Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Accessibility of lists

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Accessibility of lists for discssion of an accessibility concern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Abandoned vs. cancelled military aircraft projects

Just for information a discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Abandoned vs. cancelled military aircraft projects which may be of interest to this project. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Cub Crafters

This article has recently been suffering from spamming of irrelevant and promotional information by IPs. Some extra eyes or semi-protection for a while would be appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors can note this problem is still on-going! - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. YSSYguy (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass Airbus Helicopters moves

User:GeorgeGriffiths has unilaterally moved most of the Eurocopter aircraft articles to Airbus Helicopters titles, all without discussion. Note that most of these titles have been moved and reverted at least twice before. Is there still a consensus here that these titles should remain at Eurocopter? Some will have to be moved by an admin due to double moves. Also, perhaps these titles should be move-protected too. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they should be moved back and protected. These are still the WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that according to the user's userpage, he's 15, but he is a WPAVIATION member. Perhaps one of our more diplomatic members can talk to him. (That certainly ain't me!) - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussion was in 2014 ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_37#Eurocopter_aircraft_article_renamings ) I don't think situation has changed and they should be moved back to "Eurocopter xxxx" GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed them all to their new, correct name. They're no longer called Eurocopter, as shown in the source I added to all articles. As such, they should stay with the new name I've given them. :) GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Wiki policy says the most common name, not the most technically correct one. So expect them to be returned to their most common names shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, I wasn't aware of that. That doesn't seem very logical to me but there are probably some good reasons for it that I won't argue with. If my edits are a breach of policy then feel free to revert them. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Common name would suggest Eurocopter to be the common name for most of them. For more than twenty years, the Tiger was called the "Eurocopter Tiger", and for less than a year it has been known as the "Airbus Helicopters Tiger" - the balance of time is more than twenty times in favour of the Eurocopter name. The present name doesn't overrule what it has been known as for the overwhelming majority of the time. Kyteto (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ditto (and more so), the Super Puma flying since 1978, and a Eurocopter since 1992. Though since we are talking names why does it have the "SA 332" bit rather than just Eurocopter Super Puma? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Looks "Super Puma" was used for more than one model, such as the EC225 Super Puma. But there's probably more to it that I don't get. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Moves reverted - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:US Airways Flight 1549

We could use some experienced eyes, especially in dealing with aircraft incidents, at Talk:US Airways Flight 1549#Too much unrevealing content about the aircraft. The issue should be self-explanatory. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft additions to WP:AVLIST

You are invited to comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists/draft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sopwith Works at Ham

This image was recently added by User:Kyteto to the Sopwith Camel article, looking at the serials numbers the aircraft at the front are Sopwith Salamanders and the next row appear to be Sopwith Snipes. Any first world war experts can advise if they are actually any Camels in the photo! MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not check the serial numbers of the aircraft; I had found the image in the [Camel Category] over on Wikimedia. If someone does know better, lets have it removed from both the article and the Commons category. Kyteto (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The categorisation as a Camel was down to me - I interpreted just one serial as F8576, but it's actually F6576, a Salamander. Commons file now amended to suit.PeterWD (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the XC-99?

If you look at Convair XC-99#2000s and onwards, you get about six different answers to this question, in order, ending with "Although this article contains a number of references to information about the XC-99..."! If anyone is familiar with the story here, it would be great if they could trim out the self-contradictory parts - I would do it, but by this point I'm fairly thoroughly confused... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I exterminated the obvious editorializing and left it with the statement to Flight Journal. More could be trimmed to bring it into line. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I hacked the whole thing back, there was so much muddle, repetition and conflicting or unnecessary detail - the plane being moved back to where it already was, stuff like that. I wonder if it will stick. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both! Reads a lot better now. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

USAF Museum links

More of an FYI...the National Museum of the US Air Force seems to have changed/updated their links to the factpages of each aircraft in their (large) collection. These pages are sources in dozens of Wikipedia aircraft articles- mostly in the "aircraft on display" sections. I'm combing through my own watchlist to update articles as I have time, but wanted to let others know this task was out there. Cheers!Skyraider1 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

