Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Litton LN-3

Just found LN-3 Inertial Navigation System, a worthy article but it desperately needs help, created by a new user who I think is Dutch so please don't Bite! Contains multiple refs to wiki articles and is apparently plagiarised from manuals, they would be public domain I think as USAF documents but there should be some effort to change the wording. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)

I've dome some work on it, but it needs more help. And probably an axe to cut out parts of the article. -fnlayson (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriesbox aircraft categories

I had and idea some idea a year ago to replace Template:Seriesbox aircraft categories (part of the infobox) with a standard navbox Template:Navbox aircraft categories. The infobox version sometimes clashed with the article content. Anybody think we should change it? or leave alone, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Both seem fine to me. The navbox version is a better fit for shorter articles like Tiltwing. While the infobox works fine for longer articles, like Autogyro and Tiltrotor. Ornithopter does not have either, but is long enough for the Infobbox template. -fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I much prefer the navbox, with narrow browser widths the box at the top can be quite obtrusive and it isn't about the article subject but other articles. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yea, an image has to be placed above the Infobox-like template, or in a separate Infobox template. So the navbox seems simpler/better. -fnlayson (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The two boxes are presently shown together at Autogyro for comparison. The infonavbox looks good on a big screen and quickly gives the reader an overview of all aircraft types whether (s)he wants it or not, whereas the navbox is much more discrete and unobtrusive, especially on smaller screens. TGCP (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that example it seems to me that it just puts a lot of links to other articles up high on the page, not on the subject the reader is there to read about. I really think these sort of off-topic links should be at the bottom, not at the top of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the navbox at the bottom. The infobox version would have been fine if it was defaulted to compressed, but that didn't seem to be the consensus at the time. --Born2flie (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the series navbox is rather obtrusive at the top, whereas the infobox provides information about the subject of the article and belongs at the top. Navboxes are more appropriate at the bottom. --TraceyR (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

J-20 pic up for deletion...

File:Chengdu J-20.jpg has been nominated for deletion by a good-faith user who, alas, doesn't seem to understand (a) how fair use works and (b) that the fact there's been photographs in the newspaper doesn't mean that free-use photos are available or will be anytime soon. Discussion here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Next Generation Jammer

We could probably use a separate article on the US Navy's Next Generation Jammer program (or system hardware itself). The NGJ is to be an electronic warfare/jamming pod to replace the old AN/ALQ-99 pod. Some early developments contracts have been awarded. There is some text and references at Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Next Generation Jammer now to start with. I'm not that good at electronic hardware like this and thought someone else here might be interested in getting an article on this started. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Jammer text has been removed from the F-35 article. See this old version before the content was removed. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Peer review and FLC

I've set up a peer review for Boeing 767 at Wikipedia:Peer review/Boeing 767/archive1. And i've also nominated List of Boeing 777 operators at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Boeing 777 operators/archive1. I've got high hopes for these articles, please contribute at their respective pages. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(Feed back needed @ Talk page)} 07:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please help with these where you can. Not sure about FA list requirements, but with some fixes and improvements the Boeing 767 article can archive Good Article status. -fnlayson (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from other reviewers are welcome also. -fnlayson (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

template:Rocket specifications-all

{{Rocket specifications-all}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This was saved, but it's one heck of an old template. Is there any way somebody who has Template-Fu stronger than mine can create a new version along the syntax lines of {{Aircraft specs}}? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Saab S-100 Argus

I just found the Saab S-100 Argus article, which was created in April 2009. Until today, no article linked to it, and no regular WP:AIR editors have edited the page either. Should this article be expanded, and possibly moved to Saab 340 AEW&C, or should we merge it into the main Saab 340 article? If we do keep it, Saab 2000 AEW&C is another possbile article. Note that most of the articles that mention these models usually link to the Erieye page, which is about the radar only. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As S-100 is just the Swedish AF name then it should really be at Saab 2000 AEW&C to cover all the variants. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If you mean Saab 340 AEW&C, then yes, I agree. But I figured we should discuss whether or not it first. - BilCat (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I did, but then again we dont have the Saab 2000 variant. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I'm leaning towards having variant articles for both the Saab 340 AEW&C and Saab 2000 AEW&C. I think the AEW&C variants are better covered separately, and can be linked to derectly, rather than to the Erieye page. - BilCat (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the Saab 2000 AEW&C can be covered at Saab 2000 for a now. And the aircraft info needs to be trimmed/removed from the Erieye page. -fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with trimming the aircraft data from the Erieye page, and with leaving the 2000 AEW&C info at Saab 2000. If in adding the 2000 info from the Erieye page it begins to overwhelm the article's civilian coverage, I'll propose a split there. I'll keep working on the Saab 340 AEW&C page for now, but a merger might be proposed by someone else. - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Jet fighter generations at XfD

This old chestnut rears its head again; I've nominated {{Generations of jet fighter}} and Generations of jet fighter at TfD and AfD here and here, respectively. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Kyteto's monthly focus article for January: SEPECAT Jaguar

I;ve decided on an article to work upon this month, as both BAC TSR-2 and De Havilland Comet have completed their rebuilding + reviewing; the Jaguar.(The plane, not the cars!) This one is going to be tricky, as we have a lot of gaping holes in referencing and content. If anybody is fluent with either French or Italian languages, they may be able to use the Wikipedia pages in those languages to build the French operational history, which is only a single paragraph and far smaller than the coverage of British events. Happy new year everyone! Kyteto (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Making a note of an achivement: Between the community, over five days the citations given in the article have increased five-fold. Good progress is being made, thank you for your efforts everyone. Kyteto (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has passed its GA review. From its starting point at the beginning of the year, the article's file size had increased by 150% and references have gone from 15 to 130; a very successful overhaul has been achieved with this aircraft. Thank you to all who participated, and I hope to see you again on next month's focus article. Kyteto (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Morane-Saulnier MS.225 image

Could somebody help with the exact specification of the aircraft in this picture? The original caption is:

L'avion-canon Morane-Saulnier-325 (moteur Hispano-Suiza 900 CV, canon débouchant dans le moyeu d'hélice)

I am sure, both numbers are wrong. It must be MS.225. But another images of MS.225 ([1], [2]) shows radial engine. Thanks for any suggestion! --Gampe (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what it looked like but the MS.227 had a four-bladed prop and a Hispano-Suiza 12Xcrs vee piston engine. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Looked like http://www.traditions-air.fr/unit/photo/div_unit_inconnu_chasse.htm so it is probably the same aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to note Morane-Saulnier M.S.225 article has the variants listed wrongly! corrected MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict ×2) Probably the one and only Morane-Saulnier MS-227 (a MS.225 fitted with a 690 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Xcrs engine and a cannon firing through the propeller hub as a testbed details at Aviafrance.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!--Gampe (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330

Can someone lend me a hand with expanding the page Airbus A330. It seems like it is too big a task for just an individual to embark on. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)(I love Wikipedia!)} 05:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall lend you some assistance, though I cannot fully dedicate myself to working on this article right now. Kyteto (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguating

I should probably know this, but, is there a hard-and-fast rule the project follows for disambiguating aircraft type pages in cases where a designation was reused? My wondering was spurred by noting Douglas DC-8 (piston airliner) - vs., of course, Douglas DC-8 - and remembering having noticed in the past that other articles use a date-based disambiguation. For instance, Sukhoi Su-15 (1949) vs the Sukhoi Su-15 we know and love. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Both of those ways to disamb. the article seem alright. The Su-15 (1949) article is using the year of its first flight. If an aircraft design did not get that far, listing a year could be somewhat arbitrary. Do you list the year the project started or ended? Or use some other milestone. -fnlayson (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Aircraft seat map.

Aircraft seat map has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Flare (aviation)

This article is a one line stub that is essentially just a dictionary definition, although it has refs cited. I am not sure it will ever be anything more than a dictionary definition. Does anyone see any opportunity to expand it or any reason to keep it? - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like something for Wiktionary to me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Could be incorporated into Landing, perhaps?TSRL (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:TSRL: That is a good idea, that article already explains what a flare is, so it would just need the refs moved and redirect. I'm going to wait a few days here and see if there are further suggestions, but I like that one. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Landing is a good home for it. MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay lacking any other discussion I will redirect it to Landing and move the refs, since that part of Landing is unref anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs

(Though this is a bit out of our scope, I'm posting it here because some of our members have interest in aircraft carriers, but they may not watch the MILHIT or WPSHIPS talk pages.)

Comparison of armoured to unarmoured flight deck designs is a quagmire sinking deeper and deeper. Currently, there is a dispute about captions added to two images in the article which attempt to "illustrate" the differnces between the two approaches by listing the casualties in the captions! It really needs attention from editors experienced in handling controversial material in a neutral manner. I'm seriously considering taking the article to AFD, but my philosophy on AFDs is to try to make a genuine attemt to "rescue" an article first, with an AFD as a last, not first, resort. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 known losses

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 known losses which is a list of individual aircraft and the date they were lost (but not how) describes itself as "These lists are naturally quite incomplete; for example, there are no entries for the Soviet Air Force, as no information has yet been found". I can't see it has any particular justification to exist as an article, but I'm more use at commenting on AfD than starting one. Could it be a case for Speedy?GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I did prod it in 2009 as Non-notable list fails to meet any requirements for accident articles and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. but the article creator removed the tag and said he would add more information, it didnt happen! MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't think it meets speedy, but it's certainly AfDable. Will do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330 Good Article candidate

I've created a page at Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 for comments and/or "Oppose" or "Support" for Airbus A330. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 22:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

2008 Coventry Airport collision

Just ti let project members know, this article has been proposed for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And has been de-proded by article creator. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And is now at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft cats by engine, redux

A discussion last year (which some may remember, here) led to consensus for a comprehensive realignment of the aircraft categories, which I got started on then burned out at the sheer magnitude of the task. The other day I got back on it, but it raised eyebrows ([User_talk:The_Bushranger#Aircraft_articles_and_categories here]) with regard to the aircraft-by-engine categories. After pondering it for a bit, I realised there was a point - while categorising aircraft by the location of their wing is a bit problematic (for instance, where's the wing on a Messerschmitt Me 264 - "high" or "mid"? "mid-high"?), the number and type of engines is, usually (but not always, I'll admit!) a pretty obvious distinguishing/defining feature.

So I'm considering that maybe these cats do have a purpose - and their size, the main problem with them in the past, can be kept more reasonable by a type/number split. Instead of "propeller aircraft" and "jet aircraft" on one side, and "single-engine aircraft" and "multi-engine aircraft" on the other, this would see the creation of, for instance, Category:Twinjets as a subcategory of Category:Jet aircraft and Category:Multi-engine aircraft. With appropriate categories for other configuration as well. Of course there would be some outliers (B-36) and problematic ones (A2J Savage, late-model C-123s...), but this could be dealt with with Category:Aicraft with auxiliary jet engines, for instance.

Any objections? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can give that a qualified "support", as I am sure there are some traps for the unwary there somewhere. Not to take the wind out of your sails, but I have to admit that personally I rarely make use of categories, so while I add them to articles I start (to avoid having them tagged as "no cat"), I don't get too excited about them. In looking at the usage data available I am not convinced that it is worth spending a lot of time on them. For instance probably one of the biggest categories is Category:Single-engine_aircraft which had 482 hits in the whole month of January 2011. Category:Jet_aircraft only was viewed 160 times in January. The other cats I checked for traffic show similar results, readers really aren't using them much. To compare this have a look at the traffic for an aircraft type article like Cessna 172, which scored 49,525 hits in January or Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II which was viewed 269,437 times and you can see how much use the cats get by readers. - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dont have a big problem with the idea although like Ahunt I am not sure we really use them, the category "Twinjets" seems a bit strange do we intend to have "Fourjets"! MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Or "Quadjet"? Fair point, but I'm pretty sure I've seen "twinjet" used to desrcibe two-engined airliners. But Category:Two-engined jet aircraft is the likely alternative there! As for the cat useage, yeah, they don't get used too much - but my opionion is that as long as they're there, they should be done right. (Besides, working on them, for me, is fun!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, as long as you find it fun or at least therapeutic, then I wouldn't want to dissuade you from doing this. Just as long as you aren't doing it because you are convinced that fixing cats is a life-threatening emergency! - Ahunt (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

*stops editing cats* See, I can totally sto-urk~ *falls over dead* =P - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to give you a barnstar just for being able to even discuss cats and retain a sense of humour! - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Centennial Aviation Club

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are encouraged to voice their views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centennial Aviation Club. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

British Military Designations/Mark numbers

Now, just to start this off, there is a bit of confusion as to when the RAF began to change its military designations as evidenced in the recent hubbub over the English Electric Lightning and Folland Gnat articles. I recall that the topic has been brought up before and the "standard" of Mk.1 and Mk 1 is now co-existing in a melange of formats in many articles, without a clear indication of when to use one or the other designation. The RAF now (since ?) is using a simplified system that eliminates the "dot." The "FG.1" has become the "FG 1" or "FG1" across the board, including back-dating some illustrious types such as the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane and Avro Lancaster in all their current literature. I have an extensive collection (my wife isn't reading this, is she?) of Aeroplane, Air Pictorial, Flypast, RAF Flying Review, and numerous other Brit magazines. Many of these were perfect barometers of the time and mirrored the current terminology. In and about 1968, the articles seemed to be diverting from using the "dot" and by the early 1980s, the "dot" was no longer to be found in RAF designations. I mark the change as 1983 in Air International and there was no diversion from that point on. This background is just to set the theme for the fun and frivolity that will surely ensue. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly an area that needs clarification/consensus and when that has been achieved a short guideline should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming. As I was serving in the RAF and completing aircraft paperwork during the 'dot dropping' period (1978-2002) I would say that it happened slightly later, nearer the early to mid-1990s. A glossy 1998 RAF public relations brochure that I have (imaginatively titled 'RAF 98'!) designates all types without dots, so there is one official source at least that gives a date and the new form. When and how it happened exactly might not be established from sources, it would have been a directive from the Ministry of Defence or one of the RAF Commands and not necessarily publicised. Many things were done in the 90s to try and modernise the RAF and make it more 'trendy', I viewed this change as one of the measures.

