Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

List of electric aircraft

There is a discussion at Talk:List of electric aircraft#List format about the best format for the List of electric aircraft. Contributions welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of PADC Hummingbird for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PADC Hummingbird is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PADC Hummingbird until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - BilCat (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-consensus list formats appearing

Some new list formats have been added to Template:Avilisthead without any prior discussion - see here. Using them without prior consensus would appear to breach WP:AVILIST. I have started a discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The template documentation lists a "mil-planned", which is essentially same as the added "mil-future" field. If the consensus is against these planned/future tables, then they need to be removed from both the template and its document page to avoid confusion. I'm trying to synch these up for now. This might been to be removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Atmospheric satellite merge proposal

There is a merge discussion where it is being proposed that High-altitude platform station and Geostationary balloon satellite should be merged into Atmospheric satellite. If you are interested, please join in the discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I should say, these are all aircraft, they are not orbital satellites — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do join in, we could really do with some more views here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about vehicles is updated - Skysmith (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Standards?

There are several operators lists of various aircraft types with no references, untouched by editors, yet the list of Boeing 747 operators was targetted and removed with no concern for the time and effort put into compiling that list of every 747 operator in the world, an original operatos list has been put up there now, but what abput all teh rest? whats with the double standards, why arent other aircraft operatrs lists also being dealt with in same manner? 139.190.175.128 (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All lists need to be properly referenced. If the 747 operators list was in fact carefully complied then it must have come from somewhere, you just need to add the refs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• And preferably quality references. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're not getting the point, they have not bothered to deal with any other aircraft operators list after that, why so? these lists have no references, why did they just target the 747 list even if it had the not so favourable sites as references, atlest they were referenced with a good 95% accuracy, and even if the article was not referenced why did they target it and leave all the others as is? why did they do that; kindly deal with those lists as well because this is just not fair, i would like to see them treated in same manner as the 747 operators list was, hope action will be taken regarding this. 139.190.175.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You are free to tag those other articles as needing sources, or you can tell us which articles need sources, and we can try to work on them. There are well over 10,000 aircraft articles on Wikipedia, so any genuine help would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That is precisely the point I was making above. Just because other articles have non-referenced lists that haven't been fixed yet doesn't mean we can't fix this one. There are a huge number of aircraft type articles. The 747 article just happens to have been noticed and edited. Perhaps others have lists that are unreferenced as well? If so these need refs added, too, or, if they cannot be found, then they need tagging and eventually deleting as "not referenced". - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would imagine having found one article worthy of being dealt with, it would have piqued the editors cusiosity to go look up others for same.139.190.175.128 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and we all help out where we can as we can. As you claim there are other articles with non-referenced lists, it should be a simple thing for you to list those articles, as you presumably already know what they are. Your reluctance to do so leaves your claims in doubt. - BilCat (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So you really cant be bothered to look up list of aircraft operators by simply going to the aircraft article like Boeing 737? but you will falsely accuse me of being a liar? is this how wikipedia deal with issues? have the other editors taken note of this? 139.190.175.128 (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, if you have specific articles that you believe are not sourced properly, there are actions that you can take to resolve them, as you've been told before. - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have taken note of this. Nobody is accusing you, only questioning. Please read and abide by WP:CIVIL - if you don't then you can hardly expect your fellow editors to bother with you: you have already seen that gross rudeness gets you summarily dismissed, don't push your luck. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Short Cromarty

User:Rstory has just added this image File:Short_Cromarty.jpg to Short Cromarty, the serial appears to be N126 a Vickers Valentia (the Cromarty was N120) and it doesnt quite look like the image I have seen of the Cromarty [[1]]. Rounded v ">" leading edges of the three fins for one and the horizontal sectioning. Anybody have any evidence either way? MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

They are similar aircraft, but I agree, in comparing field marks the photo looks like a mis-identified Valentia. The original misidentification seems to be here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There are several other images of the same aircraft identifying it as the Cromarty e.g., but to me the fuselage looks too different viz. I have removed the imageYSSYguy (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the photograph is at Cowes?Rstory (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree about the Valentia i/d. Two more reasons are the sloping upper fuselage around the nose compartment and, especially, the clearly visible rear step; a 3-view (in Vickers Aircraft (Pitnam)) of the Cromarty suggests its steps were shallow. Incidentally, it seems [[2]] has been retouched; the photo in Barnes Pitnam book shows the Cromarty from an identical angle and with the same people at the same places, but with "Short Bros" in large, bright and distracting letters on the hanger door. These are not shown in the other version. Looks to have been carefully done though, seemingly without affecting the aircraft.TSRL (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The file name has now been changed to File:Vickers Valentia flying boat.jpg. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Cat to watch

Just created today Category:Aircraft by year of introduction with one child Category:Aircraft introduced in 1978 which I have just removed from the F-16 article. Aircraft are categorised by first flight using the "Country type aircraft decade" system so I dont think another layer of "introduced in" is required. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Fifth-generation jet fighters

Oh dear todays new category is Category:Fifth-generation jet fighters. MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 29#Category:Fifth-generation jet fighters MilborneOne (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

He 111 and Videos

User:Flightsoffancy has created some home made videos on youtube about the Heinkel He 111 and is seeking to add them to the article, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I (Flightsoffancy) have studied early German bombers since 2004 and I have not found a correct illustration of the He 111 turret operations. These series of videos were created on the last He 111 in Norway so offer a detail not found anywhere else. I have written a series of articles for the game War Thunder, an example is this on the | Wellington (future publications in works). I am open on how the videos are presented. Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion at Talk:Heinkel He 111 and not here. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Air14

Air14 is an article about a recent swiss airshow that appears to have been copied from German wikipedia, I proposed deletion but it has been removed. I have removed long lists of static aircraft and individual performances but while I think about an AfD it still has lots of guff in it. Is it really notable as a one-off air display? its not actually mentioned on the Swiss Air Force page. Are long lists of performances and static aircraft really needed? MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Also the WP:PROD was removed from F/A-18C Mock-up. too. - Ahunt (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Concur on both, and sent the "mocke u" to AFD. We seriously need to look into a new article creation ban for this "user". He has demonstrated absolutely no ability to discern what is "noabel". - BilCat (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As a simplified version Air14 would be good for Wiki, no? Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Purhops, assouming somewone fleunt in Englicsh writed it.. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The article should cover all the Air airshows like other annual/bi-annual/etc airshows, not 1 occurance. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Graphical timeline of USAF fighter aircraft

Is Template:Graphical timeline of USAF fighter aircraft really necessary? - BilCat (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No,we had a discussion on Template:Graphical timeline of USN fighter jets in 2014, which didnt involve getting them deleted but should not be added to articles. Perhaps its time to put them to rest as it removes the temptation to add them. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New stub: Shooting Star (drone)

Project members are invited to help improve the newly-created Shooting Star (drone) article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a Prod/AfD candidate. I really don't see how it can be improved without turning it into an advert. - BilCat (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

COI Help on Solar Impulse Page

Hi… I’m Jeremy Lovey from Solar Impulse. I’m looking for someone to help me fix some inaccuracies on the Solar Impulse article. (Here’s my original Talk page post.) Obviously I have a conflict-of-interest, so I’m wondering if I can prevail upon any WP:Aviation volunteers? Would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. -- Jeremy Solar (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Help needed at Cessna 208 Caravan

I'm involved in a dispute at the Cessna 208 Caravan article, see the recent edit history since 15 February 2017 and Talk:Cessna 208 Caravan#Returning to this topic. Please help resolve the problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

