they're not available electronically. You can also add in references to Chinese-language sources, so long as you add in all the relevant information in the citation tags. John Smith's (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll tried, but most of the references will be from Taiwan Air Power, since that's what I work on for the last 14 or 15 years. I don't own that website, I don't write anything for it, but I forward news to Wei-Bing Chang, the webmaster. When I notice typo or errors, I forward it to him and he will correct it. As for citing documents directly from NARA released declassified documents, the problem is---I don't have them. You see, Wei-Bing Chang lives in Taiwan, there's someone else, a U-2 researcher spent the last few years going to NARA and scanning those documents and share them with Wei-Bing Chang on his research on Taiwan/ROCAF's U-2 operations from 1960 to 1974. There's no way for me to cite them of from which document it come from. You can see the relevant scan potion of the document, but not whole, when I cite the blog page. Sometimes I'll correct things off top of my head, but won't have time to cite references until few days later. The thing is, the wiki page on Taiwan military is really at least 8 to 10 years out of date, sort of like what fas.org's Taiwan section was still stuck in 1990s, until they deleted it all together. As you know globalsecurity.org's stuff was initially from fas.org, so their stuff in the first few years was out of date, until I helped them. So hopefully I and help here too. Bryan TMF (talk) 03:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bryan, your submissions are welcome and if there are problems in the format or edit, others will help out. Cheers, Bzuk (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC).

Well, Taiwan Air Force page looks all updated now, as well as Navy page. Now working on the most outdated one, ROC Army page. Might take a while.Bryan TMF (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bryan, thanks for all your help. I hope you'll stick around after you've finished your first re-write of the pages! John Smith's (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Help in the Martin-Baker article

A recent discovery by an anon that major portions of the Martin-Baker article were verbatim copy-viols has led me to do some rewriting. There is still a need to have some authoritative references for this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Comparable" Aircraft

I've spent some time looking around various article here in the past few days and I've found a lot of issues with the "comparable aircraft" lists in aircraft articles. The problem is that there isn't any standard for a "comparable" aircraft. The result is that there seems to be disagreements over what the comparable aircraft are. In some cases, the list of comparable aircraft seems based on "shape" rather than era and/or function (like the Boeing X-48...the X-47 is not a comparable aircraft, other than the fact that they have similar shapes). In other cases the criteria seems to be be capability (in the case of fighters/bombers), and that leads to pointless arguments on the talk pages about whether the Su-35 is comparable to the JAS-39 or the likes. Therefore, I think there should be a standard for what comparable aircraft are. To start the discussion, I propose that the standard be based on three key issues; form, function, and era.

• Form: Do the two aircraft share a common "form"? Flying Wing aircraft would be grouped together under this standard.
• Function: Do the two aircraft share a common funciton? Are they both fighter aircraft, or technology demonstrators that share a technology, for example.
• Era: Do they are they from the same general time frame?

I propose that an aircraft has to meet the "function" criteria and at least one other criteria to be a "comparable" aircraft. Therefore the the X-48 would not be comarable to the X-47 because they do not share a common function. However, the MiG-35 and the F-22 WOULD be comparable aircraft, because they share function and era (and you could argue "form") as well. Saying that they are comparable is NOT passing judgement that they are equal opponenets, merely that they are contemorary aircraft that might be worth looking at if you're researching one or the other. Whew... any thoughts? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You basically repeated the criteria that is in place now: aircraft of "similar role, era, and capability". See WP:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#See also and Template:aircontent (where comparable field is listed). I've added the hidden notes from the template to articles to get the point across. Maybe that helps sometimes, not sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good thoughts, but just remember that "comparable aircraft" lists appear on all aircraft articles and not just military aircraft. Whatever you come up with has to also work for airliners, general aviation aircraft, balloons, ultralights, homebuilts, etc. Most of these don't have "opponents" they have "competitors"! - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, I thought I kept that in mind with the three rules, I just used a military example because that is where some of the most heated (and unintelligent) debates seem to be happening. I think those three rules work for all types of aircraft.

Fnlayson: I tried to look to see if there were already any guidelines and I couldn't find that page (I've got to say, all of wikipedia in general, is not well set up for a new person to come in and find information... it's very much an elite club of people who figure out the layouts... I generally google what I'm looking for (Like "Wikipedia page tags) to find it as it takes forever to find it in wikipedia). That said, even with that criteria there seems to be lots of disagreement and/or bad choices of comparable aicraft. I feel that a more specific policy gives editors more ammunition to end pointless debates about this type of thing. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My previous post was mainly to point out you came up similar criteria independently, which is good. I'm sure the criteria can be improved further. Just as long as they do not get too complicated. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Your point about making them too complicated is a good one; if they're too detailed I have faith that they will be easily obsoleted. I think they're not too complicated the way I proposed them, but I want to hear what everyone thinks. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And I see that this has been discussed before in similar terms in the Super Hornet article here. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rotorcraft

