Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 47

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Fnlayson in topic Livery details in Air Force One
Archive 40 ← Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49

Husbandry of this page?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The table of contents for this page is off the bottom of my computer screen, I'm probably not alone. There are two templates (announcements and peer review) that are duplicated from the main page. If they were removed the TOC should become visible and the 'skip to TOC' banner wouldn't be needed, shortening the page even more. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine on my screen - are you on a tablet or a cell phone, or are you using very large text? - NiD.29 (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm on a standard laptop. It's better now the Signpost banner has been moved, it was being held below the peer review box. Collapsing the archives would also help. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Fifth and other fighter generations

Latest comment: 3 years ago41 comments9 people in discussion

Initial discussion

This nonsense that marketeers for Lockheed Martin dreamed up one day has returned. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I saw this on the radar today. Seems like L-M's marketing department has made a deep strike into the heart of Wikipedia. Is there any chance we can create a consensus to do away with this entire marketing paradigm? - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
There's already precedent. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, is that a consensus that applies here or do we have to do that all again? Perhaps we need a wider consensus against that whole subject? - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It's citable as precedent if we have to CfD this (I've dropped a note on the category creator's page explaining (I hope) nicely why we don't like this and asking if they would mind reverting). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Well let's see if that works as an interim measure then. - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It didn't. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Next step WP:CFD? - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

LM may have invented the paradigm as far as fighters are concerned, but such terminology existed in marketing long before that. And since then, every major aircraft manufacturer and most military operators have taken up the language, so I sincerely doubt LM has people on Wikipedia adding categories! But like many things on Wikipedia, fighter (and tank) generations are easy for relatively uninformed fan-beings to add and fight over, like pop-culture cruft. I wish we could excise it completely from our articles, but since even major aviation publications use the paradigms, it's probably a losing battle. That said, we shouldn't let it take over either, and dumping the categories is probably a good idea. BilCat (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't mean to suggest that L-M's Marketing Dept were actually creating categories here. Rather "marketing" is like a pebble tossed into a pond, where its ripples expand infinitely outward, rocking other boats on far shores ... or as my one psych prof put it more succinctly, "if advertising wasn't effective on humans, companies wouldn't do it". - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought that's what you meant, but I addressed the possibility it wasn't anyway. BilCat (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  - Ahunt (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, this discussion is about the generation fighter categories, but what about the corresponding articles, First-generation jet fighter, Second-generation jet fighter, etc.? -Fnlayson (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

They really should be all merged into a single article on the topic (it is (perhaps sadly) notable), but have fun with that. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I would support this, I managed to keep a pretty stable jet fighter generations since 2015.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Having not yet found any RS supporting the claim that the whole thing is Lockheed-Martin marketing-speak (not even in Baker), but instead discovered several older discussions of the fighter generations and one which ascribes the origin of the putative fifth-gen classification to Russia, I now think it necessary to keep both the Fifth generation fighter article to focus on the commonly-named fifth generation (whether others think they are or not)], and the Jet fighter generations article for an overall summary in the context of the reliably documented issues of definition. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
What about:
The first three have almost zeros refs and are tagged as WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Please go ahead!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
To make things even more confusing, the PRC skipped a whole fighter generation because of the so-called "Cultural Revolution". So its Fourth Gen fighters are equivalent to the rest of the world's Fifth Gens. This has lead to some confusion, with the Indian media missing it entirely, and the fan-beings adding it to our articles. Such fun! BilCat (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
These kinds of issue are why I now think that the article on Jet fighter generations is useful in bringing some overall clarity to the mess. I agree that the first three "generation" articles should redirect there, but that the fifth - and probably the sixth - should stay. I have not dug deeply into the fourth yet, as there is so much 4.5, 4+, 4++ and suchlike market bunfighting going on that substantial fact is hard to determine. Which mid-life upgrades are the ones that promote the AeroHero from 4+ to 4++? Why, the ones that the competing AviaCavia has not received, of course. Humbug! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

First, I have renamed this discussion to be more easily findable, I hope this is acceptable.

If you comment on this proposal, please do so below my sig and do not split it up.

As ever, we must let WP:N, WP:RS, WP:CITE and so forth be our guides. With that firmly in mind, the fifth-generation concept is here to stay. For example I have David Baker's bookazine on Fifth Generation Fighters (Mortons 2018) in which much notable material may be found. We can certainly justify the article on the Fifth-generation jet fighter (although per WP:COMMONNAME it should really be moved (over redirect) to Fifth generation fighter or Fifth generation fighter, in line with say FlightGlobal which uses the phrase many times (and unfortunately uses/avoids the hyphen with gay abandon).

The Fourth-generation jet fighter article has many cites, but none for the actual definition of the fourth generation and its design/performance criteria. It may have some notability as the generation preceding the fifth. I am not sure whether it can be improved with better citations, but if not it should be scrapped (as below).

But, as Baker makes clear, the third generation and earlier are dubious marketing-speak and the definitions cloudy and imprecise, with many types lying in the grey zones. Nobody ever wrote a piece on say "second-generation jet fighters" that I am aware of. The current articles on First-generation jet fighter, Second-generation jet fighter, etc. are poorly sourced, if at all, and are effectively editorial opinion. They should not so much be merged as scrapped and redirected to an article discussing the generations. I'd suggest that we add a freshly-written - i.e. sourced from RS and properly cited - section on the "History of the fifth-generation concept" or similar to the fifth-generation article and redirect there. In the usual way, if that section gets too big then it can be hived off as a standalone article.

Similarly, Category:Fifth-generation jet fighters could be sustained with adequate in-article sourcing, but the others are undefinable and hence untenable, and should be summarily excised.

Historians may eventually develop a more solid analysis and classification, by which time we or our successors may comfortably revisit the issue.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A well-reasoned and presented argument! I would suggest redirecting First-generation jet fighter, Second-generation jet fighter, Third-generation jet fighter and Fourth-generation jet fighter to Jet fighter generations, which seems actually well-written and sourced and covers that fact that this whole subject has its roots in marketing. I also think Fifth-generation jet fighter, while it seems notable, needs to be adjusted to indicate the origin of the term in marketing. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I never noticed that one. Yes, a better article to redirect to. But yeeks! that is about all that can be said for it. What a terrible approach to a subject, headlining the various nerds who tried to define it. They should be relegated to citations and the occasional note. Citing Hallion from 1990 and others who say the idea only appeared later is also unhelpful. The article has clearly grown from a rag-bag of disjoint sources and needs some proper subject-related restructuring; if I can find the time I'll see if I can use Baker as a reliable precedent. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought last time this came up we kept the generation articles as a fan-boy magnet and removed all mention of generations from the aircraft articles as marketing junk. Redrecting everything to Jet fighter generations seems to be reasonable. Sure we got rid of the categories before, with no mention in the articles they are not really needed or much help unless you are willy waving. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with SP's suggestion. It's worth noting as well that the marketing wonks refer to "4.5th generation" too! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have redirected First-generation jet fighter, Second-generation jet fighter and Third-generation jet fighter to Jet fighter generations. Stand by for reversion wars. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? Fifth generation fighter conveniently forgets that there were multiple generations of fighters (that no source has broken down as such) before the first generation of jet fighter, so it should not be used as the title for anything, or have anything redirected to it. Indeed, one could argue that there were almost that many generations of fighters, before the first jet fighter. (converted unarmed aircraft/designed as armed/cantilever monoplanes/stressed skin/streamlined). - NiD.29 (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. When RS conveniently forget, so must Wikipedia. Fortunately, those earlier technologies are adequately covered at Fighter aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It is stuff like this why some people have a hard time taking wikipedia seriously. It isn't whether they are adequately covered, it is that the page name no longer has the same meaning. Jet fighter is NOT synonymous with fighter - it is a subset, and burying the meaning of the superset with that of the subset is not something that we should be doing. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
"Fifth-generation fighters" appears to be the most common term (270 hits at FlightGlobal) compared to "Fifth-generation fighter jet" (4 hits) or "Fifth-generation jet fighter" (no hits). Baker's book is titled simply Fifth Generation Fighters. So you'll have to start a policy review at WT:COMMONNAME, it's no good belabouring a subsidiary WikiProject with your woes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Would it makes sense to create a single article for pre-4th generation jet fighters, containing all of the tables from the previous pages and describing those developments, but not attempting to draw unjustified distinctions between these fighter generations?Basilicus2 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

We already have Jet fighter generations for the developments and a sortable List of fighter aircraft for the listing (once its existing Class column has been filled in). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

Jet fighter generations - eyes wanted

Following the above, I began a cleanup. My edits to Jet fighter generations have been pretty much reverted, so I have opened a discussion on Recent edits to lead and first section at its talk page, to try and gain some consensus on where to take the article. Any and all contributions would be most welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Marc Lacoste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I are in danger of edit warring here, I am unable to make the edits we agreed stick. More hands and eyes would be most welcome! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Fifth generation page move

I cannot move Fifth-generation jet fighter to Fifth generation fighter per the above discussion/s, as it is over an existing redirect. Could someone with suitable privileges oblige? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Fourth-generation jet fighter

What to do with the Fourth-generation jet fighter article? Although it has a reasonable number of sources, little of its content is explicitly verified as fourth generation. And it has some utter cruft, such as flag-bedecked lists of arbitrarily-selected planes. On the other hand it does broadly focus around what is in retrospective becoming known as the fourth generation and its referencing could be improved to make it viable. The immediate question is, is there enough of relevance and value to justify a standalone article, as there is for the next two, or should it follow the first three into oblivion (after merging across anything useful to Jet fighter generations)? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You could try paring down everything that is clutter, OR and and unsourced and see what is left and make the call at that point. - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. I have just made some flag-bedecked-list fanboys very unhappy. There is more extraneous detail to cut, but it needs unstitching a bit more carefully. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
More cruft removed. Enough of what's left seems solid enough to worth keeping so the article can stay as a home for it, at least for now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement, thanks for all your work on that! - Ahunt (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Second-generation jet fighters

So, the improvements have come full circle. Time to put Category:Second-generation jet fighters up for WP:CfD. Main justification is that there is no Industry definition and no commentators appear to care enough to forge a firm one. As ever, I am in and out, some busy stuff has just come up. If anybody feels like going through the motions... — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly of interest...