HF F.20

Hi, I have been exhaustively informed by several anoraks in England that a Henri Farman F.20 is a HF F.20 and not a Farman HF.20 as we have it. Can we rectify it? Comment? A TPS (MilborneOne) comment pointed out to me that all of Henri Farman's aircraft appear in wikipedia as "Farman HF.XX" so I'm asking this question here as it would change a number of different articles, thanks. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Liron's book (Liron, J.L. (1984). Les avions Farman. Paris: Éditions Larivière.), which is one of the authoritative Docavia series on French aircraft, has it as Henry [sic] Farman HF.20 (pages 31, 46).TSRL (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Leonardo DRS T-100 Integrated Training System

An article that you have been involved in editing—Leonardo DRS T-100 Integrated Training System—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Multi-function display

Multi-function display is up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-function display. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Airbus A320 family/GA2

The nominating-editor that I have been working with on this GA Review (Class455) does not have a lot of time over the next week or so to work on adjusting the article per my requests. I am participating in the most recent GA Cup and would like to finish up my Review before the end of the month. If someone from this Project could step in and lend a hand that would be very helpful, there aren't really all that many issues left. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I'm willing but I'm inexperienced.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Call for input on Fuel economy in aircraft

I request input from other members of the Aviation Project, at Talk:Fuel_economy_in_aircraft (see the <Edit, 29 March> fourth, third and second sections from the end of the page). For the past two weeks I have been attempting to make a good faith edit to the article's sections "Changes in commercial aircraft fuel economy since the 1950s" and "Jet aircraft efficiency". My edits have been repeatedly reverted by one user, for reasons that I believe lack substance and by means that I believe are otherwise unfair. The Talk discussion has been only between the two of us, so I am writing here in hopes of broadening the discussion in the article's Talk page.

The edit I have been attempting to make retains the section heading "Changes in commercial aircraft fuel economy since the 1950s," and replaces the text of both sections with new text and the use of new subsection headings. The most recent version of my edit (I have made some refinements to it in attempted reposts during the two weeks) is HERE. There are several reasons for my edit. It adds a second, overlooked perspective from a primary reference that was used in the original text. It improves the flow, composition and structure of the article. And in several respects it adds new, relevant information concerning fuel economy. Importantly, the article is flagged as "Start Class," "needing immediate attention," and I believe my edit improve the article in those regards.

Review of the situation by members of the project is invited. Coastwise (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Because a new section a has been added to the above referenced Talk page, I just made an edit above to direct to the correct sections there. Still hoping that some project members will review the dispute. Coastwise (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Operators lists

WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS advises For civil aircraft types that have a large number of operators, many of whom may have just one or two aircraft, instead of listing them all, a general statement can be made, as applicable to the role and operators of the individual aircraft type [...] A mention may be made of particularly large fleet operators. is often taken to an extreme where very few civil operators are cited, whatever their size, but the military operator list is exhaustive : Beech 1900, ATR 42, Cessna 208, or with every former operators whatever their importance: Let L-410, BAe Jetstream, Metroliner, Beech 99 with the same layout based on definition lists where each one takes two lines. I tried to make it shorter with a table for the caravan but was reverted as it was unusual. A limit for what constitutes a large operator would be useful : 1% of the fleet, 2%, 5%; the top 10/top 20?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You can understand that we dont want to list every operator of a Cessna twin, cherokee or biz jet where hundreds could exist so the large fleet operators was introduced. This was to allow mainly listing fleet operators that had a wikipedia article rather than individuals charter and private companies. We have never really agreed "large" but I would have thought it would have to be in double figures to get a mention. Another discussion agreed that all military operators were notable whatever the size. This is all as a result of compromise and consensus. The table was just different to what has been done on all the other thousands of articles and the project tries to be consistent when it can. Dont have a problem with you trying to change the consensus by making new suggestions, it may not always look like it but we are open to new ideas and suggestions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply @MilborneOne: I understand the need for consistency. Could you point me towards the "all military operators were notable whatever the size" discussion ? This is so inconsistent, eg. I was looking the Beechcraft Super King Air, obviously a general aviation type, but it shows more military operators than an attack jet. It looks like a strong military bias, and it don't look good for Wikipedia. But if it is the case, it should be mentioned in WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't really care about how it looks, but I suspect that military operators are more prominent than commercial ones because a government is fundamentally more important than any company.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A 1M people organization is more important than a 1 thousand people one, but when both operates the same number of an aircraft type, there is no reason one should be more notable in an article on the AC type. If it had been discussed before, I would be glad to see this discussion. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

refer Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 34#Operators for last discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Thanks for the pointer. I doesn't looks like a broad consensus : You didn't look favorable, as User:TSRL, but User:The Bushranger was inclusionist (but he looks like a military fan) as User:NiD.29 (the same). 2 vs. 2, not really a landslide. I do think a separate List of operators, whether military or not, should be used above a readability limit, 10 largest operators maybe. Since WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS doesn't distinguish between civil and military, I will create a list subarticle when I encounter this situtaion. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

e.g. List of Beechcraft King Air operators

As in all these things a lot more scope for inclusion is normal for these sub-articles but we need to make sure it doesnt grow into a list of almost individual and non-notable owners/operators. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we confine ourselves to say a List of main operators? These to include, for example, fleets of five or more, fleets of more than 10% of the total produced, or operators whose use is notable for other reasons such as famous events. So a military operator of a couple of spamcans would not count, an operator of two out of only 17 made would count, and an operator of a craft involved in a notorious hijacking with its own article would also count. Just a thought for discussion, not a firm proposal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I've created a list of operators for the cited types (see Category:Lists of aircraft operators by aircraft type), and kept the ~top ten operators according to flight's airliner census.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2017 Snowdonia helicopter crash

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/2017 Snowdonia helicopter crash. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary Template

{{avisummarybytype|combat=319|recon=103|transport=40|training=64|ah=56|uh=190|hc=|glider=}}

Any idea if this template was discussed anywhere it appears in about 11 air force articles, if it is a good idea then we should use it more widely but if it is a bit glaring and to fancy for an encyclopedia then we should remove it. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Too glaring for me, and not really needed. Send to TfD. - BilCat (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

For reference it is found here: Template:Avisummarybytype and an example of use can be found here: Abkhazian Air Force#Aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The idea seems okay, but it needs some serious work. Basically the aircraft silhouettes are too large and dwarf the numbers which are really the point of the table. - Ahunt (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be interested to see how it fits in with what was agreed for the type lists but I dont think I have seen User:Steelpillow around for a few weeks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't care for the silhouettes and believe they are unnecessary. Samf4u (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't see the point of the silhouettes; what information do they add that the words don't provide?TSRL (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

.....I agree the silhouettes do not add info and probably chosen for perceived but not proven aesthetic. One could be bold and simply remove images from the template... GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I was bold - which must mean the usage above doesn't show the problematic images anymore. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed it! - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

^ Good, problem solved. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, been grabbed by the outside world in no uncertain terms recently. @MilborneOne: This is not really a list of aircraft but a list of stats about aircraft, so I don't think that the current content of WP:AVILIST is very relevant. But Wikipedia's overall guidelines are. The first question must be, do we want this data presented in table form? My vote would be no, in the modern world of multirole aircraft the division into specific roles such as these is nigh-on meaningless. But if this project likes the idea then the next question is, does the current format meet Wikipedia's guidelines? I'd again say no, and for several reasons. A table with a single row of data is just appalling presentation, almost anything else would be better, say a bulleted list. All that conditional coding is utterly pointless and unmaintainable by most aircraft editors. There is too much gratuitous styling which needs to be pulled out. All in all, the simplest solution is outright deletion of the template and of any article sections whose sole reason for existence is to invoke it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments and particularly Steelpillow for popping in from the real world, consensus here is that we should take it to TfD as it serves no purpose, I will do it soon if somebody doesnt do it first. MilborneOne (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Deletion Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_12#Template:Avisummarybytype MilborneOne (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft Manufacturer

Project may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aero Ltd. MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded the article and added refs. The article can now be retained at AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sonaca 200

Just had a tidy up of Sonaca 200 following a request at WT:AVIATION, it has a lead image of the "prototype" registered OO-SON but it appears to be just a re-badged Sling 2 flown from South Africa to Belgium to act as a pattern aircraft. Anybody have any more on this? MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Translation needed

I noticed there are many aviation articles only on the Russian Wikipedia that don't exist on the English Wikipedia or redirect to the class of aircraft. If anyone wants to help me with translating, here's the list:

• Antonov An-6 (on RU Wikipedia)
• Antonov An-188 (on RU Wikipedia)
• Antonov An-158 (on RU Wikipedia)
• Antonov An-168 (on RU Wikipedia)
• Antonov OKA-38 (on RU Wikipedia)
• KOMTA (on RU Wikipedia)
• Myasishchev DB-108 (on RU Wikipedia)
• Myasishchev 3M (on RU Wikipedia)
• Myasishchev M-17 (on RU Wikipedia)
• Myasishchev M-30 (on IT Wikipedia)
• Ilyushin Il-90 (on ES Wikipedia)

Thanks :) --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism measure(s)?