User:Born2flie has been deleting parts of the rotorcraft article on the grounds that certain aircraft mentioned are not rotorcraft. I have reverted these changes, but fear an edit war, so if anybody can help arbitrate, that would be cool. See the discussion page topic Not rotorcraft at all?. Many thanks. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having a disagreement with User:Steelpillow on the rotorcraft article talk page and associated edits, but it goes a little further than my esteemed fellow editor has shared here. Steelpillow asserts that coleopters and tiltwings are rotorcraft, but before this has not provided references to the article. We're already at the point of needing others to enter the discussion to establish a broader viewpoint and to reach a consensus. Please comment on the talk page discussion. Thanks. --Born2flie (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Silhouettes/3-views

About a month ago I found, scanned and uploaded a set of copyright free aircraft silhouettes and added these to pages lacking a layout diagram, using the thumbnail format. There will be more later. This brought advice from BilCat that such images should use 300px format and should "generally go" in the Specs section. I'm grateful for that advice but have concerns about the positioning. There seems to be nothing in the Project_Aircraft/page_content#Images guidance on where they should go, though there is a slightly ambiguously phrased comment that images should go as thumbnails except for those "inside Infoboxes and the three view drawing (where one is enclosed in the Specification section)." I take this to mean that if the three-view is in the Specs section its size should be specified, otherwise thumb. Now I'm not that bothered by the format, but I'd like to here from all about placement. It's clear that they are often, maybe usually placed in the Specs section and probably put there because there is free space there on the right. But is this the most helpful position?

I'm sure there are many reasons why people look up WP aircraft articles, but these must include purpose, era, country of origin, volume of production and what does it look like. Copyright often makes the last question the hardest to answer and the most helpful images are the in-flight shot and the 3 view; ground shots are good but don't show planform etc. Therefore I think both should be near to top of the page; the Infobox Image is, of course, but a 3-view in Specs is often a large scrolling distance away, particularly if there were a lot of users and/or the machine was built in large numbers and had a exciting career. The 3-view of the P-51 Mustang, for example is about 80% of the way through the article. Personally I'd like to see the 3-view immediately below the header and the Inbox, in thumbnail form so it does not disrupt the layout. Either that, or as an addition, where we have one to within the Infobox! What do you think?TSRL (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 3-view is important and useful for wiki articles. I see your point about placing them higher, but I think as long as the 3-view is in a fairly standard place (like the specs table), people will find it, or know where to find it. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a template, Template:3-view for use, this sizes the images to 300px and adds a caption. Disagree that 3-views should go anywhere else other than than the specs section, they make the text untidy and it is a very useful and standard way of filling the white space on the right side of the specs table. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nimby's admirably pragmatic approach re the vast empty spaces to the right of the specs. Also, since most 3-views are currently in the specs section, that's where I go first to look for them. Please don't confuse me by putting them elsewhere! :-) --TraceyR (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Often I stick an image in there if there is no 3-view, we are strictly busting the guideline on forced image sizes but we always argued that it was a valid exception, there is plenty of discussion on this in the archives. The other MOS problem we used to get nailed for was over-use of bold text for variants, again we stood our ground. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TSRL for acpting my advice in the spirit in which it was offered. I agree with the comments and reasonings here on keeping the 3-view in the specs section. The black Silhouettes are kind of jarring when placed right under the Lead Infobox. Alss, there have been placement problems on som browsers with images directly under the Infobox, so in the past we've tried to avoid that.

I see two possible solutions: One, provide a clearly visible link in the infobox to the Specs section for the 3-view. Two, (and I just thought of this whaile writing this out) Provide and add-on box to the infobox (like aircraft type, etc.) to go at the bottom for the 3-view. I don't know how the second option would look, but someone like Trevor should be able to knock one togeterh fairly quickly, and we can see how it looks. If it looks and works right, I'd support it! - BilCat (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how many of the nearly 7000 million of the world's population speak english. But of those who do, an infinitesimal percentage of them would be regular visitors to our a/c articles. Therefore, when deciding on placement it must be where it is smack bang in front of visitors to articles, first timers in particular, without them having to scroll down through screeds on the page. I give the strongest support possible to User:TSRL's comments above. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• OK, but I don't see a particular reason given for the 3-view diagram needing to be in a prominent position. The real images often illustrate the aircraft as well or better. If it is put near the top, placing at the bottom of the infobox as BilCat suggests would probably be spot, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly support BilCat's suggestion: the infobox, in my view is where it should be. I thought I had made the case for a prominent position in line 2 para 2. There are some splendid shots of aircraft in flight on some pages; they give a feeling of the machine in its element that a drawing cannot, but of course can only show one aspect. The 3-view gives a simplified all-round view; the two types of image are (in my view) as important as each other, they complement one another. Sometimes the 3-view has to take more of the load: look at the Saab 29 Tunnan article; the only shots are ground based ones of museum specimens (though one is taken from above) and you don't get much feeling for the wing form etc until you get to the 3-view in Specs.