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...the mess that is the fanboy wars on China/India/Pakistan aircraft pages finally boiled over to where someone reported somebody else at ANI from the J-20 and WS-10 pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Fourth generation fighter

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

First of our predicted warriors (see previous discussion) has arrived. Eyes/hands on at Fourth generation fighter and the associated talk page would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, all the listcruft, flags and rubbish are back, with more pouring in and nobody listening. Do we give a toss whether our earlier discussion sticks, or am I wasting my time trying to help out, here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

On it! - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
On this subject I found one of my old AW&STs with a column by Bill Sweetman which calls the entire thing rubbish. (And mentions LockMart picking it up from Russia - "5th generation fighter" was *Russian propaganda!*)- The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Good find! That needs to be added to the main article Jet fighter generations. - Ahunt (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
In case someone wants to wade into the pit of voles before I get around to it, it's the March 24 2014 issue, page 15, "Commander's Intent" column, Generation Games. Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35 a "fifth-generation" fighter in 2005, a term it borrowed from Russia in 2004 to describe the F-22... - The Bushranger One ping only 04:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I did add it in March 2014 but it was tamed down on 2 January 2021. After some edit wars, I gave up on military articles.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Sweetman's piece is actually titled "Is Saab’s New Gripen The Future Of Fighters?" and is already cited in Jet fighter generations, in the context of the Saab Gripen. Be wary of taking Sweetman's tale in isolation. Firstly, the article on jet fighter generations notes earlier precedent during a period in which the idea of generations was being developed, and the 2005 usage cannot be isolated from those precedents. Secondly, the Sweetman quote above is merely a lead eye-catcher, it is not in the substance of the piece. The quote contains no attribution of *originality* to Russia, only that that is where LM first happened to trip over the idea; accusations of invented marketing hype appear to be PoV, OR, etc. Its thrust appears to be more about bickering over which (of the broadly accepted) generations the various types fall into. If his main piece does make claims of originality or "marketing hype" (the above web link is subscription-only), then we need to; a) establish that this aspect of his piece is significant enough to mention and not just YALVIW (yet another lone voice in the wilderness), and b) present it as his allegations and not pretend he is definitive. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The whole "generation" concept is mostly opinions, so he's not so different from the others.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a verified consensus among multiple RS as to what it means. I have come across no such consensus for Sweetman's suggestions - have you? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a verified consensus among a swarm of lemmings who had a new shiny thrown at them by slick marketeers and it Became A Thing. FIFY. If anybody used "first-" "second-" or "third-generation" in the wild except applied willy-nilly ex-post-facto I will be shocked, shocked. (The fact that only fighters get this treatement is also a reason to try to avoid it. Where are the "genrations" of bombers? Attack aircraft? The fanboys only applied this to fighters because they were sexy.) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Air historian Richard P. Hallion lectured and wrote on "generations of jet fighter aircraft" five years before the events Sweetman refers back to. NASA staffer Laurence K. Loftin wrote about such jet "generations" as far back as 1985 (updating his account in 2004, still a year before LM fed the Russian verbiage into Google translate). Where were your marketeers and fanboys then, eh? All three sources are currently referenced and linked to by Jet fighter generations. Sorry about your bombers: no RS, no article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
In that case I am indeed shocked, shocked. How do those line up with what's claimed today though? Also Sorry about your bombers: no RS, no article. /woosh - The Bushranger One ping only 22:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
My best explanation may be found at Jet fighter generations#Classification. You can see from the table that Joe Yoon was promulgating pretty much the current formula in Aerospaceweb by 2004, in answer to someone's query. Reading his piece now, he ascribes the Russian conceptual origins to the 1990s, backing up Sweetman's claim of Russian origin but predating his proffered anecdote by a decade (were LM's marketeers struggling with Google Translate's UI for a whole decade? I'd hate to make a judgement call on that!). Moreover he was answering a query by a reader, so the classification was already "out there" by then. But how it all arose is just a side issue. It has grabbed everybody's attention as a Thing and the RS are now full of it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Cost in infoboxes

Latest comment: 3 years ago103 comments13 people in discussion

Recently, a user has been adding complicated costs and pricing information, including currency conversions and inflation adjustment, to the infoboxes in a variety of articles, especially aircraft and ships. There is currently a discussion at WT:SHIPS#Cost of ships in infobox about this issue, and it may be.something we need to consider also. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably worthwhile considering. I had to remove a couple when he applied it to an old cost of an aircraft still in production, which produced a current cost different from what they are still selling for. Too confusing for readers like that! - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The normalization template now allows to disable (but not enable) the adjustment on case-by-case basis with mode=historical. Didn't the page for that plane state that production had ended? Trigenibinion (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
If a figure's available to me for a warship, I'll add it, and I'll usually add the contract figures for military aircraft if they're in the sources, but I see no need for inflation or currency conversions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Inflation-corrected figures (in addition to the original figure) is often useful for older designs, as the reader (or even the editor!) does not reminds precisely what was the course of the inflation since a few decades.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Which measure do you inflate by though, more so when aircraft are produced under unusual conditions such as war. the Measuring Worth website By the time you allow for all that the reference to the cost is bound around by so many qualifiers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Individual ships I can understand. But most aircraft are built in production runs or form part of a wider project. When sold, the price is often heavily dependent on the terms of sale to that particular customer, and a the last one off a long line will be costed on a different basis from the first. Then, for a project/prototype the development cost is often the one given, and what does or does not get thrown in is wildly subject to commercial and political bias. Then there is the "what did it cost?" vs the "what can we get for it?" argument, which applies especially to types which failed to attract the anticipated orders. Sure, prices given at the time can be found, but they have wildly varying contexts and it is utterly meaningless to try and normalise the mess into aircraft infoboxes. See also Wikipedia is not a directory; there is no "justified reason for the mention" in an infobox. This fancruft nonsense ought to be stopped. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Trigenibinion as the editor who has added these would you like to comment? Lyndaship (talk) 11:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I was already planning to clean up my modifications for aircraft in a similar way as for ships so that people in this project can also decide what they want to display globally. I am now refining the ship solution so that I can carry it over here minimizing additional work. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Note that it is easy to configure display of adjustments and/or conversions on a per country basis inside the template implementation. But it currently only supports converting to USD and Template:Inflation has data for a limited set of countries. By default it uses the GDP index if available, which can be overridden to CPI (eg.: home-built) Trigenibinion (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
If we don't think it's adding much to the project, we could drop cost from the infobox entirely. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I would support removing the cost parameters from the infobox entirely. In the case of aircraft they are often inaccurate (due to fleet and other discounts), usually out of date and are "COI magnets" when the company reps show up and object to us using third-party sourced and cited, but out of date numbers. I think the best guidance on the matter is WP:NOTSALES, which is a Wikipedia policy. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The normalization template could also do that without destroying the data. Or the infobox template could just ignore the Cost parameter. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The argument for removing prices entirely is that it is not useful or even accurate data in the first place. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
If it's not useful it depends on the user, and the numbers are generally sourced, just normally fixed at a certain point in time. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy sets a pretty high bar for including prices. In total what its says is: Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers. I cannot think of very many cases where the third party sources that we cite meet that bar. Almost all are mere passing mentions of the prices, most of which are from sales directories for light aircraft and airliners. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to buy a new Piper PA-15 Vagabond for $18,000! I think you would be looking at double that just for an engine today. It doesn't make sense unless it was ridiculously cheap when new. I know that some Featured Articles have the cost in the infobox but it is the original cited cost (with the date) with no attempts to convert it into a 2021 value.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion started precisely because I went adjusting more costs for inflation as it was being done already. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
And I thank you for doing that, because it has led to discussion of a much larger issue: why are we including prices in articles at all, when it seems pretty clear that iyt violates Wikipedia policy. I don't see we have the desecration to ignore policy any longer.
I would like to formally propose that we just remove the parameter from the infoboxes to conform with policy. Any objections? - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Does the wikipedia policy apply to items that only a government would buy? Trigenibinion (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I quoted the entire policy above in green. There are no exemptions for that stated there. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Governments and airlines will not choose which aircraft to buy based on online price comparisons. I say the policy does not apply. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think it wouldn't apply. The policy is really clear: An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. What would be the justified reason? You should keep in mind that the vast majority of aircraft articles are light civil aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I second the proposal to remove all the cost parameters from the infobox aircraft/engine family of infoboxes. Especially for.military articles, costs are extremely complex, and would be better covered in the body of each article, where relevant. BilCat (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer keeping civil aircraft prices. I understand military aircraft are less easy to price without external factors.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that we can't disable the parameters on only one subset of articles. And the price parameters are prone to abuse, or over-enthusiasm, as this thread indicates. BilCat (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Another template field could be added to turn the cost on or off for civil or non-civil. However, users would figure out this out and the problem would come back. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I will soon start cleaning up my modifications with my normalization template. Then the template can just be modified to output nothing if it is decided not to display costs at present. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This template will be for just one cost item. The cost in some aircraft infoboxes has a lot of structure, to a top cost template would be needed to bring full order. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The template that we were referring to above mainly concern the aircraft infobox template (Template:Infobox aircraft type) and similar project infoboxes. The aircraft template is read-only except for admin type users. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I am talking about a mitigation because of that. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I am more interested in military prices. From what I have seen, they are usually program cost, average cost based on the program cost, and flyaway cost. It is the export prices that tend to complicate things. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Military costs are all over the map - the cost is often determined by how many are purchased, how good the negotiators were, and what else is being purchased at the same time - be it development, spares, technical support, maintenance, and even connected purchase programs for other aircraft, and production licences - and there are almost always other items being bought. The breakdown is almost never public knowledge, and so folks come up with numbers that aren't for the aircraft directly, but for the program divided by the number bought. In cases where multiple orders are made, each batch will have a different price - the last batch of P-51s was less than a quarter of the cost of the first batches, per airplane. It doesn't end there - due to budget pressures and in black programs, costs are often obfuscated, sometimes extras being added to pad the numbers (like maintenance), while other times (and sometimes even for similar aircraft) major costs are hidden in other programs, like those $1000 hammers. This essentially makes most aircraft costs meaningless. Even for commercial aircraft, the number being bought, whether they were advance orders before the aircraft was built, or orders made when the plant was at capacity will be radically different - to come up with a single number would require a substantial amount of research across the program, with every customer having to be calculated in. In short, it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, regardless of how many people would like to have the information, and it only provides the illusion of usefulness, while providing a false sense of costs. From reading about US research programs, it was standard practice (well documented) to underbid to get the contract, and then use the customer's changes to justify additional charges that often exceeded the original contract by several times. If the company needed a extra cash after that, they would tell the customer no more development could take place unless more money was forthcoming, with the government getting stuck with either paying a bunch of money for nothing, or conceding to corporate blackmail to finish the program. How much was the program in hindsight? We probably don't know, even if someone wrote a figure down in a magazine article. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
For British WWII costs, I believe the cost may exclude engine and armament which would be purchased separately. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
NiD.29 is correct; military costing data is seriously complicated and explaining it all would be excessive detail, IMO, if you could even find sources breaking it all down. I'd be fine from deleting cost entirely from the infobox. Editors can always add cost info in the main body if they wish.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
For military aircraft, not civil ones.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Straw poll: Include unit costs in aircraft infobox templates (basis, e.g. flyaway/civil/etc) to be agreed later)

