Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Mass nomination of aircraft manufacturer nav boxes for deletion

Mass nomination of aircraft manufacturer nav boxes for deletion

As can been seen above, one editor seems to have taken exception to the existence of thousands of aircraft manufacturer nav boxes and is nominating these, one at a time, for deletion. I have asked him to bring the discussion here for consensus, but he seems to have declined to do so and would apparently rather just pursue nominating nav boxes instead. Here on WikiProject Aircraft we have had a longstanding practice of creating nav boxes for manufacturers who have two of more aircraft models and have standardized this across tens of thousands of articles on aircraft types. This editor is citing an essay WP:NENAN as the reason to nominate the nav boxes for deletion in favour of putting links in "see also" instead. My opinion is that the use of nav boxes across aircraft type articles creates a uniform reader experience, making most aircraft articles much easier to navigate and making it very quick to see what other aircraft types the manufacturer has also built. My thought in bringing this here for debate is to see if we can create a new and formal consensus on the issue rather than have to carry out this debate piecemeal for each template nominated for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Agree, this looks like a one-man crusade. My feeling is that even for manufacturers with only a couple of aircraft to their name that these navboxes perform a useful function, & are a better option than including links to other aircraft in (eg) a "see also" section: its a natural reaction to want to know what other craft a company has produced, & I think that the navbox does his to best effect.TheLongTone (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I took the use of a navbox to be a better alternative to filling up the "See also" and allows for more efficient presentation including some categorization. To address the specific concerns, the essay takes a reasonable stance by advising a "rule" that if there are five articles to link then a navbox should be considered, and most aircraft navboxes manage that. The essay Wikipedia:A navbox on every page (I note that it doesn't actually propose that) identifies some good reasons for navboxes (including de-orphaning articles). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Keep all navboxes are a useful way of navigation between articles, as are categories. Both are valid methods and both have their place on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Note: I have directly invited the editor who has been making these deletion nominations to come here and participate in this consensus-building discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC) The standing consensus is that navigation templates need to have at least five relevant links (= blue links) to the subjects described. Sorry. The Banner talk 20:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC) And where is that consensus to be found? - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC) The Template for Discussion pages. The argument that WP:NENAN is only an essay has proven to be non-effective with the acting administrators. The Banner talk 20:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC) You need to provide an actual link to the consensus discussion, or else I don't think editors here will believe you. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Just check those pages. Time and time again navigation templates are removed due to failing WP:NENAN. Kind of Common Outcomes. But when you want to overturn consensus, TfD is the place to discuss it. The Banner talk 20:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I'll note that NENAN is a very minor essay that was created by an editor who is noted for having a... *cough* controversial at times idea of what is or is not notable. If it's being used to make deletion decisions the people who are doing so need to be trouted. Does removing the navbox improve Wikipedia for the user, especailly the novice-to-average user? No. No, it does not, no matter how few links are in it. (I'd say this is the silliest concept I've seen in awhile but at the same time I'm seeing the argument that a photograph of a NASCAR race car somehow violates the sponsor's copyright...) - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC) User:The Banner: You are not providing any link to any discussion that shows any real consensus, so I am thinking that means that there really isn't one. We will decide a solid actual consensus one way or the other here. I would suggest you wait until this discussion is complete then. If the consensus here is that these are not needed you can nominate them all at once instead of piecemeal. If the consensus here is to keep them then this will save you all that wasted time of nominating them against the new consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)Have the templates been deleted specifically under WP:NENAN or for reasons within WP:NENAN. The editing guideline on navboxes is at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. I don't feel that the linked articles have to exist, so long as there is a reasonable assumption that they could be created and meet notability criteria. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC) The most recent template discussion that I found that cited WP:NENAN was Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_2#Template:Spy_Fox, which was as much deleted (as I understand it)because its content was redundant to another navbox. I've found other deletions as a result of deciding the navbox had only a couple of navigable links but not citing WP:NENAN GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC) 471 Pages including the word NENAN, but I did not check everyone of the. My guess is that at least 95% of NENAN-nominaties is followed by removal or succesful rescue-operation. The Banner talk 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC) NOTE: As editors can see even while we are discussing this issue the editor has been nominating more and more aircraft nav box templates for deletion. I have asked him nicely to please stop until this discussion has been completed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC) And very nicely I promised to stop for today. The Banner talk 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC) (EC) There is no minimum number of links given at WP:NAVBOX which is the guideline (WP:NAV is an essay). About five or six years ago this project moved away from the untidy 'sequence' format that was in Template:Aircontent and positively changed to navboxes. The only thing I can see against the guideline is that the navbox parent article should not be a redlink which can be fixed. Mass deletion nomination seems to be very against the spirit of Wikipedia, low on content they may be but these navboxes are very useful editing tools (i.e. 'what is left to write articles on?' is how I often use them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC) User:The Banner has indicated that he is done nominating boxes for today, but doesn't seem to accept that any consensus here will effect the authority of that essay he likes to cite or of the TfD editors. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC) True, as this is the wrong venue to reach consensus. The administrators on TfD are the ones who decide ultimately so you have to convince them how unreasonable it is to use a five relevant links threshold for navigation templates. The Banner talk 21:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC) This is a perfectly valid place to come to a consensus on aircraft nav boxes and no less valid than TFD talk pages. If you think other people should be participating in this discussion then please do invite them here. We would like to have as wide a discussion as possible, Also, as I noted on your talk page, continuing to nominate templates for deletion while this discussion is ongoing may be seen as disruptive to make a WP:POINT. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC) The same for refusing to even listen to my point that this is the wrong venue. The Banner talk 21:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I'm not considering all the navbox stuff; I only really care about WP:NAVBOX. Guideline #4 basically requires an article to exist as the title. I believe there have been a few exceptions, but exempting a whole series of templates could be controversial. It may be better to have a list or category for these, until a notable article that can appropriately link them exists. I understand black titles filling in a few spaces, but this may be too many. Can an article be made about a group of any of these? Other than the titles, the boxes more or less follow the guidelines. —PC-XT+ 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Also, as convenient as it is to discuss all of these in one centralized discussion, the decision is ultimately in the hands of the admins, now that they have been nominated at TfD. I see nothing wrong with discussing it here, as long as TfD isn't forgotten. Otherwise, you may end up at a deletion review process, which is a difficult way to go, even if you have new information. —PC-XT+ 00:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC) A lot of these do have titular articles, the J & J Ultralights template that was already deleted had one. Have a look at the ones nominated, Template:ZALA aircraft, Template:Windward Performance aircraft, Template:World Aircraft Company aircraft and Template:Weller Flugzeugbau aircraft all have titular articles, so that isn't the reason these are being nominated. The rest could easily have them written if that is an issue, which is a better way to build an encyclopedia rather than deleting useful nav boxes. Also I have left multiple invitations for anyone reading TfDs to participate here and also asked User:The Banner to ensure that the appropriate people are invited. If people don't comment then that is their choice to not make up part of the consensus result either way. - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC) How many times do I have to tell you that this is the wrong venue? Try a neutral place and try an official RfC. But getting consensus among peers around something that is far wider used is just not sensible. Beside that, I still did not see any valid arguments to change the present consensus that navigation templates should have at least five relevant blue links. Please note that the link to the parent article and a section "related" or "see also" do not count for the five relevant links. That is the common practice at TfD. The Banner talk 13:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC) This is a completely appropriate venue since we are only discussing aircraft manufacturer nav box templates, which come under the purview of this project. Other people who may be interested have been notified and are welcome to participate. Any consensus here will not affect any other templates, just the ones being discussed here. Also you have not shown any real indication that "present consensus that navigation templates should have at least five relevant blue links". Where is that consensus to be found? Please provide a link. If you can't actually show where that consensus is found then I can only conclude that there isn't one. Regardless, as per WP:CONSENSUS a new consensus can be created at any time and that is what we are doing here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC) If I remember the use of these navigation boxes was a compromise solution because somebody didnt like the same information in the see also section. If we remove all these thousands of navboxes then somebody will have to add the stuff back in the see also. In a few months time somebody else will object to this and we will then re-create all the navboxes again. All time and effort that could be used in improving the article, suggest just leave well alone they are a useful navigation aid to the reader and that is far more important. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC) How about a postponement of decision on the templates nominated to give a window of opportunity for some redlinks to be filled in. A moratorium on nomination would also be useful to make the task manageable - I presume the nominator has a system for identifying the ones they think are problematic and would be able to resume nomination at any time without losing their place. Does Wikipedia:There is no deadline offer any advice? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC) The methode used in opening the template and count the links. Easy as that. The Banner talk 08:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC) I have asked the editor in question on his talk page several times to stop any further noms until this consensus is decided either way, but he has indicated he will continue nominating more and more templates for deletion regardless and that he will not accept any consensus here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC) I have seen between 3 and 8 articles as the threshold number, but for me it varies depending on the situation. (Note that 3 blue links to the same page, through two separate redirects and a direct link to the page, would be considered one article linked.) I don't know how much weight my !vote will have on the admin's decision, but for what it's worth, here are my personal guidelines for these templates at this time: I will !vote delete on any of these that have fewer than 3 total linked articles, including the title link, and few red links, because I really see no reason for a navbox at that number, and it will (I assume) mean a small number of edits to place these few links in See also sections. I also doubt the small number of links will cause many complaints, (I hope.) I may make exceptions if I believe enough articles will be linked in the future. If the navbox has a blue title and at least two other articles are blue-linked, I will !vote keep, at least for now. I consider this a low threshold, but I think it is fair considering the large number of nominations. If the navbox title is a red link, I will !vote either a conditional delete with support for undeleting/recreating when the title article (and possibly one or two others) exist or keep for now with support for renomination if they are not created (in 6 months, give or take.) If I have not clearly followed these guidelines in my actual !votes on any of these templates, or if you think I should make an exception, please ask me about it on the TfD discussion, pinging me if you like. If you think I should change my personal guidelines, please respond here. (I'll be busy until the weekend, so don't worry if I take hours to answer.) Thanks. —PC-XT+ 06:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC) User:PC-XT: Thank you for your carefully considered input! - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC) I think the main discussion here has died down now, although obviously this thread will remain open for further input from any other editors. Also, as can be seen, we have had input from editors from outside the Aircraft Project, since invitations were passed on to editors working on TfD as well, making this a broad-based discussion. To sum up what we have heard so far, we have six editors in favour of retaining all WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes, regardless of the number of blue links, one who says there should be five blue links and one who says there should be at least three blue links including a titular article. So the clear consensus is that all WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes should be retained, regardless of the number of blue links. I should point out that this consensus is regarding WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes only and in no way effects TfDs on other templates outside the scope of WikiProject Aircraft, which is why it was discussed here, with widely invited input. User:The Banner has indicated both above and on his talk page that he will not accept this consensus and that he will continue to nominate every WikiProject Aircraft nav box for TfD over time. He has indicated both above and on his talk page that there is a long-standing consensus that nav boxes must have five blue links, but when challenged by several editors to point to the existence of this consensus he was consistently unable to do so. He also indicated here that he will continue to nominate WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes for deletion strictly for revenge purposes. I guess I could take him to ANI, but I prefer to just oppose each nomination as he makes them, pointing out these facts. He has also refused to notify this project of TfDs, I guess I will have to continue to do that work for him. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC) How many times must I tell you to stop harassing me with this useless exercise? This is the wrong veue to get a consensus, you must be at TfD for that. And about what you call revenge nominations: I made it loud and clear that you have to stop with your false accusations that I am acting in bad faith. And I promised you that every personal attack or false accusation would be followed by checking another series of templates and nominate them when applicable. So every new series of nominations is directly related to your rude behaviour towards me. Act politely and we can just await the decisions of the administrators. But my other advice will be simple: make sure each and every template has five links to relevant, existing articles. The Banner talk 15:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC) @User:The Banner, your revenge nominations are creating a lot of work for the rest of us. Please stop them immediately or I will see what the folks at WP:ANI have to say about this disruptive behaviour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC) We will see what the outcome will be from the present nominations. But I do not like mr. Hunts false accusations. Not a single nomination is frivolous. You call it disruptive, I call it a necessary clean up. The Banner talk 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC) The desire to nominate is not frivolous, I am convinced of your good faith there. But the timing of your nominations is highly inflammatory. As for the choice of venue for this discussion, provided the alternative venue links to the main discussion, there is no point in carping after the horse has bolted: You know where you want people to see this topic, go there and post a clear link back over here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC) In what way necessary? The navbox templates aeen't exactly huge files. The argument in the essay you are citing is that a plethora of unecessary navboxes wan overwhelm a short article: the number of instances of an aircraft article contain more than this navbox & the general aviation articles navbox is vanishingly small. Essentially the only argument for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I call it disruptive and destructive editing.TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Not notifying the project, or the template creator, as a courtesy to other editors, along with comments above, makes it look to me as if the nominator has already decided that only discussion at TfD has any value. The most telling arguments in any deletion discussion should be policy (or failing that - guideline) based ones. Personally I don't see any that say this type of template should say, or that this type of template should go. Which takes it to a more abstract level. Do the presence of these templates actually harm Wikipedia, or just leave it untidy? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Notifying a Wikiproject is not mandatory, only notifying the original author and other main editors. My Twinkle should take care of that. As far as I know, Twinkle has no option to warn a wikiproject, so you have to file a request to the developer. The Banner talk 08:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Been thinking about these templates, FWIW. They are useful as nav links to the related articles, but they also double up as mini lists of the manufacturer's types, so they are not just nav templates, they also inform. They are useful wherever the number of types exceeds a sensible limit for a "See also" list, say four-ish. Swathes of red links are not especially helpful, as there are other ways to find out which types might not yet be described, so maybe just deleting or commenting out those multiple links would be sensible. Half-baked articles should still be linked, as this is a good way to draw editors' attention to the existence of the article. On deleting a template: for the most part, why? If the set of articles is too immature as yet, just don't use the template for now - leave it orphaned until it becomes worth invoking, just make sure it is Categorised so we can find it again. Perhaps a handful of templates might obviously never grow enough links to become viable, and there is no harm in deleting those, but they are a small minority. Just my thoughts. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC) I take it there hasn't sufficient grounds for a block on this user? Seems like vandalism to me, pointless and unwarranted change, attempts at a stealth deletion, refusing to accept the project's consensus, threats of blackmail etc, and continuing to nominate pages despite the existence of an ongoing discussion and being asked to stop. Just wondering.NiD.29 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC) As for The Banner, your arguments are feeble and need work, threats and insults are hardly likely to win you any converts. Your arguments thus far seem to be: Nav box lower size limit consensus. Which has been replaced by this one that says otherwise. Page clutter - few aviation pages are overrun with nav boxes, and the nominee's links don't have this problem. Redlinks are confusing/distracting/unsightly etc - when I look at an aircraft's page, it is helpful to find a listing of other aircraft the company built (regardless of whether the pages exist), and to find it in a consistent location. Nav boxes, even with redlinks help with this. Redlinks mean the topic is not notable. Consensus in the Aviation project is that any aircraft that was built is notable. (someone else will need to provide the link as I am not about to go looking right now) Whether we have a page for it or not doesn't change this, and this extends to whoever built said aircraft. There might not be much to say about some of them, but the builder/designer is by definition notable (since pretty much every aircraft has been written about somewhere). This is markedly more lenient than the notability guidelines for other projects. Personally I think that if there are more than two types then there should be a nav box. Helps reduce edit wars over what to include in the see also section as well (indeed if extended properly that section could be eliminated). Cheers,NiD.29 (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC) I like this, due to lack of arguments you start asking for a block. Great. You made my day! The Banner talk 08:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Not asking, just wondering, and not for lack of arguments, but for the disruptive manner in which you brought the issue up, by continuing to tag more and more pages. Others are no doubt more diplomatic and easygoing than I am.NiD.29 (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC) User:The Banner is quite clearly not interested into entering into a discussion, having just posted "LOL, you guys have no other arguments than WP:WEDONTLIKEIT, WP:WEDOTHISALLTHETIME and WP:WEHAVEASPECIALPOSITION. Unfortunately, that will not work. Just wait and see what is going to happen. And in the mean time: spend an effort is upgrading templates to have five relevant blue links." on the discussion on his talkpage folloewed by immediatly archiving the discussion with the highly patronising edit summary "(crying kids moved to archive) " Its difficult tonot to believe that this has become a personal issue, and has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia.TheLongTone (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC) The very fact that his recent responses have nothing to do with the question at hand (not even bothering to reply to them), but is entirely about the conflict he has generated speaks volumes about his maturity (or lack thereof) and lack of interest in actually discussing anything in a reasonably manner, but instead is simply vandalizing a project when he has no understanding of the subject whatsoever. Crying kids indeed.NiD.29 (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC) WP:ANOEP supports this system, if we are talking essays. —PC-XT+ 23:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Oh dear! Is there a process for deleting essays I wonder? This project has been battered long and hard by MOS crusaders and others over the years but I'm extremely confident that everything is in order generally. There are very many diligent, good faith and hard working editors here who have better things to do with their precious free time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC) From my enquires elsewhere (check my contribs) it needs just one admin to move the 'NENAN' essay back in to the user space from where it came. The essay would then not exist (and its 'policies'). Could we also archive all the template notifications, can't see the wood for the trees at the moment. Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC) While it may be counter-intuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, this project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), they are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Absolutely, we sometimes go further by duplicating entries by name, type number, role and adding key company people with wiki articles making them very user friendly. I could hash up an example of how this used to be done in the 'See also' sections in a sandbox (or just point to an old version of an article), it was untidy at best. Looking back at various archived conversations the transition to navboxes happened in early 2008, it was certainly an uncontested improvement. The 'elephant in the room' for me is the persistent use of 'fails NENAN', how can an article or template be deleted on 'failing' an essay written by one editor? I'm concerned that so many navbox templates have been deleted on the strength of 'failing NENAN' already, they may have been low quality but they are red links now so there is no way of checking. An essay is not a guideline or policy. The guideline on navboxes is Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates or WP:NAVBOX, even this is not a policy. It makes good sense and this project's use is in line with it with the exception that point four (navbox should have a blue link parent article) is not always followed. A red link in a navbox is a reminder that an article needs to be written. Navboxes are very useful editing tools, I have been adding them to category pages to cross check that everything in a category appears in the navbox and vice versa. The deletion nominator has apparently assumed that all the navboxes nominated represent all the articles that will ever be written on a particular aircraft manufacturer's series of aircraft and other related matters without any background knowledge of the subject, not so. I have been surprised after creating a navbox with a few entries that it very quickly grows (often with the help of like-minded editors) and leads me down interesting research paths which can only benefit Wikipedia in the long run. Sorry for the rant but 'wiki building' is my game, I will support deletion of low quality content but the standardised system that we have established here between us is high quality and I will defend it vigorously. Quickly hiding many complaints on the nominator's talk page with an edit summary of 'crying kids' is uncivil and masks the situation, fortunately the talk page history is there for others to judge. On a personal note my enthusiasm for WP editing is low due to all the normal problems we face (vandalism, socks etc.), this kind of mass attack on the project lowers my enthusiasm almost to the point of giving up :-( Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Comment Uninvolved editor here; I generally support the consensus to have a navigation template for each manufacturer. Studying the issue recently, it appears that the editor proposing the deletions should have started a single discussion regarding the category of templates, rather than proposing each individually. Under Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Listing a template, there are instructions for "multiple templates": Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{Template for discussion/dated|page=WikiProject Aircraft|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 21#discussion title}} or {{Tfm/dated|page=WikiProject Aircraft|otherpage=name of other template|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 21#discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually. I would recommend the nominating user follow the recommended instructions for multiple templates, or at least clearly explain why an exception is called for. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC) The nominating editor has already clearly shown that they are not interested in dialogue, but merely in disrupting the project for personal reasons. They have disregarded protocol at every turn, so this is unlikely to faze him at all.NiD.29 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC) It isn't my intention to "faze" anyone, but to offer a polite invitation back into the fold, hopefully before a suspension becomes necessary. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Some editors refuse to follow that rule because they use Twinkle for nominating, which doesn't do mass nominations. This annoys many !voters. Other nominators prefer to follow that rule if the same rationale is used for all of the templates, even if they have to do it by hand. I've rarely seen some editors change multiple related single nominations with the same rationale into mass nominations, but this is tricky to do if !votes have been cast. It is better for the nom to do it before any !votes are cast, but more templates can be added if necessary. I believe in the current situation, the nominator has stated this as the reason for the many nominations. —PC-XT+ 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 19:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Ah. I am only fleetingly familiar with Twinkle. Perhaps the developers might wish to address this issue. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC) A Request for Comment related to this discussion particularly the use of WP:NENAN has been raised at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Request for Comment: WP:NENAN. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