International Luftfahrt Museum

I would like to create an an article on the International Luftfahrt Museum at Villingen-Schwenningen after a recent visit (my third). I am hesitant as the best source I can find is the local flying club's webpage which has a page detailing a brief history. There is no article on Wiki:de. The museum contains some rare aircraft types that we have articles for but no photographs, I have many to upload to Commons. If you chaps think it would be ok to use this source (and would support the article at any AfD discussion) I will create it. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The museum does get a mention in the town's tourist website which I would assume is reliable (local government). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Orbital airship

The orbital airship article looks to me like a single commercial company pushing an impossible scam. I have started a discussion on its talk page at Is this for real?. Contributions gratefully received. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that the vast majority of sources are either primary, or forums, there may be just barely enough information to say it isn't a hoax or scam. The fact remains that it is theoretical, and as such does not appear to be notable. I'm not sure where it falls per Wikipedia guidelines. The volunteer organization promoting the idea is described by one source as "More than just a group of amateurs, yet not quite a full-fledged company..." I'm not sure that we keep articles on theories, and this one appears pretty fringe. Scr★pIron^IV 15:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Books

Wikipedia:Book says you can compile selected articles into a book for either online reading as a pdf or even to buy a printed copy. So I had a play and came up with a draft. It is making me think more about the presentation of articles: I wonder whether we should try to design our articles more with such books in mind. Please share any thoughts in the main discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Wiki Books. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not reply here. (I moved one comment across: thx for beating me to it.)

Flexible wing

Hi, I have rescued Flexible wing from a redirect and created a new article. More eyes/fingers welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Naming aircraft

Hi,

A disagreement has brewed up over linking to articles in lists of aircraft. Petebutt (talk · contribs) edited the List of canard aircraft to change links such as [[Gossamer Condor|MacCready Gossamer Condor]] to plain [[Gossamer Condor]]. I suggested on their talk page that it would be better to move the article to MacCready Gossamer Condor in line with WP:AIR/NC but have been rebuffed. Second opinions welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming is pretty clear on this: "The naming of aircraft articles should follow a standard format of manufacturer-designation-name". - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

But sometimes CommonName trumps our convention and sometimes an aircraft takes its name from its designer or sponsor (AD Seaplane Type 1000). Most all AeroVironment's famous craft seem to have their singular titles perhaps because they are one-offs. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Deutsch de la Meurthe Cup → Coupe Deutsch de la Meurthe

Today I have created a new article using the translation of the French Wikipedia name, and requested a rename via Requested moves, but it has been rejected. I believe it should get the proper French name, because the Coupe (cup) is a titled object and competition, and is almost universally referred to in contemporary English, US and French references as "Coupe Deutsch de la Meurthe". I invite comments and appropriate action. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

note. new article at Deutsch de la Meurthe Cup, currently Coupe Deutsch de la Meurthe redirects to Henri Deutsch de la Meurthe.

A quick Google suggest that "Deutsch de la Meurthe Cup" is the more common, e.g. a search on "Deutsch de la Meurthe" and aeroplane turned up these:[1],[2]. For more about this kind of issue, see WP:COMMONNAME. I think you will need some comprehensive sourcing to justify any other title. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've searched Flight 1920-40 for de la Meurthe, and sampled two pages pages of hits, not all of which were about the contests (several produced members of the family). From the relevant 23 hits, 9 used Cup and 14 Coupe. I got the non-quantitative impression that Coupe was used most in the 20s and Cup in the 30s. So there is no standard pre-war form, no right answer, and I can't see that what we use matters much, so long as the alternative is present as a redirect. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is now. :-) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Swiss Air Force

User:FFA P-16 has been adding information on the Swiss Air Force articles about the Hornet and Puma solo display teams and has been ignoring the challenge to the addition and keeps adding the text, anybody with an interest in this your comments are welcome on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

On a related note to do with solo single aircraft display aircraft please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo Türk has been raised. MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

And the F-16 Demo Team ? FFA P-16 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

One thing at a time? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Flitfire aircraft listing

There is currently a discussion going on as to whether this article should include a complete list of all 49 aircraft by serial number and registration or not at Talk:Flitfire#List_of_each_aircraft. In many ways this is a larger issue of including WP:TRIVIA lists in aircraft articles, so some additional input from more editors would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Ivchenko AI-24. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Let_L-410_Turbolet#Merger_proposal and Draft:Let 410NG. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MH-60CZ Multi-Role Helicopter

