Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 49

Watch the language...

Motivated by noting this edit: assuming we include Cyrillic versions of the name, should Antonovs include Ukrainian, or Russian, as their "native language" name in articles? Since the vast majority of them were built Back in the U.S.S.R., but the company is based in Kiev (and is thus, post-'91, Ukranian)... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Although the Ukranians will not like it they are a product of the Soviet Union and would have been named in Russian, strange though the "Антонов Ан-10" is correct in both Russian and Ukrainian. MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Dassault Falcon 50 Attack Version

A section on the Attack version of the Dassault Falcon 50 takes up a lot of the Dassault Falcon 50 but appears to be mainly bollox and the single source doesnt appear to work. It has also been repeated on the USS Stark page. Anybody have any reliable sources that this is not just made up stuff and they really armed a Falcon with Exocet missiles. MilborneOne (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a working link to the source used. Seems a pretty suspect story, does this website count as RS? Loopy30 (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

War Is Boring is notorious for publishing what amounts to fringe theories as fact. In my opinion, it should treated as a blog site, and not as a reliable source. Perhaps one sentence or a short paragraph on the theory could be mentioned in the Falcon 50 article, but not a whole section presented as fact. - BilCat (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear lord have mercy, that site? Isn't that the one Sparky runs? That place ought to be outright blacklisted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sparky?? - BilCat (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I think his actual name is Mike Sparks, but in military discussion circles nobody calls him anything but "Sparky". He's the guy who is the single point from which the whole "name the M113 'Gavin'" came from (a la H-45, anything you see claiming that as a legitimate thing is from Sparky having made it up one day). He's also...well, let's put it this way: when it comes to anything military, "bless his heart, he's special". Given that apparently in all earnestness (I hesitate to use the term "seriousness") he once suggested flying M113s to shoot down MiGs, and no I am not kidding... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As a footnote, having managed to look it up without risking any braincells, it's CombatReform that is his bin of madness, not WarIsBoring, although IIRC he does write for the latter and both get a reliablity rating of F-. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

here is a forum discussion, with a couple of images, which suggests that a Falcon 50 was converted for target towing and possibly attack pilot training, but is unable to fathom the USS Stark story. There is said to be an article about the converted plane in the French magazine Fana de l'Aviation for January 2009. Overall, the thread suggest to me that the USS Stark incident and the "attack" version of the Falcon 50 lack RS. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

First impression is the image is similar to a Falcon 20 Mirage Systems Trainer, which has a Mirage radar in the nose although I cant find an image of one on the net. MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna go one step beyond and say "outright WP:HOAX. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This certainly sounds like bollocks, and all the sources I've seen attribute this to a Mirage F1. Integrating sophisticated guided missiles onto aircraft is a complex and expensive affair, as is training aircrew to use them properly, and it makes no sense for a light passenger plane to have been converted to this role when Iraq had the highly capable Mirages for this role. I note that the link given in the article (to the rather uneven War is Boring) is now dead. 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I have removed the section from Falcon 50 and tweaked the Stark article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Airbus A318 - GA or C-class, or both?

How is the Airbus 318 a GA by Engineering and Technology while still a C-class in the aircraft project? David notMD (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

GA and FA are Wikipedia-wide ratings and out-rank project level ratings. The project banners should all list GA, but keep any B-class checklists in case the GA rating in lost/taken away. -Finlayson (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Still a jolt to see GA and C-class. Interestingly, for vitamin C, all eight checklists went to GA. I am guessing linked, somehow. David notMD (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Graham Hill plane 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/Graham Hill plane crash. - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

John Cyril Porte

I have removed a load of youtube videos at John Cyril Porte but an IP user challenges my removal so I have raised it on the related talk page (and my removal has been reverted again). If anybody has a view on the suitability of these videos to improve the article then this would be appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

More warring from our IP editor at Daily Mail Circuit of Britain air race and Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines, where I reverted their "See also" links to each other as irrelevant (the fictional race was to Paris). Help would be appreciated to confirm their relevance or otherwise. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

And help needed again at Seaplane Experimental Station. This guy is clearly not listening. What's the best way of asking for a rangeblock? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I referred Steelpillow for bullying80.229.34.113 (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Not using that IP address you haven't. If you want to do that, you need to post at WP:ANI and to let me know on my talk page, but be warned, admins don't like timewasters. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to protect both articles against disruption but I could be seen as involved so if any other admins watching that can have a look at these two articles, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that other flying boat articles also have a lot of external links for example Curtiss Model H perhaps we may need to review similar aircraft for external links that dont add any value. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with that. We need to constantly clean external links up to comply with WP:EL. - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Airplane infobox error?

Hi all Something went wrong with either display or infobox technicalities, but all (at least all I've checked) airplane articles have a messed up infobox, that instead of displaying most important bits on the right, now is on the left on top of each page. I'm not technically gifted or courageous to test what went wrong, so maybe someone here can have a look? Thanks Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I just checked a half dozen, and didn't see anything wrong. Can you give some examples where the infobox is messed up? Sario528 (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Like this. Don't know if it's just me or a random issue. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I just checked that page Lockheed CP-140 Aurora and it looks fine in Firefox 58 and Chromium 64.0.3282.140, infobox on the left, etc. What browser are you using? - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser - Google Chrome Version 64.0.3282.167 (Official Build) (64-bit), Windows 10 Enterprise. It turns out it happens on all infoboxes on enwiki, but plwiki works just fine... Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of United Airlines Flight 1175‎

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/United Airlines Flight 1175‎. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Eurocopter H145

Seems we have had a shuffle of Airbus Helicopter articles and the Eurocopter EC145 has ended up as the Eurocopter H145 as far as I know the marketing name changed with the Eurocopter/Airbus Helicopter Change. Also note that the H145 marketing name is used for just one sub-variant of the BK117. Looks like somebody has been busy confusing the other helicopters from Europcopter/Airbus as well. Didnt we decide to keep these at the more common Eurocopter names? MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, the joys of editing an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - they do! Yes, these should be reverted per COMMONNAME. Perhaps long-term move protection would be a good idea too. If the situation changes re: CN, then move discussions can be held. - BilCat (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

See previous consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 40#Mass Airbus Helicopters moves. - BilCat (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Glider Tug Category

I have asked User:Nareto to explain why he is removing the Category:Glider tugs from loads of aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted his deletions of this category, most were purpose-designed glider tugs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Prior to deleting this category, Nareto (talk · contribs) was adding it to a lot of other articles. Going through their contribs, some at least of these additions are not attested in the article itself. This also needs looking into. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed his whole edit history and adding the cat in some corner cases (like Cessna 182) and then removing them from articles, like Valmet PIK-23 Towmaster (an aircraft designed specifically as a glider tug), doesn't really add up to a coherent picture. His explanation at User talk:Nareto didn't add much illumination, either. - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Aircraft as vehicles

I have reverted a couple of additions of vehicle cats by User:Tim! on aircraft articles, pretty sure this has been discussed before and aircraft are not part of the vehicle category tree. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

At the highest level Category:Aircraft is a subcategory of Category:Vehicles by media (which seems a funny choice of word) but I'd be interested to see where this has been discussed before and will hold off adding aircraft to vehicle cats in the meantime. Tim! (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I cant find it at the moment but clearly has been the accepted view as these vehicle cats have not been used before, I will have another look or if somebody else can remember. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ships are generally not categorised as vehicles either. The way it works is that ships and aircraft are only linked to the vehicle category tree indirectly, typically by Making an aircraft category into a sub-category to the corresponding vehicle category. For example we find Category:Aircraft by type as a subcategory of Category:Vehicles by type. But the common language for ground vehicles differs and these do tend to end up in vehicle categories. There are probably several ancient discussions about this, but I think it obvious enough that it has become standard practice not to need justifying. Only those who would overturn it need to seek a consensus for change. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I can only a see a few instances where aircraft would need to be directly categorised as vehicles as almost all aircraft will be put into aircraft categories. One of the categories I added was Category:Vehicles of Indonesia to Indonesian Presidential Aircraft. I see there's Category:Indonesian military aircraft so that would probably be better match. Tim! (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes in Template:Aircraft specs