List of personal air vehicles

List of personal air vehicles, "formerly Comparison of personal air vehicles" - I've had a bit of a stab today at improving it, but I'm thinking "is it worth it?" The article attempts to compare various civilian and military attempts at something that can fly and drive. Some of the parameters, such as emissions, are probably not available. Thoughts, please. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the embryonic list for the PAV Challenge should be merged into the main one: any such list is better placed at Personal air vehicle#PAV Challenge. Some entries such as the Facetmobile are not PAVs at all. And there are projects in there that are really not notable or frankly credible enough to deserve the pathetic articles created for them. The whole PAV zone looks to be a terrible fanboy mess, I think we would need to wade in in force. At the moment I am too busy elsewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of the articles linked to are redlinked, and those that aren't are pretty much stubs, and lack even the standard infoboxes. I deleted a bunch of the more obviously inappropriate entries but for many of them there simply isn't enough information - definitely some eyes, and references needed. The parent Personal air vehicle needs some help too.NiD.29 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Very silly edit war

There appears to be a multi-page edit war between two ip editors, one 217.123.87.39 (talk · contribs) and one on a rabge of ips (currently 208.54.40.188 (talk · contribs)) about whether various aircraft are fitted with the M61 or the M61A Vulcan cannon.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Very silly false accusations and likely assuming bad faith

One revert per aircraft is not an edit war especially when it is restoring a nomenclature that has been long settled. It is most likely the editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.123.87.39 is new and meant no harm. I welcomed him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:217.123.87.39&oldid=618598981 After being bit hard he may not choose to resume editing here. I warned Nigel to quit assuming bad faith which he promptly deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nigel_Ish&oldid=618591037#Edit_warring_accusations.3F.3F.3F Researching Nigel's talk and user page it appears he can be quite contentious (it did not take me long to figure that out). The IP only did a revert on one article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II&action=history which is also hardly edit warring which was reverted by two different users myself being one. He was also corrected by Fnlayson 3X here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter&action=history The new? editor could have been a vandal but based on previous edits that is unikely and it is most likely he genuinely thought he was doing good editing. A few regulars seem to go off on every little thing without using good judgement and maybe they need to a break from what could be construed as harassment. 208.54.40.188 (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Another note of the obvious

The supposed "edit war" took place 24 hours after the first editor changed M61 to M61A1 in many aircraft. The two editors never interacted. I reverted the appropriate aircraft and left the edits that were changed to M61A2 as that is the proper nomenclature. The original editor has never has returned since his original edits. Clearly not an edit war unless one was trolling to stir up trouble or feel important. Please do some homework before templating as it can be considered harassment when not appropriate. 208.54.40.188 (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

When preaching on the merits of assuming good faith, it's a good idea to do so yourself. Comments such as "unless one trolling to stir up trouble or feel important" really aren't necessary, and your point could be made without making such assumptions and remarks. I have no idea how long you've been editing on WP, as you're using dynamic IPs, but the editors you're lecturing are both fairly good ones with long histories. Everyone makes mistakes, and long hours of dealing with inane edits can wear on a person. So maybe they do need some time off, but unless you have a good personal history with the person, it might not be taken well when delivered in the manner in which you chose to do it. - BilCat (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It was in reference to his reply labeling me a troll for challenging his irrational "edit warring" template. It is much easier to assume good faith when they do not respond with accusations of trolling when asked to remove the template after demonstrating why it was improper. As you stated "it might not be taken well when delivered in the manner in which" he chose to do so. I am here because he templated two editors improperly and made further false accussations here. I am well aware of his editing behavior and have been for years as you are also. It is obvious I am no Newb and have knowledge of proper use of templates. Nigels best course of action would of been acknowledging his improper template and removal of such. An apology would of been real nice but I did not ask for that. Labeling an editor who points out a deficiency as a troll only ended up having that accussation tossed back at him as it was he who created and poured fuel on the issue. And I agree we all make mistakes and when one realizes such the best course is to correct it. Also one gets tired of seeing the abusive nature of some editors especially the special despise some show towards IP's. 208.54.40.188 (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I for one get tired of the abusive nature of some IP users who hide behind dynamic IPs to harrass good editors. I also get tired of people who enable such abuse by biting the oldies while lecturing about not biting newbies. While I can't speak for Fnlayson,the only reason I bother to drop warnings to IP usrrs is because admins are reluctant to block troublesome IPs without such warnings. In most cases the IP users never even see the warnings due to the nature of dynamic IPs. This makes attempting to even communicate with an IP user futile, and one of the several major disservices WP does to IP users by allowing unregistered editing. These disservices are far more abusive to them than reverting their crappy edits or warning the user pages will ever be. Allowing unregistered editing is what makes IP users second-class Wikipedians, more so for long-term users who voluntarily choose to edit while unregistered. - BilCat (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It is far harder to gauge intent when there is no record of previous edits that demonstrate good faith, so IP edits are more likely to be checked, and thus more likely to be reverted or tagged. If 208.54.40.188 doesn't like that, then maybe he needs to stop using an IP and take responsibility for his edits. The anonymity an IP provides is used by a majority of vandals to escape from the consequences of their edits, be it an edit war, a contentious edit, or while they snipe at the people actually doing useful work. If you want to be taken seriously, stop using an IP and choose a username.NiD.29 (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page refactoring

Having read the guideline on this I believe I am within my rights to collapse the mass nomination of templates (I think we are all very aware now of this matter) in an attempt to make the page more clear. An uninvolved administrator has been closing the deletion nominations as either 'no consensus' or 'keep' so far. When all nominations have been dealt with one way or the other I will manually archive these sections so that we can get back to discussing aircraft related subjects. Please feel free to revert or execute a better idea! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean all the manufacturer TFD notices on this talk page, right? That's totally fine with me, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, they still appear in the TOC but the amount of text on the page has been drastically reduced. I rarely get 'heated' here nowadays but this stuff cluttering up the talk page drives me nuts, it deflects from dealing with genuine problems in aircraft articles. I should thank another editor for adding all these notices, one template that I created was not on my watchlist ('schoolboy error'!) and I am thankful for that but the time has come IMHO to move on to the intricacies of exactly which variant of M61 Vulcan was carried by which aircraft, fascinates me! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful, even if it was a bunch of work, at least it lead to a useful discussion. Sure, I have no objection if you collapse those on the page here. I think they have served their purpose. - Ahunt (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Have manually archived this page, clearing the mass nomination template deletion notices, all (except one that we were too slow to catch) were either closed as 'keep' or 'no consensus' (to delete). Have we got this page archiving set up correctly, archive 37 is covering Jan 2014 to now? Anyway, I hope we can resume normal ops! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the right archive page. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Airbus Helicopter