Naturally I agree with Kaiwhakahaere; thanks for support. We contributors may know where to look for 3-views and that articles sometimes have them, but we are not writing for ourselves. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd keep the 3-view with specs 1) the two seem to complement each other 2) the area directly below the infobox is always tricky for text flow and keeping it clear of images seems to help 3) you've also just had an image of the aircraft in the infobox and images are best spread throughout the article (general wikipedia guidance). I wouldn't put the 3 view in the infobox/lead image unless necessary. Some aircraft have iconic/recognition qualities which a 3 view does not do justice because of the necessity to get all parts in (eg the B-52 3 view has a lot of whitespace unless trimmed). GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As per the late great Sam Wheat, ditto (look it up!). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

I looked up Sam Wheat as instructed, to be asked "did you mean Sara Wheat .." With respect, we do have to acknowledge that other people, infrequent users, are not masters of the limitations of WikiP search engine and layout! Hence my preference for a 3-view made immediately accessible, not hidden under lists of space wasting flags. Cheers, TSRL (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Wheat was the character in the movie Ghost played by the recently departed Patrick Swayze. His trademark response was "ditto." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 3-views should with collocated with the specs and not near the top of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the usual placement for 3-views in most publications and it makes sense in a Wiki article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

To hyphen or not to hyphen?

Handley Page Victor was moved to Handley-Page Victor by User:Petebutt witht he explanation "incorrect spelling of article title". I looked at the atrticle text and the company page, and both do not use the hyphen; the other HP articles seem to not use the hyphen also, thos I didn't check them all. I have reverted the move as udiscussed, and asked for evidence supporting to change to be given on the talk page, and a consensus reached before moving this again. I do hope other moves of the company's pages ae not maed until a concensus is reached either. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got the Putnam book on HP aircraft by C.H. Barnes open at p.18, where there is a photo of the founder captioned Frederick Handley Page in 1914 .... Barnes uses Handley Page throughout. Not all "double barrelled" English names are hyphenated and his was not. Sometimes the hyphen is used, it seems, as an alternative to and or &, hence Rolls-Royce. There could have been a company called Boulton-Paul for us to worry about in the recent discussion here (but there wasn't). So H P Foo, not H-P Foo!

I've just noticed that Handley was his mother's maiden name, his father's Page (Barnes, p.1). They might have celebrated their union with a hyphen, but like many English couples did not but preserved the female family name in the childrens'. Still, I think quite a common practice, possibly especially when the wife has no brothers to perpetuate the name.TSRL (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

His surname is Page not Handley-Page, as TSRL mentions Handley is his middle name and not part of the surname hence no hyphen. (Boulton-Paul and Rolls-Royce where partnerships hence the hyphen). MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Boulton & Paul / Boulton Paul

Strange but two of us created an article for the same aircraft yesterday, Boulton & Paul P.6 and Boulton Paul P.6. We obviously need to merge and redirect but just wanted to be clear what name to use. The comany was Boulton & Paul Ltd until 1934 when it became Boulton Paul Aircraft and a list of pre 1934 aircraft use a mixture of Boulton & Paul and Boulton Paul in their titles. Also confusing some articles are titled Boulton Paul Foo but then use Boulton & Paul in the text. My opinion is that all the pre 1934 Norwich-built aircraft use Boulton & Paul Foo and post-1934 Wolverhampton-built aircaft use Boulton Paul Foo. Any comments please MilborneOne (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The nomenclature makes sense to me as you explained it. The simultaneous creation of articles on the same topic does raise a point though - are we getting so close to the bottom of the barrel for aircraft type articles that we need to have editors advertise their intentions in advance somehow to avoid duplicate efforts, or was this just a wildly improbable coincidence that is unlikely to re-occur? - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it was just a co-incidence as I have a fairly random pattern of creating articles but didnt appreciate that User:TSRL was having a run on missing Boulton & Paul aircraft although it was obvious from the new aircraft list! In the past some users did create a blank template article with an in use tag as soon as they started working but it sometimes used to get deleted for no content before it was even started! Although that would not have helped with variations of the name. Perhaps we need a new section in the new aircraft list to declare work in progress or sandbox articles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I added merge tags to the articles with a link to this discussion so it won't get missed by ones involved. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely that pre-Overstrand B&P (or B and P) is correct and that from the Overstrand onwards it was BP. I was worried on two counts.

i) that most users would not know about the name change or the watershed point (Overstrand) and that they might not find the aircraft they were looking for if they typed Boulton and Paul Foo when it was really Boulton Paul Foo etc. For me it's paramount that a non-specialist can find the article s/he wants: they can be educated to the right name if they've found it, but not if they haven't! That, incidentally was the reason for putting the correct name in the text even if not in the title. However, I've done a few tests with deliberately wrong names and for this set of alternatives (B&P, B and P , BP) the "did you mean " list works fine.

ii) that there are many other manufacturers whose name changed e.g. British and Colonial made the F.2B not Bristol aircraft. I had some naming problems with BFW/Messerschmitt and I recall some argument about Short vs Shorts. Sometimes the historically correct name is unfamiliar and unhelpful.

Having pondered a bit, I think we can get away with historical accuracy in the BP titles, but this should not become a precedent nor principle; it's desirable but not at the cost of making the article hard to find.