After preliminary discussion at User talk:Ahunt, I thought I would bring this here for greater input and a consensus. The template documentation gives no guidance and perhaps it should do so. My approach to adding references to the aircraft specs has been to add them to the ref parameter at the top, even if the ref cited only supports some or even one of the numbers cited. As per Dassault_Falcon_5X#Specifications @Marc Lacoste: disagrees and thinks that if a ref only supports one number that it should be added as an inline citation to that single number and not at the top in the ref parameter. My reasoning is that we have had some spec templates in some articles that end up with many footnotes scattered throughout and it makes the specs messy and hard to read. Marc said "I try to avoid having multiple whole refs in aircraft specs because it hampers its WP:Verifiability". So what does everyone else think? Should refs be on the numbers they support or listed at the top? - Ahunt (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Where we have to draw on multiple sources for an aircraft's characteristics, that is often because there is no authoritative source available to the editor and what we can find is scattered and unreliable. It is not uncommon to find such sources conflicting or suffering from vagueness. Engine power output is a particular nightmare, as the manufacturer's rated power in the brochure and the rated power delivered, when paired with a given propeller, may be significantly different. I never know which to quote. Such a real-world mess must either be faithfully represented by an equivalent mess of citations or leave the reader/editor a verification puzzle. Citing every source at the beginning gives no sensible clue as to which parameter comes from which source, and adding those clues more or less negates the need for the rest of the template. Personally, I prefer a single "main" source cited at the top and any other sources cited wherever they are resorted to. It may look messy, but at least it's navigable. I have never had anybody come and change it on me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to agree with Steelpillow, I would expect the main source at the top and then anything not sourced to that having the new source alongside it. Presumed that anything without a reference comes from the main source at the top. MilborneOne (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I also think the template doc needs a summary of what we agree here, forgot to say. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ahunt for bringing the discussion here. I agree with Steelpillow and MilborneOne for a main source at the top and the other inline. I agree it could look untidy, but having multiple top refs is messy too. There would be 3 or 4 templates to adjust. Cheers--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to abide by whatever we agree to here (I am hoping more regular editors will contribute their thoughts too), but I agree that the template documentation should be amended to reflect whatever consensus we come up with here. That way we only need to discuss this once! - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been known to cite two different sources at the top, usually because the primary lacks a specification that the other one has. But I'd have no problem doing things this way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2018 Antonov An-26 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/2018 Antonov An-26 crash Sario528 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

MRO article changes

A relatively new user has unilaterally moved the Maintenance, repair and operations article to Maintenance (technical), and reworked the article, all without input from other editors. Is there enough unique content out there for an aviation-focused article at maintenance, repair and overhaul or Maintenance, repair and operations? I know absolutely nothing on the subject, so would not be able to help much beyond copy editing. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I always thought that MRO (Maintenance and Repair Organization) was an approved organisation not a person so this move (and the contents of the article) just confuses me MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The move and other changes confused me too, but as this user didn't bother discussing beforehand, I didn't think it worth getting into a long drawn out process. I figured we could just make an aviation-focused article, and leave the old one to other editors to worry about. - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That might be the easiest solution. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree MilborneOne (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I changed the redirect maintenance, repair and overhaul to the more appropriate Aircraft maintenance. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Minie Engines

Just cleared a dab required tag at Matra-Cantinieau MC-101 for a link to the Minié engine by linking it to the unwritten company article Établissements Minié. I dont really like it as it should go directly to the engine article, any of the engine sleuths around that can work out which one it is, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

List of individual aircraft

Never really cleared up the mess that is List of individual aircraft and List of surviving examples of mass-produced aircraft, any thoughts before they get nominated for deletion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I do think that a List of notable aircraft which have their own articles could be useful, as long as prototypes that just happen to be singletons are excluded. Perhaps the List of individual aircraft should be nominated for a move/tidyup instead? On the other hand I would add List of aircraft by tail number and List of surviving examples of mass-produced aircraft to those deserving AfD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Concur on AFD for all mentioned. I think all those articles would probably better as categories, if they aren't already. - BilCat (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, these would better as categories. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to propose List of aircraft by date and usage category but managed instead to duplicate a different one. Should this one be put forward too? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I have given the List of individual aircraft a refocus towards individual aircraft which have a notable history in their own right, and not just as the lone example of a type. Above I suggested moving it to List of notable aircraft. Unless anybody objects, I'll do that before any AfD decision is made, so that we can all see how it would (or wouldn't) work. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Now moved to List of notable aircraft. I also added in most entries from the List of surviving examples of mass-produced aircraft, on the grounds that these are also notable enough to have their own articles. I have also edited the list a bit to bring the notability into better focus. Does it still deserve the AfD treatment? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking better, perhaps just redirect the List of surviving examples of mass-produced aircraft to the notable list. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in main or template space links to the mass-produced list and it is a ludicrously convoluted title. I still think that AfD is kinder. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right its hardly a search term that anybody would use. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Rename as List of individual aircraft. One day, especially over a holiday, is no sort of discussion time.

These do not need to be NOTABLE aircraft. It's long established that overall list scope needs to be notable, but individual members don't.

These are though individual aircraft. Their placement here is as individuals. It might be so little as being the last surviving example of an important class (which WP:N would look askance at). The original name was more accurate in reflecting that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be right about the new title, though I still don't like the unlimited flavour of the old one. "List of significant aircraft" or "List of historic aircraft" perhaps? The trouble is, there are/were possibly millions of individual aircraft and almost all are documented, but we have to stop somewhere; Wikipedia is not a catalogue (see WP:NOTCATALOGUE). Where do you propose to stop? Would you keep all the awkwardly-named sub-lists under discussion? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no requirement that the title itself conveys the full scope for inclusion. We can record that in the lead, or even on Talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

help needed on Chengdu J-20

Could one of you guys help me out for the GA review of Chengdu J-20? It's my first one and I'm a little stuck. Thanks, L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Digitized issues of AW&ST from 1916 through 1968

I just realized AW&ST over 50 years were digitized at archive.org:

• "Aviation Week Magazine". The Magazine Rack. Internet Archive. Digitized issues from Aug 1, 1916 through Nov 25, 1968.

Enjoy. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Photoshopped Images

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Just to note that we dont use made-up or photoshopped images in the lead of articles, they can be misleading and inaccurate. A few have been recently added by User:FOX 52 some of which have been reverted already. As one of those things that has never been acceptable but it is not wrtitten down, should we put it in a guide somewhere? Comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not? In the pioneer days almost all photos were retouched for publication, some quite heavily. Why should the digital age be any different? Surely the main thing is that the retouching artist should be reputable and not just some starry-eyed enthusiast. Is the photoshopping ban a wiki-wide thing or just an aviation project thing? Also, I have also seen photos of models and three-view drawings used in lead infoboxes. Are these acceptable, where no usable photo is available? I think they should come under the same rules as photoshopping. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about the wiki-wide thing but I agree that there is a difference between professional and amateur work, how do we know that the aircraft looks like the in flight, aerials and other sticking out bits may have been removed, landing gear doors and such like may appear dissapear between ground and flight. In my opinion we should not use models either as they are made-up and only give one persons individual research on what they look like. MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

(oops, posted the above before I had finished). Genuine photos, photos of models, amateur three-view drawings and wholly digital renderings are all open to imaginative tinkering, just as text is. I think that all such artist's renderings should come under the same rules. Many pioneer types appear only in heavily-retouched "photographs", while many notable designs were never built and are illustrated only in artist's concepts. I think we need to apply reliability criteria rather than ban them altogether. For example an image may originate as part of an official company proposal, or be published as an artistic rendering in a reputable journal. If an image has no such provenance then it should not be allowed anywhere, never mind in the lead. [updated] — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that Steelpillow. MilborneOne (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of models, offhand I can think of two articles where the infobox uses a picture of a model, the Supermarine Type 224 and the Bristol Racer. In both cases there sems to be no better pictre that is out of copyright and I would defend the use of both pictures; the Type 224 article uses a pic of a model in a museum, and the Bristol Racer picture (titled as possible a model, altho it shows the thing in flight with the gear retracted, which I do not think ever happened) is from the Bristol archive. As Steelpillow says, reliability criteria need to be applied. I also agree with him on the subject of pictures of early aircraft; there seems to have been a flourishing postcard industry in which pretty much anything went, but generally they are acceptable pictures of the machine and sometimes there is nothing better.TheLongTone (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The main problem with the images that Fox has photoshopped is that in most cases, in-flight images of the aircraft in question already existed, and the rest are existing ground images. There is no reason to fake up an image when real ones exist. - BilCat (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that in cases where actual images do not exist, physical models and image renderings can be useful, but they should be clearly labeled as such in the captions. A good example is File:L-2000 Pan Am.png , but note it's not in the infobox. - BilCat (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Retouching a photo of an aircraft in flight with nothing but sky and no landing gear, is a bit of a stretch to call it "Original research". I would also point out that this example & website were used to base my retouched image. Further I don't see any guideline (MOS:IMAGELEAD) of prohibiting retouched photos on lead images. Lastly I would prefer to use an original / free image(s) for the main but if one doesn't exist than I don't think this alternative is that bad - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue with your cropping of images, or even color correction as others have sometimes done. However, in the cases of the Sabre and Albatross, in-flight images already existed, though I realize they may not have met your preferred standard for a lead image. - BilCat (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no real preference I was just trying to give the reader a clearer view of the subject matter - FOX 52 (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Fox 52, with the Sabre picture you didn't just changed "nothing but sky and no landing gear"; you also added a pilot with helmet and oxygen mask that may or may not be the correct ones; that's well into OR.