Not been very active here lately but I do keep an eye on my watchlist. I don't usually fight vandalism but will use rollback when it's obvious. I see subtle vandalism to figures in specification sections, often just one figure being changed (eg. 21 ft 11 in to 21 ft 10 in and similar). It appears to be a test but sometimes causes me to dig the books out and double check, particularly if it involves an article that I created (mistakes are always possible!).

If a specification section has been completed and cited using reliable sources and checked thoroughly there should be very little need to amend figures in the future, any 'corrections' would be unnecessary. I had the idea to add a hidden nowiki note in these sections to state that the figures had been checked (with a date and editor ID) or that this could be added as a parameter in the templates. Checking changed figures in sections with this note would become far easier and reversion would not require any research.

Do others see this problem happening? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any system to assist apart from the different protection levels which are rarely applied to aircraft articles. Is my idea mad?!!!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I do see editors, especially IPs, changing specs often, uncited, of course. Usually it turns out to be WP:OR more than vandalism, though. In the case of vandalism, this is covered briefly as something to watch out for at WP:SNEAKY, though. I also have been sent scurrying to the original paper refs or the TCDS to confirm the original spec was right. Usually they are, but sometimes an IP has caught a transcription error. - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to IP bash but..., it's possibly the same one doing this. OR is common as is our friends with calculators on engine displacements. It's frustrating as the community seems to allow this stuff to continue without appreciating the detrimental effects on editors, one for Jimbo?

I don't think it's against policy to add hidden notes, we already use them in infoboxes and other places (not that they appear to be heeded!). Could be trialled on a high traffic article to see if it works? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Total belt and braces would be to add the same hidden note after each and every checked parameter, would clutter the coding but deter the meddlers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I know of no policy that would prevent, so please do give it a try. - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems dangerous to rely on hidden notes to keep an article factually correct : a vandal could also change them, and they would appear correct even if false (see WP:REFLOOP). We must facilitate WP:Verifiability, so placing data in hidden notes isn't the best way to ensure that it is correct. To make verification easy, either find online refs (with flightglobal archives it's easy) or take a picture of your print reference and share it, eg [3]. 10 secs With a smartphone. We could also certify in the talk page a rev id to be reviewed by multiple editors, to permit rollback to a correct rev.--Marc Lacoste (talk)

I hadn't considered vandals vandalising anti-vandalism measures! Revision ID might work. Another possibility is some kind of bot marking code, a change is made, the bot reverts it with a message to visit the talk page if the change is genuine and needed, the bot's edit is overridden or kept.

There is the pending changes system which I've never seen used in this project but is actually the way that some other language Wikipedias deal with every edit, the German wiki appears to use flagged revisions for every article even if you have an account. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The universal modification access of wikipedia is its foundation. My preference goes to have an easy verifiability : an IP editor can revert vandalism easily too. Flagged Revisions is neat, though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Would agree that it is very easy to check specifications cited with a link or PDF, especially when it is from the manufacturer or airworthiness authority like the FAA but older and more obscure aircraft/engine types are generally confined to paper (or possibly the Flightglobal archive) which means a laborious checking process before reversion/rollback. Many websites are using Wikipedia's figures complete with mistakes which is amusing, especially when they are used here as 'reliable sources'. In the meantime I guess we just live with this annoyance. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

take a pic!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

For some general info on such comments, see Help:Comment tags. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Operators

In the Saab JAS 39 Gripen article, there are a list of operators by country. Many articles have this. For the Gripen, Sweden isnear the bottom as it starts with S.

What do others think of placing the biggest user first? Or the biggest 2-3 users first then alphabetical?

Vanguard10 (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is the best format in the Operators section, as some lists can get quite long, and with alpha order it is easier to find a specific country alphabetically. The Users list in the infobox is generally the 4 largest users, and the originating nation is usually first. - BilCat (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical can be useful but it's also the least informative order. With only a few operators but with long details for each, a short recap in introduction could be useful, eg.

There are 158 Gripen in Air Force service : Sweden operates 74 Es and 24 Ds and ordered 60 Es (and 10 pending), South Africa 17 Cs and 9 Ds, Czech Republic 12 Cs and 2 Ds, Hungary 11 Cs and 1 D, Thailand 8 Cs, and Brazil ordered 28 Es and 8 Fs (and 72 pending).

I'm being bold and added that.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash

We are having a discussion at Talk:2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash about how much detail from the initial investigation report to include in this article. Input from more editors would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Going off the tangent for a moment... the other day an almost identical accident occurred in Portugal (twin turboprop crashed on built-up area shortly after take off [4]) with four fatalities plus one on the ground, yet nobody seems to mind here, unlike the Essendon crash. It's this lack of consistency that bothers me a bit; I don't think either crash should warrant a standalone article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, they are both light aircraft accidents, just like car accidents they happen everyday, as you noted here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Lilium Jet

The Lilium Aviation jet has just been added to List of electric aircraft based on a video of the first flight released by the company (see http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15369850/lilium-jet-flying-car-first-flight-vtol-aviation-munich) Although pictures are shown of the two-seat prototype all the flying images appear to be a scale model with no external markings (I would have expected to to carry a registration if legally flown). Has anybody any independent evidence other than the video that the prototype has actually flown? MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Verge article is a bit confusing. It says it is an electric aircraft and then says it is powered by jet engines. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The list has been amended to indicate that when The Verge says "jet engines" they mean ducted fans. Not quite WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of some cited sources

There is a short and arbitrary-looking list of Blohm & Voss aircraft projects at Blohm + Voss#Design projects. I am coming here because I would like some more general views on the reliability of the cited sources. Existing articles linked to from the list manage between them to cite the following sources:

Books:

• Jean-Denis Lepage; Aircraft of the Luftwaffe, 1935-1945: An Illustrated Guide.
• Myhra, David (1998); Secret Aircraft Designs of the Third Reich, Atglen, Schiffer.
• Nowarra, Heinz (1983); Die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945, Bonn, Bernard and Graefe.