Looking at the RAF website, the RAF Museum website and the BBMF website, the dots have been eradicated even for the WWI types, which looks plain daft to me. WP:COMMONNAME overrides any project guidelines (or at least 'external' editors tell us that frequently), so the common name or form for an article title and text (for consistency) is the one that should be used. The problem then is establishing what the common name actually is (or was) and this is where the fun starts. We have the same problem with some engines, RB.199 versus RB199 for instance, and manufacturer's designations like DH.82 versus DH82. If I was writing my own aircraft encyclopaedia for my own use then I would follow the convention of the most reliable source and abide by it, that source would most probably be 'Jane's'. Whether the group of editors in this particular project can be persuaded to use a logical system like this for standardisation I don't know but the idea is there at least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1993-94 for reference and the "dot" is gone. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Nimbus227, I think he has put it well. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Although he hasn't clarified a decision as many articles are now involved, sans dot. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say pitch the dot and be consistent. The presence or absence doesn't add or remove any value. Out of curiosity, do we have an article on naming and numbering conventions for British aircraft (aka something equivalent to 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system?) I guess we do, British military aircraft designation systems, and it does not discuss the dot as far as I can see. SDY (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The article discusses the full stop at Post-1948. The RAF's choice of formatting of service names and marks is not however contributing to the usage in manufacturer's designations (or Air Ministry specifications nor ORs). My personal thoughts are consistency within an article and with respect to the time period. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Graham. Saying, say, "Hurricane F1" instead of "Hurricane Mark I" would be terrible! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it would be as bad as the clock that Shakespeare wrote into Julius Caesar! Lets's figure out the best date when the dot disappeared and then stick to the correct designation for the historical timeframe. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I'm very blind sometimes. SDY (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are the dates I have encountered when changes occurred in the RAF nomenclature:

1968: A mix of the dot and no dot,

1983: Popular magazines changed over to the non dot,

1994: Complete change as defined by authoritative sources such as Jane's

1998: RAF literature no longer uses the dot and starts to redact the dot to earlier types,

2000: Dot has completely disappeared everywhere in RAF use. Now that means that earlier types were not renamed as Hurricane F1, but were simply called Hurricane Mk 1 or Hurricane 1, XII, IV, etc. everything else was already designated but the dot had completely disappeared. My thought is let's be consistent with what the RAF wants everyone to use- get rid of the dot across the board. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

(undent) I think (where both are historically valid) "." is preferable to "Mk" for two reasons: 1) Brevity (many WP articles have lots of references to aircraft variants - e.g. "... in the Lightning F.2A, F.3, F.6, and F.53") and 2) Consistency (at least with dots we don't have a mix of "Mark", "Mk.", "Mk" etc). FWiW Jane's Defence Weekly still uses the dot even for current aircraft (e.g. "MRA.4"), but I'm not suggesting we do that. DexDor (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? Two systems? One for retired aircraft? and a different one for current aircraft? Bzuk (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The distinction isn't whether the aircraft is current or retired, but what designation was used when it was operated - i.e. "Typhoon F1", "Apache AH1" etc since the 1990s. For earlier types "Mosquito FB Mk 40", "Hunter F 6", "Gnat F.1" etc are more historically accurate than using the modern format. The predominant format used on most articles follows this pretty well already. Different 1948-1990s aircraft articles use different formats, but I'm more bothered about inconsistencies and errors within articles (I've just seen "Mosquito FB V1" for example). DexDor (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme and Ahunt. I recall reading a brief news item in Air International magazine, possibly some time in the late 90s, which announced that the RAF and/or MoD were officially removing the "." from designations, but I need to spend some time in my archives to find it again. However the use of the "." in the abbreviated form of mark numbers (e.g. "F.6") was very much the norm (at least in the aviation press) before this time, as I recall. I think it's reasonable to suggest, for historical accuracy, we keep the "." for aircraft types that were retired before, say, 2000 (or a more accurate date if one can be found), and use the dot-less form for types in service after this date. I also prefer the abbreviated "F.6" format to the slightly cumbersome "F. Mk. 6". Regards Letdorf (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

• I recall that article too. It was in regards to the new Tornado EF3 conversion, so that might help narrow down the time fram. I have some back-issues, but not all. I guess Air International doesn't have a searchable archive yet, huh? - BilCat (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Now we are getting closer to some resolution, prior to 2000 service introduction, RAF types will use previous system of naming which includes the dot, e.g. Hurricane Mk.1, Spitfire Mk.V, etc.; aircraft in service in 2000 and later will become Canberra PR9, Hawk T1. FWiW, I can live with that, although my first preference would be to lose the dot. Bzuk (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is about the post-1948 designations (arabic numerals) so Hurricane Mk I, Spitfire Mk V etc are irrelevant. DexDor (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If I may make an aside, the removal of the dot IMHO makes the designations look terrible (now, removing the "Mk" was good though). And don't even get me started on "Sea Harrier FA2"! But I'd agree that a simple "retired 1948-2000, F.#, in service after 2000, F#" format would be logical. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bzuk said: "What are you suggesting? Two systems? One for retired aircraft? and a different one for current aircraft?" That's what I've been supporting all along, and what most of the RAF articles I've worked on (Harrier, Hawk) have used. (I still think this was agreed to some years back, but I've not been able to find that discussion as yet.) I think this is the most historically consistant. I'm ambivelat about using the dot with the "Mk", but since most of the relevant articles have had the Mk-dot expunged already, I'm with with that. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why you'd use a full-stop to shorten "Mark". I thought the full-stop was used for when there were letters missing eg "Capt." GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it was because Trainer Mark 2 was first abbreviated as T Mk.2 then T.2, then T2. So the dot was just inherited from the Mk. bit. MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've drawn up a table at User:DexDor#Aircraft designation proposal with proposed recommendations. Comments are welcome - here, at User talk:DexDor or at Talk:British military aircraft designation systems. —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Peer Review for General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark

Hello, I started a Peer Review for F-111 today. All editors are welcome to participate. Thanks for comments and any help! -fnlayson (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Big Bunny, Playboy jet

Somebody should write an article about Big Bunny (aircraft), a DC-9 jet owned by Hugh Hefner or Playboy Corporation, painted all black except for a bunny logo on the tail. The jet was staffed by Jet Bunnies who were elite Playboy Bunnies trained in DC-9 emergency procedures. It held a bedroom, naturally, with a king-sized waterbed, as well as 12 other beds and luxurious seating. The jet made a number of notable appearances, was chartered by Elvis for a tour in June-July 1973, and another time by Sonny & Cher. It was sold a couple of times and worked for years in different livery, then cut up and made into a classroom in Mexico. This discussion thread includes a pretty good photo of the aircraft at Heathrow. Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Singapore Youth Flying Club

I have been looking though this article and it seems to be based on just two sources, one of which is an WP:SPS book and the other is a single news item as the sole footnote. Aside from the ref problem and bad grammar, it reads like a fanboy piece, far too long, detailed and promotional for an encyclopedia article on this sort of subject and full of uncited quotes. I would send it to AFD but, as a program of the military the subject seems to be notable. All I have done so far is some tagging. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient mention in the press to establish notability. Google News archives show more than the single piece referenced in the article. Even so, if the article were written using only the material in WP:RS, it would be quite short. Apparently, the WP:SPS book must have been used extensively as a source. I would consider WP:ABOUTSELF in this case. If the material is simply about the club and its activities then I think it can stand and, on my skim of the article, that seems to be the case. Note also the claim at Singapore Youth Flying Club#"Flying Colours" that the book was written by a noted journalist (mentioned without sourcing at Singaporean literature). Now, is it too long? That brings up a nubby question. One could point out WP:NOTPAPER. If a subject is deemed noteworthy enough to have an article here then why would we want to consider the length of the treatment? That said, and at the risk of contradicting myself, I do believe that the article is way too detailed; it seems to be only lacking the bus schedule. I would pare it back and combine/summarize sections. Add in some of the other RS material but do not toss the SPS material out-of-hand. --Lyncs (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It lists the bus routes to get there! It isn't so much the absolute length, but the vast amount of trivial detail and the chatty, non-encyclopedic style. I agree, that it needs to be pared back as well as properly referenced. I am interested to hear what other project members think as well, so we can come up with a consensus and a plan. - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the route is there but I need to know if that No. 39 bus runs at 6 AM; I have an early start. What good is Wikipedia anyway if it won't tell me that! (pouts) --Lyncs (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly! - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, Bill was asking me if I know about the bus schedule, all I can say is I don't... ever since I started driving my own car, I've forgotten all the non-essential bus route schedule. Sorry. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that it is notable for a mention mainly due to the para-military nature but it is full of a lot of junk. It would be nice to have some independant sources, Some of the images although all public domain are a bit iffy, not sure the image at the top is public domain if it uses the club logo and CT-4E.jpg looks a bit photoshopped, is it a doctored ground shot? MilborneOne (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

MB1: Ha you are right - the tyres are flat on the bottom a sure sign of a photoshop job! What do we do with fakes like that? - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay it looks like this discussion has run its course. I am going to work on the article with the aim of cutting out the unsourced quotes, fanboy text and some general clean-up. I'll drop a note back here when I am done and perhaps some other editors can look it over. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay I am done. It is much shorter now and lacks bus route information. I would appreciate it if some other editors could give the article a run though and fix what ever I missed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Allegro LSA

I have what looks like a company COI editor, User:LSAManager, who took the Fantasy Air Allegro article and copied it into this new location. I redirected it to the main article and have left him a number of notes on his talk page, but he isn't responding. It would be helpful if some other editors could add both Allegro LSA and Fantasy Air Allegro to their watchlists. - Ahunt (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

OKTSRL (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ;) - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR violations

We've got an IP edit warring at Tupolev Tu-16 to change one instance of US spelling in the article. (US spelling is used in at least 2 other instances which the IP is not changing.) I checked the history of the article,a nd the first useage is of US Egnlish. Btw, the IP locates to New Zealand. Any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It's being watched (and so is the one above). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor has reverted him, so thanks to all for the help. (I'm also watching the above articles too.) - BilCat (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA

This is to inform members of this project that an editor who has participated in this project extensively has been nominated for adminship. You may voice your opinions on this nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Bushranger. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

1967 N3381W Piper Cherokee crash

This has survived speedy deletion and proding over the years is it time to take it to AfD? MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Having read through the article and the interesting talk page as well, I have to admit that the only thing that makes this at all interesting is that he hit something somewhat unusual. I say "somewhat" only because there was a similar accident in Quebec a few years ago that took down a 1000 ft tower worth ten times what the pilot had in liability insurance, so it has happened at least twice. Regardless it doesn't make WP:AIRCRASH, so it should probably go to AfD unless anyone can see a case for making an exception. - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's classic CFIT, except with "tower" substituted to "terrain". But, I would say that if it can be expanded, it might be worth keeping out of sheer oddity value, (applying WP:IAR to AIRCRASH), but wouldn't object to AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Cherokee crashes are not notable - there's been a lot of them - but how many radio tower have been brought down this way? This article is probably more "keep-worthy" from the POV of WikiProject Radio than this one. Roger (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Expert required at new article: Diverterless supersonic inlet

User:Ebe123 has added a template requesting attention from an expert on the subject at the 5 day old article on the Diverterless supersonic inlet (as used on the F-35 Lightning II and several Chinese fighters). The references section contains a link to an extensive article on the topic at the Code One magazine website (a magazine produced by Lockheed Martin). --Hj108 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything seriously wrong where it needs an expert. But I'm not any kind of expert on this subject. It should have a third party source for when work on the inlet design begun. Somebody may have done some work on the design years before Lockheed Martin. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed the tag, it is categorised and explains the principle in simple terms, quite well written actually. If anything it could do with expansion to how it works, something for the future. The EE Lightning featured a version of this internally in the duct so it's not entirely new. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

List of future combat aircraft

A one-person article not sure of the criteria used, any good? MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My concerns with it: 1. No criteria for inclusion (aircraft under active dev? just proposed by govt, manufacturer?), 2. No refs 3. Very incomplete, 4. WP:CRYSTALBALL, 5. Cruft magnet. - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks added a prod. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see Bill seconded or else I would have done so. Let's see if anyone objects to the Prod. - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Article on Kristian Østby

Right now, the mention of Norwegian Cmdr. Kristian Østby is a redlink. I have almost nothing on him. Anyone have any ideas? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC).