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Per WP:SNOW. This proposal hasn't a snowball's chance in a desert of being accepted. Pursuing it is becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE, specifically through a failure to WP:LISTEN. (Disclaimer: Involved editor) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • No. For reasons outlined above by several editors, this would be juggling jelly for the sake of it and would end up a horrible mess. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No. As excellently explained by a number of editors Lyndaship (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No, as above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Your straw poll should be limited to military aircraft, as they seem to represent most difficulties, and most comments above. Civil aircraft don't have those problems.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No, as above, also commercial aircraft pricing has its own similar challenges, as outlined above. Civilian light aircraft are the only category where pricing could have any meaning, especially to the general public, but again, it often boils down to a rather wide range - fire sales seem to abound in aviation. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@NiD.29: not really. List prices are published by their manufacturer. They are often excessive to allow for individual bargaining, but if you offer the published sum, they'll be happy to oblige.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, yes really. I have seen aircraft listed new from the manufacturer advertised with prices differing by several hundred percent in just a couple of years (usually with the prices dropping, fast. Of course they would always take any old price, but then that is also probably for the base model. Common add-ons are often not in the advertising, but can include everything from avionics and lighting to actually getting engines, and on some types you would be hard pressed to find any that were sold as base models, depending on the market, so the base model price may not reflect what was sold. Other similar types may have all sold as base models, but come with engines, etc. I am just saying that the information probably needs some clarification, otherwise it is impossible to compare it to any other airplane type. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I would also like to add that the general calculation for inflation is not appropriate for private aircraft, as their prices do not follow the inflationary trends of non-discretionary items such as houses or butter or cars that the inflation calculators use. They are a luxury item, and follow different costing rules more dependent on marketing, and how many people can afford one in a specific price range - more akin to the prices for a supercar than a family sedan. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
For home-built, the CPI should be appropriate. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
No it isn't. Many homebuilts depreciate over time, while others appreciate - it depends on the model, the quality of the build and the country it is located in. Inflation figures based on CPI are at best misleading. - Ahunt (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact the "price" of a homebuilt aircraft is going to be even more impossible to pin down than that of a factory-built one. The cost of the kit is just the tip of the iceberg. Did you buy new avionics or visit a scrapyard to salvage some? How about the engine? Factory fresh, overhauled, acquired from Discount Dan? And on and on... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I thought that the cost mentioned was for a standard build (overhauled engine could be the normal way, for example). Trigenibinion (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
...I think the response to assuming there's a standard build or normal way for homebuilt aircraft can only be 'oh, you sweet summer child'. (There really isn't. It wildly depends on the manufacturer of the kit. Some include a new engine in the price. Some a rebuild. Some no engine at all. And so on.) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I mean the standard way to build a specific kit. I thought these numbers are sourced from magazines, not from a random builder. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Which would still only be relevant at the time, and cannot be compared to other kits, making it meaningless. I could - to use an example - buy a fish dinner for $7.99 at one place that has fish and chips, or $12.99 at another place where they include hush puppies and a drink; both are advertised as "fish dinner" but are clearly not able to be compared and, thus, mentioning the prices isn't relevant info to discussing fish dinners. The bottom line is that the prices are only encyclopedically relevant with regards to comparison to each other, but they can't be reasonably compared to each other, and, therefore, the prices are not encyclopedically relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
You cannot compare fish dinners with aircraft. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
...do you believe in allegory? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe the encyclopedic nature of fish dinner prices has anything to do with that of aircraft. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  Facepalm - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
But the inflation calculation is not about appreciation/depreciation, but about how much it would theoretically cost to build the same thing later. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Which is even harder to pin down for a homebuilt. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Impossible with homebuilts. Even with new materials, did they use certified aircraft materials, aircraft grade but uncertified, or did they go to the local lumberyard? Was the kit all prefabbed parts, or was it little more than major components and instructions on where to find the rest? Can it even be built to the plans, or are significant modifications required to even get it to fly? How about covering material? Ceconite vs linen vs any of the dozens of other covering options - and then the dope or paint. I have heard of people using generic housepaint, and others buying premium aircraft enamels for several times the price. How can we compare them, much less determine how the costs would vary by location? I know it is much costlier to buy aircraft parts where I live than in parts of the US. Other places are likely to be even more expensive. I suspect homebuilt building costs are about as easy to nail down as operating costs. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The inflation number tells you what the old price would be in today's dollars, not today's price. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No - while this is something that often will be relevant to prose text, honestly we should remove the parameter from the infobox altogether and be done with it, for the very good reasons explained above. Military, civilian, paramilitary, flown on Mars, it doesn't matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No - time to remove it entirely as explained very well above, plus our Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTSALES. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - I am one of the people interested in quickly accessing this information. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It isn't about interest as most of us are interested, it is whether the information is accurate enough and consistent enough to be meaningful. There are a lot of apples and oranges in the data. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Apple and oranges is not a problem. I have seen indicated: "average cost", "flyaway cost", "export", "export, full weapon", version, year, buyer. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for clearly showing why apples and oranges is a problem here. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
A requirement for discipline is not an excuse to make the site less user-friendly. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Huh? How is removing inaccurate or misleading information making "the site less user-friendly"? - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I said nothing about keeping inaccurate or misleading information. A lot of the cost entries are fine. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
You didn't address the question. - Ahunt (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No for all aircraft types. BilCat (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - if cost is important - eg compared to its contemporaries, "wasteful" of public money, or built down to a budget - it should be covered in the article. Context for cost is much more complex than any of the other items in the infobox which is supposed to an at a glance summary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing cost parameters

Based on the above straw poll, I'm requesting that all cost parameters from {{Infobox aircraft type}} and {{Infobox aircraft engine}}. This would have to be performed by an administrator or template editor. After the parameters have been disabled, the information will have to be removed from each aircraft or engine article. I don't know if a bot can do this reliably or not, or if it will have to be done manually. BilCat (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A bot should be able to delete the relevant article entries, whether or not the template still has the feature. But I am not sure how an infobox would display if it still has the entry but it has been removed from the template/s. So perhaps best to run the bot first and then attack the template/s. Sorry I don't do bots. Meanwhile we can manually remove entries that particularly offend us.
We also need to update our Project style guide accordingly. Does anybody know of a/the relevant page? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Disabling the display of the parameter would be the most effective route in the short term. The template won't throw an error because the parameter still exists - but the output will be skipped over. Just wiping the parameter may lose a reference that is used else in the article itself. The contents of the Cost parameter may also be suitable for the article test in suitable context even if we've agreed their position in the infobox is no longer appropriate. A bot could be used to tell us (and list) how many articles have the parameter with text in it and then it could be done by users or semi-automagically. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I've flagged this discussion on the Template talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I have moved all cost information from the infoboxes of the three engine Featured Articles so that it isn't lost, I have not looked at the aircraft FAs. In one article there was a nowiki note advising not to adjust for inflation, that was probably part of the template originally. It's a shame that the actions of one editor has forced the project to lose a useful parameter but if it can't be used as intended then I agree it has to be removed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
If it is decided not to display any cost in the infoboxes, {{AircraftCost}} can be simply changed to output nothing. If it's decided not to adjust globally, it can be set to force never to display adjustment. If it's a single item that should not be adjusted, it can be turned off by adding mode=historical. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
There are still a couple of refinements in the pipeline to get rid of non-templated text. The complex structures present in some infoboxes are not handled by this atomic template. If the aircraft infobox cannot be changed to ignore the Cost parameter, a parent template would be needed to hide the cost entry in complex cases. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand, the motion is to remove costs from infoboxes, templated or not. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I understood, I am saying subtemplates can help if the infobox template cannot be changed. If it's decided that the cost should not be shown, I think the content should not be deleted, just hidden. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
...Trigenibinion, creating {{AircraftCost}} with this discussion well underway and the consensus very strongly against you seems at least somewhat WP:POINTy. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I was already planning to create {{AircraftCost}} before cost started being discussed on this page to clean up my modifications, it just calls {{ItemCost}} which is what now implements {{ShipCost}}. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
After doing this I registered GraemeLeggett's comments above - if this has broken things and there's a way to disable with the parameters still in the template code, by all means please change it to that way - The Bushranger One ping only 17:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles broken by removing Cost Parameters

The Bushranger, this change has broken about a dozen aircraft articles. Articles are broken because the parameters often include named reference definitions. Since the parameters are no longer managed, the reference definitions don't enter the article and the article are left with big red errors in their "References" sections indicating missing reference definitions. Should the template change be reverted until a plan is made to implement the parameter removal without disrupting so many articles? Also, note that the documentation for the template has yet to be completely updated -- it still has mention of the removed parameters. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger, here is a list of articles I found which were broken by your template change. I found these by manually looking -- so there are probably some false positives and even more false negatives. Is there a plan for exhaustively finding and fixing the issues caused by the new template code?
-- Mikeblas (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It looks like AnomieBOT is automatically retrieving the ref data from some of the listed articles, per this diff. I don't think we need to panic just yet, but we'll keep an eye on the situation. BilCat (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue that we need to panic more. The bot might or might not replace the intended reference, and might or might not do so correctly. Again, without a plan to find and fix articles affected, I think this change was irresponsible and should be reverted until such a plan can be made. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome to your opinion, but most of the articles you listed have been fixed by the bot. It's how it's supposed to work. If there are any that are still broken, you're welcome to fix them manually, or list them here again. BilCat (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
And AnomieBot has been doing that type of fix for over a decade, I think we can have justified faith in its capacity for accurate cleanup . GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
More than an opinion -- it's observable that AnomieBOT (and other bots) make mistakes in editing. Boeing E-3 Sentry remains broken. Do you have a list of other articles that remain broken, or is your faith in the bot preventing you from reconsidering the potential damage done by the recent changes to this template? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
That article has been broken for with an undefined ref problem for about a year. You'll be surprised what both bots and humans overlook. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's true as the article was a pretty new member of Category:Pages with broken reference names. Either way, I've manually fixed the undefined reference error caused by the template's changes, plus the duplicate reference def added a couple weeks ago. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I should have given a diff. eg "Cite error: The named reference USAF1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." version as of 19 March 2020 GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I think this error is caused by the template change. The linked version of the article (and the previous version of the article) both define USAF1, but they do so in the disabled infobox parameter definition. When viewing an old version of an article, note that the article is rendered using current versions of whatever templates and transclusions it uses.
Meanwhile, I have manually fixed Boeing T-43, HAL HTT-40, and Kamov Ka-50 in addition to the E-3 article. How do we develop a comprehensive list of articles still needing attention due to the template change? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Some people have already started deleting data. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The error in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is not related to the template change - but an edit a few days ago. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As mentioned, this is what AnomieBot is for - once the bot has finished a run, any remaining breaks are easy to manually fix. (On another note, this is why the "base" of a ref that's also used in the article shouldn't be in the infobox to start with.) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Infoboxes sometimes have issues that have nothing to do with the infobox itself, as sometimes there are changes made elsewhere that inadvertently affect those infoboxes. Most if not all of the major WPAir templates should be protected already to prevent inadvertent changes to those templates. BilCat (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The Bushranger, any idea when it will finish its run? (Or has it even started?) Here is a list of articles that I've manually fixed, so far, after being damaged by the template change:
AnomieBOT runs continually. If you want to head it off you could look at Category:Pages_with_reference_errors which is what happens when the reference is defined in an unused part of the text. You'll also find other sorts of errors to do with refs. What we are looking for is the subset of that category with the WPaviation banner on the talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
What I'm trying to figure out is: how do we know the errors caused by the change to this template have been completely cleaned-up? Since the robot doesn't do work in any particular order, and doesn't guarantee it fixes everything, and doesn't even guarantee its fixes are correct, it seems like manual work is absolutely necessary. Meanwhile, here are more articles that were damaged by this changed and manually fixed:
-- Mikeblas (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Man-lifting kites

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

An editor is adding material about kiteboarding to the article on man-lifting kites, claiming that they are examples of the same. But are kiteboards classed as man-lifters? There is a discussion at Talk:Man-lifting kite#Kiteboarding, but it appears to be at a stalemate and I have repeatedly deleted content on both kiteboarding and other obviously off-topic stuff such as the history of the free-flying Rogallo. Any new hands/eyes on the discussion and/or the article would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Starting to turn personal/devious. Additional voices to help break the deadlock would be very timely, right now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Removal of all Price Information - WP:NOTSALES ?

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Per the discussion, and initial suggestion by Ahunt, on Talk:HAL_Tejas#Tejas_Mk1a_pricing:

Could a general Poicy be agreed that ALL product pricing (WP:NOTSALES) be removed from Aircraft articles?