On the work in progress issue: I've had only one clash before this one in about 125 articles; last time the clash did not involve different names so no duplicate article was generated and I used my draft (i do these using Notepad) to improve the article that got in ahead. Not convinced it is a problem, but if others think a work in hand list would help, I'd strongly suggest each entry should self-delete after, say 2 days to discourage "bagging" and be limited to 1 per user. I might have bagged all outstanding BPs then fallen under a bus! CheersTSRL (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the way to deal with the "correct name" vs the "most likely to search for name" is to make sure the aircraft is under the historically correct name, but that all likely search parameters are created as redirects to the article. That also minimizes other people later creating a duplicate article under a different name. I have made up to a dozen redirects for new aircraft articles to make sure it can be found quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Which sums up the spirit of WP:NAME nicely. As noted, article titles are not always technically correct and there will always be objectors. I would lean towards calling them all 'Boulton Paul Foofighters' if it doesn't cause any problems. On duplicate articles we could declare somewhere which letter of the alphabet we might be working through, possibly the little used Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I was wondering who produced the Foo Fighters! (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC).

I think they were produced for a time by O.O.F. (Old and (or &) Obscure Flying-machines, who became O.F.F (Old Fashioned Flyers) to the confusion and distress of aircraft historians and enthusiasts everywhere, particularly as their Canadian subsidiary changed its name ten years after the UK firm which by then was being taken over by O.O.A. (Only Old Aircraft);-).

I'm cool with Boulton Paul Foofighters, if folk prefer that.TSRL (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a Pietenpol Air Camper parked next to our Tiger in the hangar, its out of sequence (personalised at extra expense) CAA registration is G-OFFA, mystified I asked the owners who explained that it stands for 'Old Farts Flying Association', no kidding! We have 'funfighters' in the RC model world, small semi-scale versions of well known types that are cheap enough to re-enact aerial battles, with one model usually losing in a cloud of balsa wood on contact with the ground! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A few years back, an underwater archeology team recovered the remains of a Fokker Universal transport in a lake in Manitoba. The team called themselves the Fokker Aircraft Recovery Team. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I detect that this thread is going downhill rapidly! Can we move the Boultons painlessly?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(I've lost track of what the request was) Being pedantic briefly - it was the air department of Boulton & Paul that was "sold off" to become the Boulton Paul company, Boulton & Paul continuing for many years after. The latter BP being perhaps more well known it might be better to standardize on that and just be sure that the right company is in the lead sentence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a page on probably the last BP aircraft to be covered (though it probably wasn't) and called it Boulton Paul P.10 for now, until we decide on a nomenclature.TSRL (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin NBS-1

I need some other eyes on this recent change in article title from Martin MB-2 to Martin NBS-1. Isn't the general or most common name the rule for title of articles, or names of aircraft? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

I guess MB-2 was the company designation and NBS-1 was the military designation? The article wavers between whether to call it the MB-2 or the NBS-1. From reading, it has the appearance of two articles merged into one. --Born2flie (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In 1919 the Air Service introduced a classification scheme which used both a Roman number and a group of more meaningful letters. Type XII were Night Bombardment Short distance aircraft. Before then it seems aircraft were known by their manufacturer's name, here MB-2. 20 such were built by Martin, then reclassified as NBS-1, then 50 were built by Curtiss directly as NBS-1. You sometimes see the marque called Curtiss-Martin NBS-1 or just Curtiss NBS-1, though I guess we should stick with the originator's name. The military name or maker's name dilemma must come up a lot.TSRL (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The dilema usually only becomes a dilema if the existing [[WP:AIR/NC|WPAIR Naming Conventions aren't followed. It's really not that difficult, and Common names don't usually apply. Generally, US military aircraft articles use the designations assigned to them by the US military service or DOD, especially if the US service was the primary or sole user. If it was used by more than one service, with differing designations, we usually use the first service to order/use the aircraft, or the primary user. There are exceptions, of course, but in most cases the exception ar made in the first place by users who either don't know the guidelines exist, or who chose to ignore them for whatever reason. - BilCat (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more of aircraft from countries/users not singled out as special cases in the Naming Conventions e.g. Sweden's SAAB-29 or SAAB J 29 (not very different manufacturer's and SAF names) ? The MB-2/NBS-1 is an interesting special US case as the Air Service used both names at different times (above)TSRL (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Every reference source I have found uses the MB-2 designation with a note that the NBS-1 was a later redesignation, and a Google search (undoubtedly unscientific) produces a similar result, with close to 100x more hits on Martin MB-2 than any other designation. I think one of the dilemmas in this name was that the popular press used the MB-2 name in describing the famous Billy Mitchell bomber vs battleship encounter where the Martin bombers were featured prominently. The National Museum of the United States Air Force uses Martin MB-2 (NBS-1) as the aircraft name. FWiW, my thought here is that we probably should use the name that most users would be looking for, and MB-2 is that name. Bzuk (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good!TSRL (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Specifications template