If he is deemed notable, I can have a stub ready in a few minutes. Paaln (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC) ^Done

Rotorcraft TF talk page redirect here?

The Rotorcraft task force's talk page has been very slow lately. I think it would be best to redirect that talk page to here as the TF falls under WP:Air. The Military Aviation task force has recently redirected its talk page to the main Military history talk page to centralize discussions. Does anybody see any real issues with doing this? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, it's pretty dead. The main task force page has not been edited for just short of two years. You could redirect all of the pages to the aircraft project but perhaps put in place a mechanism to quickly reactivate them if some enthusiasts come along. The pages will still be there in the history of course but it might not be obvious that they were all linked. There are rotorcraft task force banners on article talk pages, strictly they should be removed or 'no-wikified' (might be a better option). Shame that no-one loves 'hydraulic palm trees'! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting the rotorcraft task force talk page here does not mean the TF is going away. There are several categories for rotorcraft tagged articles based on their rating (Stub, Start, C, ...). I think these are still useful for maintenance and other things. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. When I go to look for maintenance tasks on articles, I go to the rotorcraft categories knowing there are fewer editors engaged there. I do visit the TF page much more often than I visit the WP page. About the only activities outside of RTF are assessments and peer reviews; which, like my editing, are both rarer these days. --Born2flie (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Further improvements of de Havilland Comet

Hello WP:Aircraft

I've been recently considering entering the Comet article as a FA-candidate. However, I have had previous, negative, experiences with the process, in fact I would describe it as highly demotivational, without getting to specific as to why. Thus I tern to the members of this forum, both for support if I do choose to take this step, and for further advice as to if I should even try. It would be nice to effectively complete the work on the first passenger jet to fly, the challenges and attitudes in that area of Wikipedia I do not greatly enjoy, I tend to stay as far away from Featured discussions as a rule. So, is the de Havilland Comet worth the hassle, basically? Kyteto (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

General requests

During the next 2 to 3 months, I'll be working hard on articles such as Airbus A300, Airbus A310, Airbus A320 family, Airbus A340, Boeing 707 and Boeing 757. Hopefully my goal of promoting these articles to Good Article, and later Featured Article, status will be realised. Please forgive me removing some information and blanking of sections because, good articles cannot be compromised by unreferenced claims. However, I'll try to find the references for these claims, and the text removed text itself will not be kept far from my screen, as I will actively seek the references.

First of all, does somebody mind producing diagrams like File:A350 variant sizes.svg? For the page Airbus A330, I'm looking for a diagram of an Airbus A330-200, A330-300, Boeing 767-300ER and Boeing 767-400ER, laid out in the same style as the ones on the provided link. Further diagrams requests will be posted.

Secondly, I'm looking for a number of images. A photo of the A330 and A340 wing is needed, because the identical wing is a significant aspect of these two planes. My searches on Wiki Commons show up no results, so I am here, asking for your help. A photo of the Clament Ader assembly hall at Toulouse, France, near Toulouse-Blagnac Airport will also be useful, if someone happens to live nearby.

I won't be asking for your help with the text itself though, because I can work on it by myself. However, two or more heads are definitely better than one. Just get along, and improve these articles with me, if you like. Thank Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 02:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Kyteto's monthly focus article for February: English Electric Canberra

Another classic milestone, and the RAF's longest servicing plane (and regarded as obsolete and second-rate for 40 years or so!), the Canberra was an important aircraft in air forces around the globe, including the United States, India, and Australia, the latter of which being the first export customer and thus why the aircraft is named after Australia's capital city. It is in dire need of regenerating however, enjoy! Kyteto (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Putting it on my watchlist and looking for a library copy of Buttler's British Secret Projects even as I type. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently we're coming up short on referencing on Variants, if anybody has an issue of Janes and time on their hands, citations would be appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is still short of information for the variants; however it does look much better than it did at the start of this month. Without this part being overhauled, there's little point in putting the article in for GA reviewing, thus I won't be this time. Kyteto (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of P-40 variants

We dont actually have comparison articles so is this (Comparison of P-40 variants) really a list it doesnt appear to fit into the normal format of articles. (Warning uses Joe Baughers site as the only reference). MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is more a listing/description of the variants than a comparison. More of a list and should be renamed to "List of P-40 variants" or "P-40 variants". -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved it to Curtiss P-40 variants. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Little known aircraft and less-known engine

I came across Boripatra, a 1920s indigenous aircraft of the Thai Air Force, after it was added to list of fighters and found it in need of some basic attention. I've given it a wikification and some sectioning and some copyedit so it looks better now. However I am a little troubled by the engine mentioned a "Bristol Aspid". A root through the Flight archive gives no mention of this engine, and a google search brings me back to various snippets on the aircraft or cars - it doesn't help that google thinks that "aspid"= "asp?id" (as in "active server page"). Is this this engine a typo for something else? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither Bristol Aspid nor Boripatra appear in Lumsden's British Aero Engines. The only Bristol A ... is the Aquila. Aspid is not in the OED, nor in my modest encyclopaedia, though it is a prefix meaning shield (you probably found that!) from the greek. All (?) of Bristol's engines were named after Greek and Roman mythological characters. But Aspid ...? Can't find any Bristol name that could be mistyped thus. Will browse Lumsden a bit more ...TSRL (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've found a reference to the Boripatra, and the engine in question is the rather less mysterious Bristol Jupiter.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wonder how it got corrupted - prounciation? machine translation? I tried a google translation of the Thai wikipedia article and got this delightful phrase "wood beetle engine 400-600 hp Jupiter size a machine". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, there's another Siamese (Thai) aircraft the Prachadhipok which is a bare stub. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I tagged Prachadhipok - no refs! If anyone has a ref that would help a lot! - Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a more specific manufacturer than "Manufacturing Divison" for these types? Mfg. Division of...? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I added Royal Thai Air Force to Manufacturing Division although the new ref cited is really vague of terminology. I am wondering if the artocle should be moved to conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming- Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Break Airbus A320 family up into separate articles

User MilborneOne suggested to me to break up the article Airbus A320 family into smaller daughter articles, such as Airbus A321, Airbus A319 and Airbus A318. I think this should be considered because the article I'm working on right now is pretty big – that's before my work is done. Any comments about this? Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 02:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea and somewhat overdue. I'm happy to help out where I can as it's quite a significant task. SempreVolando (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested before but due to the number of incoming links and the size of the article it has to be done as a team effort. Perhaps the sub-articles can be split out one at a time, for example an A318 article would be the easiest. Also think a dedicated Airbus A320 article may be worth considering leaving the family article to discuss the development of the different variants. Happy to help if we get a consensus but we will need to give notice on the Airbus A320 family talk page if we decide to make this split. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Started with Airbus A318. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sea Fury

WJ232 is a new article about Hawker Sea Fury WJ232 it doesnt appear to be particularly notable or rare and has a prod (and a seconder) removed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than the one connection to Peter Carmichael it seems to be non-notable and doesn't seem to make Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability#Individual_aircraft. I would say that should be mentioned in his bio page, which it already is. Otherwise I would suggest sending it to WP:AFD. If it is not going to be deleted then it should be renamed - the current name is not very intuitive. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Next week, WJ231? Delete, I'd say.TSRL (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

<not serious>WJ231 still exists and does get a mention at Fleet Air Arm Museum#Hall 2 ! </not serious> MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I 'prodded' it giving the correct reason and it was seconded, you should ask the user who removed the tag without explanation why they did so. The aircraft/aviation project is getting noticed for low quality articles like this. Delete. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an explanation from the editor who removed the prod on the talk page, which they added when they removed the Prod, so an explanation was given. Concur with Delete, so send to AFD. - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WJ232. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wally Scott

Here is a new article that is about a notable person, but it appears to be written by a relative (the subject person is deceased) and the article is a total mess. Seriously needs a review if anyone has some time. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am working on this article, but I fear there is trouble brewing as the article creator, who indicates he is the son of the article's subject, claims on the talk page "Please note: Regarding the rewrite...both the publisher and author have agreed to the Creative Commons license. However, they both include the stipulation that they must approve any significant changes made to the article. As a suggetion, it might be best to submit your proposed rewrite to me via email. I can then forward your revision to the publisher and author for their comments and, hopefully, approval." I have left him a note explaining how Wikipedia works and will be working on the article later on today (since it needs a lot of work) , but some extra eyes would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the article is probably copied from the book so really needs OTRS permission. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have given the article a good tweak but it still needs looking at. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it looks like it was probably copied, but even with OTRS permission, it still needed a total re-write as the style is more in tune with say Tiger Beat than Wikipedia. As a result I wasn't too worried about the potential copyright vio as pretty much every word needs to be rewritten. Thanks for taking a first kick at it, now that I have some time I will go over it as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have taken a detailed run though it, as have User:MilborneOne and User:Nigel Ish and it is now more encyclopedic in tone and content. I have also moved the article from Wallace A. Scott to Wally Scott to comply with the Wikipedia policy on naming articles. I also fixed all the links to the article from other articles. Now let's see how it looks in a couple of days. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see MB1 has done some fresh category work, too! Thanks for your help! I have to admit I am surprised that we have a cat Category:Deaths from pneumonia!! - Ahunt (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we can lay this issue to rest - the article looks good and the original article creator, etc, are happy with the way it looks. As well we have full referencing with no outstanding tags to clear. Thank you to everyone for fixing it up. - Ahunt (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuel And Sensor Tactical pack

Should Fuel And Sensor Tactical pack be merged to Conformal fuel tank? There's not much sourced content here, and without the Macrosse cruft, there's really not much content here at all. I don't think it can be expanded much either. - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with merging - I don't hting anyone's called the F-15s conformal tanks FAST packs for a long time now - especially once the the sensor part of the idea got abandoned.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it is perishingly little to justify a whole article upon. Kyteto (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done! - BilCat (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wing Derringer thumbnail

Can anyone fix the image in the infobox? I tried but had no luck. I suspect it has to do with the image name. Thanks. --Lyncs (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cant get it to work either, code looks ok I suspect the image name File:Wing D-1 Derringer N644W Lakeland FL 23.04.09R.jpg is to long for the template code so you may need somebody more technical than me. The other possibility is the large number of gaps in the file name confuses the script, should really avoid underscores or spaces at it confuses some of the browsers. Just a guess. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is on Commons. Someone can request it be renamed something shorter there, provided that is the issue. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It may be just the name and the infobox, I have tried (not saved) other images on the Derringer page infobox and they show ok and I have added the image to the page outside the infobox and that works so I suspect it is confusing the infobox template somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Could it be the full stops/periods in the file name that are interfering with the infobox?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it needs to be renamed on Commons. Hoping someone here has the rights to do that. --Lyncs (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth the infobox image is fine with Firefox 3.6.13. But yes, a browser-proof name is needed.TSRL (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange I am using FF 3.6.13 and all I get is a horizontal line, IE and Chrome show an empty image box. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! You are right. I was looking at the image immediately below the infobox.TSRL (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

... so since the filenames are the same, it's an infobox code problem as you suggest.TSRL (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have requested a file rename on the commons page. --Lyncs (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

All better now :) --Lyncs (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible Content fork

A user proposed moving Surveillance aircraft to Reconnaissance aircraft. There were few contributors to the discussion, and the page was not moved. The editor has since created Reconnaissance aircraft as a new page without discussion, and some of the page appears to be copied from the first page, without attribution. I'm not certain about the distinction between the two terms, as most of the time they are used interchangeably. I'd actually prefer the main page to be Reconnaissance aircraft, as this is the more common term, to me anyway. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to the user who created the Reconnaissance aircraft article (from a redirect) it should be pointed out that the two people who opposed the move stated Reconnaissance and Surveillance had different meanings - which might justify separate articles. I agree that the two terms seem to be used interchangeably (e.g. in Hainan Island incident). In the discussion at Talk:Surveillance_aircraft MQ stated that "the military does not seem to make a distinction between the two [terms]". Until there is a clear (and cited) distinction between the two terms is clear it should be a single article – i.e. Reconnaissance aircraft should be changed back to a redirect and it's content moved into Surveillance aircraft where appropriate. The lead should also be changed to refer to both terms (and "Observation" - the term used for balloons and helicopters). DexDor (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I almost agree. Actually the burden of proof is on you guys to prove that there isn't a distinction and not just by inferring but by citing a source that explicitly states it. The USAF factsheet page describes the U-2 as a "single-seat, single-engine, high-altitude/near space reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft" which suggests a difference. There is a reconnaissance role called "tactical reconnaissance" which covers the same topic as surveillance but the term doesn't have whole lot a common usage. If a merge is made, surveillance should be merged to reconnaissance aircraft. Marcus Qwertyus 16:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC

"Surveillance" means watching an area for a period of time. "Reconnaisance" means taking a one-off look at what's in an area (often prior to taking military action). Incidentally, "Observation" (see Observation Post) falls between the two. Some aircraft, and to a lesser extent sensors, may be used for both sorts of missions. If Surveillance aircraft is merged into Reconnaisance aircraft what would be done with references to "electronic surveillance" for example ? DexDor (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

At the moment there are whole paragraphs (e.g. "In 1939 ...") that appear in both the Reconnaissance aircraft and Aerial reconnaissance articles. It's easier to maintain WP if such duplication is avoided – I think it should be removed from the RA article and replaced by a link to the AR article as the latter can include things other than aircraft (pigeons, rockets etc). DexDor (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This document gives the official definition and interpretation that makes surveillance sound very tactical and reconnaissance very strategic. See if you can find a British definition. Marcus Qwertyus 23:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that we are talking about a tool rather than a mission. The same tool may be used for either mission, perhaps with some mission-specific modification. I imagine that if we looked at the aircraft profiles from the original RFP or proposal, it would likely say something like "surveillance and/or reconnaissance". I think that, unless someone can show a significant difference in the aircraft, as opposed to the mission, then one article on the general subject should suffice. I think the name should be something descriptive of the aircraft and not confined to only one of its dual roles. Perhaps "surveillance/reconnaissance aircraft" is the best we can do. --Lyncs (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely mission-specific aircraft. The SR-71 is not used for surveillance and the MQ-11 is ill-suited to reconnaissance. I still don't think we need an article on surveillance aircraft since the topic is overlapped considerably or totally by tactical reconnaissance aircraft. Marcus Qwertyus 03:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Airtourer

The Airtourer appears to be a dab page that talks about (badly) all the same aircraft as in AESL Airtourer can it be just a re-direct? MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider it done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation request: BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4

Today I conducted a cleanup of the Nimrod MRA4 article, and have discovered a citation tage on one of the details of the Specification; but the entire Specifications table is unreferenced. If anybody has a source on the specs for this aircraft, even though it didn't enter service, I would appreciate the assistance. Kyteto (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've found some sources, and removed what couldn't be cited. The article is now a candidate to become Good Article. Kyteto (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, the Lead for the MRA4 article is just one paragraph now. It needs to be 2-3 paragraphs given the text in the rest of the article. Good luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point, I've adjusted the lead with more details on what exactly the MRA4 was/was supposed to be, two paragraphs now exist. Thanks for pointing this out. 19:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A GA Review has begun on the article; the reviewer has stated in no uncertain terms that the article needs work on copy-editing. If anybody feels up to it, now's your chance. Thanks Kyteto (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fin flash article

An editor has recently decided to split the "Fin flash" section out of the Military aircraft insignia article, and has started to populate galleries in the article with purported fin flashes. Apart from the galleries, there is almost no content to the article, apart from a paragraph copied from the other article that gives little context to the topic (I'm not sure there's much that can be said about the subject anway). As such, this article would appear to be contrary to the WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:Galleries guidelines. In addition, I would argue that a lot of the images in the gallery aren't really fin flashes, per se, but merely national flags (e.g. Angola, Algeria, Argentina...) or primary insignia that happen to be displayed on the fin (e.g. China, Russia). I have started a merger discussion at Talk:Military aircraft insignia#Merger proposal but it seems to have stalled. Of course, Military aircraft insignia is largely gallery too, but there is at least some referenced textual content there too. Contributions to the merger discussion from interested parties would be appreciated. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

In looking at your discussion there doesn't seem to be a consensus to merge, so I think you have your answer there. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Bellanca TES (1929)

Hi! Could somebody identify this aircraft? There are following details mentioned in the magatin article (Letec magazine, edited: november 1929):

General characteristics:

• Crew: one pilot
• Wingspan: 25,35 m
• Wing area: 85 m²
• Empty weight: 3,170 kg
• Gross weight: 9,500 kg
• Powerplant: 2x WASP 425 hp each (Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp ?)

Performance:

• Maximum speed: 240 km/h
• Range: 15,000 km
• Endurance: 100 hours

Thanks! --Gampe (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be related to the Bellanca TES "Blue Streak" [3] MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It is X-855E, which according to Wikipedia was built in 1939... should be fixed Paaln (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks a lot! --Gampe (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

Airbus A330 is undergoing peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Airbus A330/archive1. I need someone to work with me to promote this article to FA status, because it's very depressing when you're asking for help and only a few people puts their hand up. Conversely, I'm willing to help with aviation-related articles if anybody requests any help. I'm an aviation fan, but I don't know everything. Aspects of aircraft design and construction is sometimes difficult for me to process, so, any body with knowledge of "bending relief" is welcomed to contribute to the article. Furthermore, since I'm only a student, my grammar aspect of English is not as good those around me, but I'm willing to improve my writing skills. Just come along a contribute to a prospective FA-status article. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 01:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Teledyne Turbine Engines

I'm trying to find out if "TCM Turbine Engines (TTE)" was sold with the rest of Teledyne Continental Motors to AVIC. TTE is the former Teledyne CAE, which now produces small jet engines for missiles. For a few years, TTE has been operated as part of TCM, with its web site at http://tcmlink.com/turbineengines/index.cfm . That link is now dead, and the new site is at http://www.teledyne.com/aboutus/turbine.asp . While that leads me to believe that Teledyne Turbine Engines was not sold to AVIC, it would be helpful to find that in a relaiable source. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Another question about Teledyne Continental Motors: Has the sale to AVIC actually been legally completed yet? If not, then Teledyne should still be listed as the owner on the page, not AVIC. - BilCat (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Boeing_787_orders#Etihad_Engines

Can others please have a look at this discussion and either point me, as I can't find it myself, and the poster to the right policy discussion, or come to consensus about the issue. The issue is in regards to what engines Etihad have ordered (and whether its firm or not) for their 787. The poster (both under their user name and as an ip) has been very insistent that Etihad has ordered GE engines (see main article history). However, the official Boeing list does not show this, while 2-year old news and press releases seem to back the posters claim. Issue then of using a single source to source the list (i.e. waiting until Boeing confirms the engine order) or if the other sources are acceptable. Thanks in advance. Ravendrop 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To me, we should wait until something appears on boeing.com O&D. We already had the issue in the past with Gruppo Marsans Airbus order, that was said to be a firm one, with a press release on airbus.com etc., but never appeared on Airbus O&D. Slasher-fun (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that the GE press release http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/genx/genx_20090616.html was a reliable source, I understand the need to be "confirmed" by Boeing but that could be done with a footnote to say that it is not confirmed by Boeing until it appears on the Boeing O&D list. MilborneOne (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

New Boyne book on helicopters and war

A new book by Boyne:

• Boyne, Walter J. (2011). How the Helicopter Changed Modern Warfare. Pelican Publishing. ISBN 1589807006.

Could be interesting. Binksternet (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Kyteto's monthly focus article for March: Hawker Siddeley Harrier

Alright; this is an aircraft I've been saving for a long time. It is nothing short of iconic, and unquestionably unique, the original Harrier Jump-Jet. I've already got a good half a dozen sources in my short-term storage, and I'll be entering them into the article in the coming days. Let's have at it, another fine article made finer by the efforts of those who appreciate them! I look forward to the resulting transformation. Kyteto (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely an article on an important aircraft that can use improvement. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

More power to your elbow. Will there be any cross-fertilization with the P.1127 and Kestrel article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Chances are yes. I've already pulled two or three sources out of the Sea Harrier article which was overhauled last year for the current focus, I have no problem with passing good material up and down the chain as I come across it. If the work goes exceedingly quickly with the Harrier, I may even flip over to the Kestrel prototypes half way through the month, we'll see. Kyteto (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The Kestrel article is better cited than the Harrier article now. So less work to do. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Five days in, the article has doubled in size, nearly five times more citations are in place, and the majority of sections are now in place and up to scratch in my eyes. I'm going to need some help in the Controls and Handling subsection of Design, it is a huge and highly informative section, but cites very little to authenticate itself, and some parts may go into too much depth. Once that is done, practically all obsticles to creating another fine GA will be out of the way. Kyteto (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken care of the last noted issue in a manner that should suffice, I broke out the shears! There's one area I judge as being a little poorly and short in content, the US Marine Corps' Operational Service. However, my sources are tapped out; if you happen to have material on the AV-8A's service experiences, the article could use the addition. Kyteto (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Test Flight of Solar One June 11th 1979

This seems to set a new area for discussion, this is not just a new article about an individual aircraft, but about the first flight of an individual aircraft. There is one ref from Flight Global cited that seems to show a degree of notability, but it doesn't seem to meet the guidelines for individual aircraft, I thought this should be drawn to the project members attention for comments. The editor who started the article also made an entry on the same subject at Electric_aircraft#Solar_One, which actually covers this short-lived experimental project aircraft fairly well, if briefly. What do we do with this article? Expand it? Redirect it? Nominate for deletion? Leave it? Do some formatting? Comments are solicited. - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to qualify as an aircraft type (with 1 built). This should probably be renamed to "Solar One (airplane)" (per Solar One disamb page) or something similar first. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan, although as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming it should really be named Solar-Powered Aircraft Developments Solar One as the company that built it was Solar-Powered Aircraft Developments. Let's see if there are any other thoughts on this. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As 99% of the article is an unpublished (well at least not referenced) eye witness report could really do with deleting and redirecting to whatever Solar-Powered Aircraft Developments Solar One ends up as (presumably without the original research). MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting sending it to AFD or moving and writing it into a type article based on the one ref available? - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest moving it and writing an article from the Flight material, at the moment if the non-referenced bit is removed it would only be a one line article! MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we are all on the same page here! I'll just give this a couple of days and see if there is any further input. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an editor moved this to Solar One (aircraft), so as per above I have moved it to Solar-Powered Aircraft Developments Solar One. I'll be fixing this article, as discussed above, later on today. - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have finished work on the article and it can be found at Solar-Powered Aircraft Developments Solar One. I have to admit that not only has the title changed (although the subject has not) that not a single word from the original article remains. I would be grateful if project members could review and edit the article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work Ahunt looks a lot better. MilborneOne (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. When I first saw it I knew I just couldn't leave it like that! - Ahunt (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The deleted article was intended to be additional to any formal description of the Solar One project and airplane. It was a first-hand eye witness account, written at the time, and requested by the project team, of initial test flights prior to the maiden flight. The author was a member of Lasham Gliding Society. We believe that there is value in retaining the original article given that this was apparently one of only two flying sessions for this aircraft. - maternostra2 (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research, so unless that information is published elsewhere in a reliable reference (e.g. not in a self-published source) then it can't be used on Wikipedia. If you can show that it has been published elsewhere then we can add elements of the account back in, using the place where it is published as a reference. In this case it would not be a stand-alone article, as by consensus we don't usually have articles on individual flights, but rather it would be added as a section of the aircraft type article. Incidentally the article was not deleted, just retitled, expanded, had references added and had unreferenced text removed. The original text is still there in the article's history. Let me know if you need clarification on anything I've written here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood. We have achieved the prime aim of seeing Solar One included in the history of solar flight. Thanks. - maternostra2 (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.178.210 (talk)

The aircraft is quite notable and definitely need an entry here in Wikipedia, so thank you for getting it started and for finding all the refs as well! - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

File mover right

FYI: WP has implemented a user right called File mover. This might be of interest to some of our experienced members who work a lot with files. A list of non-admins project members with such rights might also be helpful. - BilCat (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As most of the images we use are on commons it may have limited value. Interesting point about a list of non-admins with such rights (which is a good idea) but I dont think we have an actual list of admins on the project who can help others! would that be worth adding somewhere? MilborneOne (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we do use some logos on company articles, and those are fair-use, plus some FUIs for projects and aircraft under development. A list of admins and other users with extra rights would definetely be helpful. - BilCat (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-nomination for position of Co-ordinator

Hello, I'm thinking of nominating myself for the position of WikiProject Aircraft co-ordinator. Of my 7,500 edits or so, approximately 5,000 are aviation-related. I've helped Airbus A330 and Boeing 767 articles obtain GA statuses, and of my master plan, many more articles are expected to receive GA/FA statuses in the future. I'm wondering what the community think of me being WikiProject Aircraft's co-ordinator. Cheers ;) Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 01:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly where have nominations for coordinator been solicited? I have been on this project for six years and we have functioned extremely well without anyone in charge, by consensus building instead. - Ahunt (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, having project co-ordinatiors has been discussed before, but nothing ever came of it. Also, some others have attempted to have collaborative drives, but those efforts also failed. Phil and Kyteto are both making efforts to improve articles, and others are helping out on both projects. That is probably about as many improvement drives as the project can handle concurrently, and those really doesn't need much co-ordination. Also, though Phil has been active in article imprivements, a co-ordinator really need sto show some ledership in other ares of the project,and I don't think he's done that as yet. He's also been active only about 13 months (at least under that username), and that's barely enough time to really know how this project functions, which is mostly by inertia and consensus. Some things take a while to get done here, as RL's years-long effort to get the naming conventions changed to allw the m-d-n format as standard, which then happened during one of his long breaks! :) - BilCat (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No disrespect Speedyphil, but I'm with Ahunt here -- this project runs extremely well "lean and mean". I think a co-ordinator for a project with such relatively limited scope and a relatively small number of regular contributors is a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy.