Alternitively could a standard be agreed on, with possibly inflation adjusted, USD converted, templated figures, under standardised headings, for programme, and unit / Flyaway costs / average unit prices / ... be stipulated, if supported by figures published in a pre-agreed set of Aviation WP:RS, in a new applicable specific policy?

A.j.roberts (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the general mood was that that costs can be referred to in article text in context, and suitably sourced but conversions to dollars and trying to adjust for inflation are generally US-centric and dubious, respectively. Costs of programs or aircraft may not be covered by NotSales since they come up as part of increasing costs of development or cancellations that were contentious eg BAC TSR-2. Personal opinion is that standardised "costs" section sounds like instruction creep. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy WP:NOTSALES sets a pretty high bar for including any mentions of costs in articles. Basically the costs need to be notable, contentious or controversial enough to attract third party refs to discuss the costs and not just mention or list them, as "list price is $XX.XX". By this policy very few aircraft will have prices mentioned. The BAC TSR-2 would be one as cost was reason for its cancellation, as would the Avro CF-105 Arrow and Concorde. I should point out it is a policy, too, so we can't ignore it, we have to live with it unless it is changed in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
controversial enough to attract third party refs to discuss the costs Airliners price are in this case. Military aircraft price with a competition often include prices, and it should interest the taxpayer. The Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory policy does not ban prices but Sales catalogues, to avoid becoming a price comparison website. Aircraft cost are often not well known for the public, and are of encylopedic relevance.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a guide for the taxpayer. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Per GraemeLeggett and Ahunt. Project consensus is; no special place for costs, no special exemptions for special classes. Other than that, Wikipedia already has all the policies and guidelines we need to judge whether any given cost figure is encyclopedic. Time to move on, it really is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree! - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Concur. If pricing has attracted noticable mention in sources, then it's worthy of mentioning in the article per WP:NOTSALES (and WP:RS etc.); if it hasn't, it isn't. The removal was simply of cruft being pushed into infoboxes. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree as per Bushranger and others Lyndaship (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era" original research concerns

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please join the discussion at WT:MILHIST. (t · c) buidhe 08:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Colorization of historical images

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, this discussion, Talk:Wright Flyer#Colorized photo, may be of interest to project members. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Lists of individual aircraft - policy question

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Where do we stand on a list of aircraft, in this case aircraft whose only connection is same nickname? Liberty Belle (aircraft) looks like a mixture of a couple of commemmorative aircraft expanded by twenty examples of other aircraft given same name. An individual survivor might make GNG but it strikes me dubious that "List of aircraft called X" is a notable list. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It is a list of non-notable aircraft on the pretext that a common nickname makes them all notable. It doesn’t. Dolphin (t) 07:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't usually regard individual aircraft as significant (unless of course unusual attention from RS makes them so). Nor is the Miss Liberty Belle museum piece appropriate for a See also link, if anything. However the Liberty Foundation's warbird seems notable enough to pass GNG, so I'd suggest repurposing the article and reducing the rest to a minimal remark. I notice that Liberty Belle is a disambig page which already assumes this to be the case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I've reduced it to the former flying aircraft and the static (last known under restoration) aircraft as a first step. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing IP edits.

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just a heads up, but thanks to a random conversation, and a mistake on my part, I just discovered that an IP added some random operators to the F4U page, A YEAR AGO. Now I am not normally interested in common types like the Corsair, but I would have thought someone would have noticed the Royal Canadian Navy, Peruvian Navy and Uruguayan Navies being randomly added. Someone caught the Brazilian Navy, but then ignored the others? Ouch. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. I'm usually pretty tough on reviewing unsourced IP additions, but those slipped by. Maybe one day Wikipedia will learn to value quality editors over sheer quantities, and make it more difficult for stuff like this to be done. Probably when hell freezes over. Sigh. BilCat (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not just IPs - look at Agustin Sepulveda Venegas 2004 Fan (talk · contribs) - who has made very ismilar edits to the ones discussed above.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Australian designation

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I came across Template:ADF aircraft designations which doesnt appear to be something we would normally do to provide navigation by aircraft registration/serial despite what the template says I am pretty sure they are not designations. Any thoughts or should we start a bunch of navigation by serial number templates. MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd certainly retitle it to be about serials. I don't know if it should. be kept or not, or even if other nations use any similar aircraft type-based serials. Just a list of serials in general wouldn't be useful. BilCat (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Questionable use of a template

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I am concerned about this misuse of a template and thought the group should be aware of it - the Lift-to-drag ratio page has a table which has been split off into its own template here Template:Glide ratio examples. Because of this table, the page seems to be something of a mess at the end. Grammar was horrible as well but I cleaned that up. Comments? Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That template is; a) too long and randomly selected, b) a fanboi magnet, and c) not really suited to templating anyway. The article on Gliding flight also uses it. My immediate reaction is to put a shortened and rationalised list in the gliding flight article and just link to that article from Lift-to-drag ratio. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
That was what I was thinking. - NiD.29 (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree. It's ugly and strangely selected.TSRL (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw it some time ago and thought that was an ugly duckling too. WP:synthesis! --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

[Update] Template now:

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! - NiD.29 (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Link spamming

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Looks like we've got a systematic attempt to spam links across a variety of Wikipedia articles, including cross-wiki. The site in question is International Insider, which I've never heard of. Special:Contributions/Nealpath has been globally blocked, and since then IPs based in Rome, Italy, have been adding links to various articles, especially military ones. I'm don't know if this is an RSN or not, but with the link-spamming, it may end up being blacklisted. It's not currently at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, nor could I find it in the archives. I'm currently reverting on sight as spam and warning the users, but I'm not sure what step is appropriate beyond that. Any thoughts? BilCat (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Might requesting a WP:rangeblock be viable, or are the IPs too scattered? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Too scattered. BilCat (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Their mission statement sounds like it was written by Dilbert: Our goal is connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of data, people and ideas – accurately delivering information, news and insights to help readers navigate complex geopolitical situations and operate in times of political and technological disruption. I think they used this. I would say that alone is enough to get them blacklisted.
LOL. BilCat (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Inside Over looks to be another one. It was added here linking to the Italian version. (Hat tip to User:Fnlayson for reverting it.) Neither site appears to have the ubiquitous click-bait ads that now found on most reliable sources, so I'm not sure how they're making money. BilCat (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That one claims to be crowdfunded by its readers. - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I was guessing Israeli due to Israel's CH-53K order in the last week. -Fnlayson (talk)
It is instructive to read a few articles on both those websites. International Insider is junk journalism, just very brief rewrites of stuff from other media outlets, obviously people being paid by the article, not the word. Poor quality work. On the other hand Inside Over has some quality writing and thinking going on there. It may be a WP:RS, although it still should not be spammed around here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Single Aircraft Display Teams

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have just proposed deletion of Chinook Display Team one of many single-aircraft display teams over the years. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

WW Invisible Jet

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I missed this story when it came out, but "see" Wonder Woman’s Invisible Jet Now on Display, and the video too. I wonder if we can get a copyright-free photo of it at the Museum on that day? Did anyone here visit the National Air and Space Museum on April 1th, 2015? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the borrowed it from the Museum of Flight, which put it on display on April 1nd, 2013. (Museum Opens Temporary Exhibit of Rare Wonder Woman Airplane, and Specs with aerial photos. BilCat (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Bit like the old airshow trick of putting some access step ladders in a parking space with a "stealth fighter" notice board. MilborneOne (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Yup. My thought was perhaps we could put together a mention for April 1 on the. main page. The Invisible Jet has some popularity right now because of the WW84 film, so it seems appropriate. Some sourced content about the displays in the museum could be added to Invisible plane. BilCat (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

Is Wurger really a common name in English for the Fw 190, I have not seen it used. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

New one to me.TSRL (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Not that I have ever seen in any book on the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Never heard of it. Should be expunged and page moved, until someone can provide WP:RS for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The page was actually moved on 29 December 2020 by @NiD.29:, a regular member of our project here. The actual addition of the name to the article, though, was unsourced and done by an IP editor on 16 September 2006! - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I just went though my library of WWII books. Some dust was displaced in the process. Of those dealing with Second World War combat aircraft only one mentions a name, the rest do not. Nijboer, Donald, Fighting cockpits, Zenith Press, 2016, ISBN 978-0-7603-4956-4, page 108 says: The Fw 190 has to be regarded as one of the best single-seat fighters of the war. Its combat performance, adaptability, to a variety of operational scenarios, and ease of handling and maintenance made it a true fighter, earning it the nickname Würger - Butcher Bird. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Still appears more of a nickname then an official company or luftwaffe name. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Nijboer does say is is a "nickname", but it isn't clear if that amounts to something official or not. It would probably qualify as the article title under WP:COMMONNAME, though. I have added the ref above to the article, but feel free to adjust as needed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
(ec) It's a nickname (and not the only one)- but this is what we get when we blindly apply the <manufacturer> <number> <name> guideline. We get articles moved to combinations that no-one ever used - either by religiously applying a type number to an aircraft that in service was just known by the name or by the addition of names (either official or nicknames) that aren't widely used.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Not interesting in what name people know of it in English, but what name was assigned, in German, by Focke Wulf, and that name was Würger, which actually translates as Shrike, although the latin name for the Shrike means butcher (they are carnivorous), so with a bit of a stretch it becomes butcher bird, as the shrike is sometimes nicknamed. From the Waffen Arsenal book Focke-Wulf Fw 190: Das Flugzeug, das Jäger, Bomber und Schlachtflugzeug war (978-3790902457) by Heinz Nowarra,
   Die eigentliche Konstruktion erfolgte dann von einer Arbeitsgruppe unter Leitung von Oberingenieur Blaser.
   Der neue Jäger erheilt die Beziechnung Fw 190 und, wie alle Focke-Wulfe-Flugzeuge einene Vogel-Beinamen Würger.
This has then led to several books using the butcher bird nickname, even in their titles. I get almost 30,000 hits on google with "Fw 190 Würger" btw.

Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the Luftwaffe do not seem to have officially recognized actual names for any of their airplanes, at least if the manuals are anything to go by - in every case they are company names only, and therefore do not have official recognition, making them "nicknames". - NiD.29 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
To quote from our consensus guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), "Name: This should be the official name either given by the manufacturer or the military. Do not use nicknames or foreign reporting names" Slam dunk. Just to double-check the official naming thing, I leafed through Green & Swanborough's The Complete Book of Fighters. They use official names where designated, such as Macchi C.202 Folgore or Supermarine Spitfire. Like most or all German fighters, the FW 190 has no such official name. I would add that WP:COMMONNAME requires any nickname to be demonstrably more widely used than not, which the butcher-of-consensus bird is clearly not (unless it helps to disambiguate or similar, as the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet does). So let's just stay on consensus and move the article back. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Steelpillow: that seems pretty conclusive to me! - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed! TSRL (talk)
  Done BilCat (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Except it WAS the name given by the manufacturer, in line with other aircraft that they named after birds. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be the only one with that interpretation. BilCat (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
And CommonName still plays it part. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

ICAO aircraft types- when to use?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've added craft types to the List of aircraft type designators when I see them missing, and have added them to aircraft pages some of the time, eg CitationJet. @Ahunt disagrees, calling it "specialist trivia", which is fair. Acknowledging "other stuff exists!" but surveying usage across aircraft pages, it's inconsistent. On pages like the Bonanza, the itemization of variants and ICAO types is a major part of the article. Variants (not ICAO type) is a big part of the Twin Bonanza article too. The type is included in the spec table of the 737, and there's a small "model summary" section on the 757.