Gratuitous photoshopping such as in the examples above detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia. There is already enough fakery out there for us to indulge in this sort of pastimes. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

In thinking about this, I believe we need to differentiate between original photos, photos of models, artist's concepts and drastically altered photos. I won't call the ones illustrated above "retouched photos", because that sounds like minor fixes, like contrast, colour balance or sharpening, not putting the aircraft on a whole new background. In the past we have used original freely-licenced photos where available, even if not the best photos of the type ever shot. If we have used artist's concepts or photos of models, it has only been where original photos are not available and then these are clearly labelled as such. I believe that seriously altered images, as illustrated above, are in a whole different category, especially when you start removing landing gear or adding crew members, etc. If these are not clearly identified as altered, then we are being deceptive with our readers. I personally think we should not be doing this, as it detracts from the credibility of the encyclopedia to present these as photographs of the aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's another example: photo flipped left-to-right, visible text copied over so that it reads correctly and cabin door artificially moved ahead of the wing. All this fakery presumably so that the aircraft points more 'naturally' to the right. Completely unencyclopedic. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• 
• 

I agree, we really shouldn't be doing that! - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I was fiddling about with the Bristol Boxkite page just now & came across this

Poscard showing a Bristol Boxkite flying over Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain

( just added the Postcard showing a). I think it is a good example of (what I think is) a faked photo deserving a place in an article>TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say that one could be used in an article, but because the photos is of a historic nature, used to promote the plane or the location at the time, but the caption should explain that it is a composite image or something similar. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This particular photo could well be genuine. Both Bristol and the Army had aerodromes on Salisbury Plain at this time and both were flying Boxkites. It could very easily be a carefully staged publicity overflight, with little more by way of retouching than some sharpening of the sticks and wires. Compare it with this later shot of a Bristol monoplane over Stonehenge, while this search result shows that such overflights were not uncommon. I'd be happy to use it in an article lead. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Its dubious. If I said it was a fake it would be OR. certainly the light is plausible but otherwise its just too good a photo of a boxkite in flight to fit with the quality of the photo of Stonehenge. I retitles as I did because it seems to me to introduce a quantum of doubt.TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"Photoshopped Bell P-39 Airacobra firing all weapons at night, the aircraft was actually on the ground."

Found a P-39 image that an IP claims has been "photoshopped". The original link is no longer available. Any thoughts on the veracity of this image? - BilCat (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Its a rather fabulous image but I cannot see how it could have been taken if the machine was flying. Its interesting, because what suggest flight is the angle; it could simply be a creative crop, but I suspect the undercart had been airbrushed out. (photoshopped indeed). I think a better image could be found to illustrate Gordon P. SavilleTheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks very much like a photo of Gun harmonisation, which is done on the ground. The image was then titled and the undercarriage removed. You can't easily get a photos like that in flight. - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone updated the link to the U.S. Air Force museum's page on the photo, but that gives no further information. The person who claimed it was "photoshopped" left a talk page entry linking to [1], saying that the explanation can be found part way down the page. While I'm sure the fiddlersgreen.net site would not pass Wikipedia's "reliable source" test, I have found some detailed historical commentary there before, and sure enough, that page discusses this photo in some depth.

First, it shows the image in question, with the caption, This World War II publicity photo of a Bell P-39D Airacobra is not what it seems. The aircraft is supposed to be firing all its guns - six machine guns and a cannon - during a night flight.

Next, it shows a second photo which it claims shows the setup for the first, with the caption, Actually, the warbird was not flying at all. It was tied down at the test-firing range at the factory. A little artwork transferred the plane from the ground to the night sky. Personally, I admit I find the existence of this second photo to be persuasive in itself.

After those photos, there is some more detailed commentary:

Back in the early days of World War II, Bell Aircraft and the U.S. Army Air Forces got a lot of publicity mileage from a spectacular photo of one of the new Bell P-39 Airacobra fighters that was firing its guns at night. As printed in the newspapers and magazines, the picture appeared to be a very close-in shot of the powerfully armed fighter in full flight with all guns blazing. The use of tracer bullets added to the effect.

Getting an actual flight scene like this would have taken some doing. A check of the perspective reveals that the camera used a normal lens and was placed quite close to the subject. If the camera were in another plane, the formation flying would have been terrifically close. It would have been tricky enough under the best of conditions, and even more difficult at night, particularly with the subject pilot firing his guns as well as holding formation.

As can be seen from the second photo, the flight was a fake and the photographer was safely on the ground. Other than the gunnery, which was real enough, all the "action" was the result of a retouched photo.

There was a lot to do, such as blacking out all of the ground details and then removing the landing gear and closing up the nosewheel doors. To get a little more action into the scene, the "flight" picture was tilted a bit. It may be confusing to those who come across this shot in old magazines to find it credited to two sources. The manufacturer released it, with the military censor's approval, and got the proper credit lines in various publications. The Air Force made copies of the photo and released them on its own, so other prints appear as "Official Photo U.S. Army Air Force" even though it was not an original Army photo. Much can be written on the subject of incorrect photo credits.

As is to be expected from any new and successful gimmick, it was soon copied, and both Lockheed with its P-38 and Republic with its spectacular eight-gun P-47 were soon out with "night flight" shots of their own.

So not only may the photo be manipulated, it may not even be an Air Force photo, but rather a Bell photo.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. The photo did lookfishy, but such a claim needs some proof, and y'all found it! - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Full Noise (aircraft)

An open discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Noise (aircraft) infers from the guidelines that being named is noteworthy enough for an individual article. I dont want to redo the AfD discussion but I am concerned that the precedent of having a mention in a magazine is enough for a stand-alone article. Flypast regulary has two or three articles on individual articles, some named some not. Some of the unamed ones would be considered far more noteworthy than Full Noise. Have we got it right, should we look at our individual aircraft article criteria again? MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

For example Flypast May18 has a number of "news" type articles similar to the Full Noise mention which feature individual aircraft but also fuller articles:

• "Buchon with a back seat" an article on former Battle of Britain film star Hispano HA.1112 "Red 11" or G-AWHC.
• "Eastern Promise" an article on New Zealand based Spitfire NH799.
• "Green Ghost" an article on a RAAF Beaufighter A8-116
• "Phoenix from the ashes", Hawker Typhoon RB136 restoration project MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:GNG requires "Significant coverage", which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The Swiss F/A-18 simulator AfD made it abundantly clear that we do not accept a few mentions in the odd journal as establishing notability. I would suggest that a lot of individual aircraft articles need to be AfD-ed and I think this is a useful test case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The vote is too small at the moment to make this much of a test case. Is there anywhere else this AfD can be posted, to draw in more comment? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Result is delete. This gives us some encouragement to go after similar non-notable articles in Category:Individual aircraft. A random sample suggests there might be quite a lot. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ending the system of portals

Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

article -- notable

Is the subject of this article even notable? It looks as though his son wrote it. I just deleted some unreferenced text. But wonder if it all needs to go. Joseph Costa (aviator). --2604:2000:E016:A700:70B4:99EA:A267:D633 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What evidence is there that this is a WP:COI piece? - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The just-now-deleted-uncited material seems to include material only someone such as the person's son would know. But beyond that, I cannot verify that the person is in fact notable by our standards. 2604:2000:E016:A700:70B4:99EA:A267:D633 (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this. The main contributor is Jlsf1977 (talk · contribs), who has been adding to it in dribs and drabs since 2013, with a break in 2016 to build the article on singer Sofia Escobar. I think that a friend or relation would have done it all in a rush, this looks more like a nerdy [apologies] fan who is posting stuff they dig out as they go along. Either way, Costa appears to fail WP:GNG, so I also think that WP:AfD would be a good way to go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs, the text you removed was pretty spammy at the very least, so thanks for cleaning it up. You could take it to WP:AFD for a complete debate on the merits of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sirs

There are references for nearly all the info that was deleted. Most of the events took place 80 years ago, so it is quite obvious that the text is sequence of facts that come from references, in the case mostly newspapers and books. Some facts (e.g. Cross on the place) can be seen in photos which cannot be posted in wiki due to copyrights. I can add more references, if that is the case. Regarding the achievements, anyone with some know-how on aviation can appreciate the whole story. The person in question is referenced in aviation books, and an airport is named after him. I see enough merit to have a wikipedia page written on his behalf.