That said, if you can put forward a case for how having a co-ordinator would improve the project and the way we do things, I'm all ears. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

For your question, it's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Coordinators. Since I'm editing Wikipedia constantly, my presence would be useful for any large-scale work. At the moment, there are 150 aviation-related good articles (about 1 in 283), and 52 are featured articles (about 1 in 810). If tasked with co-ordinator, I'm going to start a drive for more GA/FA articles, part of my master plan to promote all Boeing commercial aircraft and some of Airbus airliner articles to at least GA. Meanwhile, a few FA articles such as Boeing 747 are not up to scratch, as evident in the absence of alt text and other components required for Featured Article status. At the moment, the work on aviation articles are excellent, but without someone (not necessarily myself) to direct the community's effort, all the time spent editing Wikipidia will be wasted – we need more GA/FA articles. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 03:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that "all the time spent editing Wikipidia will be wasted" if we don't produce more GA/FA articles. Indeed, it's exactly this kind of thinking that's one of the worst things about the GA/FA system, and one of the reasons that I personally have always refused to participate in it! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I also don't generally participate in GA/FA drives, as that's not where my talents lay. WHile promoting articles to GA/FA status is a great goal, it's not the only one,a nd the others activities of the project are important too. That's the baeauty of the "collabrative" WP system, as we can all contribute in our own way. A co-ordinator would need to recognie that,a nd be able to provide some leadership in those other areas too. - BilCat (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify myself. Part of my task will be GA/FA drive. There are articles, such as Boeing 747, that lack alt text, fragmented, etc, that need cleaning up. Having said that, I believe articles like General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, Boeing B-52 Stratofortress ‎ are worth spending a bit of time on, because they pretty much follow the FA criteria. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 04:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but how does having a co-ordinator benefit the project, other than directing (or misdirecting!) resources into chasing GAs/FAs? --Rlandmann (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Some expansion sessions, or GA/FA drives, are undertaken by one or two editors only. There are many aspects an editor at which an editor can excel; for example, a person with a lot of sources at their disposals might not be an expert prose writer; some write good captions; others specialise in citation formatting. By bringing these people together, developing a article is more efficient and takes less time (sort of like an assembly line). Instead of one person working laboriously over weeks and weeks, three to six people will achieve naturally a target in less time. I'm ready take to on the task of bringing these people together, and work along with them. All the Wikipedia style of collaborating will be preserved.

I forgot to mention that the consensus philosophy of Wikipedia will still be there. I'm here merely to address aspects of a particular for improvement, and to ask Wikipedians for participation during an editing process of a particular article; I'll still be an integral part of the editing team, though. Also, I disagree with user Rlandmann about his/her comment "I think a co-ordinator for a project with such relatively limited scope and a relatively small number of regular contributors is a layer of unnecessary bureaucracy." – it's quite big, and the number of editors isn't small at all. Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 05:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• All this talk about GA and FAs totally neglects all the stub, start and C class articles. There are far more of these types than near GA and FA articles. Take a look at the Aviation Maintenance for numbers (and click on the category links). -Fnlayson (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a former coordinator of the military history project, coordinators can't really direct project's 'resources' in any significant way as you're proposing here. If people want to work together to develop a certain article they'll do so without much prompting beyond a central talk page post or two. If they don't want to do this no number of proposals and/or cajoling will help. The role of the MilHist coordinators is essentially to do the boring background tasks that are needed to help keep editors motivated (such as administer A class reviews and peer reviews, develop help guides and act as a point of contact for editors looking for advice). I'm not sure if this project really needs anyone in these roles. Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my self-nomination. Thanks all for your comments Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 05:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have refrained from commenting as I have some peculiar notions about collaborative work that seem to best be served by the present arrangement we already have, that of like-minded individuals who occasionally work together. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

I think this was a worthwhile discussion to have, but I would like to add two post scriptum observations of my own. This project actually functions better than any project I have worked on that has a coordinator or project leader, and in particular I am thinking of the disastrous leadership over at WikiProject Software, which at one point caused everyone else to quit. In fact I personally believe this project is so effective exactly because it has no formal leadership and instead relies on collaboration at all levels, and this is said by someone who, as a retired military officer, is very used to and comfortable with hierarchical leadership. In other words if you want something done then start in on it and let everyone else know and perhaps you can pursuade some others to wade in with you. That is what we have done on the aircraft engine taskforce, with great success and, as a result, there are very few engines left undocumented today. I also can't let the issue of "Good Articles" go by without comment and again this is my own belief and not intended to disparage the fine work that some other editors have done getting articles to GA status. In my experience while preparing articles against the GA checklist has made some improvements to some articles, many of the articles that have been subject to this rather restrictive process come out the other side worse than when they went in. Sure they meet the checklist, but even though they are now Good Articles, they are not necessarily good articles. My hat is off to those who tackle existing problematic articles, including aiming for GA status, but I prefer to just improve articles outside the GA process personally. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

To Phil: Don't be discouraged by the responses here. It took guts to step out and volunteer to help lead the project in improvements, and that shouldn't be diminished, no matter the responses. Keep doing what you're doing, and please stay involved in the project. - BilCat (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was good of Sp33dyphil to volunteer and as BilCat said I hope he is not discouraged by the replies. The aircraft project is a peculiar beast but it works, nobody knows why! We all have different bits we like to do, some of us are article creators, some editors, some keep the vandalism under control, some like to improve and promote articles. But we all respond well to help when we can, we generally come out an help then all disapear back into what we like to do. Although we dont need a named co-ordinator for the project it would do no harm for some sort of co-ordination to happen related to article improvement, perhaps Sp33dyphil and others interested (perhaps User:Kyteto) could agree amongst themselves some sort of improvement plan so as not to overload the rest of us with requests for help. They could use a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Collaboration based on the little if ever used aviation version Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Collaboration. They would still need to let us know on this page when help is needed but it may better focus efforts. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sp33dyphil, I also applaud your vision and generosity. I realise I've been vociferous in my sceptisicm about what a co-ordinator could bring to the project, but even though our priorities (and probably philosophies) are very different, I wish you godspeed with your endeavours! I also encourage you to think about MilborneOne's suggestion to set up a taskforce for editors interested in bringing aviation-related articles to GA/FA status. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that alt text is no longer required for FAC, the requirement was dropped over a year ago, I believe it does still appear in the check toolbox though, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Profiles of operating corporations

A relatively new user, User:Freperon, has added a {{POC}} header to the Talk:Raytheon page, which template he has created, along with the Wikipedia:Profiles of operating corporations "guideline". He is also adding the tag to other corporate articles. This appears to be an attempt to apply BLP policies to corporations. However, this all appears to be the product of this user alone. Where should I go to have his/her actions addresed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left him a note and removed the template from the other corporate articles he added it to. That template should not be placed on any active article until the 'guideline' is approved by the community. Kuru (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Straight to the top! :) For future reference, the normal place to report this kind of weirdness is WP:AN/I. That page also has a handy "Are you in the right place?" section that links you to the right place for some of the more common, garden-variety problems we regularly deal with! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually did look at ANI, but I thought I wasn't in the right place after reading that section. Problem solved anyway, as he was a banned user. Not a big surprise! - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

Due to the current problems in Japan and the need to postpone the WP Japan interview, We have now scheduled to interview this project on May 30th. I'll enquire nearer the time about people to interview. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Anna Kreisling? Hoax??

A link to this recently created article about an alledged Female Lutwaffe test pilot was just been added to the Junkers Ju 390 article. It claims that the subject was flew Junkers Ju 52s over Stalingrad, was co-pilot of the Ju 390 when it overflew New York, personally saved Hirohito's life in 1945 and was captured by American ground troops when test flying a prototype Horten Ho 229 jet fighter. The article seems to be a complete hoax however - For example the New York flight almost certainly never happened, and only two Ho 229s ever flew, one of which was an unpowered glider, and the other crashed fatally in February 1945. The article seems to be a complete fantasy to me. Opinions?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The article certainly reads like a hoax and the two "refs" are both WP:SPS by the same author (probably the same person who started the article). A fairly extensive web search turns up a lot of forum entries, but no reliable refs. I say tag it for WP:CSD under G3 Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. - Ahunt (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:EyeSerene has WP:PRODed it. I doubt that will stick, though. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the Times obit should save it ... TSRL (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Which Times obit is that? - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The one never (?) written! English joke ... Sorry!TSRL (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You see I am actually English, although I live in Canada, so I should have got that very dry 'umour. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Magus732

User:Magus732 has engeaged in removing spaces and hidden notes from myriad articles for some time now. Others have asked him to stop this in the past, as here, but to no avail. I have medical problems eyes, and I am unable to get 20/20 vision with my glasses, and I cannot wear contacts. The spaces in the templates help with readability. Can an admin please speak to him about this? I have left a note on his talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ryson ST-100 Cloudster

I propose a move of Ryan ST-100 Cloudster to Ryson ST-100 Cloudster on the grounds that the real name of the aircraft is Ryson ST-100 Cloudster as proved by [4] -

• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
• FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
• A7NM
• RYSON
• ST-100
• TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. A7NM

Petebutt (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Certainly looks like N2RY is a Ryson ST-100 manufactured in 1976 [5], although the FAA doesnt give a name in the type certificate or the n-number register. MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a good move proposal. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Opposed. The TC gives the aircraft its designation, which is clearly ST-100 and indicates who the TC holder is, in this case Ryson Aviation Corporation, but it doesn't say who will produce it or what it will be marketed as, or known as. If the TC were the last word on article names, then the Cessna 400 would be called the Cessna LC41-550FG, which is what its type certificate says it is. The TC also doesn't mention the name Cloudster, so if you are citing the TC as authoritative you would have to go with Ryson ST-100. We have debated using TCs as the final adjudicator on article titles before here and decided that they should not be the last word on that subject, although they can be useful guidance. The main ref cited, Soaring magazine, is very clear that it was going to be built by Ryson but it was going to be called the Ryan ST-100 Cloudster, to make use of Tubal Claude Ryan's fame as an aircraft designer and also in honour of the Douglas Cloudster of the 1920s, which was also called the Ryan Cloudster after Ryan bought the aircraft from Douglas in 1925. In fact the only reason the company was to be called Ryson (Ryan and son), was because Ryan had sold the name Ryan to Teledyne previously. The sole example of the ST-100 in existence was built by Ryan and his son Jerome in 1976 before Ryson was formed and that company took the finished plane and completed the certification on it, which unfortunately wasn't completed until the summer after the elder Ryan had died and the project was not pursued further. I don't see any convincing reasons for deviating from the intended marketing name of the aircraft or the name it is most known as presented here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1982–83 has the type as "Ryson STY-100 Cloudster".Nigel Ish (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

STY-100? Not sure where that came from. - Ahunt (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Y came from my inability to type properly!! It actually says ST-100!Nigel Ish (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, bad typing we can deal with! I have that problem as well! - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Adam, while I understand your point of view, the bulk of the other sources call the aircraft by the company name "Ryson". This is an unusual circumstance in which the actual company name is not the name the company intended to market the aircraft under. I think the best way forward is to have the article at Ryson ST-100 Cloudster, but include the marketing info from Soaring in the article in the main text. It's quite possible Teledyne might have sought an injuction against Ryson marketing the plane as a "Ryan" product, but we'll never know. - BilCat (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going by my principle ref, but I am more than happy to live with a consensus decision by the project members, of course. - Ahunt (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We obviously have a consensus here that the article should be renamed Ryson ST-100 Cloudster and so I have moved to back to that name. I want to thank User:Petebutt for bringing the issue here for wider discussion to gain a consensus. I hope he will do this in the future in advance of other proposed page moves, as I think it saves everyone a lot of work doing it this way. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No. 802 Squadron: Furious?