With an eye towards consistency, should we be allowing ICAO types? Add to the specifications table? Removing them from articles? tedder (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this for discussion. My reason for removing them is that they are only ever used for filing ICAO flight plans and so are basically trivia and fall afoul of WP:NOTMANUAL. Even Jane's does not list these and we are a general encyclopedia, not a technical aircraft guidebook. All of which adds up to my belief that these don't belong on Wikipedia and, if already found in articles, should be removed. Incidentally, in the Beechcraft Bonanza#Variants article section those seem to be sub-model numbers, while the ICAO designators are listed at Beechcraft Bonanza#Design and development. Those ought to go anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Timeline for DJI UAVs

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Would something like this be useful to have for DJI-related articles? A timeline of models of drone and their lifespan organized by level? I've been working on this template a little today and before I got too far down the path I thought I'd check in with other editors. Feedback welcome. Ckoerner (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, but two questions. One: which article would it be used on and, two, would you commit to keeping it up to date? (Abandoned timelines are a pain) - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Good questions Ahunt. For the first, I think the DJI-related pages we have would be a good set of articles. For the second, sure, I can commit to maintaining the template. Ckoerner (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. These format boxes are normally navigation boxes, like Template:Boeing airliners for instance, but personally I don't have any objection to formatting a timeline like that, as long as it is kept up to date over time. Perhaps other editors here have some input? - Ahunt (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry it really hard to see what the table means it is not clear, a clear list of products in the DJI article in time order would be better, although that article could do with a huge revamp far to much details in tables and loads of junk for my liking. MilborneOne (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Paramilitary aircraft

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just to note what appears to be a nonsense category Paramilitary aircraft is being added to aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I just cleaned the cat out - it has already been nominated for CSD. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
And it has been deleted - problem solved! - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

deprecated template {{avyear}}

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I have finished clearing it out of all mainspace articles - so of someone has delete page rights perhaps they can do the honours of killing it once and for all? Thanks. btw, for those who can't recall the discussions from many, many years ago, it violated a prime wikipedia rule that links should always go to expected destinations, which this one did not. There were also major issues with overlinking, and with pages being linked to having no relevant information leading back and it was replaced with a category. Cheers. - NiD.29 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

List it at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion and let the process sort it out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Surely if the Avyear template is deprecated it should have been annotated with Template:Deprecated template? There is a short comment on the talk page about linking days, months and the year in 2008 that went no further. It was my understanding that after the dates and numbers ARBCOM case that this template could be used in infoboxes of aviation articles and only there, that discussion should be in the archives of this talk page. Did I miss discussion somewhere else?
How is it suggested that the 120 'years in aviation' articles are linked to now? They have been effectively orphaned, only linking to each other though the navbox at the foot of each (Template:Aviation timelines navbox). Is the intention to deprecate and AfD these articles as well? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
So we now of a set of articles that link to each other, and out to other articles but not inwards... (Are there links to the year in aviation articles from the general articles on years?). The problem with AVYear was the presentation of the link rather than the existence of the link - so we can still link provided we avoid link suprise in the piping. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The template could have been (could be) simply edited to display any wording desired to comply with any MOS guideline and/or avoid upsetting individual editors because they don't like it. Mass removal such as just occurred is contra to building the web. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
We have a fairly high-level article on the History of aviation, which cascades down to many more. I'd suggest that anybody wanting aviation timelines would go looking for a link there. It does link to the top-level Timeline of aviation in the See also section, so the timelines are not entirely orphaned. But it is not especially prominent. Might the Template:Aviation timelines navbox also be added to it?
While I am here, I am puzzled that Category:Aviation by year has been placed in Category:Aviation timelines|year, but is not listed at Category:Aviation timelines. That should be fixed, but I am not sure what the "|year" is doing there.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@NiD.29:: Thanks for removing all those avyear templates. They were always confusing WP:EASTEREGGs to readers. Typically it would be linked from "first flight" or similar, you would click on it hoping to read more about the first flight only to be taken to a page that doesn't even mention the aircraft type at all. I agree it should now go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It is now tagged. As for pages being linked, there are still scores manual links in the same form to each year as [[2021 in aviation|2021]] which is what the template automated (for whatever reason). The templates couldn't have been fixed to make them compliant because there were many pages with as many as 20 of the templates buried in the text, including multiple links for the same year, in which the text would have had to be rewritten anyway, or extirpated.
To make them compliant it would either have to be as a bare link as [[2021 in aviation]] (making this template redundant) or perhaps something along the lines of [[2021 in aviation|aviation events in 2021]], however that won't work within the paragraphs where some of the calls were being made. Perhaps the aviation sidebar template could be modified so that the first flight is automatically linked, with appropriate text indicating what the date is being linked to? That leaves the least room for shenanigans and misuse while still keeping the links, and it makes everything consistent. The code would have to identify which part is the year and then display some text after it. Just to make it even more interesting, some folks had been adding an s to the date within the template parameter, and there were other odd misuses of it. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest if editors see the need to add one to an article it should be unpiped (clear link) and under "see also". That way there are no surprises or odd expectations created. - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

more opinions needed on Electric aircraft article

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All attempts to rectify an extremely biases and one sided article are being reverted (seemingly out of spite at this point as the same editor pointlessly reverted other unrelated edits I made elsewhere), so other eyes would be appreciated at Electric aircraft. Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Portal links

Latest comment: 3 years ago37 comments8 people in discussion

Trigenibinion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding the aviation portal to See also sections of every aircraft article, for example here. I am sure such link spamming is against our guidelines. Follow the above link to their contribs page to see how many need to be undone! I have asked them to stop. Help/eyes appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought the links were supposed to be there. Trigenibinion (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
(ec) I've left a note on the talk page of the Portals wikiproject.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
i.e. this note — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes - that's the one.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Some edits are adding more than one portal, for example [this one] adds a national portal link as well. Should the whole mess be reverted or do we leave the national portal behind? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I followed what I was finding, see for example Canadian, Brazilian, French planes. I left adding the country to someone else when it was not clear what to put. Trigenibinion (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping these edits while we discuss this, much appreciated. My concern now is where we go from here. I am not accustomed to seeing portal links in aircraft articles without a special reason for that article, and I seem to recall old discussions leading to the removal of routine additions. But perhaps there is a community consensus somewhere that I have not come across? On checking our Project style guide I see that "{{Portal|Aviation}} can be added to the beginning of the See also section. Other WikiProject portals may also apply." The devil is clearly in that "can", as it does not mean "should as a matter of course". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Links to relevant portals are optional: it's not wrong to add them where appropriate, nor wrong to leave them out. WP:PORTL suggests how to add links but neither mandates nor forbids them. They should go in if and only if readers might be interested in accessing related content via Portal:Aviation. That's a matter of opinion, but adding the link lets each reader make up their own mind. Certes (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
While the aviation portal seems reasonable on Blackburn Buccaneer article, I don't think the generic UK portal link is. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I saw several UK planes that also have the United Kingdom portal, planes that also have the War portal, planes that also have both the Soviet Union and Russia portals (4 portals). Trigenibinion (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the Portal project perspective. Here is a discussion from 2013, in which it was agreed to remove the portal link from Template:Aircontent because the portal page was not being maintained. The portal page history shows that it was updated only once last year, and not at all this year as yet. One has to question whether a page suffering such chronically poor maintenance is worth linking to as a matter of course. To be honest, I see nothing there that cannot be better delivered - and is demonstrably better maintained - by linking from the main Aviation article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I actually wondered if this should not be handled by Template:Aircontent, with Aviation always added and the rest manually. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
As the 2013 discussion I linked to shows, it used to be handled that way. But the aviation portal has not been maintained so it was removed until that happened. Eight years down the line and the portal is still not being maintained, so the link is still not going back in. Given that consensus, one must assume that it should not go anywhere else, either. There has also been a discussion about the value of Template:Aircontent and whether the template should be deprecated, but I cannot recall the outcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I have made Templates and Modules, but not Portals. If you write what is needed, I can take a look. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't maintain portals. If you don't know what it needs, I can't see that you would be advised try to maintain it either. And remember, a brief burst of enthusiasm followed by another seven years of neglect is not going to convince anybody; you need sufficient community to keep the momentum up, and that is singularly lacking. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't even USE portals, that does not mean you should not write down basic requirements if you are really interested in getting someone to fix it. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I really am not. And why should I write about something I am not interested in? I have seen it suggested that WP:PORTAL may have some information about portals on it, but I have not visited it myself and will not be doing so. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
As I said, if you're not interested in getting the portal fixed, you do not need to write a list of problems, and programmers can keep ignoring it. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody actually use portals? I am not sure they add any value to aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree, the links add nothing. Portals are not loved by every Wikipedian. As a consequence, many have been set up by the odd lone enthusiast with the attention span of a goldfish. They then suffer from a lack of routine TLC - ours included. My personal view is that the Aviation article should provide everything useful to the newcomer, so that they do not have to learn about portals before they can learn about aviation. A couple of External links added to it would complete everything they might want to look for, that the portal offers. But portal-lovers are like vampires, when challenged with an AfD they rise from their coffins and suck the blood from any consensus. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
What happens if you add a link to a portal that does not exist? Is it just ignored? Trigenibinion (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I would refer you to WP:SANDBOX, where you may try it out for yourself. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I tried it, it is ignored and I did not see a hidden category, excellent. But if a proper Aviation portal existed, shouldn't all pages get linked via Template:Aircontent ? Trigenibinion (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Noting that another user added three portal links above the navboxes recently to all Italian aircraft.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Straw poll

Proposed: The Aviation WikiProject style guide should have the section on the Portal retitled Portals and amended to include;

"Links to portal pages, such as national portals or Portal:Aviation, should not be added to aircraft articles without first establishing consensus, on the article's talk page, that it is an exceptional case."