Websites:

• Luft '46.
• A I Bruce; "Blohm & Voss operated Hamburger Flugzeugbau aircraft company", Wehrmacht-history.com.
• www.airvectors.net/avhe162.html
• Ulrich Albrecht: Artefakte des Fanatismus; Technik und nationalsozialistische Ideologie in der Endphase des Dritten Reiches (German)
• Rickard, J (16 September 2010). "Blohm und Voss Bv 237". historyofwar.org.
• Nowarra, Heinz J. "Blohm und Voss Bv 237". panzertrupen.org.
• www.histaviation.com
• Tanks45.tripod.com

I would assume that Myrha and Nowarra are reliable sources, but what about the rest? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nowarra certainly is reliable, as he is a well known and published historian. Tanks45.tripod.com would have been WP:SPS, but doesn't even exist anymore. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Now purged of tripod.com. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Antonov An-325 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antonov An-325 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonov An-325 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - BilCat (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Overhaul of Avro Lancaster

Hello WP:Aircraft. After four years or so on my to-do list, I have finally set about the overhaul of the famous wartime bomber, the Avro Lancaster. This is a gigantic task, both due to the size of the article involved but the sheer importance and amount of history to cover. There are many tags in places where citation is still needed, particularly in the Design and Variants section; are you able to help? Kyteto (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest the "Flypast: Bomber Command Special Issue" if you can find it. It has some very interesting facts and pictures about the Lancaster. Jak474 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Breda-Zappata BZ.309

An attempt has been made recently to redirect Breda-Zappata BZ.309 to the manufactuers page as it was an abandoned project. Most of the stuff on Google are wikipedia mirrors or books made from wikipedia. Anybody have any info and sources that can be added to the article to show it was of note? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is a proposal to move Pilot (aeronautics) to Aviator at Talk:Pilot (aeronautics)#Requested move 8 May 2017. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 42/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Aircraft, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

first trans-Pacific flight pages

(copied from the Aviation project page) I've only learned about this topic recently, and have fiddled with some edits, but must say that this seems to be one of the most underreported major historical events in aviation and world history. The first non-stop trans-Pacific flight, with only one remaining artifact - the plane's propeller, I'd say that it's a national treasure, exhibited in the state of Washington near the plane's landing site - and the pilot and co-pilot telling interesting circumstances and tales about this flight (by the way, we have no article on the co-pilot of the first non-stop trans-Pacific flight if anyone would like to have a go at it) I've come here to ask the project to take a look at working on, improving, and linking the following articles: Miss Veedol, Clyde Pangborn, Hugh Herndon, and Wenatchee Valley Museum & Cultural Center. Thanks. History is so great when you come upon something new like this, at least new for me, and realizing that the world has underappreciated a historical event and artifact. I'd say that as an artifact the propeller is in a group just below the Syng inkstand as important but little-known American objects. I wish we had a picture of it. Randy Kryn 02:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Before this gets archived, does anyone have an image of the aircraft? This event is one of the most historic aviation achievements, and should be surrounded by related good or feature articles. Randy Kryn 13:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Intercept

Please see here! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Cunningham-Hall PT-6

Just for information I reverted an addition of an historic site infobox on the Cunningham-Hall PT-6 article. The article covers more than one aircraft so I dont think it is appropriate, if an individual aircraft is really an Historic Site then I would suggest that it has a stand-alone article (although I cant actually see anything particlularly notable about the individual aircraft other than it is declared an historic site). MilborneOne (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

An aircraft is not a site and the National Register of Historic Places makes no mention of such artefacts, by "structures and objects" it means things in the landscape like bridges and tombs. The template was inappropriate and you were right to revert it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

To answer Steelpillow: NRHP listing for Cunningham-Hall Pt-6,Nc-692W (serial #2962) (the variety of weird objects that got enlisted in NRHP is almost funny, there are boats, planes, submarines, submerged wrecks and every sort of manufact). Agree not to add it again, even if honestly i can't see anything inappropriate about putting an NRHP infobox on that article (maybe could have created a separate section - the fact one of the planes is listed in NRHP *is* actually mentioned in the article). The Cunningham-Hall PT-6 article is linked in National Register of Historic Places listings in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska and i'm actually reviewing and improving those listings. Will create I've created its own article here (contributions welcome. According to the infos i got, it's one of the only two remaining PT-6 around) ProprioMe OW (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

i'd have left it as a single section within this article. If you add all the context to the new article , it'd just be duplicating. As an aside, seem to be so many things on the NRHP that notability of being on the NHRP is devalued.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected. Only in America, sigh. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft by year of introduction

User:Uli Elch has created a new category tree Category:Aircraft by year of introduction and is adding them to articles, previous discussion and consensus here was that we would not use the introduction cats but use the well established decade by first flight categories. I have asked them stop adding these categories and we may have to take them for deletion unless consensus here changes. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all: I have not added a category "Aircraft introduced in 19xx" to any aircraft article. Instead, I have changed existing categories of the "1961 introductions" type to be more detailed, like in the case of the Maule M-4. That means, I have not invented any category additions to aircraft files, but attempted to improve previously existing ones.

Currently, in "the well established decade by first flight categories", there is nothing like a brief, general overview of newly introduced aircraft types. Instead, there are thousands of tiny bits split up into a mass of sub-categories. An example:

First flight Piper PA-28 Cherokee: > Category:Aircraft 1960–1969 > Category:United States aircraft 1960–1969 > Category:United States civil aircraft 1960–1969 > Category:United States civil utility aircraft 1960–1969 (or the other way around).

By simply putting existing data into a slightly expanded category tree you can check the novelties at one glance, see Category:Aircraft by year of introduction. This is an absolutely logical (and hitherto missing) addition to Category:Vehicles by year of introduction.

Unfortunately, MilborneOne has already started to revert the majority of entries before this discussion has even begun, like in the case of the Piper PA-42 Cheyenne. Thereby he has already emptied some of the new categories. I strongly suggest to stop this practice until this discussion has been concluded. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I find the current /type of aircraft by country and decade introduction/ not the best way, I would prefer a /aircraft type/ + /aircraft by coutry/ + /aircraft by year/ categories.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the definition of "Aircraft introduced in XXXX" ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

entering service?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett has a good point. I agree with MilborneOne that dating by year of "introduction" is not appropriate for aircraft. In aviation, as Marc suggests, it means the year a type was introduced into operational service. But unlike automobiles, planes often take many years to progress from first flight to operational service, or in many cases are never introduced into service. It is customary to date aircraft by the year of first flight and Wikipedia should do the same. That said, appropriate categories would be a good idea, for reasons broadly as given by Uli Elich. What we need is Category:Aircraft by date of first flight and lots of Category:Aircraft first flown in 1904 etc. sub-categories. I also agree with Marc that the decade-based system does strike one as strange. Perhaps a good year-based system would help us see whether that decade-based system is useful in its own right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree the intro year isn't as relevant as first flight.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both Marc Lacoste and Steelpillow. "Introduction" may not be a good definition, since for many aircraft neither the date when it was introduced into operational service nor of first delivery is available. The first flight date, however, is at hand for almost all aircraft. Therefore, a system of Category:Aircraft first flown in 1904 etc. could be installed by simply renaming the disputed current Category:Aircraft by year of introduction. In this case the parent Category:Vehicles by year of introduction could also be kept in place, if we agree to consider the first flight as "introduction". --Uli Elch (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. Each "Category:Aircraft first flown in [year]" could also be added to "Category:Vehicles introduced in [year]". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with "Aircraft first flown in year" categories but as we have previously discussed in the past "introduced" is not appropriate for aircraft. For it to work we need to avoid efforts to use categories like "Fighter aircraft first flown" in or other variants like "Blue aircraft with large wheels first flown in" as it would reduce the value of the flown in year category (an exaggeration but similar things have happened in the past). MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What about a category "Blue aircraft with green wheels first flown in 19xxx" instead? --Uli Elch (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

LOL. Remind me to write a learned reference work on Abuse of Wikipedia so that all such horrors can be reliably sourced and categorised. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

When listening to the prevailing Sound of Silence, I have the impression that we all agree about the introduction of a new (additional) slim category tree concerning first flight years. Here is an attempt for a proposal:

1) New categories like Category:Aircraft first flown in 1964 etc. will be created one by one.

> Parent category A: Category:Vehicles introduced in 1964

> Parent category B: Category:Aircraft by year of first flight, alternatively "... by date of first flight"

The few existing categories of the "Aircraft introduced in" type can simply be renamed.