Have we a RN expert around? I've added a little Survivors section to the Hawker Nimrod but came across an internal contradiction in Mason's Hawker book (1961 ed). Wrecks & Relics says both survivors were with 802 and on p.399 of his book Mason says 802 were on HMS Furious. But on pp. 187 & 188 he says it was on HMS Glorious. It might have moved, of course. Perhaps later editions tell a different story? Small point but info welcome.TSRL (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the unit was re-assigned, but it would be nice to have some independent confirmation. - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thetford's British Naval Aircraft since 1912 (4th edition, 1978), has 802 on Glorious, with 801 operating off Furious and 800 off Courageous. The 91 ediotion of Mason's Hawker book has 802 off Glorious on p214 and 216, but Furious on p509–10.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Squadron This from Flight has 802 operatinng off Glorious in 37.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sturtivant, Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm, shows 802 Squadron aboard Glorious '33-'34, Courageous in '34 and then Glorious '35-40--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for for searching and responding. It sounds as if the answer may be complicated. I'm now inclined to take the coward's way and just leave the comment that they served with 802.TSRL (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

New template for aircraft and engine programs

Hi all, at BilCat's suggestion, I've had a first go at a template for aircraft and engine development programs: {{Infobox aircraft program}}. It's another addition to the modular system we've already got, so its usage should be pretty familiar to most here. I've put an example in place over at Advanced Tactical Fighter. Comments, feedback, and improvements most welcome before we roll it out more widely! --Rlandmann (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks good, and I can't think of any improvements or changes for now. I'll try it out on a couple of pages, and see how it works on them. - BilCat (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've added it to the Joint Primary Aircraft Training System article, and I have a few suggestions. I'll add them in a sub-section below for easy commenting nad additions. Two other good test cases might be Joint Strike Fighter Program, and KC-X. I'll try to find a good non-US program to add so we can get some see how it works with a non-US program. In many cases, such as with the Eurofighter Typhoon and Airbus A400M, there was no competitive program as such, just a collaborative development effort, and so theres no separate program article. - BilCat (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft would be a good test subject, as it's a UK Mod program. - BilCat (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I'll respond below too and let's see what others think :) --Rlandmann (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A danger here would be info-creep, in trying to put too much info into the infobox. What you have is good, and some of my suggestions would lead to just such creep! ZWe'll see what others think of what we have so far. - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft programs

Two programs that are in there infancy and a state of flux are Next Generation Air Dominance and Next-Generation Bomber, which might be good tests subjects too. - BilCat (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• An older program with no clear winner: Advanced Medium STOL Transport. - BilCat (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• An older program with a winner, but in 2 stages: Lightweight Fighter program. - BilCat (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance - A current program that has changed its focus mid-stream, so to speak, and may change again. - BilCat (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• T-X program Another current program that is undergoing several mid-life crisis. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Engine programs

Here are two future enine projects that I know of, but they aren't really "programs" as such yet. I don't know of any others at the moment. - BilCat (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine
• Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology

Suggestions

• A separate field for Outcome and Winner, especially in cases where no prototype competitors were built. - BilCat (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I left the "outcome" field deliberately non-specific, to deal with any kind of outcome (even abandonment of the program) -- take a look at the template documentation for examples. Can you think of an example where we would need to specify a winner separately from an outcome? If there was a winner, the outcome would normally be "F-123 selected for production" or words to that effect --Rlandmann (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• For the KC-X program, there might need to be some extra fields for contested outcomes, especially for a program with 2 seaparate winners (KC-45, KC-46). - BilCat (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you did an excellent job with the outcomes in that article! :) But what other fields are you thinking of? --Rlandmann (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks . :) - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Possibly a list-type field for the copmeting entrants and proposals when there were no prototypes as such, as withthe KC-767 and A330MRTT/KC-30/KC-45. - BilCat (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's what I envisioned for the "proposals" field; again, see the documentation. The ATX box didn't list individual designs because I don't think we know them! (but I'd love it if someone here does)... --Rlandmann (talk)
    • Which is the ATX? It's not this one! :) - BilCat (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Lolz; of course I meant ATF. I think that got merged with TFX in my brain :) Anyway, we now have examples of a few different permutations: ATF (general proposals, specific prototypes), KC-X (specific proposals, specific prototypes), and JPATS (specific proposals, no prototypes) --Rlandmann (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I just wasn't sure if you meant ATF, TFX, AX, or some other part of the US DOD alphabet soup. - :)
• I'm not sure that "Issuer" is the best field to be the default, as sometimes that's quite confusing - USAF, US DoAF, US DoD?? To me, "Service " might be better to use as a single option, with neither as the default field. - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed; neither one is now turned on by default, and issuer is dependent on "requirement". --Rlandmann (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• It would be most useful if the documentation page had the complete format that could be copied by a user and pasted onto an article page, as is done with the spec templates at Template:Aircraft specs. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Done! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Pitts Special moved to Pitts S1 & S2

This article was recently moved without discussion and a new article started in the old location. This is being discussed at Talk:Pitts_S1_&_S2#Move_discussion.3F and interested WikiProject Aircraft members are invited to participate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a continuing issue with the user who moved the article. Some of his moves are good, but a large number end up being moved back to the previous title. - BilCat (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then I think that we should fix this one move and then ask him to consult and gain consensus for future moves. - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he has been asked that before. I generally just revert the moves on sight as undiscussed, and he rarely, if ever, responds in any way to the move revert. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I had the beginnings of a discussion with him over an article I named SNCAC NC.4-10. It's at Talk:SNCAC NC.410; though he wanted a reason for the unusual name and I explained my choice, he changed it anyway! Rather the sort of consultation I sometimes got with/from my old HR department.TSRL (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Every reference to the Pitts that I can remember is to a "Pitts Special". That it comes in one- and rwo-seat flavors doesn't change that. I think it should be change back to Pitts Special. --Lyncs (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As decided here and the talk page I have moved the existing article at Pitts Special to Pitts Special (monoplane) and have asked MB1 to move the current article at Pitts S1 & S2 back to Pitts Special. - Ahunt (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This behaviour has been going on unchecked for a long time, last year I had to shrink 22 forked content aircraft engine lists back down to seven, all created by this user. The main list of aircraft engines is a total mess IMO due to this user's actions and I couldn't keep up with fixing it. Can something be done about this behaviour? Might well be good faith stuff but it is very oddball (as are the many created unlikely redirect pages) and causing many problems. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it back --Rlandmann (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) And the SNCAC NC.4-10 --Rlandmann (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, although it seems that as soon as the Pitts Special issue was a done deal this user immediately moved the latest article I created Ryan ST-100 Cloudster. I moved it back and left him a comment at User_talk:Petebutt#Aircraft_page_moves, but given the amount of unnecessary work this user is creating for everyone, I would appreciate it if an admin or two could leave him a note as well, asking him to stop moving aircraft articles without consensus. If he doesn't knock off this constant disruption I am starting to think that further action will be required. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I do believe this is all in good faith by Pete, but his discernment in these cases is a bit lacking. I hope this can all be solved amicably, as his is a good editor overall, and not a true problem editor in the vain of our Italish-speaking fanboys, or DaveG of the "Survivor series". - BilCat (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps if a number of other editors and admins add some notes to his user page perhaps he will start gaining consensus on these moves before he does them. I have left him a note requesting this. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened, but Talk:Pitts Special (monoplane) has been deleted withthe note "G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: currently exists at Talk:Pitts Special." Since we do have an article at Pitts Special (monoplane), it should have a talk page. Rather than my just recreating a proper talk page, can an admin check into this first? I don't want to restore the page and have it deleted again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The deleted history only contains a redirect to Talk:Pitts S1 & S2. --Carnildo (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sportavia-Pützer RF7

In a similar move, the same user moved the Sportavia-Pützer RF7 to Fournier RF7 with the explanation Sportavia never actually built any! This is actually true: the one prototype was built by Fournier in France. However, every source I have for the aircraft refers to it as a Sportavia product. I haven't got anything that explains the agreement between Fournier and Sportavia on this project, so we can only speculate as to who initiated the project (and whether that matters more than who actually built the prototype or not).

I haven't moved the article back, because I don't think the issue is all that clear-cut (and to be honest, I don't care that much). However, I believe that giving "naming rights" to Sportavia here is more consistent with reliable sources. What do others here think? --Rlandmann (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Go with sources, eg to quote the Flight report cited in the article "New from Sportavia-Putzer is the RF7. Virtually a clipped-wing RF 4D....". One could also check its registration: F-WPXV. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review for General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

Recently this article has been nominated for GAN Review, however there are important questions about the reliability of the sources used that should be addressed, preferrably before any review takes place. First and foremost, is www.F-16.net considered an RS source? It wouldn't appear to be, though I note worthy effort on their part I'm not sure it would pass muster at the Good Article level. Vectorsite.net is a certain no-no from prior discussions here, and there is over a dozen statements riding on this source. Kyteto (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

True. These are reasons some discussion should happen before articles are nominated for GA review. There are similar issues with Lockheed D-21/M-21, which I am working on. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've finished purging the D-21 article of Vector-site references, although it could probably still use a check for grammar, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good deal, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, Hawker Siddeley Harrier in undergoing a GA review. It is in good shape overall, but needs a little help with the Lead. I think it needs more info to better describe things. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Kyteto expanded the Lead. If editors want to improve it/touch it up that's be great. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

LSA

Any views on Light-sport aircraft as a possible new category?TSRL (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As a parallel cat to Ultralight and homebuilt aircraft, sure. It is a legitimate classification and there is a clear FAR standard for inclusion. I would recommend making it a monolithic category like Category: Homebuilt aircraft and not by nation and date like Category: Ultralight aircraft though, but maybe others would have other opinions. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Monolithic sounds right to me.TSRL (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you added it as a redlink cat on Roko Aero NG4 , I have initiated it at Category:Light-sport aircraft, a monolythic cat that is part of Category:Civil aircraft by type. - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ta!TSRL (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I populated the new cat with all the ones I could think of, off the top of my head. Should do a search for more! - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Went through recent additions in a not very systematic way: suspect there are more, especially amongst the recent Europeans. There must be a list of LSA approved aircraft out there.TSRL (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the cat to all the articles I could think of, off the top of my head, and then searched for all the articles that link to Light-sport aircraft, which was a bit more systematic. The official list of Special LSAs is here. There is no official list of aircraft that can be E-LSAs, as any aircraft that meets the basic weight/seats/etc definition can fit that, although there is a partial list of candidates here. (I have added both those links to the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Resources#Country_specific so they can be found again in the future.) Kitplanes magazine does designate which kits can be built as LSAs in their annual December paper edition of the kit listings, but I missed getting this past year's edition on the news stand. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Late to the party; but yeah, monolithic is right here. In retrospect, I wish I'd created the ultralight and sailplane categories as monolithic too; the role of ultralights and sailplanes is almost always as a "sport aircraft"; the current scheme unfortunately is something of a mixed metaphor. Someday when I've got lots of time and energy, I'd like to talk about revisiting those decisions! :) -- Rlandmann (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, we did that a bit faster than we probably should have, but it seemed to be fairly non-controversial. As far as fixing the other cats to make them monolythic and thus simpler, I would support that. I wouldn't make it a high priority, though. Using the page hits tool a while ago I checked the usage stats on some very common aviation categories and found that essentially readers aren't using them very much at all; most user pages get far more hits and popular aircraft articles get 10,000 times more hits than even the largest cats do. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Went through the list at Light-sport aircraft and added a wl and a few more to the LSA cat.TSRL (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

TST-13 name

I've given the TST-13 article a makeover with the help of JAWA 2010. At the moment TST-13 is its name but JAWA has it as TeST TST-13 (ie company name plus model name) which sounds right to me. There exists a redirect article with the JAWA name and it would be easy enough to switch the two articles round, if you agree the JAWA name is right. (Actually, JAWA has it as TEST TST-13, but that's down to its irritating habit of capitalizing all article headers.)TSRL (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming, the article should be moved to TeST TST-13 Junior. - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

All done!TSRL (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Thorpe Aero

A present stub at Thorp Aero is up for deletion. The present stub could certainly be fleshed out from Gunston, various JAWAs, Airlife's General Aviation, and almost certainly back issues of Flight International. I'll start on that tonight if none of you gets there first :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement

As per the talk page consensus I have split this new article from Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement, but, as is being discussed at Talk:Canadian Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement, the name of the article seems to be controversial. Comments on the issue of the appropriate name for the article from interested editors are solicited. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has now been moved to Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement and some new guidelines on "child" articles added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming Because the Canadian election campaign started on this past Saturday and the F-35 is front and centre as an issue I would appreciate it if other editors from the project here could keep a watch on the article, if for no other reason than I am expecting more than our fair share of vandalism and other "iffy" edits between now and election day on 2 May. It will probably be similar to having a featured article for over a month! - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

C-130 identity

Does someone know how or if we can check a USAF tail number to confirm the identity o File:USAF C-130J Super Hercules at RIAT 2010 arp.jpg to confirm whether or not is is actually a C-130J? Its identity has been questioned by an IP user here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted it. I am satisfied they are six-bladed props; the aircraft is marked with 86th Airlift Wing markings, which operates J Models; and I trust Mr. Pingstone to know what he has photographed. YSSYguy (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides that, that prominent black spot of the hf ssb antenna on the tail fin is another sure giveaway Paaln (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

07-8613 is acutally a C-130J-30 msn 382-5624, any google search of "07-8613" will find many images of it all with six-bladed props! MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all! I did also contact Mr. Pingstone at User talk:Arpingstone#File:USAF C-130J Super Hercules at RIAT 2010 arp.jpg, and he also confirmed it's a J-model. I'll let him know its a J-30 so he can update the image file. - BilCat (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