Any thoughts on moving all of the Eurocopter articles for the current aircraft to Airbus Helicopter pages? The Airbus Helicopter website has apparently made the branding switch. --Born2flie (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus at the time of the name change in January was that it was premature to change the articles' names at that time, as Airbus Helicopters was not yet the common name for most of the models. We usually take company name changes on a case by case basis. The F-16 article is still listed at General Dynamics, even though it's been owned by Lockheed and Lockheed Martin for 21 years now. Btw, good to see you still editing, B2F. - BilCat (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, not back as much as I'd like, but possibly more opportunities to edit in the future. Prior to the change when we started including the manufacturer in the page title, a company reformation, acquisition, or name change wouldn't have created this situation at all. We simply addressed those issues with the manufacturer's article. Now, we're gonna see all the aircraft articles attempting to address this in the lede. The Eurocopter AS350 article, for instance, has it poorly written twice in the opening sentence of the lede. --Born2flie (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The situation still applied to non-US/non-Canadian military aircraft articles, which usually used the m-d or m-n format, as did most of the Eurocopter types. As to the names appearing twice in the Lead sentence, that's a result of not being able to link the bolded article titles any more, which means repeating the company name somewhere in the Lead so as to link it. If you want to rewrite the Lead to place the second mention later one, go ahead. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A very small tropical disturbance

Someone (off-wiki) had linked to Uragan (spaceplane), which currently redirects to Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-105, except the Uragan section has been deleted. I looked and couldn't find any references worth using, just a bunch of informal stuff and some forum comments. That rumors exist is easy to verify, but I can't even find a denial of its existence. It's likely that said denial predates the internet. Since it's a common rumor, it seems reasonable that Wikipedia would either acknowledge the additional name of the allegedly related project or at least not tease users with a page that doesn't exist (e.g. delete the redirect). How has the project handled similar affairs in the past? 24.18.196.43 (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

In a case where there is no notable information found about the subject, the redirect could be taken to WP:RFD. There, others may help search, and if nothing is found worthy of inclusion, the redirect will probably be deleted. —PC-XT+ 16:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I listed it on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 7#Uragan .28spaceplane.29. We'll see what others think... —PC-XT+ 04:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of Flight photos

Like others, I've uploaded a lot of Flight images to WikiCommons over recent months without objection, using the Flight editor's note and cc-by-3.0. Yesterday an image (a sketch but I don't think that's the point) has been proposed for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kellner-Béchereau E.1 sketch.png. If this goes ahead, we shall lose a great resource for otherwise hard to get images, as well as many images that are already up and enhancing previously unillustrated articles. How should I/we go about responding?TSRL (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a longish conversation here a while ago with the editor of Flight, he intended to release all the archive in to the public domain but it didn't happen. Whenever I've uploaded Flight images I've tagged them as 'non-free, fair use'. Wasn't aware that we had any on Commons? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There is the start of a debate on the deletion page. It would be useful to here other AviationProject editors' views and suggestions for better licensing or (last resort) a phased transfer to "non-free use".TSRL (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC) There are at least 500 Flight images on Commons.TSRL (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Sorted link.TSRL (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dollars

I challenged an addition of a Dollar conversion at Talk:LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin#Dollar equivalent of fares on D-LZ127 "Graf Zeppelin" to what is a Germany product, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Solo Display Aircraft

We seem to have had a few solo display aircraft articles being created, just for information I have nominated F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Puma Display Team for deletion and proposed Solo Türk for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If an aircraft is permanently assigned for a few years (at a minimum) for display flying and has a special scheme that distinguishes it from other aircraft operated by that air force, then it should have a page, but if it is either used only on a temporary basis, or they haven't repainted it, then unless there is some other reason it is notable I'd lean toward delete. There are a few that are definitely notable, that have been written about, such as the Red Knight in Canada, which flew red T-birds for many years, that should have pages on them, however an aircraft that was pulled off operations without a repaint and did a few shows before going back? Doubtful, and there have been a LOT of them over the years.NiD.29 (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC) (ie: I'd ditch the two Swiss pages and keep the Turk one)NiD.29 (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that being painted is a starter on way to being notable, still not sure about the Turkish F-16, certainly aircraft like the RAF Tucano and Hawk get a special paint scheme every year and I think the Dutch solo F-16 is a diferent scheme each year, I am not sure just because the Solo Turk has used the same painted aircraft for a few years it is really any different from the British or Dutch method of annual allocation, the fact that the RAF and KLu use different schemes every year appears to make them not-notable against the Turkish multi-year model. Perhaps a single article on "Solo Display" aircraft could be created which certainly in the RAF has a training and approval regime before the pilot and aircraft are allowed to display. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Graphical timeline of USN fighter jets

Template:Graphical timeline of USN fighter jets - Looks like more clutter at the bottom of an article, thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty good standalone article (or summary graph for whatever the relevant list is), but I agree that it adds a lot of clutter and simpler navbox options should be used Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't currently used in any articles, but I agree, we don't want to go down that road, it adds a lot of unnecessary clutter! - 13:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

User had also created Template:Graphical timeline of USAF fighter aircraft which I have just removed from the USAF article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Request

Is it possible to add more content to the article Acme Aircraft Corporation. Just two sentences and the template (Template:Acme aircraft) about the planes it made (not transcluded) contains more info than the article... The Banner talk 13:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Expanding this requires finding references. I did find one and added it, which allows removing the tag, but the ref doesn't have any information that can be used to expand the article further. I wonder if the Flight archives have anything or if anyone has access to Jane's from that period? - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Flight archives turned up nothing of use. I'll have to do some digging in the books. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

High quality aircraft images

I have been discussing image uploads with a Lithuanian photographer, Augustas Didzgalvis (User:A.BigHead), and he is interested in releasing several hundred images of aircraft that he has used at Airliners.net. These are all good quality and aircraft types are labelled. He is happy to release some of the material, but needs some assistance with categorisation of the images on Commons and placement of the images in relevant articles on Wikipedia. Would anyone be able to devote some time assisting him with these images? SFB 15:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I am happy to help, suggest that he upload the images and please direct him to my talk page for further assistance. --talk→ WPPilot  04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Breitling Super Constellation

I just read this article from FlightGlobal about the Breitling Super Constellation, one of only 3 airworthy Connies, and the only one that carries passengers. Would that be enough of a claim for notability for a stand-alone article? There are some others sources Google about the aircraft also. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that we do have a good number of images of the aircraft on Commons here. The aircraft also has its own web page at www.superconstellation.org/. - BilCat (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say "if it meets GNG", just like anything else; being the 'last surviving passenger carrier' isn't a claim to notability, the vigourous defense of that one DC-7's article notwithstanding. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a claim for notability that is part of GNG, in different words. Per WP:GNG: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article... My question wasn't about an automatic claim as in the DC case, but whether it was "enough of a claim for notability for a stand-alone article". With coverage in FlightGlobal on multiple occasions, and in some other aviation perodicals, the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" parts of GNG should be already met. - BilCat (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Even with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I'm not sure there will be enough content for a separate article. There is some history of the aircraft on its website, but the site's not a reliable source itself. - BilCat (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The claim of unique passenger-carrying status cannot be a basis for notability; the article's author has repeated what he's been told by the captain of the aircraft, but the statement isn't correct. I have flown in the Australian-based Connie VH-EAG (which followed the Breitling Connie down the production line) about a dozen times. As a matter of interest, the Lufthansa pilots for the L1649 Starliner have been training on VH-EAG. YSSYguy (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeated uncited adds by IPer

Over the past month 186.216.248.145 (talk · contribs) has repeated added Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney engines to the Specs table of Boeing 777 for the -300ER variant. But this variant only uses GE engines as part of an exclusive agreement on the 777-300ER, -200LR and 777F variants. I've removed these additions and warned the user; I also posted an explanation on IPer's talk page with no luck. I'm trying not to get into 3RR territory here. Thanks for any help or suggestions. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP is from Brazil,and from his reply, they appear to be a Portuguese speaker. That may be part of the problem here. Does anyone know an editor fluent in Portuguese who might be able to help communicate with this user? I'm hesitant to use Google Translator in this case, as the competence issue may not be limited to English comprehension, and I wouldn't be able to discern that. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Good points, thanks. This is closer to an annoyance than a big, critical issue. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• User:Janetesilva has made two similar edits to the Boeing 777 and 777X articles earlier today. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably the same user, given that Silva is a common Brazilian surname. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Safran

Template:Safran has been nominated for merging with Template:SMA Engines. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Adventure SA aircraft

The template Template:Adventure SA aircraft sees rather red. Anyone able to let it see more blue? The Banner talk 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can find the third party refs then more articles can be written. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

At least the parent article should be possible, I guess. The Banner talk 12:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I should be able to do that, let me read the paper refs cited and see what I can put together. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Adventure SA - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL, still 10 red links to go. The Banner talk 22:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A draft at AFC needs help

Discussion moved to Talk:Cierva CL.20#Draft needs help — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC) [Updated link 16:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)]

Take-off warning system

Not really heard of the Take-off warning system, is it in general use or does it have another name? MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As per United States FAR 23.703 it seems to be a certification requirement. It is also found in derivative standards, like Transport Canada's CAR 523.703. Of course none of that is to say that we should have an article on each section in the FARs. This may just not be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Rotax

We seem to have a COI editor determined to sanitize this article. Warnings are being ignored, so some additional eyes on it would be helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

SNCASE SE.3200 Frelon

SNCASE SE.3200 Frelon is quite poorly written, and cites a single source in French. I'm not sure the source is reliable. Does anyone have any reliable sources to add to the article? This is the helicopter that led to the Aérospatiale Super Frelon. - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a rather rough translation, I'm afraid my Google-fu has failed to find good English sources online - so who here has a Jane's on their bookshelf? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Plundering the Flight archive is my usual approach - eg [1] [2] [3] [4] GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When to recategorize an article from "Category:Proposed aircraft of..." to "Category:Aircraft of..."?