My best regards 19:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlsf1977 (talk • contribs)

I agree the cuts went too deep and some significant content got lost, so I have restored it. But it did/does need a lot of reorganization, trimming, and better citations, so I have begun that cleanup. Yes please, if you can add more citations, especially from books, please do. But do be aware that, just because a factoid is in a book, this does not necessarily make it significant enough to include in the article. Your success or otherwise at this will help to clarify whether Costa was notable enough to keep this article: it takes more than a few newspaper cuttings to establish that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire prototype K5054

I have drafted an article at Draft:Supermarine Spitfire prototype K5054. All comments and improvements are welcome. In particular, the nerdy detail and inline citations may need some rebalancing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"A month later, on 3 January 1935, they formalised the contract with a new specification, F10/35, written around the aircraft." according to the Air-Britain "The British Aircraft Specification File" F10/35 was circulated for comment only and specification F.37/34 for a High Speed Monoplane Single Seat Fighter was issued to Supermarine on the 3 January 1935. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what you get for copy-pasting cited content from the main article without checking the source first. Thanks, I'll look into it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody has touched it since I posted it and I have now done all I can for it. The draft system is well overloaded, so does anybody have any objections to my bumping it to main article space? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I cant see why you cant move it to main, certainly needs more work but is far better shape then some articles we have. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26

The Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26 article describes a sub-scale replica which has nothing to do with the original Supermarine company. I have started a discussion on what to do about it at Talk:Supermarine Spitfire Mk 26#Move or merge?. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

P-37 article

The X/YP-37 currently is covered in Curtiss P-36 Hawk. I think this aircraft should have it's own article, it's more than a variant of the P-36, it's more different than the early P-40. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 13:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There's not really enough content there to justify a separate article. In addition, both the XP-37 and XP-42 were converted from P-36 airframes, and so are fine with that article. - BilCat (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Zeppelin airships

Just having a tidy up of LZ 72 (or should that be Zeppelin LZ 72) and changed the infobox for aircraft type to aircraft career as it is an individual aircraft, I also removed the specification section as that is dealt with in the type article Zeppelin R Class. I have noticed the naming conventions seem to vary for this individual airships and some appear to have "ship" infoboxes like LZ 61 (L 21). Should these all be Zeppelin followed by the builders name with a redirect from the navy designation? I think we should be consistent. Any airship experts around? MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The airship articles as a collection are pretty chaotic. I think we need to format them basically as aircraft articles, but pay attention to nautical requirements where appropriate. To have say the R100 or Goodyear blimp articles treated as nautical ships would be plain silly, and consistency across airships is more important than consistency within a single operator: we don't treat flying boats or naval fixed-wing craft as ships, either. That might mean either a dedicated template for airships, or more extensions for airships to the standard aircraft templates. Are the ship templates being used for the airships including stuff we do not currently give for aircraft? If so, we'd have to discuss it with the appropriate wikiproject/s. Apologies for where I have stated the bleedin' obvious. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

New spec template for electric aircraft engines

I was discussing with User:BilCat and we both agreed with the increasing number of electric aircraft motors being built and flown that we should have a Template:Electricspecs, so I wrote one, including the documentation, liberally cribbed from the piston specs. This new article shows how it looks "in the wild": Geiger HDP 13.5. Input and improvements are all greatly appreciated. I will go back through the existing Category:Aircraft electric engines and update these to the new template, unless anyone wants to jump in and tackle a few. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

IP warrior

Could use some help at Blohm & Voss P 208, Blohm & Voss P 209, Blohm & Voss P 212. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano

Hope this is the place to ask but I can not find any source for variants of the EMB 314 (A & B). Would anyone know where to fine this? TomSwansen (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Where is this source(s) needed? Maybe Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano#Variants. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This company page might covers the basics listed there as a starter. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you TomSwansen (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Short Description

I see that a load of Short Descriptions are being added to each article, clearly the concept of consistency has been lost somewhere but I am finding some of them amusing, probably have to tidy them all up at some point. I also see that seemed to have lost the word "American" somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering when someone made a post about this :). Currently I am just importing them from commons so that's why they are all over the place. I also think there should be some format not only just for this project but in general. The guidelines are quite broad so it is almost a free for all, however I think its better to have something than leave mobile users with nothing at all in the future. Currently I just try to find something that makes sense and update the capitalization of the first letter. Also for other users that aren't up to date on the short descriptions please see: Wikipedia:Short description. I am open to suggestions to make them better. Greetings, Redalert2fan (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Redalert2fan dont have a problem with your efforts just that at some point we will need to make the descriptions have some consistency. We have for example Family of Foo aircraft and Series of Foo aircraft, some mention the country some dont and very rarely use the term American. We just need to help get them right in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Aircraft categories

A discussion was started recently but I dont see any notification to the project, a user wants to rename all the "Aircraft XXX0-XXX9" to "Aircraft first flown in 2010s" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 14#Aircraft_categories. Pretty sure this will break all the Category:Australian aircraft 2000–2009 type sub-cats and all the other children of the category family. Comments welcome at discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Pink aircraft with blue spots

Anybody know where Category:Retractable conventional landing gear came from I am to busy creating cats for pink aircraft. Seriously not a defining feature for categorisation ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a subcat of Category:Conventional landing gear, which seems a pretty hazy definition in itself. I am told today's pilots need special training to fly aircraft with tailwheel gear.TSRL (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Delta wing

An old edit warrior is back at Delta wing article. Eyes on that, Talk:Delta wing#The Last Laugh and User talk:Caula would be appreciated, as I have used up my two reverts. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Template update?

I noticed that {{civairnd}} should probably be updated to include "2010s" in its first sequence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs) 04:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• I made those corrections or at least tried. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

New aircraft needs improving

Hello! Thus I make my first presence on the Aircraft WikiProject, I'm generally a navy guy. But we have a really special bird today. The RAS-1 Getta was the only Romanian-made flying boat, probably ever. However, information about it is scant. I only went forward with the article because I managed to find an English-language source on Google Books which gives some relevant info. But the rest is links. This is why I appeal to you. By all means, please try to find more information about this unique aircraft in English-language literary sources at your disposal. Or at least enough to confirm what is covered by the sites. Torpilorul (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TechHaus Volantis

TechHaus Volantis is the only Artpop-related article in a proposed Good topic about the album, apart from the parent article itself. In other words, this series of Good articles is close to reaching Good topic status, but this aircraft article is a bit outside the Lady Gaga realm. WikiProject Lady Gaga members could use some help from WikiProject Aviation / WikiProject Aircraft members, if any editors are particularly interested in expanding and improving this article, with the ultimate goal of achieving Good article status. Or, if anyone has feedback or suggestions for further improvement, all recommendations are welcome on the talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have managed to round it out a bit more now, though reliable sources are scarce and I do not think that much more can be said. Would anybody be able to reassess its status? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The Aerospace Industries Association has recently put its archives online.

I thought this WikiProject would be interested to know that, in preparation for its hundredth anniversary, the Aerospace Industries Association has been digitizing its archives and placing them online. Particularly notable as potential sources are the Aircraft Year Books, published annually starting in 1919. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Role cats

I removed a recently added Category:United States military reconnaissance aircraft 1950–1959 to the Lockheed C-130 Hercules as it is not the original design role of the aircraft, I have added it back after being reverted by User:TadgStirkland401 with the reason that it had been used as recon aircraft in the 1950s. Clearly true the Hercules could have a fair number of these country<>role<>decade cats hence the original role only guidance which has been the practice of the project probably since they were first used. As Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories is not clear on the matter I have raised it for discussion. Do we keep the original role rule and add it to the project page or do we add every role that an aircraft ever had. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. Most military aircraft would only have one or cats, but the C-130 is a good example of one that could have a dozen or more. Is that helpful or is is just clutter? - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Thank you for taking the time to open this for discussion. I think you know my opinion. But, this aircraft has been used very much by the US in a recon role ever since its inception beginning in efforts in Germany (among others). I wanted to use a category more germaine like US military recon aircraft, and drop the dates altogether. But when I read the the dates only refer to when it began that role, it occurred to me that this is the way they intended to cut down on the clutter (I suppose). I stand on the idea that this aircraft has been widely used all along as a recon platform and the cat should stay. Thanks again for opening the discussion. Sorry if it felt like an edit war brewing. --TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