Per the archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 24#Units and the specs templates, I've created a new template combining the different aspects of the two current templates, and added some functionality (auto unit conversions being the biggest change). Take a look at Template:Aerospecs/sandbox and the test cases at Template:Aerospecs/testcases, and let me know what you think. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, Trevor! Thanks! I did discover that the "prime units?" paramenter in the second example was still set to the old "eng" instead of the new "imp". This caused the specs up to "Armament" not to show. Is there a way to set up a warning in the specs output when the "prime units?" paramenter is empty or incorrect? Or perhaps defaulting to one of the settiong, such as met? - BilCat (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there are three options for prime units, I don't know if a default can be used (I do know it can be done for two options). If I can figure it out I'll add it in.- Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 04:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

100 Tucanos to US Navy?

An IP user posted info in this diff, which is based on this link http://www.aereo.jor.br/?p=13836=release While I am not flunt in Portuguese in any way, I have a little experience translating informal portuguese using Google translator. Even so, the translation is very poor. Further, the website of the source, http://www.gilbertoamaral.com.br , contains only one references to the Tucano at all, here, from June 2008. I've done several searches on Google, and watched a few English-language military and defense sites as well, and there has been nothing on this. The user re-posted his info again today hereiff, and apparently still believes this is totally true, and should be posted.

I've asked a user from Argentina who is apparently not a Portuguese speaker for assistance in finding someone who can read Portuguese to help us. If anyone esle can shed light on this, it would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You would think that this significant order would be mentioned at Embraer's homepage [2], I fished around but did not find anything, maybe I missed it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Back in March Defense News report that the US Navy was leasing some EMB-314s under a classified program. I can't find anything any newer from English sources, excluding forums. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible this is just a bid that EMBRAER is about to submit to the USN, and the "inside source" misunderstood it. I can't see the Obamastration spending that much money, esp without any competition. IIRC, federal law requires competitions now for this kind of order, which leads to my thinking this may be just a bid. - BilCat (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The user I contacted provided this source from today. (Google translation here.) Per the source, it is a bid in the USAF competition, but the PC-9 (or PC-21) and T-6 are also in the running. While the article states the "experts" say the EMB-314 has the advantage, the T-6 is already in USAF and USN service, which would simplify the supply line greatly. Also, Iraq is getting T-6s that are to be used both for training, and possibly in surveilance and CAS roles. Thanks all! - BilCat (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to support what's been said already, this looks like it is just the bid for the USAF "Light Attack, Armed Recon" (LAAR) program. The armed AT-6 variant of the T-6 Texan is the favorite for the reasons Bill mentioned. More reading here AT-6 and here New OV-10

I took your links Bill and added a sentence about it being bid for a USAF competition in the Op history section. Maybe that help prevent further addition of that "order". -Fnlayson (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Future aircraft developments

I stumbled upon this article earlier today, and I think we should get rid of it. It is basically an incomplete list of aviation related research being done around the world. It ranges from close-to-being-fielded like the Geared Turbofan to the random, like helium filled wings (blimp?) and bionic aircraft. It also redirects some specific thinks, like the SAX-40, to it, which it never mentions by name. I think that anything sufficiently advanced and/or well developed should have it's own article. I don't see the point in listing every potential research project in the world of aviation in an article. Anyone else feel differently, or see a way to save this article? -SidewinderX (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a read through it and I agree - non-encyclopedic, mostly because it tried to take on a topic that was far to large for one article and then the editors working on it gave up some time ago. I have nominated it for deletion under WP:PROD. This means that either it will be deleted in a week or else someone will leap in and improve it. Both possible outcomes are better than just leaving it sit. Feel free to "second it" under WP:PROD if you like. - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So seconded. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And the seven day clock is now running! - Ahunt (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I think that pretty much wraps that one up! - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that wraps it up. That user just copy and pasted that whole article into the Aircraft design article, then deleted the Future aircraft development article and redirected it. Instead of getting rid a poorly written and generally useless list, the user has now integrated it into another article, where it is still poorly written and mostly useless. I say the change should be reverted and the PROD should be let run it's course. Or just remove this from the aircraft design article. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that he had done that! I would say that article needs some serious editing then! - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we just ask the editior to revert both his (or her!) edits? -SidewinderX (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• The aircraft design article looks OK up to the New developments section. That part describes the general process, which might be of value. The scope of the new developments need to be defined or chunk all it. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That was the point at which the text dump happened. I don't see any point in reverting it all and then having the former article deleted. Instead how about removing the dumped text and leave the redirect in place as mostly harmless? - Ahunt (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a fine solution to me. I don't have a problem with the aircraft design article, just the future developments stuff that got dumped in. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to make a start! - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I understand that you had a bit of a problem with the carbon copy and paste. I admit this wasn't completely upto my standards neither and still needs some work. I done it in the belief that perhaps some other editors could work a bit on the last details, seeing that little improvements were done on it during the last 3 years. In order to streamline this last section, I belief the last 2 subsection need removal; ie Targeted programs and Bionics research. With your permission I would place the info of bionics research at the Bionics page; targeted programs could perhaps be placed at experimental aircraft (with text slightly altered). Please take note that I spend already half a day on it typing the text on the aircraft design article, solely for the purpose of maintaining my older article, if you delete this older info now, it would be a bit unfair I think. Also, the older info would (with the suggestions made above) be able to blend perfectly with the article; as these new aircraft innovations are vital to attain the new requirements as mentioned in the article.