At what point in the development history of a new aircraft type should the article's category be changed from "Proposed aircraft of..." to "Aircraft of..."? Should it happen when the prototype first flies, at certification, or only when series production begins? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary defines an aircraft as "An aeroplane, helicopter, or other machine capable of flight". [5] On that basis, one would have to suggest that (avoiding crystal-ball gazing) as soon as the prototype has flown would be the appropriate time to change the category. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Conceivably once it's been built and sitting on its tyres. It could also be argued once they first take a pair of tin snips to a sheet of aluminium it's no longer proposed but actual (if unfinished). If they then down tools it could go in "cancelled aircraft of..." GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the plane I have in mind has already begun prototype flight testing so it is a "actual" rather than "proposed" aircraft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The consensus through useage is "when it flies". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A380 Fuel System

Dear aircraft experts: This abandoned AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable fuel system? Should the article be kept and improved, merged with the Airbus A380 (the article says it may be used in other craft as well), or is there a serious problem with it that makes it not worth keeping at all? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This does not seem notable/significant enough for a separate article to me. That article seems largely uncited. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No objection to deletion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this shouldn't be a separate article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay; it is gone. Thanks for checking. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead photo discussion at Aero L-39 Albatros

We are having a debate of the best photo to use as the info box image for this article. Interested editors are welcome to voice their opinions at Talk:Aero_L-39_Albatros#Lead_Image to help achieve a consensus on the matter! - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

EcoJet AFD

EcoJet has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoJet. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of ALR Piranha

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 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALR Piranha. - Ahunt (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Airbus A340

Can someone comment on this article? I've gone to lengths to get sources and justification for my edits, but another editor is adament that it is unsourced. JacksonRiley (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this more a case of adding content that gives undue weight or repeats info already covered in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not that sources haven't been provided so much as the content added is not supported by the sources and thus represents WP:OR. The weight factor also comes into it. Tweaking the A340 article into a sales pitch for Boeing seems to be the thrust of these changes. --Pete (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a sales pitch, the A340 has already been out of production for a few years. In fact some of these editors' content is an oversimplification of the sources, not least deleting sources as well. JacksonRiley (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like only redundant lower quality sources and sources in the Lead have been removed. Try editing the text instead of doing whole-sale reverts. Discuss specifics on the A340 talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"A sales pitch for Boeing", I said, JR. Don't try to get my goat, it won't work. What will work is that I'll lose my assumption of good faith on your part. --Pete (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Airbus A340 dispute

Can other editors comment on this dispute? JacksonRiley (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Need more editors, including those included in the edit warring.JacksonRiley (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Chinese Aviation Museum‎

An editor has been edit-warring to introduce poor grammar at Chinese Aviation Museum‎. This item is currently under discussion at Talk:Chinese Aviation Museum‎ and interested editors are invited to voice their opinions there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a note I have left a warning on the users talk page about edit warring and personal attacks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Some things just have to shared!

WP:DENY notwithstanding, this had to be shared! From this edit to Top Gun:

Some even regard the F-14 to be the main star of the film because it is so well liked, with people from both groups calling it the best plane ever, describing it as "super sexy and fun to watch, like Megan Fox playing volleyball in a bikini, except with wings and a jet engine attached to her torso." Tom Cruises performance was also praised.

And, yes, I reverted it, to this response! Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the editor in question has been blocked for WP:SOCK, so I guess he won't be reviewing any more films. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

10 years is not a bad record, no signs of terminal rot yet! Good luck. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Airship articles and ship infoboxes

We currently have 4 articles on USN commissioned rigid airships, and one for one that was destroyed before commissioning. Of these 5 articles, 2 use {{Infobox aircraft begin}} and its modules, with a regular aircraft specs section, while the others use {{Infobox ship begin}}and its modules, with its combined specs. I don't know if this has been discussed before or not, but it seems odd to use an infobox designed for surface ships on aircraft articles. The articles are USS Shenandoah (ZR-1), R38-class airship (ZR-2), USS Los Angeles (ZR-3), USS Akron (ZRS-4), and USS Macon (ZRS-5). It may well be that ship infoboxes were used to enable the career info to be added, but we now have {{Infobox aircraft career}} for such information, though the template may need updating to suit it for these airships. I'm leaning towards using the aircraft infoboxes in all these articles, but wanted to discuss it first to see if there were any reasonable objections. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Would use the standard aircraft infobox as you suggest. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree that we should use the aircraft infoboxes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I'll probably work on converting the infoboxes within the next few days. I'm not that good at using the specifications templates, so if someone wants to add their pet specs to those articles before I get to that part, that's fine with me. I can do the infoboxes without any difficulty. ~ BilCat (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree these shouls use the aircraft infobox plus the airraft specs template: I remember changing one to this format to see if it got a rapid & passionate revert (it didn't) & meant to do the others, didn't get around to it. Dont't mind doing the honours if noboby eles does.TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Claims to the first powered flight

Hi all. I have drafted an article on Claims to the first powered flight at User:Steelpillow/sandbox. The focus is on the claims and the surrounding debates rather than the events or aircraft themselves. Is it good enough to move live yet, i.e. better than nothing, or does it really need a bit more work first? Please reply at User talk:Steelpillow/sandbox. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Now live at Claims to the first powered flight. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism problems at HAL Tejas

Folks at WikiProject Milhist suggested I post this here as well.

I reviewed HAL Tejas (a new indian multifunction fighter) for GAN here and found serious and widespread problems with close paraphrasing and plagiarism. I don't have enough experience writing these articles (or dealing with cases where a large article has been copied piecemeal from multiple sources) so I'm hoping someone who watches this talk page can weigh in with some suggestions or better yet try to re-write the article to remove most of these issues. My review only went up to the end of the Development section but I don't have a reason to believe the issues stopped there. Sorry if this seems like I'm dumping a problem on you folks but I figured I would just light the bat signal and see who flew in. Protonk (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See here for my plan on the talk page. I'd really prefer not to do this alone. Protonk (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Inline links to individual aircraft in commons

User:Rcbutcher has been adding inline links on aircraft serial numbers (at List of surviving Gloster Meteors) to the related commons page. I reverted one of these as "not standard practice we already have a commons link" this has been questioned Rcbutcher on my talk page. They say that is does not clutter, takes the reader directly to the relevant commons page and no reason not to make this standard practice. I consider it to be clutter, we are not a replacement for a google search and the commons categorisation is a basket case. I would suggest we dont allow this. Comment welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You could have at least engaged in a conversation with me directly before escalating this. I'm not some idiot from Mars. How is linking to Commons a "replacement for a google search" ? Would you prefer people to search Google rather than go to valid Commons content ? How does a link, which adds no displayed volume, constitute "clutter" ? Further : your comment : "commons categorisation is a basket case" indicates a possible improvement area to be discussed and resolved, rather than a reason for cutting links. There appears to be a distance between the EN Wikipedia ideas and Commons ideas, which is not good.Rcbutcher (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not escalation this is getting opinions from peers, please assume good faith. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I do assume good faith. Lets get a good outcome for Wikipedia users. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The guidance at the various Commons templates is that they should only be used in the external links sections or at the top of the last section (often 'References') if there is no external links section. If a reader clicked on an individual aircraft link they might expect to be taken to an article on it. It's not mentioned at WP:LINKSTYLE or WP:OVERLINK as it is outside normal practice at a guess. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm with the opinion that a bluelink implies there is more textual content on the subject at the other end of the click. What was at the other end in these cases was all pictures. I'm not saying there won't be occasions when a commons link might be useful, but not on this occasion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that linking to commons image pages is an unexpected result for readers. Links to commons pages are external to en.wikipedia.org and don't belong in article text; they belong in the external links section, as is standard practice. WP:EL has some guidance on this, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." If the images themselves are worth readers seeing then it would be better to insert the images into the article itself. - Ahunt (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, then how otherwise can we inform the reader that we have a collection of images of precisely this object and provide one-click access ? As it stands, if there is no separate "survivors" page, the reader first has to find the Commons link at the bottom of the page, which links only to the aircraft model page, then click the "museum items" link, then decide which is the appropriate object category ("G-XYZ (aircraft)" or "Supermarine Spitfire X1234"), by which time he/she has lost interest, or is disappointed after diligently following the trail only to find there are no images for this particular object. If the aircraft has its own Survivors page, one step is eliminated but I suggest even so most readers would still give up or not even become aware that we have images of precisely this object. Rcbutcher (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is {{Commons category}} not a sufficient solution for this? I think wikipedia readers expect inline links to almost always go to other wikipedia pages, not to images on commons or much anything else. If there's not a category which fits this article, then just make one. The argument above that the link serves readers assumes from the outset that the reader expects the link to go to a picture, which seems odd to me as any other link a reader encounters will have been to an article. So if we took the modal use case where I click on a link expecting an article I would be surprised and confused when I ended up someplace else entirely. Protonk (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It varies by how Commons deal with each aircraft type, the Tiger Moth is a good example of image categorisation, readers could not fail to miss the collection of individual aircraft. Other types have not been categorised by registration yet. I find this system annoying as it is difficult to find the best images (you have to trawl through them all) but that is a Commons problem (which is us BTW!). Sometimes there are two Commons links at the end of an article, judgement call whether it is excessive or not, the one's I've seen appeared to have good logic so they were left. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

real question here is how to link EN Wikipedia page to really good collections of photographs of that particular aircraft on Commons WITH ONE CLICK. I propose a small tag at the end of the aircraft list such as {{images here}} small and NON-CLUTTERING but adding great value. Rcbutcher (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd use <ref |group=note> images of this aircraft at {{Commons category| [link] }} </ref> . Doesn't clutter but gives room to explain the situation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