What about the fact that the C-130 could also have cats for: military utility aircraft‎, military transport aircraft‎, military trainer aircraft‎, military tanker aircraft‎, military rescue aircraft‎, patrol aircraft‎, electronic warfare aircraft‎, command and control aircraft‎, bomber aircraft‎ and attack aircraft‎? Should we add all of those? - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The basic role of the C-130 was and is as a military transport aircraft. That is what the main article covers, and as such that should be the only role category on that page. We have about a dozen variant articles on the C-130, so those are the articles where categories for those specific roles belong. - BilCat (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: How is it that the C-130 allows for other articles on the variants, but the RC-135, when that was attempted was shot down (pun intended)??? This isn't really making sense or staying consistent across the board. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 18:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

We have an article on the Boeing RC-135, and articles for several other -135 variants. But that's irrelevant to categories. - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

So with the wingspans, height, weight and other differences, between the V/W and U models, why is an article on the U-model (or others) frowned upon? I'm looking for clarity, not for the sake of an argument. I really want to contribute. I've made a couple updates to the RC-135 article that were also rolled back. I don't want to get involved in any sort of edit wars. Just need to understand the rationale. Thanks for being patient with me. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, the conversation is drifting. Should we leave the category on the C-130 since there is no article of a C-130 recon variant? TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Which -130 recon variants? And would it fit better on one of the variant articles, such as one on the EC-130? I don't mind questions on the C-135 in general, but I haven't dealt with it in awhile, so you'd need to refresh my memory, and give me some diffs and links to look at. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The C-130s out of Rhein-Main, The Berlin for Lunch Bunch, were click-130s. Some have tried to say they were C-130B-II, but they weren't. So, I think the tag belongs right on the main article for now. Just my opinion, I'll bow to concensus. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 23:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I would still argue the original idea of only using the original purpose cat on the main article, dont have a problem with using more specific ones on the variant articles. Do we have an article on the RC-130s? MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no article on RC-130s because they were never designated that way. They remained C-130 throughout their stay at Rhein Main, for instance. Not sure about other locations. --TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

See this article for instance, 7575th Ops Group --TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 20:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur with using only the original purpose cat on the main article. - BilCat (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

RC-130 Hercules

Following a discussion above on role cats I have created a stub for Lockheed RC-130 Hercules, an interesting variant but would appreciate help if anybody has sources to improve it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft occurrence

A discussion is open with a request to enable users to embed the NRHP infobox template within the aircraft occurence one, Template_talk:Infobox_aircraft_occurrence#Embedding. Comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Piasecki H-21

I've added the Congo Democratic Air Force to the operators list, but with only a forum source the image(s) appear authentic, but have not been able to locate any published sources - If any one has one please post it- Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Forums aren't reliable sources - and there don't appear to be any photos of the H-21 on the link you posted anyway. Unless anyone actually has a WP:RS that states this, then the DRC air force should be removed from the H-21 article.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Photoshopped Images, Part Deux

Photoshopped images have been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 43#Photoshopped Images in April 2018. While we didn't outright forbid them, we did express concern about their usage. Since then, such images have continued to be used, the latest here, which I reverted twice. Is this an issue on which we need to seek guidance from the Wikipedia community as a whole? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Light/crop adjustments are OK but compositing multiple images to give a new meaning is too much. In the case of your example:

• 
  original
• 
  remix

I think it's borderline but still keeps the original meaning : the resulting picture could have been taken from a slightly lower angle or a bit later/before with the craft a little bit higher. The resulting image is more simple to understand and better shows the craft. It would be too much if the ground was changed to an other location for example. I often clip distracting backgrounds.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a parallel in the way that reliable sources have always treated photographs. I think that photoshopping should be allowed only where it cleans up an image to make the inherent message clearer. Using it to create a new take on the subject should not be allowed. Borderline examples obviously have to be taken on a case by case basis. Editorial preference should be avoided where objective arguments exist. In the helicopter example above, I would suggest that the ground shot is perfectly acceptable, if a little small, and so cropping would be good, but photoshopping the background is not appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely with Steelpillow. There's a big difference between tidying up a photo, and modifying it so it shows something quite different. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is a copy which I have cropped and tinkered with the colours, gamma, etc. as any regular publisher would do. I regard this as acceptable and not what we mean by photoshopping.

• 
  cropped and lightly enhanced

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

I agree with everyone else here: cropping, fixing contrast is okay to make photos more relevant, but changing backgrounds and such is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. It basically makes the photo a work of fiction. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the original photoshopper that the ground scene is ugly and distracting but it could be cropped also:

• 
  ground and barrels cropped

clipping the hill in the background as it was some sky is not too much IMO, it could have been taken in the same spot with the chopper a bit higher to give a clearer view, but minor shopping is enough to get a clean pic. I often clip entirely the background to remove a busy one, like:

• 
  busy expo background
• 
  background clipped
• 
  people in background
• 
  clipped

but not adding another background avoid confusing the viewer.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Not that my opinion matters, but, I don't see the difference between offering a pic with a hill in the background and a pic without it. What's the big deal? --TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 17:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments do matter. The hill is OK but the chopper is not as clear when it is over it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The danger is that if you present an image out of context then it may be taken and used out of context. Any image use occurs in a given context and both the image and that context need to be verifiable. If an image is presented in a fictional setting, then the context for any given usage becomes unverifiable. For example would that helicopter in clear air be flying in a different attitude or with different control settings, has any ancillary item been clipped from that engine photo? Only by knowing, i.e. seeing, the original setting can a reader judge the reliability of the context. The clipped quadcopter with a miniature cityscape stuck to its rear starboard rotor is obviously unacceptable and a line has to be drawn somewhere or these discussions would never end. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I left the miniature cityscape because it was difficult to clip with curved windows reflections: if it is removed, the reflections hinting the transparent windows would be gone. On the image page, the original is linked and the viewer can judge if any ancillary is left. What would be your line to draw: allow background clipping or not?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

We shouldnt change images other than to improve quality as I think it is misleading the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Marc, your clipping problem with the quadcopter is a perfect example of why it is unacceptable - the visitor does not know you had a problem and does not know what other compromises you might have made. I also notice some small parts of the engine in that image that got clipped away. The whole point of an image here is to illustrate and clarify the main text. It is not acceptable to then have to clarify the image context via click-through. I thought I made it clear: cropping yes, clipping no. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I hear your point but I still think clipping backgrounds enhances the viewer comprehension, and being able to look at the source avoids manipulations: the image would be removed if it's manipulating the reality.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I begin to see some logic there. If the source image can be cited in the same way that we cite text, then the reader can verify it in just the same way. But there are two main problems with that. First, if the image is incorrect then the reader cannot easily correct it but can only delete it because it should never have been there. Secondly, the source image would need to be a reliable source in its own right; if we pick one arbitrarily off the Internet or even the Wikimedia Commons then who is to say what PoV-pushing photoshopping has been performed on it, while if it is reliable then it is someone's copyright and so permission would be needed for any derivative work.

We do sometimes allow images of models or drawings (physical or virtual) where no free image of an original exists, as long as the caption says so. And we don't insist on verifiable links for them. Could/should we extend that to photo clipping, or are we being too careless about models and drawings? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your objective POV and sensitive approach. "the reader cannot easily correct it but can only delete it": not only, he can also revert to the source image (or find a better one). "if we pick one arbitrarily off the Internet": we can't use any image not aptly licensed, "or even the Wikimedia Commons" most commons pictures are original work and anybody could upload anything and claim it's anything, see The Treachery of Images! How can I be sure the above chopper is indeed a Kawasaki KH-4? I never saw one, I must trust the uploader. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

From and encyclopedic point of view, the less we tinker with a picture the better. We are here primarily to document reliable information, rather than to make a website look pretty. Cropping, enhancing of colours, shades etc can be helpful, but indulging in wholesale alterations, replacement of backgrounds and so on doesn't do the project much good. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support a rule stating adding enhanced pictures is OK (crop, light, color balance), while changing backgrounds is too much, but clipping backgrounds while keeping the original image linked for reference is acceptable when the background is distracting from the main subject and when the meaning is kept (no standing aircraft looking inflight like the USAF/Bell Airacobra). We don't need to make a pretty encyclopedia but it doesn't hurt when it's good looking.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with User:Marc Lacoste above, with the exception of allowing clipping backgrounds. I feel that the loss of context is too close to WP:OR. Personally I take a lot of photos for Wikipedia (over 1300 in use today) and when I shoot them I aim to reduce the background being an issue as far as possible. I think it is better to take better photos than seriously alter the ones we have. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Superimposing a partial background somehow "give a new meaning" or "deceives the reader" - I seriously doubt that, (helicopters do fly in the sky). I could understand if the image was photo shopped with Godzilla flying the helicopter upside down, in a volcano. The enhancement is to help the reader visually see the aircraft more clearly. Further I see no merit with WP:OR argument, since the image is being traced from the original photo. Opposing arguments seem to be weak at best and think there is more of a personal preference than anything else - FOX 52 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with Ahunt. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ahunt and MilborneOne. - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Next step?