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: If this proposal is generally approved here, we will need to open the discussion wider and more formally before pursuing it further. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Approve. Aviation and nations in general are too far above individual aircraft types for portals to be relevant to the reader. Indeed, in general few portals serve any significant readership. These portal links add nothing but clutter. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No - too strong a wording for me. An editor who adds a Portal should, like any other See also link be able to make a case for that link when challenged but to require pre-approval is unreasonable. Separately, we can deprecate the Aviation Portal since we consider it out of date and unhelpful to general readers but we should not make that presumption about all the other portals and consider it applies absolutely to every article that also falls under WP:Aviation GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Unless someone wants to take it over and update it, I think sending the aviation portal for deletion is probably the best idea. It has not been maintained and clicking on it does very little good for readers. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is the portal an old hack that should be thrown away? Trigenibinion (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by "hack" in this context. Portals are an artifact of the early days of Wikipedia. Most have not been maintained over time and are not of much use any more. Some are actually kept up to date, usually by one dedicated editor, but many have actually been deleted in recent years. - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I mean if there is a new way to make portals now (framework), so that fixing the old code is not worth it. Trigenibinion (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I dam not aware of anything that prevents creating new portals today or even updating the old ones. It seems to be mostly a general lack of interest. Personally I have looked at portals, but writing articles seems a better use of time. Overall I always consider what will most benefit the readers. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I will look at it after this 'easy edit' break. Or is there something more interesting to learn here after Templates and Modules? Trigenibinion (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I can't advise you on that, but perhaps some other editors here have some thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Trigenibinion:. Portals are pages of the encyclopedia, they are not in-page extras which contain a lot of code in the way that templates or modules may. What makes a page of the encyclopedia into a portal is only the fact that it is in the Portal namespace, which means its title takes the form Portal:MyTopic. If you want to know more about portals, I'd suggest you properly read the main information page which I have already linked for your benefit. Just click this blue link right here to WP:PORTAL, and read on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

External Media

Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

I just found a whole bunch of sailplane articles in which the external media template is used to link to off-wiki images, with the link usually located where images should be found, rather than in an external links section. I am wondering if these should simply be deleted, or are there valid criteria for keeping any of them. Note that many of these pages still had __NOTOC__ tags and deprecated references formatting on them as well, suggesting they haven't really been looked at in a long while. Just one example is at Schleicher ASW 28. None of these would appear to add anything that can't be added from wikimedia. Thoughts? - NiD.29 (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

External media links are for when you really need an image but there isn't one on en-wiki or Commons. I note the sub-categorization for the ASW 28 is a set of categories each containing a single file but there's none that shows whole aircraft in this case. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
In nearly every case (if not all of them), there was a suitable image already being used in the lead though, which was my concern. - NiD.29 (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
It would depend on whether the external images add value - in some cases linking to better images, detail images or images of variants we don't have may improve the article (as long as we keep spam out and don't link to copyvios and the like).Nigel Ish (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I would say if we have suitable images in the article or on commons then the external links should be deleted. They should only be in an article to make up for any image deficiencies we have. - Ahunt (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I will run with that then. - NiD.29 (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Every single instance I found was linkspam linked to someone's images on an image hosting site that they added the links to steal traffic from wikipedia, but they weren't willing to donate the images to wikimedia. - NiD.29 (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The topic of External images of gliders is currently under discussion on the Gliding Project Talk page. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gliding#Use of External images. The topic has been open since August 2020.

I have challenged NiD.29's actions on his Talk page. My preference is for the Gliding Project Talk page to be the primary place for discussion of this topic as it applies exclusively to gliders, but I am happy to keep an eye open both here and on NiD.29's Talk page. Dolphin (t) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Just as a note. When I add external links to images, as I have done on this sailboat article: Holiday 20, I only do add them if there is no photo available on Commons, only add it as a link under external links and not in the infobox or the article text and only as a plain link, not some formatted box and I only link to an archived version of the image to avoid link spamming and also avoid WP:LINKROT. I should note that often these are images from classified "for sale" ads which are only on the internet for a short period of time before they get taken down, anyway. Just my approach to this problem. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ahunt. My approach is to make full use of Wikipedia's guidance at Template:External media. Dolphin (t) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I have to admit I don't like that template, just because it is so intrusive in the article. There is nothing in its guidance material that requires its use, or prevents us from coming to a consensus to here to not use it or only use it under certain circumstances. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

When NiD.29 initiated this thread (see above) he wrote “… None of these would appear to add anything that can't be added from wikimedia. Thoughts?” He then received some very sound advice from GraemeLeggett, Nigel Ish and Ahunt. Despite the sound advice from these experienced Users, NiD.29 proceeded to erase external images from about 30 articles on gliders, always with the edit summary Wikimedia has content – no need for external image.

I challenged NiD.29 on his Talk page. He responded promptly but his response indicates that his reason for deleting these external images has little to do with any of the reasons he gave us on this discussion thread. NiD.29 wrote: They fail WP:ELNO, WP:EXT and WP:ADV, and most of them also failed MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for being nothing more than decorative. An image of the glider landing does not add anything substantial to a photo of the glider on the ground. See the diff.

Apparently it is NiD.29’s opinion that all these external images of gliders fail at least one of the following policies:

  1. Links normally to be avoided
  2. Wikipedia:External links
  3. Advertising and conflicts of interest
  4. Pertinence and encyclopedic nature

NiD.29’s edit summaries give no hint that these external images were deleted for alleged failure to comply with some of Wikipedia’s policies. NiD.29 has not visited this discussion thread to inform interested Users that a previously undeclared reason has been found to erase about 30 external images. Members of the Aircraft Project and interested Users have not been given the opportunity to give their views on whether external images of gliders fail to comply with Wikipedia’s policies.

I find it profoundly disappointing that an experienced User such as NiD.29 would make a significant change to about 30 articles on gliders without alerting members of the Aircraft Project, without accurately informing them of the reason for proposing such a significant change, and without giving members of the Project the opportunity to comment on the reason. That is not the way Wikipedia operates. Even if NiD.29 discovered these non-compliance with policies after erasing the external images it would have been courteous to inform members of the Aircraft Project of the new development.

I think the way ahead for members of the Aircraft Project is clear. We should insist that NiD.29 restore the external images of gliders to the approximately 30 articles from which they were erased on 16 April 2020; then, if NiD.29 wishes to proceed he should rejoin this discussion thread and take us through the 4 policies that he quoted in his reply to me on his Talk page – see the diff - and explain to us why he believes the external images in question fail to comply with some or all of these policies. Collectively we have a lot of experience; we have genuine interest in all aspects of the Aircraft Project; we want to be consulted; and we want the opportunity to comment. Dolphin (t) 13:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As I've been mentioned by name, I may as well comment.
1) I'd shift any external image links to External links section.
2) if there was a link already in the external links to an article that included pictures of the aircraft, I wouldn't use a separate ext link to an image
3) if there was an image of any kind of the aircraft in the article, I wouldn't go looking for an external image to add
4) Onus is on inclusion not exclusion "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (WP:ONUS)
5) the way Commons categorises by individual aircraft even when there's only a single image in the cat -still rubbish way to do things.
GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for being dragged away at an inconvenient time - I was on the road, dealing with someone's death a good distance away - and haven't been able to spend time online. I also was unaware of a separate discussion elsewhere (which begs the question of why wikiproject gliding even exists, separate from the aircraft project, but that's for another time).
I haven't seen any arguments refuting my points yet and most of these image links failed on multiple points. I am compiling a list and so far I have gone through 16, and every one without exception has images in wikimedia - with one glider having ~100 images. Clearly the external image added less than nothing to that, since no effort was made by Dolphin (who added all of these so far) to check wikimedia to add suitable images from there first. Others had 15, 14, three had 12 images, and one had 11. The least illustrated page (only one page), had 1 image, and I can find images for it from free sources. One page had a dead hotlink to an error 404 page and another had a live hotlink to an image, and neither had any copyright information. Two links are to a Bing image search page, one of which has no copyright info. Should I keep going? Even in cases where there is a limited number of images, these add little to nothing to the page, beyond providing an extremely ugly infobox whose size is hard coded in pixels, in violation of yet another wiki rule, as it limits accessibility. Most of the images had very similar captions - only one of which had anything beyond "glider taking off", "glider under tow", etc. Clearly decorative rather than informative. - NiD.29 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is the table - with the captions used, number of images I found, and link targets. Bolded text indicates a problem with that image being included. I only found 27 pages I made this change to, not 30. There is ONE page where an argument could be made that an external image is needed. One, and it links to a commercial site.
Page Site hotlinks
and
©?		 Images
on
wiki		 Caption (bold indicates image used as decoration only)
ICA IS-28 clubplaneadoresbari
/error 404		 no (hotlink) 21 IS-28B2 in flight
HpH 304 jetphotos yes 12 Glasflügel 304 approaching to land
Grob G104 Speed Astir jetphotos yes 3 Grob G104 Speed Astir IIb taking off on aerotow
Glasflügel 206 airport-data yes 1 Glasflügel 206 Hornet approaching to land
Schleicher ASW 22 jetphotos yes 5 Schleicher ASW22 on aerotow
Schleicher ASW 19 bing yes 9 Schleicher ASW 19B on aerotow
DG Flugzeugbau DG-800 jetphotos yes 15 DG-808B self launching
Glaser-Dirks DG-400 pictaero yes 5 DG-400 self-launching
Eiri-Avion PIK-20 jetphotos yes 4 PIK-20D showing the non-white colour scheme available with this type
Glasflügel H-201 bing no 12 Glasflügel 201 Libelle in flight
Glaser-Dirks DG-300 jetphotos yes 12 Glaser-Dirks DG-300 approaching to land
Schleicher ASK 21 jetphotos yes 100 ASK 21 approaching to land
Schleicher ASW 15 jetphotos yes 14 Schleicher ASW 15B on aerotow
Schleicher ASW 28 jetphotos yes 6 Schleicher ASW 28 approaching to land
Rolladen-Schneider LS8 jetphotos yes 11 Rolladen-Schneider LS8 approaching to land
Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-3 hangar247.net no (hotlink) 7 Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-3, single-seat version in flight
Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-2 airliners yes 7 Schempp-Hirth ‘’Nimbus-2’’ in flight
Schempp-Hirth Cirrus cdn.jetphotos yes (hotlink) 13 Schempp-Hirth Cirrus approaching to land
Schempp-Hirth Janus jetphotos yes 20 Janus B approaching to land
Rolladen-Schneider LS1 bing yes 7 Rolladen-Schneider LS-1f on aerotow
Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus bing yes 11 Schempp-Hirth Mini-Nimbus C approaching to land
Rolladen-Schneider LS4 jetphotos yes 69 Rolladen-Schneider LS4 on aerotow
Rolladen-Schneider LS7 jetphotos.com yes 6 Rolladen-Schneider LS7 approaching to land
Rolladen-Schneider LS6 jetphotos.com yes 2 Rolladen-Schneider LS6-c taking off on aerotow
Schempp-Hirth Duo Discus airteamimages yes 78 Duo Discus XLT about to land with water ballast still discharging from the underside of the wings
Schempp-Hirth Ventus bing no 22 Schempp-Hirth Ventus approaching to land
Schempp-Hirth Discus-2 bing no 48 Schempp-Hirth Discus 2c in flight

Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@NiD.29: Thanks for the table. I will peruse it in detail later today.
You say you haven't seen any argument refuting your points. To ensure we are both on common ground please carefully read my diff.
Your "points" include an alleged non-compliance with WP:EXT. EXT is a very, very large document and you have not identified any particular element within that very large document that you consider to be the problem. I'm sure you are aware that no-one is going to attempt to systematically demonstrate compliance with every element within a very large document. Dolphin (t) 00:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. I guess it was too much to expect you to actually want to know what rules to avoid breaking. So, lets start with WP:ELNO
section 1. They must provide a unique resource beyond what a featured article would contain. This applies to the images, and is also applicable to external links placed at the bottom of the page. That means no listings of general specifications, no image galleries, and any images should go well beyond what we would find here. Performance charts (being overly technical), and specifications beyond what we would provide would be appropriate. An image that could easily have been found on wikimedia does not - especially when we literally have a hundred images to choose from in one case. That is the whole point of wikimedia - so we don't need to rely on external links that are fraught with all sorts of problems.
section 9. No search results pages are to be used, which covers all of the Bing pages.
section 11. No user generated content - which covers most of these links as the content comes from users uploading images with relevant information. If we are lucky, someone who was sufficiently familiar with the particular type may have verified it was identified correctly. If we are lucky, the uploader actually had authority to even upload the image. Some are likely better at that than others, but I have found errors on all of those sites.
section 16. No links to temporary internet content, which also covers the Bing pages.
The direct links fall under WP:COPYLINK, and is EXTREMELY shitty behaviour on par with spammers, trolls and sockpuppets. At no time should a direct link to an external .jpg (or any other image file) ever exist on wikipedia. Ever. It is also called leeching. If you need to be told more read this. It is literally theft not merely of the image, but of the host's bandwidth.
External links connecting to material without copyright information violate WP:COPYVIOEL, because we don't know if the hosting site even has permission to use the image, and there is a high probability that they do not. The same is also true for several of the other sites such as airport-data.com, clubplaneadoresbari.com.ar, since we do not know if they checked to ensure they have usage rights, which then causes copyright issues for Wikipedia if we are linked to them.
Finally, this is pointlessly driving traffic to commercial websites (to their benefit), and diverting it from within the Wikipedia group of sites. Far better to add images from Wikimedia than to add external links to anything, especially since in nearly every case, additional images were already available.

Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@NiD.29: On the contrary, I'm vitally interested in finding out what rules are relevant, and what rules aren't. As you know, I am taking my lead from TEMPLATE:EXTERNAL MEDIA and not much is said there about rules that must not be broken. You are providing information that is very valuable to others who are interested in aircraft so thank you for that. Dolphin (t) 13:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Glad to hear I am wrong on that point, and I know it doesn't help when relevant rules are scattered across dozens of pages, vary in adherence by project, and can be mutually contradictory. Cheers. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Helio Rat'ler

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
 
The Hello Kitty Airbus A330-200

I just ran across Helio Rat'ler, an article created in 2008, and which I tagged for sources in 2009. It's still unsourced, and hasn't changed much in 13 years. The only sources I've found in a brief g-search are Wikipedia mirrors or apparent self-published books. I'm tempted to PROD/AFD it, but figured someone here might have something on it in their print libraries. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought it might be related to Hello Kitty. Perhaps WP:PROD would be best. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
No, those are usually Airbuses. :) BilCat (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the sparseness of available information, perhaps this one is best covered as a variant mentioned on the Helio Courier page. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Assuming we can find a reliable source, such as a mention in Flight, AvWeek, or Janes. BilCat (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Very brief mention in Jane's - now added.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft as templates

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A number of templates such as Template:PLAAF aircraft inventory are just lists of aircraft. The particular example given is not linked to by any mainspace articles, yet it is still being actively maintained. Something funny is clearly going on. For more of the same, check out Category:Lists of aircraft in military current format. They should all surely be either linked from parent articles or deleted. Sorry I do not have time to follow this up at the moment, hope some of you can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspect likeliest reason for the PLAAF template is that it was at one time used for content in article but either got Substed or someone rewrote the article. eg I found templates created from article text and added back as template in article by an editor in 2014. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC) and similarly here around same time. In the latter case (List of active People's Liberation Army aircraft) the template was only removed at the end of last month (April 2021) with the addition of lots of Flagicons and images. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Adams Aeronautics Company

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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/Adams Aeronautics Company. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Boeing 747 on main page as FA now

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Help keep an eye on Boeing 747 over the next 24 hours if you can. Thanks for any help! -Fnlayson (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. - is that something new for the FA? - Ahunt (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I noticed that after I posted. Semi-protection seems fairly new from the articles I watch, but don't know when it started. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well it will reduce vandalism, but doesn't exactly encourage new users, does it? - Ahunt (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
It's routine to apply protection to TFAs to protect against vandalism but temporary (lasts for 24 hours I think). The RR Merlin article was protected in 2010 when it was TFA.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The TFA Pending Changes protection now runs for a month as part of a month-long trial. See Special:PermanentLink/1017460384#Pending-changes_protection_of_Today's_featured_article for further details. Once the trial is over, there will be an evaluation, so those who are concerned about this can participate then. BilCat (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Bill, I guess that explains it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That should expire soon (1 am UTC), since just came off the main page. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Category:Aircraft articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Aspect Ratio in Specs

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

@Ahunt: @NiD.29: An IP user has been adding aspect ratios to the specs sections of a slew of military aircraft articles. According to the current specs instructions, this parameter is generally for sailplanes only. Is this something we want to use on all aircraft articles? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The main problem is that the IP doesn't even know how to calculate aspect ratio, and it isn't a simple calculation as the IP keeps claiming, and they have ignored multiple warnings at this point. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem lies with there being very few sources for aspect ratios for anything other than sailplanes, and if a calculation was allowable, it would be vastly better for it to be done by the specification template itself, so it happens for every aircraft. That would only leave the challenge to determining from fields filled out in the template if it was a biplane or multiplane. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I find the aspect ratio informative of the aerodynamic refinement of a design, more so than the airfoil section. I try to add it for airliners. Is is a simple calculation when you have the wing area and the wingspan: it's the ratio between the mean chord (wing area/span) and the span. Easy to compute with {{#expr}} (see Help:Calculation) and falls within WP:CALC.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I think, if it is to be added, that this is one of those occasions where "working out should be shown for full marks". ie use expression code (poss hidden note too) with the values so it can be checked. Banging the numbers into a calculator and copying the answer across is too open to errors. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Marc, it is a simple calculation allowed under WP:CALC, as long as you know how to do it, but that goes for any math. It should be added to any airplane specs that we have span and chord numbers for, that we have wing area for, from which chord can be easily derived. I have calculated and added it to hundreds of light airplane articles on that basis. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The "simple" calculation is a rough approximation and isn't particularly accurate even when the numbers they are based on aren't approximations - which they usually are. Useful for those studying aerodynamics, but not as an actual measurement, and not for the general public. Wing area is also calculated differently in Europe and in the US (Americans omit parts of the wing outside the basic trapezoid, and Europeans vary by how much of the part inside the fuselage they retain), so you could have a number of possible values that can't really be compared to each other anyway. There is a reason there are no digits after the decimal in wing area, and now we want to make calculations for a ballpark number based off of that? - NiD.29 (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
On a related note, if we are looking at the template - a few ideas.
  1. According to the style guide, the crew number should be spelled out for small numbers - perhaps some code to convert the numerical value some people have used into the word for consistency?
  2. If we are calculating aspect ratio, then why not wing loading and power loading as these are also "simple calculations" which would have as much of a basis for being accurate as aspect ratio?
Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I have certainly calculated and added power loading and wing loading numbers to hundreds of aircraft type articles, as long as the input parameters have been available. It is a simple calculation and covered under under WP:CALC. - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@NiD.29 It is really a simple calculation: two divisions. Wing area calculation is another matter. 1 decimal is OK. Wing loading would be neat too.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I was surprised to see AR marked "sailplanes". It's true it matters more for that class than others but all aircraft have to fly slowly sometimes. Some, like the U2, fly only just above stalling speed in the thin upper atmosphere, and high AR was essential. The AR is quite often available; for example it's included in the specs of the 747 and Tristar in Jane's 1990. I didn't check further. The values agree with those obtained with the simple definition (span squared/area). AR is normally limited to a single decimal place so the variation in wing area definitions is not likely to matter. Like Ahunt, I have often calculated it.TSRL (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I would say that it generally matters more for sailplanes than most other aircraft. The U-2, as you said, is an obvious exception, and I'm sure many others exist. Aspect ratio is arguably largely irrelevant for most powered aircraft such as the 747 and Tristar, but if it is sourced I would not be against including it in the aircraft's specifications section. However, while calculating AR does fall under WP:CALC, if it is not sourced for a powered aircraft then it's probably not worth inclusion. - ZLEA T\C 20:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I would point out that aircraft are not just notable for high aspects ratio wings, but also very low aspect ratio wings, like the Lockheed F-104. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Even for powered airliners, there is an evolution, see the Thickness-to-chord ratio table that can be sorted by AR: older designs are around 7 (707, 727, DC-10, 747), while newer designs exceed 9 (A320, 737NG). The CSeries/A220 reaches 11.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It is very easy to over-state the significance of the aspect ratio when contemplating the performance of a fixed-wing aircraft. By publishing the aspect ratio of an aircraft Wikipedia is encouraging readers to over-state the significance of the AR. I am in favour of publishing AR for sailplanes and conventional low-speed aircraft; I’m less in favour of doing so for faster, heavier and less conventional aircraft.

There is a very useful discussion to be seen at Talk:Lift-induced drag#Influence of aspect ratio. Dolphin (t) 07:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Re the F-104: despite its stubby wings and wide body, the AR that Jane's gives is in agreement with the simple definition.TSRL (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Dolphin: true, lift-induced drag is better described by the weight divided by the span. But then it would omit the wing wetted area. The wing aspect ratio is not the perfect metric for aero efficiency, but it is an interesting proxy. Anyway, it is not our duty to pick wich is the most appropriate metric, but to show a design parameters. The reader can pick what is interesting for him.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)And indeed AR is less important with high speed: Concorde had a not so bad lift/drag ratio with a very low AR

Mass deletions of operators

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:List of Britten-Norman Islander operators, concerning mass deletions of operators in that (former) list and its complete deletion, downgrading it to a section of the aircraft article. The principle of demanding quotations even for every single link to "blue link" articles appears to be worth a discussion. --Uli Elch (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is an essay worth reading for those who like to tag/delete blue links and facts that are easily verifiable with one mouse click (maybe two). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
There is an open ANI case on this. WP:GNG was used in an edit summary to remove 'non-notable' operators, GNG only applies to article and list subjects, not what is contained in them (that is down to editorial judgment). There are 85 other aircraft type operator lists, this illustrates to me that operator lists are not unusual and are even encouraged. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Classification of UAVs

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Another pair of eyes would be appreciated; this edit has restored a long list of wing types that I had reverted. I see nothing specific to UAVs in the list, it is not significant to UAVs just because some academic squeezed a paper on UAVs out of it. But the editor concerned appears to differ. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Steelpillow I've asked them on their talk page to explain why they think the classification systems are different. - ZLEA T\C 17:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Austrian and Austro-Hungarian sailplanes has been nominated for merging to Category:Austrian sailplanes

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Category:Austrian and Austro-Hungarian sailplanes has been nominated for merging to Category:Austrian sailplanes. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Rename/merge discussion at Curtiss JN-4 Jenny

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a proposal to rename the article Curtiss JN-4 Jenny and merge in the Curtiss JN-6H article here.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft performance

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Category:Aircraft performance was created a few weeks ago. It is slowly filling with any and every article on aerodynamics and aircraft configuration that affects performance. WP:FANCRUFT for CfD, or worth keeping? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I had noticed that. Seems to be marginally of use.
I always have to remind myself that "hits" records show that readers almost never click on categories, before I get too worked up about these sorts of things. - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A for Amphibian

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

User:ZLEA has created a new template for USAF A- Amphibious aircraft and has removed the OA sequence from the oberservation template. Fine so far but we have now lost the OA- sequence as a number of the OAs were not re-designated A- in 1948. Left a number of suggestions on ZLEAs talk page but this is to let others know there is an issue. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

MilborneOne I admit that I didn't do as much research into the Amphibian designation sequence as I should have. I'll get to work on fixing the template right away. - ZLEA T\C 23:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
And finished. Let me know if I missed anything else. - ZLEA T\C 23:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that Andrade's US Military Aircraft Designation and Serials does show that OA-16 was allocated to the Albatross before it was changed to A-16 and OA-14s didnt survive long enough to become A-14s. MilborneOne (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with identification?

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
 

Hello,

I am wondering if anyone can identify the aircraft in this image from around 1919.