{{Commonscat}} is more than sufficient. If you really want an image of something that specific, then put a single image on the page. There is no demonstrated need to have multiple links to multiple sub-directories of an aircraft type. If an image is important enough to be linked to, it should be in the article already, otherwise it isn't important enough to have its own link. This isn't just about clutter, it is also about notability, and I doubt the aircraft being linked to was that notable (if it was, it would have its own page, which would then have its own commonscat link). If there are two commonscat links in an article, then one of them should be deleted.NiD.29 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You've convinced me : If an aircraft is historically notable enough for folks to really want to follow up on it, it should have its own page on EN Wiki which fits within link guidelines (examples are Lancaster G for George, and Enola Gay), if not it's just another airplane. And I realise this is an encyclopedia, not an aircraft registry. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

New G500 and G600 corp/biz jets

Gulfstream announced new G500 and G600 models earlier this week (Oct. 14, 2014). They seem to be derivatives of the G650 as they share fuselage section and wings with the G650 according to this Aviation Week article. So does starting with entries at Gulfstream G650 for now sense reasonable? I don't think there is enough info for separate articles now and there may not be enough real differences to need separate articles. Gulfstream G600 redirects to Gulfstream Aerospace now, but could be changed. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, they should start on the G650 page as "variants for now, until more text is made available. The redirect should be, um, redirected! - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Any connection with the already existing "G500" as mentioned at Gulfstream G550 and on the Type Certificate Data Sheet! MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think they're just reusing the G500 name, and hoping no one remembers that there was an old one! Confusing, though. - BilCat (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, per the AvWeek source, "Gulfstream had previously delivered 10 aircraft called "G500." Those aircraft, however, were actually GV-SP jets with a different model designation." - BilCat (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• That seems to be from another Av Week article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed. Thanks :) - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

From reading the AvWeek source, the fuselage of the G500/G600 are different from that of the G650, so I'd recommend a new article, probably at Gulfstream G600, and we can handle the old/new G500 issue with a hatnote, or perhaps a DAB page at Gulfstream G500. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• The article says "In addition to a larger fuselage cross-section, the new jets share with the G650 wing aerodynamics, fly-by-wire controls and systems." I took that to mean the fuselage cross section would be the same, but the lengths could be different. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Farther down in the first source, it says: "Operators told Gulfstream they wanted a bigger fuselage but better fuel economy, and the company briefly evaluated using the G650 fuselage cross-section for the G500 and G600. But the weight and drag imposed unacceptable performance penalties. Instead, the aircraft have a new fuselage shape that is 7 in. narrower and less tall than the G650’s but provides 2 in. more headroom, 7 in. more cabin width and 8 in. more floor width than the G450 and G550." - BilCat (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! I used the first article to add a sentence for each model at Gulfstream G650#Derivatives for now. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 747-8 operators list updates

Why isnt the editor who has taken up ownership of the article allowing people to edit and update it within wiki policy? he has removed new entries Air China and Silkway Airlines which took delivery of their aircrfat in August and October, why is this pedantic Obsessvce-Compulsive disorder behaviour being tolerated at this site? I'm adding those again, please help ensure they remain in there.139.190.165.153 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Another template in need for some attention

Template:Circa Reproductions Good luck. The Banner talk 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A challenge...

No matter what happened in the past, a template with just one blue link will not stand a chance on TfD. But the good news is that the template also has four red links. Enough options to bring it into friendly airspace. Anybody willing to accept the challenges presented by Template:Briffaud aircraft? The Banner talk 21:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The articles can easily be written if you have refs on any of these types. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor that created that template has a methodical work ethic of filling the red links and almost certainly has the references to create the articles, navboxes are very useful editing tools (i.e. how many articles are left to create in a series), the 'big picture' of how this project works is not being appreciated. No challenge, we will fill all the red links eventually. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you not topic banned through ANI from navbox related edits? The rapid manual archiving of your talk page makes it hard to determine. I do know that I spent way too much valuable wiki time protesting your recent 30 plus aircraft navbox deletion campaign. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You probably wish that, but your collective effort only got me temporary banned from nominating templates for deletion. And just that, I am still allowed to discuss templates on TfD. The Banner talk 09:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Brown Aircraft is another template in need for some TLC. Just three blue links, but also two red links. The Banner talk 09:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be assured that they are being worked on. Company articles are being systemically written to complete red links in nav boxes, but to do a good job it does take time. Fortunately WP:DEADLINE allows that time. - Ahunt (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That essay is indeed rather friendly, but TfD is less generous. Avoiding any trouble is easy enough, that is why I opted to report the challenge. The Banner talk 15:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Banner, you are becoming disruptive, and the advice that I and other editors have given you seems to have fallen on deaf ears. But, I'll repeat it one more time: some templates, even though they may be derived from Template:Navbox, are not merely navigation templates. Your assertion that "a template with just one blue link will not stand a chance on TfD" is patently false. Take a look at this TfD for example. When it was nominated (and kept), it had only one link, but now has two. Since you seem to like challenges, here's a counter–challenge for you: why don't you try your challenge at WP:MILHIST with, say, Template:Campaignbox Operations Against Fort Pulaski and see what kind of response you get? Either that or just drop the stick and lets all get back to constructive editing. Mojoworker (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sweetheart, I am just politely asking if the red links can be turned into blue links. I had the idea those two templates escaped attention. If you see asking for attention and TLC as disruptive, it is al yours. I am not going to fight that negative attitude. The Banner talk 19:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's all well and good, and I'll AGF and believe that you're sincere. However statements such as "a template with just one blue link will not stand a chance on TfD" and "but TfD is less generous" seem to indicate that you still somehow think WP:NENAN and "counting links" are valid arguments for deletion. Despite a preponderance of seasoned editors telling you that you're mistaken, in the Tfd, RfC, and the ANI discussion, and despite your a six month topic ban, you still don't appear to understand. Mojoworker (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the repeated remarks that Wikiprojects can not set general rules for templates. NENAN is indeed shot down as argument but look up TfD to see how often it6 is still used. The Banner talk 18:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Banner sweetiepie, what is your problem?TheLongTone (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Banner, I don't know where you come up with these outlandish and manifestly incorrect statements. "Wikiprojects can not set general rules for templates"? That's not what is being discussed – it's not about "general rules" at all. Rather it's about guidelines which are specific to templates within the scope of the individual Wikiprojects for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within the project's scope as at WP:AVINAV or Wikipedia:MILHISTMOS#Templates. The individual project's style guidelines are doing nothing that violates WP:CONLIMITED. If you think otherwise, please explain which specific generally accepted policy or guideline you think is being violated by the manuals of style of the projects. Mojoworker (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

NENAN is indeed shot down as argument but look up TfD to see how often it is still used - So your argument is "they're using an erronious intrepretation of policy that has been explicitly ruled out - we'd better follow it?" You're bordering on WP:IDHT and WP:POINTY here on this issue, I would strongly suggest you step away from navbox/TfD work before it lands you in further trouble due to your inability or unwillingness to accept this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Bushranger, I just notify you that the argument is still used and no one of your team is protesting against it. The Banner talk 21:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"no one of your team"? I don't think we have a team per se here. And where is this not being protested on an aircraft navbox at TfD? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul of Westland Lynx

Hello there. I have been performing an overhaul of the article for the Westland Lynx, I figured it was about time I got around to working on the fastest conventional helicopter in the world for more than three decades. I've completed the core of the new Design section, kicked off an Aircraft on Display list, and have improved the Operational History. However, there is a lot more that could be done, and I'm not sure that I can do a great job just doing it on my own - the Operational History is currently heavily leaning towards the UK history, perhaps natural as the largest operator, but still there should be a considerably more to say about the other nations that have operated the type; it would be good to work towards something similar to the Operational History section of Westland Sea King. There are a few citations tags as well, and I'm sure that other editors shall be able to think of things that I haven't thought of yet. If you've got some time and are interested, why not lend a hand at polishing up the article? Thank you in advance for your help Kyteto (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Helicopters and rotorcraft navbox

A new navbox, {{Helicopters and rotorcraft}}, has been created, and is showing up on helicopter-related articles. Is a new navbox such as this really needed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