Tell me what you think, KVDP (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears to have nothing to do with aircraft design which is an article about designing aircraft not about what those designs are. Suggested it should be deleted from Aircraft design, which should really be Aircraft design process. MilborneOne (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the New developments in aircraft design from Aircraft design and suggested the article be renamed on the related talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the redirect on Future aircraft developments as it is not really appropriate. The content of Future aircraft developments should be discussed on the related talk page or an AfD raised if appropriate. I have assumed that KVDP creating the redirect has contested the prod so I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

KVDP: I understand that you don't want to loose what you've written about, but in its current state it doesn't belong on wikipedia. If you have enough information about a particular aircraft, feel free to make an article for that aircraft. I don't think it belongs in the experimental aircraft article; that article refers to something specific and not just a list of random programs under development somewhere. For example there are already articles on the geared turbofan, electric aircraft, fanwings, blended wing body, etc. They don't need to be collected somewhere with poor descriptions. I still think the article needs to be deleted. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not go to WP:AFD then? That will result in it being fixed or deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with AFD. ALso, The article can be userfied as a result of the AFD, or after the AFD by an admin. Even now, the editor can copy the article to his userspace, AFAIK. - BilCat (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey,

It seems that Future aircraft developments will get deleted. As stated before, I too wasn't completely satifsfied with this article myself neither, so it perhaps a good thing that it gets reworked. I already chopped of a part of it (Bionics research, targeted programs) and I still think that the article info (in this chopped up form) could be moved to a new article with a more suitable name. As MilborneOne stated: "Appears to have nothing to do with aircraft design which is an article about designing aircraft not about what those designs are." I am under the impression that atleast one person thinks so too. So can the partial article info be moved to a more suitably named article as Aicraft designs, List of aircraft designs or List of aircraft improvements ?

As for not wanting to lose what I've written; this isn't the point, I don't care losing something I put energy into if its crap anyway. The point is that the info is usable (eg to help aircraft designers quickly see their options in attaining the new requirements on regards to the environment, ...), aswell as in a broader sense (here comes the green tuning in play) to anyone wishing to make his aircraft more enviromentally friendly (which can be done with some of the mentioned stuff like boundary layer suction, ... It is clear that this btw can never be done by adding some of this information at an article "about a particular aircraft" as mentioned by SidewinderX. Please tell me what of my solutions can be approved KVDP (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See, I don't think a list of random research topics in aircraft belongs in wikipedia. It's not encyclopedic. Many of those topics are interesting and have a place here in wikipedia, like Boundary layer suction, which already has an article. I suggest you work on fleshing out those topics into their respective articles, not into an incomplete list of any type. -SidewinderX (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

KVDP- Just moving the article to List of aircraft improvements doesn't fix it. Think about the title of that article. What does it mean? Is it a list of every possible thing that can improve aircraft? Is it only things that haven't been demonstrated yet? Is it only things that have been demonstrated but not used on a production aircraft? As it stands now, that list could include everything from countersunk rivets to jet engines to supercritical airfoils. I honestly don't think that the list you're trying to preserve has a place on wikipedia. Again, I think many of the topics mentioned have a place, but that place is their own article... not a list with a one sentence synopsis. I'll wait to read your reply, but my next step is to just put the article up for deletion. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The list article needs to be named so its scope is defined or limited. Otherwise it'll be like SidewinderX stated with most anything and everything fitting in. More like "List of 21th century aircraft innovations" or "List of major aircraft efficiency innovations". Added enough content and these would not have to be list articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In my mind, that means we're talking about a new article, not what is currently there. Even with the names you mentioned there is a lot of wiggle room.... do you list things that have been flown on an aircraft? Do you list things that have only been mentioned once in a journal article? What about technologies briefly examined in the 20th century and being more heavily covered now? Do you limit it to airframe enhancements? What about propulsion improvements? New materials? I don't know if they're is a reasonable way to cover this stuff in a list. I think it is still best left to specific topics. -SidewinderX (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ok guys, I've nominated the article for deletion here. Feel free to share your thoughts there! -SidewinderX (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Aircraft

{{Infobox Aircraft}} Infobox Aircraft appears to be deprecated, see right. I noticed this on Clipper Victor. How does one correct this, why was a change made that deprecates a template without fixing the pages that use that template, and how many other articles are affected? Fences&Windows 01:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

When that infobox was deprecated, a bot updated the infobox in all aircraft articles. So eventually somebody copied the old infobox after that. Anyway, the Infobox is fixed in the Victor article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't have the first idea how to fix it! Fences&Windows 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I chencked the "what links here" of Template:Infobox Aircraft, and there don't appear to be any other articles in mainspace that use it. - BilCat (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Daimler IIIb/Mercedes D,IIIb

Does anyone have details of this engine? Despite the similarity of its name to the Mercedes D.III, produced in large numbers with variants like D.IIIa etc. it seems to have been quite different in layout. The D.III was a straight six, whereas what information we have is that the D.IIIb was a Vee-8.TSRL (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, you might have better luck in the aircraft engines task force. That said, I hope we can clear this up as it is quite the mystery! -SidewinderX (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tip. Not been there before but on my way!TSRL (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Books