2) Only one additional level of parent categories is required: Category:Aircraft by year of first flight, alternatively "... by date of first flight"

> Parent category A: Category:Vehicles by year of introduction

> Parent category B: Category:Aircraft.

The existing category "Aircraft by year of introduction" can simply be renamed.

3) After careful consideration it appears that the creation of a new category "Blue aircraft with large green wheels first flown in 19xxx" needs further discussion and will be postponed until further notice.

If I have missed or misunderstood something, please let me know. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget Parent category C, Category:1964 in aviation etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Graeme has a point. Other than that, it looks good to me. I'd just say, stick with "year". It is what is used elsewhere. And if you use "date" then people will start creating categories for every flippin' day. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how the first flight lists in "year in aviation" match up, it can only improve the articles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. When creating the categories I have actually found some errors in articles (or dates missing in en:WP). And the "19xx in aviation" first flight lists are in very different maintenance conditions and can be vastly improved and expanded. --Uli Elch (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

How long is this herding of cats going to go on? It's bloating my watchlist, and there's no way to hide these edits as they're not tagged as minor edits. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Does HotCat support minor edits? Would be a kind thing to do now that the principle is established. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. HotCat does not support minor edits; sorry. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed that in the Norwegian Wikipedia pure category changes by HotCat are automatically flagged as "minor". Might be an interesting and worthwhile task for MilborneOne & other admins to advance this procedure into en:WP? --Uli Elch (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

List of airline flights that required gliding

There is a discussion underway about including non-airline flights in this list article under "see also". Interested editors may comment here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of List of airline flights that required gliding

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/List of airline flights that required gliding. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

mass reclassification of aircraft articles as stubs

User:Vami IV has taken upon himself to reclassify class B and C articles en mass as stubs based solely on a dearth of references, rather than tagging them for the lack of references - WP:STUB is pretty clear, and makes no mention of references as being a criteria for such a classification, but rather that the page needs substantial expansion. Thoughts? - NiD.29 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Examples include DFW R.II, Fokker D.V and Dornier Do 11. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It should be pretty clear that a Stub is a very short article. Having enough references or not enough does not change that. If the article to long enough not to be a Stub, then it can be a Start, C or B depending meeting the B class checklist requirements. --Finlayson (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Revert and carry on. - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Having read WP:Stub etc. Revert (where confirmed as bad assessment). I reverted their stubbing on FW 187 (lost out to Me 110 as German twin-engined Zerstorer) which has a prose size of 1,800 words! Should a rebuke be handed out? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted 4, and all four were reverted, although he did leave a comment on my talk page. Thanks. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Gliding flight move

A user has proposed that Gliding flight be moved to Gliding. The current topic at Gliding, which is about the sport of gliding, would be moved somewhere else. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox picture for Boeing 737

Originally posted at WP:AVIATION but perhaps it goes better here: in case anyone has a moment, your feedback is requested on a possible new infobox image for Boeing 737. Please see options, or suggest your own, here. Thanks SynergyStar (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Military equipment of the Vietnam War

Category:Military equipment of the Vietnam War is being added to aircraft articles most recently by User:Uli Elch, I thought it was decided that aircraft would not be categorised by war (or operators) using the C-47 argument that it would need tens of entries to cover every conflict that it had been used in, comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The definition of this category (headline) links to Category:Military equipment in bold letters, and that one contains: Military aircraft. --Uli Elch (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Dont understand your reply, certainly all military aircraft appear in the Category:Military aircraft but the only "war" category is the first and second world war. I dont believe any military aircraft were in the Vietnam category until this week, probably due to previous consensus on this. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 10#Military equipment of the Vietnam War. I support changing the category text to make it clearer (the wording has been watered down since 2013 without any explanation) and purging of articles that aren't specifically about the Vietnam War. DexDor ^(talk) 19:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Several aircraft types have been in that category before, otherwise I had not put in additional ones. It is not fair to blame all the perceived evils of the world on a single user without having checked the facts before simply stating it. Besides, usually a header of a category has the status of a definition, and I have adhered to it (see above).

For examples, please check

* Fairchild AC-119,

* Cessna A-37 Dragonfly,

* Grumman A-6 Intruder,

* Lockheed AC-130,

* LTV A-7 Corsair II,

* McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II.

--Uli Elch (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to presume good faith Uli Elch all those aircraft where deleted from the cat following the 2013 discussion. As far as I know nobody has blamed you for anything and I appreciate you are trying to correct cateegories but you are not expected to remember all the past discussions hence why it is raised here, to make you aware and to see if the consensus is still valid. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no overwhelming interest in changing the definition of "Military equipment of the Vietnam War", which itself is contained in Category:Military equipment post-1945. Therefore, any article of aircraft mentioning their use in this war have to be included. Additionally, it appears advisable to install another subcategory concerning the mentioned aircraft, in parallel to "Category:Vietnam War naval ships". --Uli Elch (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

As youi know I disagree unless you are going to add a Military Equipment category for every war or encounter since 1945 which is clearly not a very good idea, I cant see why the Vietnam War is anymore important than the Gulf Wars or Korea or other such conflicts. The DC-3/C-47 would probably need a lot of these categories. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Beechcraft RC-12 Guardrail

A new user has created Beechcraft RC-12 Guardrail. At the moment, it's quite technical in places, and reads like US Army copy. I've not checked the cited sources for word-for-word language, but it reads like it may be in some places. Another editor and I have attempted some clean-up, but it will need some heavy copy editing and rewriting to bring it up to WP and WPAIR standards. Is the topic worth the effort, or should we propose merging the relevant information to Beechcraft C-12 Huron? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Boeing Insitu ScanEagle

It has been proposed that Boeing Insitu ScanEagle be moved to ScanEagle, any comments please to the related talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Note that the request has been withdrawn but the proposer questioned opposers using the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) and has raised it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Status of Wikipedia:Status of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

AFD: TR-3 Black Manta

I have just created an AFD for the TR-3 Black Manta article. I just thought that people here might like to know in case they want to provide comment.

This is my first AFD, so please forgive me if I have made a mistake in the AFD process. –Noha307 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

World Aerobatic Championships on Yak-52

The Yakovlev Yak-52 article currently contains a section called World Aerobatic Championships. The section is mostly made up of tables of medal winners. Is a whole section like this, especially the tables, necessary and encyclopedic? - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Worth a mention as it directly relates to the aircraft but the tables of medal winners and competitions are not really relevant to the aircraft article. Doesnt appear to be connected to the World Aerobatic Championships either. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely worth a mention, but I think the current version runs afoul of WP:PROPORTION, as well as being inconsistent with the WP:aircraft article layout guidelines. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the section entirely, but a sentence can be added to the body if a secondary reliable source is cited. - BilCat (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Fokker Scourge / RAF Squadron style

Another editor and I are in controversy/incipient revert war at Fokker Scourge about what the usual form for specifying an RAF/RFC squadron should be" - "No. 1 Squadron RAF" or "1 Squadron RAF" (on the grounds that the "No." is redundant). While I have no objection to an occasional omission of the "No.", if only for elegant variation, I have been under the impression that the current convention (including the "No.") is pretty standard everywhere and is certainly not something we need to change in Wikipedia. This is less trivial as it might seem, as a blanket rule that the "No." is actually incorrect, or contrary the MOS, would mean that dozens of articles would need renaming, and hundreds of mentions of various RAF squadrons in other articles, would need to be redone. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus among people who've already responded to this one seems to be for the status quo (or sticking with what we usually do already) - but it might even be worth writing something in the formal MOS, just in case it ever comes up again: perhaps generalised to cover all articles/mentions within articles of military/naval/air force units. Probably we'd go for the full official title for the article name and the first mention of the unit in any article - and then the most common short form/abbreviation thereafter? Just a thought really. Don't want to do it myself, just after arguing with someone else, as it superficially looks as if I'm pushing my own barrow.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Fighter Effectiveness Criteria Request for Comment