Thanks.--WMrapids (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

WMrapids I searched the nearest plane's serial number (1466 or 1468 I think) and according to Joe Baugher's site is was a Standard-built Curtiss HS-2L. I've added the appropriate category to the image on Commons. - ZLEA T\C 14:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
That said, the third aircraft from the camera is of a different type, I cannot identify that one at the moment. - ZLEA T\C 14:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Curtiss N-9. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!--WMrapids (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:American F aircrafts

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

An editor just created this new nav box. Aside from the bad grammar in the title, it seems to just duplicate Template:USAF fighters. Any thoughts or should it go straight to WP:TFD? - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Nasty little thing, isn't it? TfD is too good for it really, I'd suggest WP:SPEEDY first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I would be all for WP:CSD if I thought there was an application part there. What would you suggest, WP:G1? - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:A10 would be more accurate, but I'm not sure if it can be applied to templates. - ZLEA T\C 14:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I've tagged the template for speedy deletion with the custom rationale "Partial recreation of Template:USAF fighters." - ZLEA T\C 15:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, great. I read A10 as only for articles, but let's see what the reviewing admin says. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Great, exactly what I was about to do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like an admin concurred and the template is gone. Thank you to everyone for their work here and especially User:ZLEA for nominating it and deleting it from the articles it had been added to. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like I missed all the fun! BilCat (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
See what happens when you sleep in? - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with Igor Sikorsky

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

More issues with Sikorsky's nationality as Ukrainian, not Russian. Please help on the talk page, section "Nationality and origins of Igor Sikorsky".

Thanks for any help. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Aircrafts of United States Army

Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Same user as above, same problem. Any suggestions how to fix this one? It could go to WP:C2, but I think it just needs deleting. I have left him or her a note suggesting it may be better if they stick to contributing to the version of Wikipedia in their own first language. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the same user (as Template:American F aircrafts) has been adding the Category:Aircrafts of United States Army to mostly appropriate articles. But this is usually a redundant category for established articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree, it is redundant to existing categories. So do we fix the grammar and rename it, change it, send it to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or just WP:C2 or something else? - Ahunt (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Yay! I woke up in time for this one. I'm not sure we need the category, but the spelling definitely needs fixing. I'm certainly not impressed that this user is apparently doing nothing to repair their own errors. CIR is definitely a problem here, and perhaps steps need to be taken to address that. BilCat (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Good morning and welcome to the party! He has been left a couple of notes, but no acknowledgement yet. I guess the question is, if we use WP:C2 to fix the grammar, is the cat worth keeping or just redundant? - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't do much with categories, so I'm not sure what's the best option. The user ought to be the one filing for a correction, not us. BilCat (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Since checking "hits" shows that readers really don't use cats much, I usually don't worry about them, but we need to do something with this one, if only to fix the grammar. Just thought I would get a consensus here first. - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess I should add that the scope of this cat is pretty unclear. The person who started it has added modern army "aircrafts", but a title like this probably implies that it should include all WWII Army Air Corps aircraft as well. I dunno. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
We already have Category:United States military aircraft. But most aircraft articles belong in sub-categories of that. So there is no point in merging this ungrammatical horror, the kindest thing to do is to empty it and WP:C2 it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I just emptied it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I think if it stays empty it will get automatically tagged and deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Long standing consensus is we do not categorise aircraft by user, the example used the C-47 would need well over 100 "user" categories to no benfit to anybody. MilborneOne (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Once this has been empty for seven days it can be sent to CSD under WP:C1. - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Austrian and Austro-Hungarian Categories

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

A user keeps emptying Austrian aircraft categories and attempting to speedy delete the like Category:Austrian civil aircraft. A change has been made to Template:Airnd which further screws up everything. I have asked User talk:Place Clichy to come and explain whats going on otherwise we will continue in a cycle of filling and and emptying categories. MilborneOne (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I have contested the speedy deletion, user is apparently ignoring your request to discuss. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:29, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
If we dont get an explanation then I suggest we put the entries back into the original Austrian cats. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I actually found quite a mess in Category:Aircraft manufactured in Austria and Austria-Hungary and its subcategories, with some categories using Austrian and some using Austrian and Austro-Hungarian, sometimes both (example), sometimes creating category loops, all this regardless of actual chronology. I tried to fix by using, for consistency, Austrian and Austro-Hungarian for categories of planes by type (e.g. Category:Austrian and Austro-Hungarian military aircraft) and either Austrian ad Austro-Hungarian for decades categories (e.g. Category:1910s Austro-Hungarian aircraft but Category:1920s Austrian aircraft). Note that these categories are for the most part generated by semi-automated templates, which ensure that there is a consistent output with lots of navigation links (that's the good part) but which also sometimes bring us to use some consistency in terms of naming categories so that users can pretty much be brought to find content where it actually is. That's why there is no need for the Category:Austrian civil aircraft, which breaks this structure, because all categories for such aircraft are parented elsewhere, e.g. in Category:2000s Austrian sport aircraft, itself parented to Category:Austrian and Austro-Hungarian sport aircraft, itself parented to Category:Austrian and Austro-Hungarian civil aircraft, itself finally parented to Category:Aircraft manufactured in Austria and Austria-Hungary. If you feel that the aircraft industry in Austria-Hungary (most of which was actually in present-day Austria) should be completely split from the Austrian aircraft industry, or if you feel the same way for the Czechoslovak/Czech aircraft industry, or the Yugoslav/Serbian industry, or the Soviet/Russian industry, then by all means go and split these categories, if you get some consensus to do so from this project. Also, if you find a way to tweak the templates for a better result, please go ahead. I did not decide to put aircraft manufactured in Austria and Austria-Hungary in a single category structure, I just tried to dix the redundancy and the category loops. I hope you see a bit better the reason behind these edits. Every thing can of course be fixed if something is broken. Place Clichy (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
You say there is no need for this category but there is, civil aircraft are categorised by decade and nationality as can be seen at Category:Civil aircraft. There is a project categorisation guideline page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories. Categories should not be emptied and speedy deleted just to bypass the WP:CFD process.
If there is a perceived problem with a particular aircraft category it should be flagged here in the first instance to give editors the opportunity to discuss, amend or leave a category as it is. I disagree that Austria and Austro-Hungary aircraft should be combined, noting that there are discrepancies in the tree. Perhaps allow project editors to review and discuss? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
To add to that, had you looked you would have seen that we do indeed have separate categories for Soviet-and-Russian, Russian (only) and Ukrainian types, and also for Yugoslav-and Serbian and Serbian (only) types. You are clearly not on top of what we do, never mind why we do it. I see that you do a lot of category shuffling; frankly you should know by now to check these things out first. Please do calm down and stop using the speedy system so thoughtlessly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

F-15EX

Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Just for info Draft:F15EX has just appeared in draft space. MilborneOne (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Currently a copy of the text in the variants section of McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle. Also of note is that the creator attempted a cut-and-paste move to Draft:McDonnell Douglas F-15EX Eagle II. - ZLEA T\C 15:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Do we want or need a separate article? It's really just a F-15E variant, and not all that different from the late-model variants already covered there. BilCat (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I don't think there is much point to create an F-15EX article. It would have to duplicate a fair bit of content with the F-15E Strike Eagle article to provide enough background, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
So should we AFD it? (It's currently at Draft:McDonnell Douglas F-15EX Eagle II.) BilCat (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Do we send drafts to AfD? Perhaps just wait a bit. I would think that ss long as it is not in mainspace it is only a potential issue. - Ahunt (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure on that. Btw, I've just moved it to Draft:Boeing F-15EX Eagle II, as Boeing is the current manufacturer. BilCat (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I found the answer at Wikipedia:Drafts#Deleting a draft, which states they should go to MFD under specific circumstances, generally if they've been repeatedly rejected for promotion over a period of time. However, since we have no intention to allow it to become an article, I think it's best if we nominate it for deletion to avoid having the user waste his time on a dead horse. (They haven't worked on it at all since shortly after creating it.) BilCat (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the policy! You could pursue that or just wait until six months with no edits and it will automatically get deleted. Of course if it does get edited and moved to mainspace we could deal with it then. Your call. -Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
This draft is only a few days old. maybe its creator knows something we don't, it is too early to tell. We should give it some time before sending it to oblivion - that's what draft space is for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Like McDonnell Douglas is coming back? ;) BilCat (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, what is your point? You answered your own question by moving the article, even before I made my comment. I see no logic to bringing it back up here. Perhaps you could explain? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that was sarcasm. I meant that perhaps the user knows that it's going to be branded as a McDD product or something. My point was I really don't expect anything to be forthcoming that would warrant a separate article. BilCat (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Err, still no relevance to my comment - nor anything else that has been said here. Never mind, time to move on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC),
I was keying off your state that "its creator knows something we don't", but whatever. BilCat (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Steelpillow, while the topic probably isn't notable enough for a separate article yet, it may very well become notable in the near future. It already meets the "maybe notable" criteria as it "has received a distinct designation from the national aviation authority or the armed forces of any nation" (i.e. the "Eagle II" name). - ZLEA T\C 20:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
It's clearly notable a!ready, and I'm not disputing that. What is being discussed is whether or not it warrants a separate article from the main F-15E article, and the consensus so far has been that it does not. Personally, I'd prefer a separate article, as I like more smaller articles over one huge article, but of late we tend to keep variants together in one aircraft article. So I've no issue here if the consensus is to keep the F-15EX article. I can make it ready for mainspace in a few hours, but I'd prefer not the spend the effort on it if the consensus is against it. BilCat (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 018 Stowaway incident. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Catapult spools

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the Grumman F4F Wildcat article, it states, {{|"For carrier operations, the "sting" tail hook and attachment point for the American single-point catapult launch system were considered important advantages. Nevertheless, the Martlets were modified to have British-style catapult spools."}} The term "catapult spools" is also used in other articles such as Hawker Hurricane variants. Unfortunately, our Aircraft catapult makes no mention of the term. Does anyone have access to a source that explains it? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know of any RS, but there is an explanation here. The site is behaving weirdly, so here it is in full:

The model used on most Royal Navy carriers from the early 1930s through the end of World War II was the BH.III. Unfortunately, there are *very* few pictures of this system in action.

Basically, the system is built around a sliding trolley which is accelerated down the deck by hydraulic pistons (as opposed to steam power in post-war catapult systems). The aircraft is secured to the trolley by four angled arms, two attached to the aft fuselage and two attaching at the trailing edge of the wings. The catapult spools or spigots were the connection points between these arms and the aircraft. The external hardware portion of these mounting points was fairly minimal and in most cases removable, which is why they are not seen on most pictures of British naval aircraft. They were basically just locking points where the arms could be clipped into place such that they were aligned to solid points on the aircraft’s structural frame and wouldn’t tear through the skin.

Essentially, this is a catapult system which pushes the aircraft by its wings and fuselage, as opposed to the later system of pulling the aircraft by its nosewheel. When the catapult reached the end of its run, the trolley slammed to a stop and the aircraft continued on its own momentum, with the rear-facing spigot connections simply pulling free and the arms falling out of the way. Unlike with a catapult bridle system, there are no disposable parts to the system.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I have a British naval aviation manual from 1958 but catapult fittings don't feature. The attachment method was very similar to how motorcycle paddock stands are used, in this photo the silver frame under the rear wheel is the paddock stand, 'Y' shaped ends engage with black bobbins (the spools but they are called bobbins if you want to buy them).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Livery details in Air Force One

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A user has been adding a good bit of details on the livery design in the Air Force One article today. Some of the details seem out of place in this article, to me at least. Please take a look. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_47&oldid=1034646347"