A user recently has been adding books to the bibliography section on what looks like a promotion of an aviation society Flash Aviation and also perhaps to increase notability for its article which is now at AfD. Many authors have added book sources to bibliography sections over the years but it would be really nice if they contributed something from the source rather than just adding a promotional link or mention. On the assumption book sources have been added in good faith should they not be in a further reading section if they have not actually contributed to the article (as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content)? we have a lot of articles with non-contributary books in the bibliography sections! MilborneOne (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite clear under WP:FURTHER. It probably stems from confusion as to what 'bibliography' actually means. Sometimes when I move unused books to a further reading section it is apparent that there are not many left that were actually being used for references!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest the Further Reading section is just an invitation for spamming. My thought: if it isn't cited as a footnote then it goes. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair point! If the books are high quality (and sometimes they are better than ones used for references) then I don't see the harm in having a reasonable number in the FR section as it says in the guideline, a reasonable number of recommended publications. Maybe the usefulness or purpose of the FR section has been discussed previously elsewhere, at the moment it is down to different editors' judgement, which as we are seeing here can cause problems. It's one of those subjective areas like 'comparable aircraft' or 'comparable' engines' in the 'See also' sections. I think that feature is useful although a lot of thought has to go into the choices and even then someone is bound to disagree. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Partly as a result of this discussion I've used Works Cited rather than Bibliography in Boulton Paul P.10 (provisional naming!) and dropped the Notes subheading. With others I've used Notes a lot, but the entries almost always are not notes, they are cites or references (same thing), or links to web sites , Flight articles etc. I'm not sure if the Works Cited should be a subhead or a header on a par with references; can see arguments both ways. At the moment I'm on subhead, in which case I'd be tempted by a subhead Cites, and keep Notes for notes. Probably someone will edit that section anyway!

I guess Further Reading and Works Cited make a pair, but entry to the former needs rather special justification, otherwise it becomes, as Ahunt says, just a dump. I'm trying to think when it would be useful; if there is a newer better source, or even older but better one than the one used, should it not just replace the earlier entry in Works Cited? I'm inclining to Ahunt's hardline position. Certainly, the tendency to write down under Bibliography all books, cited or not that give the Fooplane a mention (we trust), without any page numbers or indication of depth or usefulness to the reader is very aggravating.

The thing I have always found uncomfortable, writing about an aircraft that has been covered in only one book in any depth, is how to cite that source. In a sense one wants to say, the information in the next 3 paras is from Ping's book, in pages klm-klp. In practice I find myself popping inlines every sentence or two, at sensible places I hope, just to show I'm not making it up and it's in Ping really.TSRL (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In a pure sense of providing references, any source material should be included, with some thought to its value to the article and the reader. Many authors (wiki editors included) use a variety of source material to gather background. Sometimes that material is important enough but doesn't actually end up being referenced in a quote or citation but may be useful for future use by others. (Judging by personal experience and knowing how the publishing industry works, the use of a bibliography is an essential component of a scholarly work and is considered along with a comprehensive contents/index as one of the prime fascia determinants of the value of the research.) FWiW, consider the last comment as merely a personal assessment. Bzuk (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD completed - Flash Aviation was deleted today. - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Article hijacking

Alpha Aviation is a stub, based solely on a company website, that apparently in need of updating to reflect new ownership. Meanwhile, now blocked User:Alpha-aviation has been adding info on a British pilot-services company to the head of the article, based solely on a company website (often word-for-word)! See here for an IP repeating the same additions as the blocked user. Both organizations appear to be ones for which notabiloity can be established. Alpha Aviation Ltd. is used by the British company on its site, so this would be a good location for a new article on it. Also, can an admin semi-protect the article for a couple of weeks while we get this all sorted out? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that Alpha Aviation Limited, London is particularly notable not any real mention outside its own website and some company info sites. It was only formed in Feb 2009. If the IP comes back again then it may be grounds to protect. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice! I'll let you know if the IP returns. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

NATO reporting names in Russian military aircraft articles

Following a discussion and at the suggestion of users BilCat and MilborneOne, I'd like to request a solid consensus on the inclusion and formatting of NATO reporting names in the ledes of articles for Soviet/Russian military aircraft. There is no actual standard in the style guide which currently addresses the issue and I cannot locate a consensus discussion in the talk page archives. Currently, the articles in question conform to no particular standard at all; a perusal of relevant articles finds several variations on the formatting of the names, although all include the NATO names in the lede in some form. I argue, based on the arguments I've laid out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bullzeye#Standardizing|here, that the standard should be "Bolded official name here (Russian: Name in Cyrillic characters here; NATO reporting name: bolded Nato designation." (for example): Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 (Russian: Микоян и Гуревич МиГ-23; NATO reporting name: "Flogger"), as quoted from Mig-23. The details of the quotation marks or other formatting can be resolved simultaneously, but the bolding should be official, I feel. I should note that this is already the standard for WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, which cover missiles and submarines, the only other types of Russian systems (besides planes and choppers) bearing widely used NATO names. Please peruse the aforementioned discussion for my arguments. Thank you. Bullzeye ^contribs 10:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable as the NATO coding name is essentially an alternate name, bolding and quotation marks would then apply. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