The article MH-60CZ Multi-Role Helicopter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lacks verifiability, notability, and credibly - appears to be a promotional piece per WP:NOTADVERTISING

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"Type" list categories

Category:Aircraft by type and Category:Lists of aircraft by type mix roles such as bomber aircraft with design configurations such as flying wings. I think these should be separated under different categories. I also think that the word "type" is a bad choice as it often means the manufacturer's designation, rather than the role or design configuration. I'd suggest that this category be split into two new ones and the present ambiguous category be abandoned. New names might be:

• Category:Lists of aircraft by role
• Category:Lists of aircraft by design configuration

What do you think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - the current choice gives is ambiguous as to which of two different ways of organizing the links is being used, and neither is the obvious choice for all types.NiD.29 01:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Piper M350

A new editor has created Piper M350. I think this is related to the Piper PA-46, but I can't tell from either article. Does anyone know what this is? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

See [3]. As you thought, it's a PA-46 development - I think a merge may be in order.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a Piper PA-46 - merge! - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking it needed to be merged too. Also, the photo on the new article is probably not useable, but I'm not certain. - BilCat (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah the photo has been challenged, looks like it is not acceptable as "fair use". - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger  Done - Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. - BilCat (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The merge has been questioned at Talk:Piper_PA-46#Piper_P350. - Ahunt (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft - templated headings?

I have created a trial template and documentation. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Lists of aircraft - templated headings?. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

ICON Aircraft

An editor has proposed adding a new section of text to this article that he claims shows that all the ICON A5 aircraft are likely to be grounded in 2018 when the FAA LSA exemption for this type expires. More input from Aircraft Project editors to help come to a consensus on including this text or not would be useful at Talk:ICON Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have a sock- or meat-puppet working on the article now, yet has no other edits. Also, to be honest, I don't know anything about FAA exemptions, and the added material makes absolutely no sense to me as an uninformed user in this area. It certainly needs to be rewritten for clarity and understanding, and needs to be removed until that at least os done. Perhaps it's time to pursue page protection. - BilCat (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• The text on this should be worked into the normal sections and not given undue weight with a separate section. With that said, it looks a bit like forecasting. I suggest just stating something like "The ICON A5's FAA LSA exemption is to expire in 2018." and leave it at that. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The second account's comment on the talk page was very partisan. I don't think we should make any edit unless and until the encyclopedic significance of this tidbit can be verified by reliable sources. After all, there are three years for the company to find its way ahead. What makes this three-year gap significantly unpromising? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in the discussion, all FAA exemptions are required to have expiry dates and are routinely renewed when required, so the fact that this exemption has an expiry date is not notable, which is why no aviation media have written about it and no refs exist to show notability. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That sounds pretty final. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that at all, what I am saying is that there is a risk of the exemption being rescinded or not being renewed. In the FAA's own documents to Icon Aircraft it clearly states "This exemption terminates on June 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded", and I have provided evidence proving the FAA's own words, please read the document and tell me the FAA did not say that.Yolie417 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As I have said several times all FAA exemptions are required to have expiry dates and they all get routinely renewed when required. You aren't going to convince anyone that there is a risk that the exemption will not be routinely renewed unless you can provide a reliable ref that says that. I have searched for one and I can't find one. Unless you have one I suggest it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - Ahunt (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Parasol wing

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/Parasol wing. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

American Aviation Historical Society

A new collection of images just released on Flickr - looks like they're mostly USAF sourced and marked "no known copyright restrictions". Might be of interest... Andrew Gray (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force

An editor has mixed styling edits contray to WP:AVLIST with other content edits at List of aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force and is expecting me to unpick their mess. I have to go offline for a day or so. If anybody can follow this through, I'd appreciate it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion first flight

Two IPs are claiming that the first flight of the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion, has occurred, but I've found now mention of this in a quick Google search. I've removed this 3 times as premature/unsourced. Any help in finding sources for this, assuming it's actually happened, would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You would expect there to be an official press release at http://www.sikorsky.com/Pages/Products/Military/CH53/CH53K.aspx but it isn't there!! - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A different IP has finally posted a source. - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the Marines have announced it before the company have done so. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Dynamic Sport

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/Dynamic Sport. - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Help sought on MBB Bo 105