IMO it's not needed - and a navbox like this (especially with a "related topics" section) is likely to grow into a huge monster. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's my fear too. It's already fairly large, and it has many gaps in its info, so what will it gonna look like when it's finished? Franken-navbox! - BilCat (talk)

Causing problems already at Fairey Gyrodyne where it has replaced 'Aviation lists'!. Noting that its creation and addition to articles was apparently undiscussed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Would someone nominate the navbox for deletion? I'm deletion-deficient, so I can't do it myself. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Jack J. Pelton POV Issues

This article has recently been greatly expanded, but the additions are very WP:POV and not in compliance with WP:BLP. I have started a discussion at Talk:Jack J. Pelton, but this needs to be fixed quickly or totally reverted. Any thoughts would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the whole situation carefully and given the poor and misleading refs added (many of which did not exist) and the policy requirements of WP:BLP, I just had to revert the whole mess. Anyone else is welcome to review what was added and my deletion and comment on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

NATO Basic Military Requirement 3 (NMBR-3)

The 1960s was a fascinating time for development of V/STOL fighter aircraft and transports, we have many articles on the aircraft that were developed such as the Dornier Do 31, Armstrong Whitworth AW.681, VFW VAK 191B, Hawker P.1154 and EWR VJ 101. They were all driven by NMBR-3 (the transports came under NMBR-4). What we are missing is an article on these requirements that could tie them all together. Not sure if globalsecurity is a reliable source but everything here appears to be accurate (dodge the adverts!).

I have recently obtained a full set of 'Flying Review' magazines from 1963-64 which gives much more information on these aircraft types. If globalsecurity is ok I will start an article, if not perhaps someone here has paper sources on the subject and could also start an article. How it all tied together is fascinating, I didn't realise that the VFW VAK 191B was designated 'B' because it was the second, and apparent winner, of four designs that were looked at (though globalsecurity lists 10!!). Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There are engines involved as well, the Bristol Siddeley BS.100, Rolls-Royce/MAN Turbo RB153 and RB193 plus the Rolls-Royce lift jets (RB.108 and 162). This would be an excellent redirect target for some of the abandoned types that we don't have articles on (Lockheed CL-704 is mentioned in the Lancer article I think). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be similar to a procurement program, which we have several articles for. This topic seems to easily justify an article. Globalsecurity is really a self-published source, but should be OK for now, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would make a good article subject! We have used globalsecurity before, while it is SPS, Pike is quite relable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is Pike? I read through it again and it made more sense though there are strange typos. I also visited the NATO website and it appears to say that archived documents over 30 years old are available online but I didn't have any luck, perhaps I wasn't using the search engine properly. It certainly was a big programme with lots of money spent and not much to show for it apart from the Harrier. I think ZELL and 'SATS' (conventional fighters using catapults and arrested landings) are related to this. Might start something tomorrow. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a separate article for NMBR-4 would be better to cover the transport aircraft part of it as it could end up quite large. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

...and a navbox even (as long as it has more than five blue links of course!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

John Pike writes http://www.globalsecurity.org/. At the bottom of the page: "Copyright © 2000-2014 GlobalSecurity.org All rights reserved. Site maintained by: John Pike" - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Roger, you learn something every day! Determined to do this as the rush of VTOL aircraft development in Europe is pretty much unexplained. I will get the abbreviation right as well (NBMR vice NMBR!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good project! You can list Pike as the author for any globalsecurity.org refs cited! - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the deal with SPS in this case? Not unduly worried as we have articles that have been completely unreferenced for years! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think he is widely quoted and such as to be considered an expert in the field, which is accounted for under WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okey doke.I have loads more questions on this subject but they can be discussed in detail on the article talk page when it is started. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to help out, so please do post a link when you get it up and running! - Ahunt (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, it is amazing what you learn doing something like this (apart from benefiting the readers enormously). I remember when we categorised the engines how similar they were across the world (especially the 1930s) and they didn't have the Internet back then to crib designs! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

a Flight International in 1962 summary of the two specs is in general agreement "Since 1959 plans have been formulated for [the successor to the "lightweight strike fighter".], the minimum requirement of the NBMR-3 specification being Mach 0.92 at sea level and a radius of action of 250 n.m., with VTOL ability, or STOL with an overload. In parallel, specification NBMR-4 calls for a transport carrying 12,0001b at over 200kt and climbing to 50ft in a horizontal distance of 500ft"[6] GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme, I found that late last night, there are quite a few other mentions in Flight. Now to put it all together! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, it's up at NBMR-3. Plenty of redlinks to fill, if they can't be filled they could be unlinked with an explanation of what they were (if we ever find out!). I do have info on the Fiat G.95 and possibly some of the other types. The categorisation might not be quite right and I will think about a navbox. I included the transports as they were very closely related. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Gary, did you consider adding {{infobox aircraft program}} to the article? I didn't want to try to add it, with {{infobox aircraft begin}}, if you had already found it inadequate. The parameters may not really fit what NBMR-3 was. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't think I'd ever seen that before. I've put it in, thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. There aren't that many articles that use it, probably less than 30. - BilCat (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

NBMR-3 and NBMR-4 do beg the question? What were NBMR-1 and NBMR-2? I think NBMR-1 was what led to the Fiat G.91, but I'm not certain. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think NBMR-1 was the light fighter requirement and NBMR-2 was for maritime aircraft, they are linked through the globalsecurity site. Potential for more articles there (but not today!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

FL Technics

We have what looks like a COI editor who is determined to sanitize this article. I have left him warnings, but he isn't talking. Additional eyes and input would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

SpaceShipTwo

Not sure if it is an "aircraft" but SpaceShipTwo appears to have had an "in-flight anomaly" (like an explosion and crash) might be worth keeping an eye on related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Watched! - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Mjroots a starter article 2014 Virgin Galactic crash has been created. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Give me 15 minutes peace, then feel free to pilre in! Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Any mileage in merging the stub VSS Voyager into the main SpaceShipTwo?. Although built, it seems not to have flown yet, nor more importantly gathered independent coverage.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yea, I don't see why an article is needed for the type and another article for the second SS2 example. These are not large naval ships. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we don't have articles on each individual Cessna 172 built, just on the type. - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Redundant Navboxes

I just ran across {{Types of take-off and landing}} and {{Takeoff and landing}}, the first preceeding the second by about 6 years! Should these be merged? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged. I spotted it yesterday in the ZELL article, there was a redlink which I deleted, then later realised it was a different template (not an exact duplicate) and fixed it by re-adding the template. I wondered and moved on! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

- I think so too. The layout in the 2nd one (Takeoff and landing) seems better to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

ZELL is where I noticed there where 2 of them. I agree the layout on the second is better. Which title should be kept? - BilCat (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

'Types of' should be kept, it's more descriptive and gives us an idea what might be in the navbox. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, merge to "types of...". - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we just do it or do we have to go through 'the process'? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like one or both have to have Template:Tfm placed with an entry at TfD. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I updated {{Types of take-off and landing}} using {{Takeoff and landing}}. The latter template has been tagged with the Template:Tfm per Nimbus' post. An entry at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 29 can be started and discussion move there. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger discussion has now been raised at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 29. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for setting that up! -Fnlayson (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. - BilCat (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries, just pop in there and shout 'merge' or something! I didn't notify the creator, not compulsory. 'Types of' is the older template (2004) where the other one is 2010. Beats me how stuff like this happens, it must also have been added to articles above the existing template, 'by the cringe' as they say in Yorkshire! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will. WP definitely sufferes from a severe case of "too many cooks" syndrome! - BilCat (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The template was redirected which we could have done and this action left two identical navboxes on each transcluded page. I've been through all the transclusions and changed it to 'Types of...' removing the other one at the same time. There is some duplication of the subject articles, we have Takeoff and landing and Take-off and Landing! Also duplication in the VTOL/STOL department, a job for a rainy day!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AFD candidate

I just trimmed a bunch of uncited speculation from Northrop Switchblade (supposedly designed by Grumman, and not to be confused Northrop Grumman Switchblade). The article is mainly based on a patent, and so doesn't really meet GNG. It's been tagged as needing sources since November 2006! Time to AFD? - BilCat (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The patent expired in 2008 due to non-payment of fees so it is definitely an abandoned project. I don't think there would be any objections to merging or redirecting to Variable-sweep wing to save the grief of AfD. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Fuel tank?