IAR 36

The IAR 36 article has been prodded, on the grounds of duplication: the same aircraft is described in ICAR Comercial and this, it's asserted, is the proper name. We obviously want only one article and ICAR Comercial seems to be a reasonable name but there has been some renaming of IAR 36 before (it started as Messerschmitt M 36), so I thought it right to check if there was agreement. My preference is not deletion but to make it a redirect to ICAR Comercial since the IAR 36 name is used, rightly or wrongly, by some authors (e.g. JR Smith, cited): IAR 36 is currently the target of several alternative names, like Messerschmitt M 36, BFW 36, .... Existing redirects would need sorting and some material from IAR 36 could be informally merged into ICAR Comercial. How does that sound?TSRL (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed both articles, removed the PROD tag and suggested that this be investigated a bit more closely. If they are the same aircraft then they should be carefully merged and one redirected to the other, since both are well-written. Incidentally the PROD was miss-entered and was there un-actioned since 30 Dec 2010! - Ahunt (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The correct action is Merge, not PROD. Roger (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reimplementation of {{infobox Aircraft}}

Hey folks,

Dropping a line here to note that following the outcome of this discussion, I've made edits to the {{infobox Aircraft}} template (in the sandbox) which reimplement it as a composite of the various "modern" AIR infobox templates ({{infobox aircraft begin}}, {{infobox aircraft type}} and so on). What this means is that rather than having to keep the old template around solely to make sure that old page revisions look correct, it can be un-deprecated and used on articles again (as it's exactly the same code as the new system, just wrapped into a single template). Essentially this will make no difference to your regular editing: it's just to point out that the warning tag will be removed from {{infobox Aircraft}} and it doesn't need to be removed from articles in future. I'll update the documentation when the sandbox code is deployed. If you have any questions please feel free to drop me a line. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks Chris. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011_March_27#File:Mirage_2000-5_Nancy_-_Ochey_Air_Base.jpg

Check WP:NFCC. All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft on display and sources

User:Ken keisel has been adding uncited lists of aircraft and missles on display to several articles, in particular Project Nike. This has been ddiscussed User talk:Ken keisel#April 2011, where Ken seems to think we don't needs sources at all for thse lists. Am I completely off-base to require that such lists be cited from reliable sources? My sometimes-spotty memory seems to recall that they do need source to remain. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability says right in the lead paras: "All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question...This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately." - Ahunt (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Operators spree

Special:Contributions/99.150.247.213 has been on a tear over the last two days, adding mountains of unsourced operators to aircraft type articles. I have reverted a few as "unlikely and unsourced" and tagged many more as needing a ref, but I am wondered if they shouldn't all just be reverted. Perhaps someone with some better operators refs than I have can have a look. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a {{Welcomelaws}} template to the user's talk page on April 10. The user is still at it today. Time for unsourced warnings... -Fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Now he is removing fact tags. Personally I don't see any reason to accept that as anything other than vandalism. I will remove the unsourced text and warn him. - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

400 Boeing images available

Boeing have released on their photostream on Flickr a range of 400+ images under CC-BY licence. This stream was part of promotions for the Expo 2010 held in China last year. A web cache of their website confirms that these licences are legitimate. There are lots of photos of Boeing aircraft in China, but also a lot of historical photos as well. Any editors who are able to help upload these photos to Commons are welcome to do so. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 05:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that the "boeingdreamscape" Flickr account is operated by Boeing? And do we know who the individual copyright holders are? the archived boeingdreamscape.com site makes it look like members of the public were being asked to upload their photos under a CC-BY license. Don't get me wrong -- this looks fantastic and I hope we can use some of these images; I just want to make sure that we know where we really stand. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur. There are some great rare images, especially of early 707s and 737s, and some goot artwork too, so I hope that we can use them someday. - BilCat (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Lift struts

I'm currently finishing an article on lift struts (as opposed to interplane struts etc), which is at User:TSRL/Sandbox/Lift struts. I started off thinking that, in the early days (early 1920s in this context), solid wooden lift struts of streamline cross section would have been common. Certainly, there were wood covered metal ones, but I have not yet found a reference for a solid wooden strut, perhaps because it was either not remarkable (because common) or because such a construction was too heavy (and so not common). Anyone have a solid ref for solid wooden lift struts, streamlined or not? On a minor issue, it would be good to hear of any examples of things fitted to lift struts (sensors, generators etc but not one-offs), if anyone has references.TSRL (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the most common thing fitted to lift struts is Jury struts, which we have an article on, so you may want to mention those. When you get it finished, please do add the article to Template:Aircraft_components and add the template to the article!! Also you will have to link it from Strut, too. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wood is a very poor choice of material for this purpose, I've not seen an aircraft with wooden lift struts. Wood expands and contracts with ambient moisture conditions, if it was used for lift struts there would be unpredictable asymmetric dihedral and incidence changes, wood is particularly poor under tension loads and prone to end grain splitting (interplane struts work in compression). Steel struts have problems as well (hidden internal corrosion), PA-25 struts are X-ray inspected regularly for this.

As for hanging stuff off of them the Tiger Moth has a pitot/static head on the right forward interplane strut and a spring/plate back up airspeed indicator on the left forward interplane strut, just a convenient place to put them out of the prop wash. In crop sprayer configuration a small propeller was mounted between the undercarriage legs to make use of the prop wash. On the Avro 504 a wind driven fuel pump was mounted on the cabane struts (again in the prop wash). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Morane-Saulnier AI had (apparently unstreamlined) lift struts, but I don't know that they were made of.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They appear to be wood here although the struts may just be painted.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. I've adjusted the article to take some aboard and to avoid uncertain areas. I'll chase the MS family a bit. Now then: can anyone think of a bigger aircraft, still in production and with lift struts, than the Pilatus Porter? It was the best I could do.TSRL (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Twin Otter is supposed to be back in production at Viking Air. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. I thought it was long gone. Certainly bigger. On the MS AI: the Flight article is frustrating, saying tubular struts, which to me means hollow and probably metal (but not unambiguously enough to cite). Despite the drawings, not sure if these tubes are circular X-section, though you'd have though Flight would note any streamlining when talking about the extra drag. Must say I'd forgotten about the French WW1 strut braced parasols. TSRL (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Kyteto's monthly focus article for April: Hawker Hunter

For this month, a maneouverable early jet, a successful export item and long lived with several operators into the 1990s; the Hawker Hunter. I've got a few good links I plan to use over the coming week to expand upon the content. The Major Operators could use far more coverage in the Operational History, hence I've selected this aircraft as this month's Overhaul project. Well done on the Harrier last month, that's one more article that's head and shoulders above the level of quality and information it held beforehand. Enjoy. Kyteto (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A great deal of work has been accomplished; the only two sections left in need of readdressing are Singapore and Sweden. All other pieces of the article appear to be up to spec. I'll be going away on holiday next week, meaning I won't be doing any work on the article myself, but I will obviously be back. I look forward to getting this done. Kyteto (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sweden is the only one left now. The article could use some more images, particularly for the Indian Air Force as they were a heavy user, but it should float without. I'm glad it is nearly finished. Kyteto (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

AircraftZurf citing his own website

User:AircraftZurf has been citing his own opinions as published on his website aircraft.zurf.info. There is a discussion under way at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Zurf_Military_Aircraft. BilCat (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft/help

{{Infobox aircraft/help}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

Hi. I've just nominated Airbus A330 for Featured Article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive1. Please participate, because I it needs a group of people to successfully an article to FA. Cheers

This 2nd FA nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive2) could use more reviewers. Please help if you can. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330

Hello, the article airbus A330 is currently at FAC; could someone please contribute to discussions, I don't want it to fail because there are not enough opinions. Comments are appreciated. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 01:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Aerobatics aircrafts

A user has added the misspelled category Category:Aerobatics aircrafts to some aircraft articles, I have removed it but before nominating for deletion any thought if the Category:Aerobatics aircraft is actually needed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably any category that is needed would be :Category:Aerobatic aircraft - I don't think it is needed - sport aircraft probably covers this.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see this category in commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Aerobatic_aircraft --AeroPsico (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because there is a Commons Category there is no need for a Wikipedia cat to match. I don't see any need for it - just more cat proliferation, and spelled wrong, too. - Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be deleted, I think. We don't even have an aerobatic aircraft article; a CFD may generate more discussion. (The aerobatic aircraft article redirects to aerobatics; this category should probably merge into Category:Aerobatics.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Future of the Royal Air Force

The Future of the Royal Air Force is quite small, and probably better covered in the other RAF articles already. Prod/AFD, or can the article be reasonably expanded? - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It ought to be a section in Royal Air Force, where most of it is covered already. - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree as per Ahunt. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree as above.TSRL (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably not worth a separate article. Letdorf (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Agreed, not worth having in this state. It should probably be deleted. Kyteto (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Active aircraft cats

Just noticed that Category:Active Canadian military aircraft is being added to a number of articles, which as a secondary cat is within our own rules at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories Military aircraft can also be categorised by user but this should be restricted to current operators only. The Category:Active Russian military aircraft was deleted in January at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 23#Category:Active Russian military aircraft, one of the comments was Separate categories for things in the past and present are usually frowned upon. Is it time to change Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories and send the British/Canadian/United States versions to CfD or should we create the active foo military aircraft for the other hundred odd countries (and add a lot of them to the Hercules page!). MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Since some testing on the toolserver hits lits has shown that readers aren't really using cats much, I would think it would be more sensible to reduce the number of cats, rather than increase them. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd support deletion of any "active" categories" --Rlandmann (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft type - query re variants

Often an aircraft type has many variants and/or types developed from it (there is no clear distinction between the two). For infobox parameters (e.g. "Retired") to be meaningful the reader needs to understand which variants/types are in scope and which are not. My guess is that the infobox parameter “Variants” is intended to be only variants that are within the scope of the article and "Developed into" is variants/types that are out of scope (e.g. their numbers don't count towards "Number built"). If so, many articles (e.g. de Havilland Comet) should be changed from "Variants" to "Developed into". Ideally this would also be consistent with the top line of the infobox and the Variants section. Am I on the right lines ? Could some clarification be added to Template:Infobox aircraft type ? DexDor (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding is exactly right; and yes, we could document this better! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite the way I've used the field, but I understnad the need for clarificsation on the issue. This issue seems to have come up because the user moved the Sea Harrier from the Variants field to Developed from on the Harrier page, and was reverted. To me, the Harrier GR1/3 and Sea Harrier are more closely related than the Harrier IIs are to them, ie. "first-generation Harriers" vs. Second-gen".

As the primary instigator behind adding the "Developed from" field, that uasage is consistent with what I had in mind when I envisioned the field's usage. I'm fine if we want to clarify the usage, and if there's a consesnus to move away from what I intended. Also, please be aware that the Variants field has been in use far longer than the Developed from field, and many articles predate its introduction, hence some disparity in usage as not all the articles have been updated. - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual, we have to go with the manufacturer's and operators' designations here. The Sea Harrier is named and designated differently from the Harrier and therefore belongs in the "Developed from:" field; whereas the "Harrier II"s, while much different aircraft are designated as later variants of the Gr.I/AV-8A in both the US and British systems and are therefore "Variants:". Don't blame us; we just document the madness ;)

And yeah, a big part of the problem is that we lacked a "Developed into:" field for a long time, so derived designs often got lumped in as "variants". --Rlandmann (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Going with the Operators/Manuf designations is one option, but it's not the only one available to us. By operator's designation, the F/A-18E/F would be under Variants on the F/A-18 Hornet page, but under Developed from if we went by the name "Super Hornet"! Also, do we list the hybrid Harrier T4N separately under Variants,as it is technically a two-seat Harrier, even though it's modified to have Sea Harrier type cockpit controls?

I prefer grouping them based on overall similarity, and the Sea Harrier, in the FRS.1 mark anyway, while different in many ways, primarily the nose/cockpit/radar, is still basically a marinized Harrier (I), as are the AV-8A/C/S models. The avionics fit of the FA2 is much more advanced, but it's still basically a Harrier I airframe. We need a clear consensus to go one way or the other here, as there are no pre-existing applicable guidelines - each user just followed what seem best to him/her. I'd really prefer a vague guideline that, while mentioning designation/names as a pattern, still allows for flexibility ased on what the sources say about the type and their similarities, and determined by consesnus on a case by case basis. - BilCat (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there are at least 4 options for the distinction between "Variants" and "Developed into": (1) "Developed into" is used for aircraft that are outside the scope of the article (e.g. not in the infobox title, "Retired" etc), (2) "Developed into" is used where the design differences meet some threshold, (3) "Developed into" is used where the manufacturer or operator has assigned a different role prefix, or (4) going by what term is used in cited docs. There might be specific aircraft for which options 2-4 might work, but I don't think these options would be practical across the full range of aircraft types. Option 1 might appear to be self-referential, but the decision to treat an aircraft as a separate type in WP would have been based on things like how different the design is. Therefore my preference is option 1. DexDor (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

We should, wherever possible, avoid having to use our own arbitrary standards, which is what we would have to develop to measure "similarity". Agreed that the Sea Harrier FRS.1 is essentially a navalized Gr.1; but that's not how it was designated (or else the GR.1 and T.2 might have been followed by the FRS.3). Conversely, the T.4 was designated into the same sequence as the GR.1, T.2, and GR.3.

