Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 8

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

pre-2004  [ General | Strategy | Table History | Aircraft lists | Table Standards | Other Tables | Footer | Airbox | Series ]
2004  [ Mar–Aug | Aug ] — 2005  [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006  [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov–Dec ]
2007  [ Jan–May | Jun–Oct | Nov–Dec ] — 2008  [ Jan | Feb–Apr | Apr–July | July–Sept | Sept–Dec ] — 2009  [ Jan–July | Aug–Oct | Oct–Dec ]
2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ] — 2011  [ Jan–April | May–Aug | Sept-Dec ] — 2012  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ]
2013  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2014  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2015  [ Jan-July | Aug-Dec ] — 2016  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2017  [ Jan-Dec ]
2018  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2019  [ Jan-May | June–Dec ] — 2020  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2021-2023  [ Jan-June 21 | June 21-March 23 | March 23-Nov 23 ]

Lists: [ Aircraft | Manufacturers | Engines | Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons | Missiles | Timeline ]

On a different note...

To those who have contributed significantly to aviation in wikipedia

I think that we should have some way of rewarding our best editors. Hence I propose The Pioneer Medal (right), for the reasons given in the citation. Unless anyone has any complaints and/or suggestions?--Xiphon 17:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwings

Before he left, Rlandmann would give out WikiWings on a monthly basis. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. But has anyone taken his place as 'giver of the awards' since then, or are we just stagnating on this issue?--Xiphon 06:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think wikiwings is meant more like a barnstar, and anyone should feel free to give them out. But I have no idea if any have been given out since Rlandmann left. On another note, if we do continue to use wikiwings as the aviation award of choice, would anyone mind if we found or created a new image? I love the award and the concept of it, but I just personally dislike the current image. I was thinking something along the lines of a military-style wings badge, with the wikipedia sphere in the middle for an insignia. -Lommer | ^talk 22:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwings 2.0

How's this strike you? Really rough concept, so if anyone likes the idea and wants things changed it's more than doable. ericg ✈ 00:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought (not voicing an opinion!) you could use a barnstar in the place of the wikilogo. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I like it --Rogerd 04:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Very Nice, well done!--Xiphon 05:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant! That's exactly what I had in mind. Personally I prefer the wikisphere over the barnstar as the award's name is wikiwings and has no mention of a star anywhere, also I like the no-colour image. I'd like to make a motion that we adopt this in the place of the old image, and previous recipients can change to the new image or keep the old at their preference. Way to come through once again Ericg, I love it. -Lommer | ^talk 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, replying to myself... I just read the description of Rlandmann's wikiwings award and maybe this doesn't have to replace it. This could become the official award of Wikiproject Aircraft (Though we might have to share it with airliners and airports :-/ ) and be distributed in a barnstar-like fashion, unlike Rlandmann's wings which were awarded monthly. -Lommer | ^talk 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiwings 2.0

I'm happy to support whatever consensus we arrive at. The image does need a little cleanup, so I'll work on it a little more this weekend. It's also a transparent png, so if viewed by a browser other than internet explorer it'll look nice over any color of background (example that may or may not work to right). ericg ✈ 20:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Should I take the lack of further discussion to mean that noone objects and I can go ahead and make this our official award? Or does anyone have further input before I do... -Lommer | ^talk 21:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's time for you to go ahead ;-)--Xiphon 17:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

heh yea sorry, I've just been really busy lately. -Lommer | ^talk 18:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've done it. I added a note to our project page, to Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia, and notified wikiprojects airlines and airports on their talk pages. The award is now open. -Lommer | ^talk 19:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's been moved to the Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals page for discussion apparently.--Sylvain Mielot 20:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

well, that was a refreshing little discussion I thought. We should do it again sometime. Beers all round!--Xiphon 16:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