Actually, I wasn't seeking a rehash of previous discussions on whether or images with artificial backgrounds - whole or partial - should be allowed. As clear from this discussion, editors differ on how and when such images should be used. Rather, I was asking if we should seek guidance from the Wikipedia community on the use of such images. The above discussion shows that such guidance is probably needed. So, what next? - BilCat (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: Why don't you start by clarifiyling your rational. Your argument is “its artificial background” – Which somehow deceives the reader? Maybe if the helicopter was underwater, but it was placed in the sky where an aircraft flies. That makes no logical sense. Are these examples fake too? [2], [3], [4] - (for the record: adding enhancement clarity to these images is not my first choice, but until a better one comes along I think it helps the reader) FOX 52 (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@FOX 52: And that's going to help get a community consensus on the issue how exactly? - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a simple question: how does superimposing a partial sky for another sky "give a new meaning" or "deceives the reader" - FOX 52 (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Your questions were answered by others in the previous discussion section, but you have rejected them. Is my repeating those answers going to change your opinion on the matter? - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ref how does superimposing a partial sky for another sky "give a new meaning" or "deceives the reader" Well, in the example at the top of this discussion, the probe on the front of the helicopter seems to have been completely removed.

As to an overall rationale - the same as any article content - it should be an accurate depiction. I don't know that it's possible to write a few sentences to give hard rules for when to crop, rebalance colour, or adjust backgrounds in every circumstance - but consensus can likely be reached on a case by case basis when required. (Hohum ^@) 19:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The site-wide Manual of Style gives some guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Editing_images. Blurring a background to emphasise the subject is allowed, alterations which might "materially mislead" the viewer are not. Does it "materially mislead" the viewer if a machine close to the ground, with its controls set accordingly, is re-presented as high in the sky, or if the background - and possibly some minor edge detail - is removed altogether? Do we need to take each such image on a case-by-case basis? May I suggest that we raise these questions in a new thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Saying that I don't think we can cover every circumstance doesn't mean I think every image usage needs to approved via case by case consensus. I'm all for getting wider input on the subject. (Hohum ^@) 00:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Fokker trimotor ID request

Vliegveld Schiphol met vliegtuig en stationsgebouw, Bestanddeelnr 189-0515.jpg

Can anyone identify this? KLM, 1933 at Schiphol. It looks like one of their great many Fokker F.VII trimotors, but what are those engines? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's Fokker F.VIIb-3m trimotor PH-AGR, and that the engines are Gnome-Rhône 5B or 5K Titans, versions of the Bristol Titan. Some F.VIIb-3m aircraft were equipped with Titan engines. Photo of another example, flying for a French airline but still bearing Dutch registration.

There are a couple other photos of PH-AGR taken on the same occasion:

• 
  Schiphol vanuit de starttoren, Bestanddeelnr 189-0513.jpg
• 
  De aankomst van de Hongaarse zangeres en actrice Gitta Alpar op Schiphol, Bestanddeelnr 189-0510.jpg

For some reason, PH-AGR had been miscategorized in Commons as a Fokker F.XII, but I just fixed that. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Learjet nav template

Just for information a template related to this project Template:Learjet aircraft is subject to a deletion discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

F/A-18C Maquette

Swiss users seem determined to have an article on this and it has been created again as F/A-18C Maquette, to late for me tonight to check how close it is to the previously deleted article so parking it here if someone else has time to look at it, thanks. (possibly block evasion by User:FFA P-16) MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

We have debated this one before and the subject is just not notable. All air forces have training aids like this for various uses from tech training to firefighter training. The wording used and the edit history of the editor who started this looks very much like a certain banned user's style. I can't imagine anyone else but him jumping on this article topic, either. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This new article is definitely unacceptable. However I believe that the consensus on the topic needs reversing. I have been working on an alternative draft at User:Steelpillow/test1 which I believe demonstrates adequate notability. First of all, the criticisms of context such as "All air forces have training aids like this for various uses from tech training to firefighter training" (as voiced again above here) has never been backed up by evidence of similarly sophisticated mock-ups: the combination of true-to-life airframe plus a complex interactive fault simulation systems fit gives it the ability to provide highly realistic training scenarios and this is believed by the manufacturer to be wholly unique. My challenge to other editors to disprove that by providing other equally sophisticated examples remains unanswered - sorry, but a burned-out fuselage used for fire training just does not cut it, any more than an onscreen virtual world does. Do any other air forces truly register their training rigs with unique official aircraft tail numbers? I have never seen another. Since the last discussion one more RS has appeared, though I forget which. Although I had no part in the recreation of the fanboi cruft, I do think that the consensus on notability needs revisiting. (BTW, the choice and formatting of the references in the fancruft version looks similar to mine and they are obviously derived from a common ancestor, but the content shows none of my working-over and cruft removal). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The "Pennant GenFly Mk2s" at RAF Cosford have Royal Air Force Serial numbers ZJ695 etc, pretty sophisticated training aids http://www.pennantplc.co.uk/products/generic-flying-controls-trainer-genfly/ but I am not sure are noteworthy enough for an article so I still done see why the F/A-18C is any different or unique. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have learned something. However an article for the Genfly was created over five years ago and that does not even look like the real thing. On that basis the F-18 rig is even more deserving of one. Otherwise, the GenFly page should go too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Didnt know we had an article ! - not the best quality and a bit of a ramble - perhaps an overview article on these training aids rather than individual types might be worth considering. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to note I having compared it with the original and I have deleted it under G4 as a close copy of the deleted page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a general overview article on Air Force training aids or similar would be a better home for these things. There could be a summary of what they are used for and then perhaps a para on each actually notable one? - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you'd need to find several more notable products and then some common threads to structure the article round. Given that such aids traditionally serve different markets - flight, maintenance and ground/emergency handling - I am not sure that would be possible. Separate articles for each market might be viable, but again, where are the other notable examples? There is a good article on the flight simulator and a short article on the aircraft fire trainer (that probably fails WP:GNG), but the Hornet mock-up has so many capabilities that it is hard to classify in this way. The manufacturers claim it to be unique in this respect and I see no sign here of that being seriously challenged. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The article on the Genfly is as full of fanboy trivia and apparent WP:OR as the deleted F/A-18C mock-up article, if not more so. It has no sources cited to demonstrate notability, but even ignoring the article state I can see no evidence that the Genfly is a more notable topic than the F/A-18C mockup. Nor can I see any reason to treat them differently just because their sources are in different languages. Should the GenFly article be put up for AfD, or should my latest draft of a better F/A-18C article be put up for approval? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 03:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Your draft is actually good, neutrally worded and seems to quite meet WP:GNG, so you have me convinced it should be posted. on the other hand the Genfly has no refs and should be deleted as non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. Meanwhile I have been investigating sources for the GenFly. Its parent company is Pennant International, an international aviation maintenance services group which must surely be notable. Pennant make a range of simulators but have no Wikipedia page yet, so I have begun to expand the scope of the Genfly article, cut out the micro-detail and move it to Pennant International. Any problems, please shout. Help also appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay that sounds like a viable plan for that article. Please do post a note back here when you feel you are done and ready for a review of that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have done the basic move to Pennant International and reshape, and will take a break now. There is still plenty of both housekeeping and content to sort out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now also copied my F/A-18C draft across to Draft:Hugo Wolf F/A-18C simulator. There is some remark on the advice pages about adding Project tags on the talk page. Does anybody know anything about that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably easier to add those when it is moved out of draftspace. - Ahunt (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Flags in "Operators" section

In many articles of helicopters, the "operators" section uses flags, which as mentioned at MOS:FLAG brings unnecessary attention to the section and isn’t needed. These should be removed project wide. IWI (chat) 18:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Patterson & Francis Aviation Company

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/Patterson & Francis Aviation Company. - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Twin-engined airplanes with fixed landing gear

Please note that I have nominated Category:Twin-engined airplanes with fixed landing gear for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 20#Category:Twin-engined airplanes with fixed landing gear, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Attack helicopters

Before I raise another deletion request, User:Arado has created Category:Attack helicopters although we already have a prefectly good working Category:Attack aircraft tree. Anybody have any views on this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It's probably time that Wikipedia reviews the category creation process. Far too many obscure categories are being created and sent to CFD, the process to delete them is too difficult. Editors should think to themselves 'Why hasn't this category been created already?', there's probably a good reason. Who defines what an 'attack helicopter' is? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

In this particular case I think the category is justified. Attack helicopters are a notable enough topic and have their own article. But I agree, there are far too many obscure categories springing up. Watch out for Category:Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It should be avoided with a better search tool to join categories like petscan.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that there are a lot of obscure and unnecessary categories created and also that they are too hard to get rid of. There should be a PROD for cats or similar. All that said I think that Category:Attack helicopters is actually justified and needed. It is useful to readers. What should go in it? Helicopters that a WP:RS classifies as an attack helicopter. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I too think that a category for attack helicopters is justified; in fact, I was surprised to learn that one didn't already exist. It's a well-defined helicopter role going back to the 1960s, and considered quite distinct from conventional attack aircraft.