US military nicknames are not a reliable indicator of type, since nicknames are regularly applied to specific subtypes or modified mission types. The F/A-18E/F is therefore a "variant" of the F/A-18, despite how wildly different the actual aircraft are. Again, I don't see it as our call to make. --Rlandmann (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not advocating an arbitrary standard, but one based on the opinion of reliable sources. The Sea Harrier is clearly considered a first-generation Harrier type, but whether that constitutes a variant or development is open to interpretation based on those sources, and is an editorial decision. Reliable sources clearly consider the F/A-18E/F more than a variant of the F/A-18, and I think we'd have no trouble calling it a development. Indeed, It's been listed in the Developed from field since about the time the field was created, and I don't recall anyone ever objecting to that before.

We need to remember that our aircraft articles are not always based on designations, but we have often grouped similar types together in one article, even when they might not be striclty thought of as variants of one another. I'm less inclined to do that now than I used to be, and have even advocatied splitting articles I had once merged, even if there was not much content in the combined article. Convesersely, we often split articles because there is too much content to cover all the variants in one article, especially if the content of one variant begines to overwhelm the others. All these are editorial decisions, and made by concensus, and I don't think we need to put ourselves in a box in regards to what labels we use for these splits, and for other related types. - BilCat (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the real world (and probably most RSs) the terms "variant of" and "development of" are largely synonymous (or at least have a large overlap) and different RSs might not use the terms consistently; therefore we shouldn't read too much into the exact term used in an RS. In WP we've indicated (by having separate infobox parameters) that the terms "Variants" and "Developed into" have distinct meanings (even if we haven't actually defined what the distinction is). In the Harrier article the lead says "developed into the ... Sea Harrier" and the Variants section does not include Shar, so for consistency within that article it'd make sense for the infobox to list Shar as "Developed into".

Rlandmann and BilCat - your comments point out some problems with what I had listed as option 3. Does that mean you support option 1 ? or do you prefer the status quo (no guidance and hence inconsistencies within/between articles) or some other option ? DexDor (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't support Option 1, or any of the other options, exclusively. I still prefer a guideline that, while mentioning designation/names as a pattern, still allows for flexibility based on what the sources say about the type and their similarities, and determined by consesnus on a case by case basis. As to the Sea Harrier, I do think a good case has been made by others here to list it as a development rather than a variant; I won't contest that any further.

At this point we don't have a clear concensus one way or another, and only have a few contributors. It might be useful to use another talk page - perhaps at WP:AIR/PC - to list a few dozen aircraft types and their variants/derivitives as currently listed in their infoboxes. This will allow us to determine on a case by case basis what works best for each article, and then see if there is a clear pattern from which we can draw some guidelines. The best guidelines are those that follow actual usage as consensus, rather than those that attempt to dictate against actual usage patterns. - BilCat (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I support option 1, but only to the extent that the article represents a "type" in the broad sense on which most of our articles are scoped. Put another way, I believe it to be ideal when the article scope, and the content of the Variant/Developed from fields are the product of the same logic -- not because the one reflects the other, but because they both reflect the same underlying principle. The same principle underlies the draft notability guidelines.

In the end, I don't see this as a big deal; in the overwhelming majority of cases, these fields are clear-cut and where mistakes have occurred, their cleanup will be uncontentious. Pragmatically, we sometimes have a deep divide between how famous and popular aircraft types are written up and how the vast bulk of obscure, unglamorous aircraft types are written up. I'm therefore unwilling to push too hard for any kind of consistency in the former group and prefer to focus my efforts on the other 99+% :) --Rlandmann (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Raj Hamsa Ultralights

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion for a second time, in this instance by User:Bongomatic. Interested editors are encouraged to voice their views at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Hamsa Ultralights (2nd nomination). - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Campaign to unilaterally change dates, formats

Although a lot of good is being done by User:Magus732 in tackling some old articles, there has been a widespread crusade to change dates of military aircraft to mdy rather than the present dmy used in military parlance. Another concern is that a very obtuse edit comment is being used to "cover over" these and other potentially controversial changes. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

I have just left Magus732 a note about changing the default sort on aircraft articles, they appear to be correct before they were changed (normally only the company category needs a modifier to loose the company name the rest should use the article title. MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The stock edit summary is a cause for concern - I'm no saint on leaving edit summaries myself though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, it's not nice to talk about people behind their back... I use a "stock edit summary" because if I took the time to spell out each change individually, the edit summary would be longer than the article... and as for the dates, I only changed the ones that describe events that took place during a peacetime period, as opposed to those which describe events during wartime... Magus732 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, the US military uses DMY at all times, as should articles about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Magus, this is hardly talking "about people behind their back". This is a public discussion page for the project. In addition, the discussion was brought up here to find a solution after many editors have attempted to discuss this with you, but your edits against consesnus have continued. And to my knowledge, you've never mentioned the "peacetime"/"wartime" metion before on your talk page as a justification for your edits. Howver, such a dicotomy in dates is not permitted by WP:DATE.

Per MOS:DATEUNIFY:

"Format consistency: Dates in article body text should all have the same format."(emphasis mine)

And per WP:STRONGNAT:

• "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently."
• "Sometimes the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military use day before month, in accordance with military usage." (emphasis mine)

Clearly, your changes to the dates are clearly against existing guideliens and consensus. - BilCat (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that refresher course, BilCat... by the way, you adding "clearly" twice in your last post is redundant, so, forgive me if I don't take you for a grammar/style expert... Magus732 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And as for the discussion: since I wasn't invited to express an opinion on the subject, it sure seems like people talking behind my back... Magus732 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hold on... what does that mean, "modern US military"? That hardly applies here, don't you think? Granted, it's a moot point, since the articles are of a military nature, but shouldn't the guideline read "the US military" as opposed to "the modern US military"? Magus732 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Say what?? Clearly this dude is only intersted in obfuscation, so clearly it's time for some clear action against him. Clearly. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I said, "shouldn't the guideline read ‘the US military’ as opposed to ‘the modern US military’?"... And there you go with the redundant "clearly"s again, BilCat... I think the guideline's phrasing is worth discussing, instead of fighting with each other, don't you?Magus732 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Too many flags?

- -BilCat (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see now why it's natural state is closed up. My eyes! Yes too many flags. Curious breakdown by propulsion. Fixed and rotary - can see the point but prop vs jet when some of the teams have been jet-based in the past. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And it's of little use to readers who don't already know the flags, unless they think to mouseover the links. Simply listing out the name of the country would be far more clear than showing a flag followed by a cryptic abbreviation for the force. (In cases like the U.S. Air Force versus the U.S. Navy, the full force might be listed for clarity.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree about loosing the flags, any idea what "modern" means? the inclusion criteria is a bit strange is the Skytypers Air Show Team in the same league as the Snowbirds. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

'Currently flying' according to a definition given by someone at Category:Modern aerobatic teams, this talk page seems to have been placed in that category as well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That inclusion is down to the template coding - I believe the fault lies in the use of <includeonly>[[Category:Modern aerobatic teams|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> and I'll try and sort it. And if it doesn't work could someone else have a go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed - in that I've solved it including this page. But it seems that the intent had been to add cats to articles using the template rather than adding them to the article. I'll try and add the cat where needed by hand. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Cd

I have created the {{Cd}} template to display the subscripted 'd' and to optionally provide a link:

• {{Cd|0.20}} gives Cd=0.20 (no link)
• {{Cd|link=yes|0.20}} gives Cd=0.20 (linking to Drag coefficient)
• {{Cd|link=car|0.20}} gives Cd=0.20 (linking to Automobile drag coefficient)

Does this seem useful? Any suggestions?  Stepho  (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines for military aircraft accidents

WP:AIRCRASH and WP:AIRCRASH-TYPEARTICLE currently group all aircraft together except for light general aviation types. Most accidents involving military aircraft, especially fighters seem to be non-notable, but there is not a higher threshold in these guidelines. I thought there were some guidelines for military aircraft by WP:Air or WP:MILHIST, but I can not find where that is/was. This came to my attention due to the March 2011 loss of a F/A-18C from an engine explosion (see McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet#Accidents). Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to create a new more discriminatory guideline for military aircraft? It could based on the light aircraft guidelines. - Ahunt (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My first thought was to add military aircraft in with light civil/GA aircraft (Light aircraft and military aircraft account for many more accidents and incidents than large civil aircraft, most of which are non-notable.). But the criteria for mil aircraft might be need to be different. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that they would be close, but maybe not the same. We need some discussion to establish that. - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that the GA guideline is a much closer fit for military accidents than the revenue guideline is. A few random thoughts: among the most newsworthy accidents with military aircraft are airshow accidents (particularly fatal ones), flight deck accidents on carriers, and accidents that have involved a nuclear weapon. I'm not sure exactly how these translate into notability, and perhaps they are already captured by another "disaster" guideline somewhere? There's possibly also some notion of notability around the cost/exoticism/rarity/"cool factor" of the loss of certain aircraft, and I have even less of an idea of how to capture that!

A pragmatic approach might be a catchall condition that's used in some other notability guidelines -- the accident has been the major subject of at least one book, or the major subject of a half-hour national radio or TV documentary. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Since there has been no further comments, I adjusted the wording as described above. Adjust/reword this if needed. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cat sort

I appear to have a misunderstanding which has caused Magus732 to add default sorts to aircraft articles. He I understand believes that aircraft should be listed by designation in categories and I presumed the article title was the standard. This doesnt apply to Foo aircraft cats where a cat sort is used to remove the company name, so Avro Lancaster is listed under L in the Avro cat and A in all the others. Having been adding catsorts for a number of years it is something I have missed, anybody know of any discussion and guideline that says we should use the designations in categories? MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I presumed my method was correct, so it's not your fault if the pages got screwed up... Magus732 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the category, I think. It makes sense to list Lockheed C-5 Galaxy as C-005 or something similar for a military category like Category:Active United States military aircraft where designation is the main thing the articles have in common. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So, you're saying there should be a different sorting method for different categories? Magus732 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This needs to be handled on a category-by-category basis. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? They'd be listed alphabetically in the category for the company that built them (except when described by model numbers, of course...).Magus732 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be argumentative... I'm just trying to understand the justification for such a standard, that's all... it's counterintuitive and confusing, in my opinion... Magus732 (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with that is that someone who is searching for a particular aircraft in a category on U.S. military aircraft is much more likely to be looking for a designation than for the name of its builder, which he may not even know, or which may have changed during the course of the aircraft's production. I would be looking for the P-51, the B-36, or the SR-71, not for their respective builders. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• ^ That matches my line of thinking. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with using the designations on us-specific cats but to take an example on Category:1970 introductions the Boeing 747 is listed under "B" and the Galaxy is listed under "C". Not very logical in my opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, in a non-specialist category like that, the Galaxy should probably be under L, arguably under G, but in no way under "C". For another example, I'd say that "Avro Lancaster" belongs under "A" in Category:Aviation in Lancashire, Category:British bomber aircraft 1940-1949, Category:1942 introductions, and Category:World War II British bombers; but under "L" in Category:Avro aircraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the Boeing 747, it would be listed by model number, since it doesn't have a designation or name, and the Lockheed Galaxy is currently listed under "C" because of its military designation; C-5... Magus732 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's singularly unhelpful. The Boeing 747 should be under "B" everywhere except for Category:Boeing aircraft, where "747" is better. Please stop your "one size fits all" approach. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, Rlandmann, but I haven't edited any aircraft pages since this discussion started, so I don't think your comment about my "‘one-size-fits-all’ approach" is really appropriate... and with regard to the Lockheed Galaxy, I was merely explaining why it was listed the way it is, not defending why it's listed that way... Magus732 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No offence taken, however, unless you've actually abandoned this course of action, my comment stands. If you have abandoned it, then my thanks and my apologies -- your ongoing intentions were not clear. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading over my post again, I see what you mean... I intended to achieve consensus for or against the listing style before editing aircraft articles further... (other articles will be added later, should this decision apply, obviously...) Magus732 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The way it looks to me, there's a clear consensus against the idea. At the very least, you seem to be the only person advocating it. How do you see the state of consensus here? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just confirming; the consensus is for category-specific sorting methods, right? I mean, I can live with that, I just want to know for sure... Magus732 (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If so, I can go back over the articles I edited (assuming they haven't already been reverted, of course) and add the correct sorting method... Magus732 (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Kyteto's monthly focus article for May: Vickers VC10

Another article I've had intentions of overhauling for a while; it has become quite messy and I have found some quite useful books to add to the article's content with, especially on the part of BOAC. Good luck. Kyteto (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean May? - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I do indeed. That'll teach me for copy+pasting the old title wording without double checkign that I had completely updated it... Kyteto (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Joe Baugher - notability

This time not about the reliable source status of his webpages, but notability itself. Is Joe Baugher notable? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (academics) is probably the appropriate notability guideline - Google Scholar result here does not seem to show a vast number of cites. The article as currently written does not seem to imply notability. In addition, as a BLP it needs better sourcing.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. It's already tagged as needing more refs so a notability tag won't make it look any the worse. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)