Hello all. I'm trying to expand the coverage of the MBB Bo 105 currently, I felt that the current article doesn't do the topic justice, in particular the Operational History for the type. It's kind of a big job, if anyone has any useful sources to share on its history, particularly on the service and activities performed, or has the time to directly contribute, this would be much appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

List of aircraft by tail number - relisted for deletion

It's dithering time. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aircraft by tail number and give your two penn'orth. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure the "replacement" List of individual aircraft has been thought out, you could add thousands (or more) individual aircraft that considered to be of note, perhaps this needs to to to AfD as well! MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Onboard

It may be peculiar to the part of aviation I work with but the use of "Onboard" is acceptable but the wiki word warriors keep changing it invarious articles to "On board", dont have a reliable source at the moment it could just be me! MilborneOne (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A quick G-search of "on board vs onboard" turned several grammar sites, but none seem to be noted reliable sources. Most echo what Grammrist.com says: "Onboard is one word (sometimes hyphenated—on-board) when it comes before the noun it modifies (e.g., onboard radio, onboard computer). Elsewhere, writers usually make on board two words. For instance, one might write, “We brought a radio on board so we could have an onboard radio.” The US Navy Style Guide recommends using the hyphenated "on-board" as an adjective. - BilCat (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The OED says much the same: on board for the noun, on-board for the adjective.TSRL (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC) The adjectival use seems to be quite recent, with most examples from after 1950.TSRL (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys, it looks like "onboard" is OK in the right context is OK but we are fighting script based word warriors all the time who will probably change it. MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian vandals

Heads up for other similar insertions - not sure if this is widespread but I came across two different articles on where someone has inserted a nonsensical claim that a German design was a copy of a Russian one - the first was the Dornier Do 12 which claimed it was a scaled down Beriev MBR-2, while the other claimed the Junkers Ju 88 was a licence-built Tupolev SB. I won't have time to check others but both were inserted recently by random ips that have made no other aviation related edits. NiD.29 (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of G-ARRP

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/G-ARRP. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wing configuration

Could use some aerodynamic second opinions in a couple of discussions at Talk:Wing configuration: an edit warrior isn't listening. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion request

User:Steelpillow and I have a disagreement about whether Airwolf (helicopter), Blue Thunder (helicopter), etc. belong in List of individual aircraft. Note that both of these examples are also in List of fictional aircraft. Please comment in Talk:List of individual aircraft#fictional aircraft. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This has now been resolved — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Execuflight Flight EFT1526

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/Execuflight Flight EFT1526. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Military operators - lists of aircraft

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists#Military operator lists — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Trapezoidal and elliptical wings

Do these topics merit their own articles? I have started a couple of discussions:

• Trapezoidal wing - see Talk:Trapezoidal wing#Thinking to AfD
• Elliptical wing - see Talk:Elliptical wing#Notability

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

See also section list length

A long-time editor has added 18 (yes, eighteen!) aircraft to the similar aircraft section in the See also template of the CANSA FC.20 article. I'm not trying to pick on the editor, as this was obviously in good faith, but 18 seems likee far too many to me. I'd like to confirm the the project believes the list should be much shorter. Assuming that, could someone with more familiarity with the type of aircraft cut back the list to something shoter? I can't see all those type being completely similar in role, configuration and era, but I don't know enough about the types to feel comfortable cutting it back mysef. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

18 seems excessive, but it does depend on the aircraft. Many of the 18 were marginal and I have removed them - several were postwar types, many filled other roles entirely such as the multiple night fighters added, when no mention is made in the page about being used as a fighter at all.

In the case of a common role/era/configuarion, then only the best known from the major countries should be listed - ie, a several from the US, two or three from the UK, one or two each from France, Russia, Italy, Japan etc.NiD.29 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Lists again

More discussion on the finer points of tabulated lists of aircraft here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft maintenance engineer (Canada)

This article has recently been greatly expanded by a few new editors into a huge, mostly unsourced opinion piece that was not anything like an encyclopedia article. I reviewed all the changes, but it was too much of a WP:COATRACK mess to be able to edit back to something encyclopedic, so I reverted it to the original article. While it was not perfect, the original article was far better than the resulting tome. An editor recently reverted my reversion with the edit summary "Ahunt deleted significant data pertaining to AMEs - This data needs to be available". I have once again reinstated and invited discussion on the talk page. I would appreciate some eyes on this article as well as inputs, as required. - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a little of the Canadian specific text could be added to Aircraft maintenance engineer to cover it. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted it back to a very messy state. The article is now full of unsourced text, much of which is wrong or at least irrelevant, unsourced opinion and no longer written or formatted like an encyclpedia article. I am out of reverts. Can someone else please review this? - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving the Tecnam P2008