Just replied to a query at WT:AV about 'fuel cells' and I noticed that all we have on aircraft fuel tanks is a section in the fuel tank article (Fuel tank#Aircraft). I think there is room for a stand alone article with a navbox grouping types of aircraft fuel tanks together (drop tank, conformal fuel tank etc). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a matching Commons category which is useful. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we have scope for a separate article! - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Okey doke, I'll have a look at it next week, creating the navbox first might be useful to round up all the related articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Done, Aircraft fuel tanks is a new overview, summary style article and the imaginatively named navbox, Template:Aircraft fuel tanks goes with it. The navbox has eight blue links so should be out of the 'danger zone'! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I just went over it. You did too good a job - nothing to fix in it! - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there is something to fix! Would have liked to add more images but the sections need expanding first to allow room. The navbox duplicates Template:Aircraft components slightly but I'm tempted to leave things be. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Off on a slight tangent, perhaps there should be a mention or a link somewhere (eg in Drop Tank?) about the use of converted (and/or disguised?) drop tanks for dropping napalm. At Commons, Napalm tanks comes under Drop Tanks.PeterWD (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Carrier aircraft and aircraft carriers

Hi, please could folks help out at Airborne_aircraft_carrier and Talk:Airborne_aircraft_carrier#Carrier_aircraft_and_aircraft_carriers. Another editor is insisting in adding material that contradicts the definition adopted for the article and is now edit warring. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Westland Wiltshire

The Wiltshire appears to be the original name for the Westland-Sikorsky 61 which later retained the "Sea King" name. We dont appear to mention the Wiltshire any where and a google doesnt show much, anybody have anything on it that might be worth a mention perhaps in Westland Sea King? MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked the FlightGlobal archives yet? - BilCat (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I've found but two referenced a 1960 reference to possibly using Napier Gazelle engines and another in January 1960 "The Wiltshire, also to fly this year, will be an anglicized Sikorsky S-61" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Stub tagging

You will have noticed that User:Dawynn has been adding stub tags to aircraft articles based on what Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting classify as a stub. This means that articles this project have marked as "start" (or inflated ratings as they describe it) now have stub tags on them. I dont have a problem with the difference of opinion on what is a stub but it would have been nice for Dawynn to explain that here rather than fly by tagging. (see also User talk:Dawynn#Aircraft articles) MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've generally gone by a stub as only have a few sentences and being incomplete as stated at WP:Stub. I'm looking at Category:Start-Class aircraft articles to see find any stub length articles... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been going on for quite a while and is frustrating. What I did notice last night on revisiting WP:ASSESS is that the example article for a stub has changed (it now has a navbox and infobox and more content). It is embedded in Template:Grading scheme. If the stub criteria has increased then projects should be notified. Any article that has basic but informative content, has an infobox (with an image), navboxes, heading structure, reliable source references, citations and is correctly categorised is not a stub. We work on true stub articles ('one liners') to get them out of the stub category and then find them back in there which is not productive. The term 'inflated' is unfortunate and implies that reviewers are clueless and don't understand the system when the reverse is clearly true. Plodding on. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

At least from what I've seen, and how I classify, navboxes, infoboxes, categorization, headings, references, statistical lists, technical specs, images and even headers contribute very little to lifting an article out of the "stub" category. What I look for is prose text. If you want to lift the article out of the stub category, write about it. Give an overview. Write about its history. Tell us about the subject. Dawynn (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Westland Scout#What_replaced_Scouts

Little progress seems to be occurring at this discussion. Some extra input might help move it along. --Bye for now (PTT) 14:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Grosvenor Cup

Have just created an article on the Grosvenor Cup air races that were held in England from the 1920s on, it's interesting in that it ties together many early aircraft types, engines, their owners/pilots and some airfields that have either become housing estates or major international airports. Most of the info comes from a chance find vintage book which was published in 1951.

I hesitated to put the article live as there are some gaps in coverage and unanswered questions but...this is what the wiki is for! The main questions that I could not easily find the answers to were when did the races finish (what year) and where is the actual trophy today (I think it might be held by the Royal Aero Club)? There also some event gaps after 1950, some years I can't find if the event was held or not and it seems that there might have been several 'rounds' in some years. It was a fun exercise putting it together, there is detailed info on many more races in the book. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Great work! If you locate the actual trophy there in the UK it would make a great expedition to nip round and get a photo for the article! - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that is what I was thinking! It may be in Leicester, quite close by, I have contacts at the British Gliding Association who share offices with the Royal Aero Club. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Great potential day-trip! - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm...it's not at Leicester. Just spoke directly to the secretary of the RAC, all trophies held by them are located at the Royal Air Force Museum London and are cared for on behalf of the Royal Aero Club Trust. Some major trophies listed there (and a wealth of very useful documents) but couldn't see the Grosvenor Cup. The RAC have forwarded my queries to a trust historian, all good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Missing Cup! Who won it last, perhaps he still has it? - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Could be, that does happen. Another amusing situation with this race was the frequent rule changes, the later races at least were handicapped which is not mentioned in the book. Sounded like a big excuse to roar round the countryside to me! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No wonder they stopped it! - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The King's Cup Race is still going, thrashing this year's winning Beagle Pup around at full throttle couldn't have been good for it! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is some coverage in Peter Lewis's British Racing and Record Breaking Aircraft - it looks like it was still going in some form in 1969, although there seems to have been no races between 1959 and 1967.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Great. Still have not heard anything back from the RAC, whatever info they do come up with couldn't be used but it might provide leads. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps they lost it? - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Or they never had it?! I'll put some more feelers out. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hope you locate it! - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Gulfstream III

IP keeps adding a non-notable accident to Gulfstream III if anybody is around to take a look as I have reverted it twice, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Watched! - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted and warned at User_talk:86.161.181.36 - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Aeronautica Militare Italiana

I have reverted some additions of Aeronautica Militare Italiana in operators lists after Italian Air Force, we dont normally list the non-english name and use the article name as a guide (which is Italian Air Force) I would not like a precedent to add the non-english names of all the operators in aircraft articles, if the reader is not sure he can follow the link, comment? MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Just adding User:Chesipiero to trigger the notify flag as they have been making most of these additions, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Chesipiero was converting the English linked name to Italian, with no English at all. I left a note that it would be OK to use the Italian name in parentheses/round brackets, as we have a number of aircraft articles that use Luftwaffe after German Air Force/. I've added these myself to a number of articles without any objections, and have added Armée de l'Air to French Air Force also. Remember that some of these article, were at their non-English titles for many years, so keeping the native name was useful in those cases. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dont really agree with using translated or native names in parentheses in operators list, it will not be long before users will insist of having all the operators showing all possible "national" languages, as this is English wikipedia we should be led by the article title. I dont have a problem with Luftwaffe for second world war lists as that is also the related article but German Air Force for the modern incarnation. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing it that way on many articles for several years, as have some other users, and it hasn't led to a flurry of other nations' native titles being added yet. Note that Aeronautica Militare was the article's title until March 2010, and German Air Force was created as a separate article in May 2012. But I'll go with the consensus either way. - BilCat (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that Regia Aeronautica is the title for the WW2 Italian air force article. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The subject needs looking at and a consensus forming from input by many editors. German Air Force is wrong to me, intelligent piping could easily distinguish between the two forms of Luftwaffe. This is the English Wikipedia but 'common name' applies. It seems that the more difficult the name of an air force is to pronounce the more likely it will be translated into English. Deciding the crossover point is the tricky part but following major source publication convention would help. A new guideline could be formed to avoid edit wars. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Westland Whirlwind

Both Whirlwinds (Westland Whirlwind (helicopter) and Westland Whirlwind (fighter) have disambiguated names and the dab page Westland Whirlwind only has the two entries, any reason why one could not be the primary subject with a note from the other? MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's a particular problem with a repositioning. From the looks of the histories, in 2003 the fighter was created first and then moved to "fixed wing" as disambiguator, the helicopter was created around time with "rotary wing" as the disambiguator. Then they moved to the current locations. I think the helicopter is probably the better known. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The fighter article seems to be getting over twice the number of page views that the helicopter does: [7][8]. That suggests to me that the fighter should be the primary. And historically, the helicopter isn't that significant, in that it is a licence-built Sikorsky model, whereas the fighter was a novel design. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there's no agreement on which is the primary topic is probably a good indication that there is no clear primary topic. I'd keep the DAB page as-is. - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sites like Google Search[9], Google Images[10] and Amazon books[11] appear unequivocal about the greater notability of the fighter. Is there really any significant disagreement? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Jet trainer

I recently ran across the Jet trainer article. It's about 6 years old, but hasn't had many edits, or any expert attention. It's just a paragraph and a list, so I'm not sure it's needed as an standard article, and might be better off as a list article. Btw, Trainer (aircraft) needs some work also, and there doesn't appear to be any list articles on trainers either. Any suggestions? - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it has a lot of potential and deserves more attention. We tend to have lots of detailed, carefully maintained articles on individual aircraft types, whilst overlooking the broader principles. bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Review of Aviatik D.VII Reply

Hi there. Can someone please review this new article I just made for fact checking, more sources, errors, anything else? Link Aviatik D.VII Thanks legoboy

PS. Sorry for being rather inactive Legoboyvdlp Let's talk! 16:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

HAL Tejas/CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

More eyes are needed on these two articles as an editor appears to be edit warring to drastically increase the claimed range of the HAL Tejas and decrease the range of the CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder, without any sources (other than unspecified internet forums).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Ventral (aircraft) and Dorsal (aircraft)

I have started discussions at Talk:Dorsal (aircraft) and Talk:Ventral (aircraft) as to whether these are suitable subjects for Wikipedia articles or whether they fall afoul of the policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Participation by interested editors is very welcome. - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Those were PRODded and are gone now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic Flight 43

One to look out for - Virgin Atlantic Flight 43 (a not very notable incident at Gatwick) has been created and deleted recently but it has an open request to restore, might need an AfD if it pops up again! MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Watched! - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Created again and sent for deletion again Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Atlantic Flight 43. - Ahunt (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)