Collapse threaded discussion that does not belong on this page, add neutral notice about RFC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a new RFC on the Fighter aircraft talk page (very bottom). The proposal is to add a short paragraph to the article defining the fighter effectiveness criteria, and providing a pointer to the Light fighter article to provide more detail for the interested reader. For some reason this has become a very contentious topic. The "pro" side of this argument is that the basic fighter effectiveness criteria definition and validity are consistently supported by the literature (this is a majority view with no references to the contrary), is quite simple to understand, and is fundamental to understanding fighter aircraft. The "con" side of the argument is the opinion that the fighter effectiveness criteria is too technical and detailed to even mention its existence in the fighter aircraft article, and that this desire should displace the Wikipedia neutrality policy that all significant views as described in the references are covered in Wikipedia. Comments are invited. PhaseAcer (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC) This is not the place to argue your points. Notices to projects should be written neutrally, like this. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I'll try, Bilcat. For some reason I don't understand there is a lot of emotion over the issue of reporting what the references say on this subject. I feel like I should be getting some of those appreciation stars you guys give out for the hundreds of hours I have put in and dozens of books I have read to contribute to the light fighter and fighter articles on the fighter effectiveness and weapons issues. Instead it has been a bull whipping for honestly reporting what the literature says, a fight every step of way. PhaseAcer (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Perhaps it's time you step back from the issue for awhile. Time is often helpful in renewing our perspective for what really matters in life, and that usually isn't Wikipedia. Alternatively, you could get involved in other areas of Wikipedia for awhile. There are hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia in need of work that have nothing to do with fighters or their tactics. - BilCat (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Writing an encyclopedia is about; a) presenting, b) the facts. All the facts themselves need is adequate sourcing. But presentation involves a host of decisions and skills - which article, which sections and subsections, narrative or dry description, am I introducing value judgements or or original research, polite and endlessly patient engagement with other editors, to build consensus, etc. etc. Being a Wikipedia editor is more a way of life than a bit of typing. Hope this sets some perspective on your troubles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Despite references, this is one of those subjects that is almost entirely subjective, and the focus of considerable propaganda and Wikipedia isn't the place to untangle that mess as much of it would necessarily devolve to OR and POV. Add to that the hordes of fanbois out there rooting for their pet airplane, loaded up with refs on how great it is compared to some other airplane. Every disadvantage has at some point been countered with pilot skill, and so while there are generally qualities deemed preferable in a fighter, these are highly variable with role (interceptors, escort fighters and fighter bombers have very different requirements) and era. For one example the MiG-15 is often compared with the F-86 when it comes to kill claims, however such comparisons generally ignore (deliberately) the fact that the MiG was being used to intercept bombers and only fought F-86s as a last resort while the F-86's main job was hunting MiGs, and while the MiG-15 suffered higher casualties, it forced the retirement of the B-29s from combat operations, forced the B-50s to fly at night and diverted other types into the theatre where they were used up more quickly than would have otherwise been the case - all strategic victories over the US which cannot be directly compared to the numbers of aircraft lost. Add to that the highly unreliable numbers for kills, for instance both the Flying Tigers in China and the USAF in Korea claimed to have downed more enemy aircraft than were ever in their theatres of operations - an issue that affects nearly every war up until recently. Even when such factors are put aside, a lot comes down to training and support - intelligence, AEW, refueling, maintenance etc that have nothing to do with the aircraft in question that in turn mask their real effectiveness or lack thereof. - NiD.29 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC) I appreciate the advice, and obviously I need it. As a data oriented engineer I tend to think that provable facts are the most important things. But, the light fighter article with well over a hundred quality references, many of them expert professional sources, has been subjected to editorial warfare from the time I started working on it (when it was blatantly wrong and almost unreferenced, nobody cared). I am regularly accused of bias, despite meticulous referencing. In contrast, the Heavy fighter article with only three references, two of them WWII material and one a newspaper article from 1932, comes in for no criticism. Both are rated the same as "start class" articles (in my opinion, the light fighter article should now be promoted). Though the heavy fighter article is badly out of policy with its near zero referencing, I'm not going to touch it knowing the personal attacks that would engender. Clearly I do need better presentation skills when such a disparity exists. But, I wonder if it is even possible to develop the presentation skills that can overcome the hostility that arises when you have to tell a senior editor who is probably a life long military aviation enthusiast that the professional references simply disagree with his opinion. PhaseAcer (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC) PhaseAcer said, "I wonder if it is even possible to develop the presentation skills..." This is why I recommended spending some time on other subjects. Find something that's less prone to controversy, and try to improve those articles. It will help you to become a better editor, and then you can apply those skills to this topic. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Also, not all the people who have opposed your efforts are merely "military aviation enthusiasts", though that describes me perfectly. Some are former or current pilots, and a few have extensive military combat aircraft experience. You don't have to agree with them, but their perspective may be valuable to helping you to understand this situation better. - BilCat (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Bilcat, except for those who may be paid Wikipedia PR writers working for defense contractors, I assume we all are military aviation enthusiasts. That's what I am myself, though I did spend some years early in my career designing fighter avionics. But, when I stopped private flying a few years ago, I made up for missing flying by embarking on a program of pretty serious military aviation reading, including professional operations research. I thought I had a pretty good grasp of fighter aviation, but this was eye opening and proved to me how amateurish my perspective was. For example, when a military operations research professional says a certain fighter or type of fighter or weapons system is superior, he means that over a large number of engagements it tends to score higher air to air kills per dollar of budget. It does not always win, but over time it tends to win more--it is all about the statistics that allow the most efficient use of resources. To an air war strategist, this is not only a key point, but a war winning point in longer conflicts that become battles of attrition. For example, Jimmy Doolittle correctly understood in the WWII European air war that the P-51 could do everything the P-38 could do (actually a little better), for half the price. Where I have failed as a Wikipedia editor is in communicating to my fellow editors just how crucial that point is. They usually think I am a fan boy with an agenda, when I am trying to communicate how the professionals view the issue of what really matters in winning air wars. Despite the complexity of threat variety and evolution over time, it is still easily simple enough to present in Wikipedia, and is very enlightening to our readers. PhaseAcer (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC) @PhaseAcer: in Wikipedia's terms, it seems you are currently giving too much of a fuck about those two articles. I would suggest adopting to a degree the opposite strategy. Embrace DGAF-ism; it can be an extremely liberating experience. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Deeday, that is pretty funny, but the top fighter articles are a pretty important set worth trying to improve. The main fighter article has been stuck on C-class for years and is way behind the literature. However, this is probably the world's most read article on this strategically important subject. It's worth the work necessary to make it into a feature article. PhaseAcer (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a Request for Comment at Talk:Fighter_aircraft#RFC_about_fighter_effectiveness_section

Please feel free to comment if you wish. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Peer review for Supermarine Spitfire

G'day, please be advised that a peer review has been requested for the Supermarine Spitfire article. Interested members can take part in providing feedback on the peer review page, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Supermarine Spitfire/archive3. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Canada Flight 759

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/Air Canada Flight 759. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC at WT:AIRPORTS

Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Notable appearance in media

In a few aircraft articles I recently removed the link to Aircraft in fiction in notable appearances in media section to see also as it just looked daft having a main link on an empty section. It has been rightly noted by User:Cthomas3 that this is not what WP:AIRMOS says (which has "Aircraft type articles that have entries here should have Notable appearances in media sections that simply refer to this article, in a manner like Sikorsky MH-53#Notable_appearances_in_media."} Am I right does it look daft and we should change the guide or carry on with a notable appearances section, any thoughts, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that the key to this is "notable". Most appearances are fan trivia and should be relegated to the See Also section along the lines of *[[Aircraft in fiction#This aeroplane|Aircraft in fiction]]. Only if sufficient commentary to establish notability of the particular appearance can be cited, should the article carry a section for it. There may then be some duplication of material across the two articles, but that is permissible where the same stuff rounds out two different but related topics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't like the almost empty "Notable appearances in media" section. The section can stay if it has some content that does not go in the Aircraft in fiction article, such as notable pop culture appearances. But if there is only the main link to Aircraft in fiction article, move that to the See also section instead as you have done. --Finlayson (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the wholesale movement of the Avro Lancaster notable appearances in media to the aircraft in fiction article. My thinking being that Dambusters film is notable use of them. On reflection it could be trimmed and have more pertinent information. Some appearances of aircraft in films are central, eg B-52 in Dr Strangelove, B-17s in Memphis Belle and warrant being in the article. Some are notable but not that crucial to the aircraft article - the Vulcan in Thunderball? Yet others, such as the Starfighter in the Star Trek episode when they go back in time, definitely don't belong in main aircraft article and probably barely warrant being in the aircraft in fiction one.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The Starfighter appearance in Star Trek has been removed (and re-added, and re-removed) from Aircraft in fiction) already due to both lack of notability and lack of sourcing. I wasn't passing judgment on the fictional appearances that I was moving from the main articles to the fiction page; I tried to find proper sources where I could, but otherwise I assumed that since they were already on the main article that they were notable enough for Aircraft in fiction. I'm happy to follow whatever style we think is appropriate; I thought the empty section was a bit odd, but the MOS as written was very specific about the format.
Graeme, in one edit you also made reference to the word "Notable" in the title of the section, saying that it was redundant (every appearance listed in that section should be inherently notable). I thought I would mention that here as well as a potential suggestion to shorten the title to "Appearances in media". Personally I am okay either way. Casual readers may not be aware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and expect that all appearances should be expected there, but I do see your point. Cthomas3 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Notable" is in the section label to tell or remind users that not every possible appearance belongs in the section. --Finlayson (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It is probably worth keeping in mind that the reason Aircraft in fiction exists is to make sure that the aircraft type articles don't get filled up with tons of fan listings of every use of the aircraft in film, books video games and such, as was the case at one time. Many popular aircraft had "popular culture" sections that dwarfed the real aircraft's history. If changes are made it should retain this aim of avoiding adding tons of fictional content to the aircraft articles. - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I am unsure which way this should go. On the one hand, I agree that an empty section with just a summary link looks a little strange. However, I think that it's also a bit awkward to have the "correct" place for the link to go change based upon whether the section is present: in "See also" if there is no "Notable appearances in media" section, and then "Notable appearances in media" if at some point someone does add some notable media content. It could be moved permanently to "See also", but I really do think it belongs in "Notable appearances" if the section is present. Forced to choose, I think I would keep the status quo, as that makes the MOS clearer and I'm really not that bothered by the nearly empty section. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft specifications

template:Aircraft specifications produces humourous results when there's only one engine eg Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano#Specifications (EMB 314 Super Tucano) reads Powerplant: 1 Hartzell 5-blade constant speed, fully feathering, reversible-pitch × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68C turboprop, 1,196 kW (1,600 shp) each (my emphasis).

Is there a parameter I've missed, or can we modify the template to simply omit the each when there's only one engine? Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings! It appears that there is a {{number of jets}} parameter that controls at least the "each". If it is set to 1, the word does not appear. CThomas³ (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, you added extra material to the number of props field, which confused the template. That should be a simple number. You should add a propellers parameter with the extra propeller info. (Yes, this is confusing; I didn't make the template. And it doesn't help that there's a separate Aircraft specs template with rather different behavior.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry, I meant {{number of props}} as well (I was using my very small phone for the last message). Thanks Colin Douglas Howell for the correction and looking into it further. Pinging Andrewa also because I forgot to before. :) CThomas³ (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Colin Douglas Howell states above you added extra material to the number of props field, which confused the template. That should be a simple number. You should add a propellers parameter with the extra propeller info... Problem number one with this is I didn't add anything to the article, I just read it and noted that what it said makes Wikipedia look rather silly.

Problem number two is that WikiProject members are probably more competent than I to fix it. I just had a go following the instructions as I thought, but it made it worse so I didn't save it. I'll try again, it should be fixed. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was my mistake. I didn't even bother checking the history, I just naively assumed from your comment that you had edited the article and gotten strange results. I've fixed it now, as best the template will allow. (Personally, I'd prefer it if the field labeled "Propellers:" would instead be labeled as "Propeller:" if there was only a single prop.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Template fork

As pointed out above we have two templates with similar purpose, Template:Aircraft specs and Template:Aircraft specifications. Both have the odd bug in. Presumably, one was forked from the other over an editorial disagreement as to how they should behave. Does anybody know what the original issue was and does it still exist? Do we still have that disagreement, or would it be sensible to deprecate one of them, fix the other and move articles progressively across to the one that the project has decided to actively maintain? The deprecated template can then be made a redirect to the active one, to make sure they don't drift apart again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there are three templates, and the history is long and complicated. Template:Aircraft specifications is the oldest, dating back to late 2005, and still has around 2,800 uses. There was some early disagreement over the style, which led major project contributor Rlandmann to create a new Template:Aerospecs in early 2007; this still has around 2,300 uses. Some early discussion of this then-new template can be found here. In mid-2009, further dissatisfaction with the existing templates led Trevor MacInnis to create a third template, Template:Aircraft specs, which now has around 5,400 uses; it's clearly the most popular, but it doesn't enjoy an overwhelming advantage. Early discussion of this third template can be found here and here. I think the hope was to combine the best features of the two earlier templates and convert everything to the new one, but obviously that hasn't happened. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :In so far as I recall they are not forks per se but not quite parallel evolution either. Template:Aircraft specs (circa 5000 transclusions) evolved from a earlier template (Template:Aerospecs - which still has circa 2000 transclusions) in order to encompass specific parameters for gliders, airships, swing wing aircraft and so forth. It also picked up code from Template:Aircraft specifications (circa 2000 transclusions) - the armament section and props chiefly.

The issues that put the templates at odds were over automatic calculation of alternate units versus manual input and what happens when you need to attach a ref tag within the field, the application of the template to mixed powerplant (including rotorcraft) aircraft and usage with airships. (I think)

There was some argy-bargy with enthusiasts converting aircraft articles using one template to the other but that died out (on pages I was watching). If an article exists using Template:Aerospecs it migrates easier to Template:Aircraft specs

I would suggest a third way - draw on the best elements of each template to create the definitive template first and then all three similar templates can be converted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll also add that since the templates were formed there have been conversions to the new way of coding which means they are even more difficult to understand the inner workings. Getting lost in the number of opening and closing curly brackets for instance. Code expertise will be needed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Having taken a look at them, it is obvious that reducing to one template is the best way ahead, but that they all have room for improvement. I am not sure that writing a brand new one from scratch would be wise, it would be better to make improvements to the latest one, Template:Aircraft specs. It might even be possible to make the migration from the other templates easier, by adding extra input options for some fields. Is there a guideline we could discuss updating, to deprecate the other two templates and ask editors to migrate to this one? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest writing a brand new one from scratch but whichever template you based the "new" one on would start at a new name rather than altering the chosen one in situ. I would back seeing if you could take alternate parameter names to minimize the renaming of parameters. Then after seeing that a few awkward test cases (Fairey Rotodyne is a favourite of mine) passed muster, I would move to deprecate all the existing templates in favour of the new one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see altering the chosen one in situ as a problem. This template is effectively a piece of software, and software gets upgraded like that all the time. One just needs to agree the changes first, develop them in a sandbox and validate them thoroughly before rolling them across to the live template. Otherwise, we will end up with four templates in use and more muddle than ever. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation in type numbers