I support this standard completely, including the bolding of the NATO names. - BilCat (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel bolding the NATO name gives it too much weight and it seems like overbolding. Maybe this is OK by Wikipedia policy but I don't see it at WP:MOSBOLD, or WP:BOLDTITLE now. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST and WPSHIPS bold the NATO names, so there is precedence. It's also the reason the issue came now, as military aircraft are also under MILHIST, and editors are trying to apply the MILHIST guidelines. While I do understand your points, but there does need to be consistency on the issue of bolding the NATO names, otherwise it will continue to come up. If we do adobt the bolding, and someone objects on those grounds, we can refer them to WT:MOSBOLD, and they try to gain a WP-wide consensus on the issue there. - BilCat (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me. I just don't want a conflict with the MOS if an article goes up for GA or FA review. This should fall under bolding alternate names, but I couldn't find that in the MOS this morning. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD encourages secondary names to be bolded in the lede, especially if they are better known than the official local name. The general idea is that the NATO names are far, far more commonly used and recognized in the West and thus "secondarily bolding" the NATO name allows for a more balanced and informative lead and improves the recognizance of the articles among people who are not necessarily warplane buffs. I certainly don't think it's giving "undue prominence" to the names, and MILHIST's had no problems with using it thusly on sub and missile articles. Bullzeye ^contribs 13:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this suggested use, as long as the NATO name is not used thoughout the article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, including the bolding of the NATO name. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, similar examples at WP:Lead section#Proper names and titles and below. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem particularly if it agrees with other projects use. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Previous discussions on the subject from the archives; November 2008 and July 2007, just so we know where we've been in this discussion previously. --Born2flie (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Book Purchase for WP:Air

I saw this for sale on eBay... anyone want to chip in and buy this with me? -SidewinderX (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Put me down for a fiver... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. And shipping would cost an arm for that as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow indeed! Even a tenth the asking price would be a lot. It'd be chaaper to just fly from anywhere in the workd to NC, pay for a week at a local hotel, and then go to where the books are and read them on-site! - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My local library has just about all of them. You can't take them out, but you can go and make notes anytime you like. Cost of library card = free! - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No room left on my breakfast bar for any more books! I thought eBay was for finding bargains?!! What does this make the completely free Flight archive worth? We will know which one of us bought it fairly soon when new Jane's references start appearing!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up on Aisle 12

See this diff for the latest in Italian-English translation software performance. Although the addition is sourced, I do think most of it is off-point, not to mention poorly written (surprise!) However, I'm not getting anywhere near it. - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm not keen on intervening either, lest I get a barrage of abuse again, maybe somebody new who has not had the pleasure should revert it? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they already have! - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Useful list?

Tempted to prod List of airplanes without flaps, just discovered it tonight. The Tiger Moth is missing for a start (much to my dismay!) and the Bleriot monoplane, Sopwith Pup, Gloster Gnatsnapper and......well! Links to one article only, is this a 'no-brainer'?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that article is certainly the silliest thing I have seen all day (and I spent most of the day in the area of insurance). Please PROD away! - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:DGG removed the Prod tags, saying "Lists a number of notable airplanes with articles, adequate list". Sigh. AfD next? - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh indeed, the rationale given for removing the prod tag is the same as saying List of English old ladies could stay because the Queen features in it. Yes, I think we should AfD it, would you like to, my enthusiasm for posting notifications etc. is low! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Why do people remove prods on articles that are likely to be deleted anyway? It might be better to do AFDs first,and if they're uncontested, they'll e snowballed. - BilCat (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will set up the AfD, just have to review how to do that! I have done CSD and PROD, but never an AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be advised that List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fixed-wing aircraft without flaps - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe somebody already has! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright (again)

This is probably familiar ground; if so, apologies. Several standard references (eg Thetford on Royal Naval Aircraft) identify photo sources very clearly and we know that if an image is Crown Copyright and pre 1957 it is in the public domain. What about those labelled Air Ministry Photo, or Official Admiralty Photo etc; it seems likely, does it not, that the Crown is the Copyright holder?TSRL (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that any official photo is Crown Copyright. Just have to watch out that a lot of wartime photos were taken by the companies (like Charles Brown's images) and are not Crown Copyright. But if it says Crown Copyright or official then it is probably OK but just make sure that it is true! as some of the more modern websites have just assumed crown copyright. I have no doubt that the likes of Thetford and Jackson would have researched and sourced their images properly. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it that crown copyright expires 50 years after publication, so a pre 1957 image published in 1960 is Copyright? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the first publication, otherwise, modern sources using older images would automatically qualify. Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that for Crown Copyright (unlike other uses) the clock starts when the photograph is TAKEN rather than when it is first published - which is what the PD-GOV-UK tag says.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Second An-225

An IP user keeps removing info on the discontinuation of the completion of the second An-225. per this diff. He refuses to accept FlightGlobal as a relaibal source on this. Any assistance in resolving this would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill: Done. You may also want to add something to this. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)