I fear I may be opening a can of worms here, but I also see there's no category for transport helicopters, like the Boeing CH-47 Chinook, Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion, and Mil Mi-26; they're lumped in with transport aircraft. (To me, on Wikipedia "transport aircraft" implies transport fixed-wing aircraft because of our habit of using "aircraft" to avoid the whole "plane/airplane/aeroplane" mess.) Again, transport helicopters are special, by their nature as helicopters. I'm showing an American bias here, but the fact that there are distinct AH- and CH- type prefixes for American military helicopters says something about these being well-defined roles. That these types are operated by the U.S. Army rather than the U.S. Air Force, even though the distinction originated in a political battle, likewise implies that that the use of helicopters in at least some roles can normally be clearly distinguished from fixed-wing aircraft in that role. That solution to the Army vs. Air Force conflict would have been less viable if such a distinction were not possible. Something to think about. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no Category:Transport aircraft either, nor Category:Utility aircraft, though there is Category:Civil utility aircraft. Clearly, the whole category tree needs a good shaking out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason most of these dont exist is because we have been using for example the Category:Attack aircraft tree which divides into countries and decades what is being proposed would be a new an parallel category systsem that duplicates the one we have used for years. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

SST vandalism

There are a couple IPers that keep vandalizing some articles with clearly false Supersonic Transport (SST) info. The past few days McDonnell Douglas MD-80 has been getting this as far as I can tell, but other aircraft article may start to see these edits also. Help revert these edits when you can. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

On my watchlist. I've added your user page too, as you seem to have attracted low-life there as well. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This has been a longstanding IP vandalism issue, particularly on Boeing 777. The IPs change all the time, so hard to block. Just revert. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Might it be worth asking for a month or two's semi-protection? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on past patterns he would then just move onto another airliner article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

How many times has he been forced elsewhere? Might sufficient persistence rub in the futility of his attempts? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The SST vandal has been around for a while and I did think we had or certainly asked for an edit filter to be created, perhaps we need to follow that up again. I have semi-protected MD-80 for a bit. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The IP is a meatpuppet of a banned user (I know whose), possibly a younger relative, and thus is his/her/xer/its way of retaliating. Protecting on sight usually works, as they run out of steam eventually. However, IIRC, at one time almost all current airliner articles were protected, and he/she/xe/it then began vandalizing non-airliner articles, but that hasn't happened in a while. - BilCat (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. I had been guessing it was the original vandal and several copycats. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Range vs Radius

Requesting comment at Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet#Range vs Radius. Sario528 (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Template talk:Aircraft specs#Range vs Radius Sario528 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Former Operators

I am proposing a change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)#Former Operators to allow a "Former operators" section to be used in Operators sections once again. Please reply there if you're interested in participating in the discussion. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Redesign of "List of Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants"

Earlier this year I started a redesign of the List of Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants page. I think it's ready to be published, but I want to know what you think. The redesign can be found at User:ZLEA/sandbox/Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants. I took inspiration from North American P-51 Mustang variants. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 20:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Two points. we do not normally list aircraft serial numbers or include specifications, any noteworthy specification differences would normally be in the narrative. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

On the whole this looks to be an improvement, although the number of references and citations which have survived is rather limited. Bringing across or finding a few more would help to establish the content's significance. I approve of the title change to simply Curtiss P-40 Warhawk variants. If and when you make the changeover, do be sure to move the main article as an independent step from updating its content. If you were to move your draft page straight to the new title, it would lose the previous history of the current article. However, I agree with MilborneOne that the specs should be either worked into the main narrative or removed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, the specs were from the original article, but I agree, they don't really belong. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 18:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned this entire page has been heavily vandalized. I am reverting the edit LankhmarJoe (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be a bigger hassle than I ever imagined so it looks like I won't be restoring the edit right away as it has to be done manually.

I am astounded that nearly a year of work on that page was summarily deleted by this user with no more notice than a very 'quiet' comment on the bottom of the talk page about this page. In my opinion this was snuck in. No mention on the actual P-40 Warhawks Variant page (a name which is incorrect by the way sine "Warhawk" was not used by most of the users of the aircraft) that a major revision was coming.

I consider this vandalism of the page and to have seriously diminished the quality of the article. Some points were raised previously on that article and I had been going through addressing each point one by one. I had added ~20 sources to the article and it actually had a relatively high signal to noise ratio unlike what it has now. If this is the policy of Wikipedia to vandalize hard work without discussion than so be it. I am going to pursue this matter as far as I can, work and life permitting. This is very disappointing. LankhmarJoe (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is clearly not vandalism per the Wikipedia definition of term (see WP:Vandalism). The pre-Nov. 23, 2018 version had far more details than are usually in Aircraft variant articles. A summary of such info belongs at Curtiss P-40 Warhawk or other split off article instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• So it's normal Wikipedia practice to delete that amount of work without even notifying the other editors who have been working on the page? That does not seem to be on the level to me.
• I also definitely do not agree with the premise that variants pages are necessarily or by common wikipedia practice so bare bones. Before I started fleshing out that page I carefully reviewed several other wikis for various other WW2 fighters. Part of the reason why (which I would have been glad to explain had anyone asked) is that I was hoping to thin out the somewhat overlong P-40 page Curtiss P-40 Warhawk of which I was the main editor in the last several years. For an example I would cite a similarly complex aircraft the Spitfire. Aside from the main page at Supermarine Spitfire, please note such pages as Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament and Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants) and Supermarine_Spitfire_(Griffon-powered_variants). Those are three detailed pages with exactly the kind of information that I was carefully putting into the one P-40 Variants page. The additions are necessary in my opinion because there were so many variants, the variants were so different, and they were used by so many different countries in widely divergent Theaters of the War. My hope was to make the article more useful and my assumption in fact was that this had not previously been done only because nobody had made the necessary effort, which trust me was considerable and also required investing in a substantial library of books on this subject. My hope was to improve the organization of the article and make it more useful to readers. Instead a great deal of work has been summarily deleted. I would really like a better explanation as to why at the very least. LankhmarJoe (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• On the variant article's talk page a new section, named "Relevant discussion") added on November 20 with a link to this section. That is a notice of sorts. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed but with the emphasis on "of sorts". It seems curious at best to me that the notification was so terse, gave no indication of any major changes and was in place for such a short time (3 days!!) before the sweeping changes were made. I typically have posted detailed warnings months before even moving a paragraph around if I didn't write it. As another example of the type of "Variants Page" I was trying to create for the P-40, please also note List of Focke-Wulf Fw 190 variants. I think it's abundantly clear that the premise that normal Wikipedia practice is for a terse article is insufficient reasoning for this extensive deletion which I would define as vandalism. Is there some other reason? LankhmarJoe (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• I have reverted the change. I am open to discussing with user ZLEA how to merge elements of his version with the existing version, as he has some data that the original article lacked (such as minor versions) and I am amenable to making any necessary revisions to remove the last (encyclopedic tone) tag, but pending some explanation as to why the rest of the article needed to be removed I believe it should remain. LankhmarJoe (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted that as you seem to think you own that article. The changes have been made, the original was mostly operational history and left most of the development out. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 17:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't own that article but neither do you, so why should your new change take precedence over the original article? I recommend you keep your version in your sandbox until we resolve this. I am unaware of any requirement that a variants page has to only discuss development history. Please review the Spitfire variants pages and the FW variants page that I linked they contain exactly the kind of information I had included. Development and production history has long been available - there is no reason it can't be part of the page but there is certainly no guideline or reason that I am aware of that it must be the only data included on the page. Again, I used the other similar variants pages as a guideline and operational data was included only to illustrate performance or design differences between models. LankhmarJoe (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool it guys, or someone will take the pair of you to WP:EDITWAR. The article can wait, it won't go away. What we need first is a consensus on the way ahead. I know little about the P-40 or I would be more proactive here, sorry. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sadly it looks like we are going to EDITWAR or some other dispute resolution as he keeps reverting the page back over and over. LankhmarJoe (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Bilcat reverted it too, let's have a discussion before we revert anymore. You may use ththe Fw and Spit' pages as guidelines, but those aren't the only ones, I used the North American P-51 Mustang variants page for a guideline. Is there anything wrong with that compared to your's? - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 02:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Billcat previously had a dispute with me over this same page several months ago, so he is not exactly neutral. I would say more but I am trying not to assume ill intent by anyone. It's referenced in my talk page. I'm fine with discussing edits or changes to the page but we are not going to delete the original page. The page as of Nov 22 is the starting point from which edits may or may not be added. You don't get to just zap 40+k worth of data from a page that has had a lot of recent work without discussing it with the other editors, and no slipping in a "there is a discussion here" on the bottom of the talk page 3 days before deleting and replacing the whole article does not qualify. LankhmarJoe (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia, so far as I know, is meant to be a collaborative process. Fellow editors are supposed to be treated with respect and courtesy. Deleting other peoples content or replacing other peoples content without consulting with them, when it is clear that they have been actively editing the page and you have not articulated any actual problems with it, is against that spirit. I am not deeply embedded in the culture of Wikipedia in spite of having edited pages for a long time, but I have never understood Wikipedia to be an "either / or" proposition. I don't grasp why it would have to boil down to either choosing version A or version B, unless there is some stink on version B that I don't know about. The best and most clearly sourced data should take precedence, the best writing should take precedence, and the most useful presentation should take precedence. I have yet to see any argument or explanation as to why the original article failed on any let alone all of those points, to the extent that the whole entire thing would be eliminated 3 days after a cursory note on the Talk page to check this discussion (devoid of context as to why). I don't believe that experienced editors will find this acceptable. LankhmarJoe (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that I've been left swinging in the breeze on this but I just wanted to point out one last thing which should have been caught in the review, the page which was deleted had 80 references and a bibliography of 26 pertinent literary sources as well as a half dozen online pilot interviews and War-era documents, whereas the new version with which it was replaced has a total of 4 references, no biblography and appears to be a direct copy of http://p40warhawk.com/Variants/Variants.htm. This is funny because this is literally where we started, the original page years ago was basically derived from data of the same two amateur fan pages ZLEA references: Joe Baugher.com and P-40Warhawks.com, the latter of which is copyrighted by Brad Hagen through 2018. Since the new page is essentially a direct copy it is possibly a copyright violation, and while I am certainly not an expert on wikipedia I gather it is generally frowned upon to directly copy from another encyclopedic source. More important to me while I think P-40Warhawks.com is a useful resource it also contains many errors which I sought to fix when I started my edit about a year ago. LankhmarJoe (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it is a list-class article, which doesn't have to be well written. Also, if we don't include the non-production variants, the article might as well be called "Curtiss P-40 Warhawk production variants", and have a separate article about the experimental/cancelled ones. You say you have a problem with me removing 80 references and "copying" from P-40Warhawks.com. I did not copy from said website, but I did get a lot of info from it. Would you be happy if I added more references and bibliography to the new article? - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 17:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know why you would intentionally replace a well written well sourced article with one that was neither and was derived from an existing copyrighted published site. But a good starting point would be to restore the Nov 22 version of the site, then add what elements you feel should be added a few at a time. LankhmarJoe (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with content as long as it is only derived from a copyrighted source. Take articles about movies for example, most have a summary of the plot, which usually is copyrighted. If you can help improve the current article without restoring the previous one, than please do. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