Stumbled across this recent article. Surely accidents to light aircraft are too numerous to be notable?TSRL (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Concur. Merge notable accidents, if any, to the aircraft article, sans table and flags. - BilCat (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The user has created another one at List of accidents and incidents involving the Tecnam P2006T. Could a diplomatic editor talk to this user please? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have redirected them back to the main article for now and left a note on user talk page, as has been said light aircraft accidents are rarely notable and unlikley to support a stand-alone page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Likewise,TSRL (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Flightglobal images - proposed mass deletion

See: Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Images_from_FlightGlobal_Archive PeterWD (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That link didn't work for me, this does. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Royal Air Force VIP Voyager

Jsut for info, I have just redirected Royal Air Force VIP Voyager to the A330 MRTT article as it is not really notable for a stand-alone article. 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

List of surviving examples of mass-produced aircraft

I have asked on the the talk page what the rationale behind this article, I cant see it or why I cant add tens of thousands of Cessnas or Pipers to the list! MilborneOne (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Help needed - IP edit warring

An IP located in Alberta, Canada is edit warring to add a ground image to CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. I've warned for 3RR, but they claim we don't have a published guideline. Any help is appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I started a thread on the appropriate T/P so there is now space for discussion on this. I would suggest the IP wanders over to explain their rationale. Irondome (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll join in once I'm able to comment civilly. - BilCat (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Bristol aircraft and engines needing help

Is it possible to ask for some expert help from this wikiproject? I've been trying to deal with some of the issues on the cleanup list for Wikiproject Bristol and several are about aircraft or engines which are outside my comfort zone:

• Bristol Beaufighter has a "clarification needed" tag for the sentence "These tactics were put into practice in mid-1943, and in a 10 month period, 29,762 tons[clarification needed] (27,000 tonnes) of shipping were sunk."
• Bristol Brabazon has a "clarification needed" tag for the sentence "Like the Saunders-Roe Princess, the Brabazon concept was a fusion of prewar and postwar[clarification needed] thinking, using highly advanced design and engineering to build an aircraft that was no longer required in the postwar world."
• Bristol Siddeley Orpheus has a "clarification needed" tag for the sentence "In 1957 NATO ran a competition for a light fighter design, asking for entries in both engine and airframe categories. The Orpheus was the unanimous winner of the engine contest,[clarification needed] and was thus selected to power the Fiat G.91R and G.91T using Fiat-built versions of the engine." (It also has a dead link to an FAA Type Data Certificate)

Stanley Hooker, in his book "Not much of an engineer" states on page 164 "An d the satisfying thing for us was that all three finalists chose the Orpheus as their engine, so Driscoll was able to dip into his pile of dollars and assist us with engine development" Hooker doesn’t mention an engine contest. Also in Flight 13 Feb 1959 (available on the on-line archive) doesn't mention an engine competition it just says "Virtually all the design studies prepared by the interested companies were based on the Bristol Orpheus, and as a result a substantial contribution towards the cost of the initial engine development was made available from the Mutual Weapons Development Programme" page 219 KreyszigB (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Bristol Beaufort has an "expansion tag relating to "1943-44 service and retirement/replacement."
• Bristol Siddeley needs additional references and has unsourced claims ie "The purpose of the new company was to combine the research, engineering and manufacturing resources of the two great component companies to meet the changing demands of the aviation industry", "The company was one of the largest of its kind in the world[6][7] and offered a wider range of engines than any other manufacturer."
• Bristol Type 138 citation needed for "By the 1930s absolute speed and distance records were beyond the resources of individual companies, and required the involvement of national governments"
• Bristol Type 223 unreferenced
• Turbo-Union unreferenced
• Bristol Odin needs additional references

Also on the list are Bristol Filton Airport, which needs additional references and Concorde which has a whole bunch of cleanup tags - unsourced, deadlinks, web citations with no url etc. Any help with any of these would be really appreciated.— Rod ^talk 10:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