My immediate concern is with Blohm & Voss but this issue must surely apply to other manufacturers. Different sources will write say design Projekt 201 as P 201, P.201 or P–201. Sometimes a source will be inconsistent. While original documents from various sources sometimes differ (after all, who cares when there's a war on), original drawings always used the first of these, as P 201. But most Wikipedia pages currently use the P.201 format. Do we have a guideline on this? If not, then should we have one, to ensure consistency within and across articles? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

is this one of those things were we can say defer to what sources "commonly" use? I'd say if a manufacturer's aircraft articles currently have one format, on the whole, and there's no clear reason that it's wrong, I wouldn't rush to change it. Equally I wouldn't rush to create a fistful of redirects to cover all eventualities. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Aha, found at WP:AVIMOS; "This should be either the manufacturer's designation or the military designation if more common." I'll go with the manufacturer's original drawings that have been published. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Dubai Air Show 2017

Reposting this from the Aviation Project page, I will be attending the Dubai Air Show next week. Please leave me a message below if you'd like photos of any of the aircraft on display. The current aircraft list is here: http://www.dubaiairshow.aero/aircraft-list regards Mztourist (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

When I last checked, we had surprisingly few photos on Commons of A400M transports, so extra images would be useful. I can't see any Australian aircraft on that list, but photos of RAAF aircraft (some of which are based in the UAE) would also be helpful if the service makes an unadvertised appearance. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There are 657 A400M pics already in the Category, while there are 55 selected in the commmons page.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I was actually thinking of the A330 tanker variant! (which isn't scheduled to appear) Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It might make an appearance, as you'd expect the UAEAF usually has a large presence. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

202in the cat, 36 "RAAF"--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Those lack good inflight or details pics : Boeing 787-10, Diamond DA62, Dassault Falcon 8X, Embraer Legacy 500, SF50, Antonov/Taqnia An-132. The CS300 isn't so well depicted yet, and interiors would be great. Enjoy your show!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted, will try to get all those, probably will be static rather than inflight as my camera (and camera skills) aren't up to the task. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The 787-10 doesn't have any inflight pic (and the ground pics are bad) as is the DA62, and the SF50 isn't over a sky background : it will be easy to best. There are no left pointing legacy 500 inflight pics, and the An-132 inflight is over a dull grey sky, as is the Falcon 8X. The CS300 is already pretty well illustrated but you can look at what to improve. You don't need a fancy camera or skills as the light is as bright as it can be, just a long telephoto. Borrow one if you don't have any. I had a 200mm at le Bourget and it was okay, I wish I had a longer lens for small aircraft, but I had to zoom out for the A380. :) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't have a telephoto at all so decent inflight pics are out of the question. regards Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed without a tele inflights are out. For ground pics, try to have the cleanest environment possible, without fences on the foreground or people behind. Tip : stay low so the background is mostly sky, and/or use the airframe to block the view. cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. regards Mztourist (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Language

Eternal Realm, a new editor, has started adding language templates to some Russian and Ukrainian aircraft articles, like so [5]. Is this something that is desirable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt so bad either, and some editors seems really passionate about the exact designation in the original alphabet, so it will emerge from the crowd wisdom anyway. I managed to push down naming details from the intro to a Naming section for the MC-21, but it's still a bit too prominent for my taste.Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I do find them useful sometimes. For example I can now copy-paste the Russian for "Tupolev Tu-334" into a search engine, then copy-paste the pages it finds into a translator. So it gives visibility to native-language information that might not be available in translation. Similarly, a Russian-speaker can paste it into our search tool and find our article, even though they don't know what it should be called. They are not obtrusive, I like them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. There are the interwiki links also.-Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I think it is useful. - Ahunt (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup on Aisle I

Category:Individual aircraft has gotten pretty crufted with "this aircraft type only had one produced, so it belongs here, right?" insertions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done, now let's see how unhappy that makes people... - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

{{popcorn}} Thanks, I'd have whacked at it myself but I was in 'two steps from falling over' half-asleep mode! (As a footnote, I'd probably include the MacCreadie aircraft, as like Voyager (which is still there) they're well/best known as individuals, but that might just be me) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sure many cases could be made either way. The "sole example of the type" articles were the hardest to decide on. I'm not going to be hurt if anyone wants to change it back. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Mm, there is the camel's nose principle there, to be sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the category needs renaming to avoid confusion but it looks like a wiki wide convention. Individually named aircraft/Aircraft with names/Named aircraft etc. I see some articles in the category where the title is a registration, fine except some editors won't necessarily appreciate that we treat registrations as names. There is a clear note in the category on the scope, we ought to clarify whether one offs are included though, you could argue that they did have names even if was just the type. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, something like "Category:Individual named aircraft" would help clarify usage of the category. --Finlayson (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fnlayson's suggestion. Loopy30 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The intereting thing is we have both Category:Individual automobiles and Category:One-off automobiles... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Performance diagrams in aircraft type articles

The payload vs range diagram in question

An editor has recently added a payload vs range diagram at Pilatus PC-24#Specifications. I removed it noting that this is far too technical for a general encyclopedia and that even Jane's All The World's Aircraft, a highly specialized aviation publication, does not print these. In my opinion including these falls afoul of WP:NOTMANUAL. The editor has reverted the removal and the diagram is back in there. What do other editors think, do these belong in aircraft type articles or not? - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think not. It's detailed in itself and inclusion might open the door for loads more type-specific plots, like Vcr vs altitude, take-off distance vs ambient temperature etc. I could accept its use in the Range article under a Range vs load subtitle, along with comments and calcs, perhaps also with the datasets from one one or two other types if they differ in form a lot.TSRL (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a techno-step too far. Articles would drown in all kinds of spec sheets once the door was opened. I have put a link on the offending article talk page to this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If these graphs aren't in specialist publications, they shouldn't be in our articles, if only per WP:NOR.  Sandstein  18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think there would be such a response! Payload-range diagrams are quite benign imho. The $1000 specialised JAWA doeesn't include PL diagrams but have often incomplete range data, so it would be impossible to have coherent diagrams through the 1000 pages catalog. PL diagrams should certainly not be used as an operating manual: they are present in airport planning publications to give a rough idea of a craft capabilities A B, and are present in many trade press but £3 magazines:[6][7] [8][9][10] [11][12] I'll admit field perf diagrams could be a bit too much (but perhaps not on a stol craft) but PL isn't that technical. It makes up for often sketchy range claims depending on optimistic pax load assumptions. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree this is, while intriguing, not something particularly suited for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

With no more discussion on this subject in the last ten days, I think we can close this thread as a consensus not to include these sorts of aircraft performance diagrams in aircraft type articles. I have added this to WP:ACI. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent image removals

Today, there was mass removal of aircraft images from List of United States bomber aircraft. I have started a discussion about this on that article's talk page here. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 22:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A question on categories...

...specifically: are we now putting unflown, or even unbuilt, aircraft in "Nation+Class+Decade" categories, i.e. the Boeing RC-1 in Category:United States cargo aircraft 1970–1979? My understanding was that we don't, but that's from some years ago and I've seen this multiple times recently - am I just out of date? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nowadays there is a lot of interest in these unfulfilled projects. But I agree that mixing them up with flying types can be unhelpful. I don't know about past consensus but my own preference would be for a parallel set of "Nation+Class+Decade aircraft projects" categories. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Traditionally, they've gone in "Abandoned/Cancelled aircraft projects of Foo" categories (This tree). By decade would be a lot of tiny cats in many cases. (And I once tried to rationalize on either 'abandoned' or 'cancelled' but that...didn't get far at CFDS, naturally.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that these should go in an "abandoned" or "cancelled" sub cat. It makes more sense than lumping them into the "flying" cats. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Nova Coden

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/Nova Coden. - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Members of this WP are encouraged to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)