P-40 Variants Again

After going through a long series of discussion on the deletion and replacement of the original P-40 variants wiki by copyrighted content from a third party source, and being told that it was a fait accomplis and therefore the best solution was to put content back in piecemeal, I did as was suggested. I posted messages proposing potential changes on the Talk page for the article and waited for feedback from the other editor user:ZLEA who had deleted the original article, I waited several days to give time for feedback. User ZLEA then replied indicating no opposition to putting content back in. I then added content back to part of the article, first the bibliography, which was left in place, and then this morning one of four major sections of the original article. Almost all of this was then deleted this evening by the same user again without any discussion on the article talk page, my user talk page, or anywhere else.

We appear to be using two different models for the page - I am using Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament and the variants pages such as Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin-powered variants) and Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants. As I have pointed out a few times, the content put into the page by ZLEA is derived directly from the copyrighted web page http://p40warhawk.com/Variants/Variants.htm and is what I believe is a WP:CV violation, as it is essentially a verbatim copy.

When I pointed this out to user:ZLEA there was no denial, instead the response was "all content was copyrighted at some point."

This users focus seemed to be primarily on experimental and non combat variants of this aircraft covered by the article, while the of the original article was focused on combat variants. My hope was that the two sets of content could be merged and "live together" so to speak but today's removal of -6,248 k by this other user without any comment has made it clear that this user thinks he owns the page and any kind of compromise is going to be a major challenge. So I am asking for other aviation editors to review the two versions of the article in the recent edits and please comment here. LankhmarJoe (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First, thank you for coming here. There is clearly a strong conflict of views and you need input from more editors to resolve it. If any other editors reading this are more familiar with the P-40 than I am, your help would be much appreciated.

In your claim of copyvio, the particular page you link to is just a list of variants. Such a simple list of facts cannot really be copyrighted. When I checked out a sample of the linked pages I did not see anything that was obviously copy-pasted across. Can you quote some specific examples of copyright violation?

On the detailed editing dispute, I think it best to deal with it on the article talk page. Folks, please join us over there.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have moved content-related replies, made here, across to the article talk page. The detailed content discussion has no further place on this Project-level talk page and splitting it across two pages is totally unhelpful. However, please do reply here on the copyvio issue if you have any hard facts to draw to our attention. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Solo display teams

Just for information I have just deleted (again) Super Puma Display Team (Swiss Air Force) and F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display (Swiss Air Force) as a creation of blocked or banned user User:FFA P-16. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I notice that there is still an article on the Dutch Solo Display Teams. Should that go for AfD, for the same reasons as the Swiss and Turkish ones? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with an AfD for the Dutch Team. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

How can a solo display be a "team"? - BilCat (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The "team" is said to include all the ground support staff and usually seems to include a promotional kiosk as well. It seems quite a popular description: a quick Internet search reveals several more French, Belgian and Polish examples. Most seem to focus around either a fast jet doing aerobatics or a helicopter simulating a rescue. In fact there are so many that I begin to wonder whether the general topic of Solo display team might be notable enough for an article, or at least a section in a broader article.

Talking of which, air display currently redirects to aerobatics, which does not include all the helicopter rescue, team flypast or other air displays that one sees. It might serve as a good home for that broader article.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"Display team" in English implies, at least to me, a team of aircraft, not a team of people. Did you find much usage of the term by English-speaking countries? The ones we've come across so far all appear to be from non-English-speaking countries. (Just a semantics question, as I'm not trying to be purposely difficult.)

Air display would probably be a good start, with Solo display team redirecting there until it warrants its own page. - BilCat (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A few thoughts as I head to my bed. I changed the title of this thread to reflect the main concern that it drew out. I have found unreliable sites referring to Canadian, US and (I think) Australian solo display teams. Similarly, some native English-language sites are happy to report the foreign "solo display team" appearances. Not seen any rock-solid English-language WP:RS referring to them though, such as the English-speaking national air forces concerned or their national aviation journals. I'm off to sleep on it now, goodnight all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...team of one??? - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The Royal Air Force as an example has had nominated solo display aircraft for many years (or even decades) far to many for them to be noteworthy (2018 examples were at least a Chinook and Typhoon according to https://www.raf.mod.uk/display-teams/ the pilots are specifically trained and authorised to do solo displays for a season and invariably have a special painted aircraft). Might be worth a section in an air display article, although the Air Show article that exists might not be the right venue. MilborneOne (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Good morning and thank you for the link. I see that the RAF talk of a "display team" for a single aircraft and specifically describe the team as including all the support staff. They do not use the word "solo", so that might give us a few headaches.

Our biggest problem appears to be whether we should use the phrase "display team" to indicate; a team of aircraft as in an aerobatics display team, or a team of people as in a team supporting a solo display aircraft, or either depending on the context. I am inclined to the last of these options, as the RAF use it both ways and they are a reasonably reliable source for their own displays. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Caproni Ca.355

An IP recently converted Caproni Ca.355 from a redirect to an article. Would someone please check the text and fix some of the syntax problems. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added a cleanup tag to the page, and already several editors, including myself, have started to make improvements. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 04:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)