138 sorted.TSRL (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC) And Brabazon.TSRL (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Removed the Beaufighter clarification tag, added long (conversion already there, so maybe I didn't understand what the issue was/is)TSRL (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC) I'd forgotten sailors measure volumes in tons - got it now and have tons -> m³!TSRL (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Done a little to 223: spelt out Barnes ref in Refs section and general tidy but more needs doing, chiefly to get cites (some from Barnes) into text. (Later) I've found a decent ref and rebuilt the article around it, keeping what I could. Rem the no refs tag, but the background section still needs a cite, as do four sentences in the STC section.TSRL (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work on these so far. I have done strikethrough on the ones which are now resolved.— Rod ^talk 08:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Help sought on Eurocopter AS565 Panther

Hello there. I've been trying to overhaul Eurocopter AS565 Panther, but I'm struggling to get traction with the newly-created Development section, there just isn't much content and I'm having a difficult time finding any - editors with sources to share or the time to enter it themselves are welcome to contribute. Also, the article has a Variants section that's practically uncited despite over a dozen entries, I can't cite many of these or find any mention of some other than on wiki-mirrors, are there any experts out there who can review and remove as need be? Kyteto (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions so far, it is already looking better. I'd just like to mention that I've also been doing some work on the article for its civilian sister, the Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin: In this article, the Variants section is similarly mainly uncited and could use the same treatment. The Operational History has been a real pig to build up from scratch, if anyone can contribute anything in any of the tasks raised, it would be much appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Repetitive linking in list tables

Some of our list tables have repetitive linking for some items, for example the role of "Fighter" endlessly linked to Fighter aircraft for each type listed. I have found conflicting MOS guidelines about this, so I have started a discussion about Linking on the AVILIST talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Avro Vulcan#Which Vulcans should have their own articles?

This isn't not rocket science, so please just take 5 minutes to give an informed opinion, if only because it will actually improve Wikipedia for readers, who seem to be given a very low priority due to Wikipedia's apparently preferred state of indecision and ambiguity. Natural Ratio (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox and primary users

The documentation for Template:Infobox aircraft type says that up to three users may be added to the more users field among the Primary users but gives no criteria as to what is a "primary user". A problem has arisen with the Dassault Rafale infobox, where Quatar has apparently placed a firm order for some machines but none has yet been delivered, never mind worked up to operational use. AHMED XIV (talk · contribs) asked me about this, as BilCat (talk · contribs) insists on adding it because a firm order has been received and "we" do it that way, but I can find no conformation of this claim as to our criteria. To me, if it is not yet delivered then it may never be and there is no way that Qatar can be a "primary user" yet, but what do I know? Can anybody clarify the point at which we deem an interested party to be a "primary user", please? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

We normally rate primary user by the numbers operated with a free pass sometimes for the home user even if they only operate a small number. MilborneOne (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:AIROPS, "Do not place potential operators in this section, only confirmed orders with likelihood of near-term production. Potential orders and interest by governments should be covered in the main text, either under "Development" or "Operational history", as fits best in the article." So if it's good enough for the Operators section, it should be good enough for the infobox. In fact, that's generally the way it's been done. Honestly, it's difficult enough keeping the potential operators out the Operators section every time a rumor of X nation purchasing Y aircraft comes out. Please don't make it more difficult by adding further restrictions to the infobox too. - BilCat (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. All too often "firm" orders for aircraft get severely cut back, cancelled or unfulfilled, so IMHO anything that has not been actually delivered is pie in the sky, not machines in use. Personally I think that "no deliveries, no user" is a more accurate and therefore clearer guideline and so would create less fuss not more, either that or the caption should be Primary customers. I sympathise with the maintenance problem but Wikipedia is intended for the convenience of its readers not its editors so that should be academic. I do think that Project consensus has lost sight of WP:COMMONSENSE here, but I am not in a mood to challenge it right now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree - if they haven't been delivered, then they haven't used them and are therefore not operators - yet, and should not be listed under operators either - a mention in the text should suffice until then.NiD.29 (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Solo Display Aircraft

Just for information as a follow on to the previous discussions on Swiss solo display aircraft please note that F-16 Demo Team has been proposed for deletion and Solo Display Team has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo Display Team. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)