There is a lot of good categorization under Category:Aircraft, but a lot of problems as well. Many people have been trying to suggest clean-ups of problems on the WP:CfD pages, but it really needs a top down plan for better organization, and I would like to think WP:Air would be the right place to start that discussion. One of the biggest problems seems to be the attempt to categorize the aircraft chronologically by using decade-based categories, for example Category:Aircraft 1920-1929. This is arbitrary and not necessarily conducive to researching the aviation of a particular time period or event. For example, people will commonly want to browse World War II aircraft, but that involves at least three decades to look through to find most of the aircraft of that period, while many of the aircraft you see will not be World War II aircraft. For example, in Category:Ships, using simple named eras works much better, such as World War II, Cold War, Modern, etc. I would like to see the chronological categorization change to this method, but want to hear what folks have to say. Joshbaumgartner 09:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. The current category system aims for too much precision, which makes it unwieldy. There should be fewer categories, but each article should be in more of them. For instance there is nothing wrong with putting the Avro Arrow in both Category:Fighter aircraft 1950-1959 and Category:Canadian fighter aircraft. This would be far superior to creating the overly specific Category:Canadian fighter aircraft 1950-1959, which will never have more than a handful of articles. - SimonP 16:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• I also agree - A set of overall date categories, separate from the nation-specific ones, makes a lot more sense. I do think we should keep the dates based on launch, and perhaps add categories for wars or time periods (Fighter aircraft of World War II, Bomber aircraft of the Cold War). ericg ✈ 17:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree, listing aircraft by first flight date would provide first flight chronology to users far better than decade-based categories. However, many people naturally will follow eras when decending categories.Joshbaumgartner 01:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Yes: so many of these categories are empty ones. The twin decade/era and nation category system makes a great deal of sense. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm no aviation expert, but categorising by nationality/role/decade seems pretty reliable and foolproof. The exceptions are few and, as the name suggests, exceptional. I don't see it as a flaw in the categorisation system to produce categories with few articles. I think it is less work to adopt a broad categorisation scheme now and trust that in the future that the software will allow categories to be aggregated. Categorising by conflict should be in addition to the primary category, not in place of -- all First World War aircraft articles are placed in Category:World War I aircraft -- but I think list articles are better than categories for recording who used which aircraft when. Otherwise for an aircraft like the Hercules, the category list is going to be longer than the article it if is categorised by operator and conflict. Just my thoughts. Geoff/Gsl 01:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with your opinion categorising by conflict. A large number of World War II categories have now been deprecated and replaced by decade-based schema; some editors even argue that such conflict-based categories should be placed in templates rather than in the Category: namespace. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have with the decade-based system is that most people looking for aircraft chronologically will not know the exact year of its first flight, even if htey know generally when the aircraft was important. What has worked well in other military equipment categories is to use the following eras for the period that aircraft articales would cover: WWI (from the end of the Victorian Age to the end of WWI); WWII (from WWI to the end of WWII); Cold War (1945-1990); and Modern (1990 to present). Given the fact that aviation, as opposed to most other military technology, may have a uniquely large number of articles from the Interwar period, perhaps adding such an era would be warranted, but these general eras are easily recognizable by most people without having to know much about the history of aviation specifically, and are delineated by major eras of aircraft development and use.Joshbaumgartner 01:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't categorizing what categories are for? Maybe I missed something, but I don't see why era or conflict categories are considered out of line. ericg ✈ 00:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not just do nation/type categories and do away with the year altogether. I fail to see what we are gaining by having 500 different subcategories. I went to see if an article was written about an aircraft today and it took me 5 searches to do it because the decades pages are a mess. Emt147 03:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem, although the era/type/nation format has worked pretty well on Category:Ships. Dropping chronological categorization altogether may work just fine though. Joshbaumgartner 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparison tables

What about creating some pages with side-by-side comparisons of specs of major adversaries or commerical competitors (e.g. Spitfire vs Me 109 vs FW 190 vs La 7 vs Yak-9 or F-4 vs MiG-21, etc.)? Emt147 06:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the specs aren't the only factor in performance, especially when looking at fighter aircraft. There are plenty of sites around the internet with in-depth comparisons based on weight of fire, actual kill records, etc. - I think we'd do better to direct readers to these resources. Then there's the question of where we'd put these comparisons, certainly not in the aircraft articles themselves. It's a good idea, but I don't think we could pull it off without violating no original research. ericg ✈ 07:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. At a later date perhaps. Emt147 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but think it is appropriate certainly to note important adversaries in the aircraft's article. For example the Bf.109 article should explain its effectiveness against those it met such as the Hurricane and Spitfire, how it performed against them, and what the strongpoints and shortcomings that such a conflict made clear. By the same token, the MiG-21 article would be incomplete without mention of its performance vs. the F-4. Important stats could be mentioned in such text, thus putting them in the context of their role in the matchup.Joshbaumgartner 01:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course! I think that's a much better solution; data tables are not always the best choice to convey information, and in the case of something like this, it makes more sense to describe the complexities. ericg ✈ 03:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice idea but it would be neigh impossible to pull off without being subjective unless you can find objective **official** published comparisons based on test flights (flight envelope charts would be even better). Pilots' accounts are an extremely subjective indicator of any aircraft's performance. Besides, combat performance is too operator-dependent (e.g. Cunningham entered an angles fight in F-4 against MiG-17 and won). Emt147 05:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Specs revisited

Can be so bold as to point out a few things?

1. If you are writing or editing an article, please take 5 seconds to calculate wing loading and power/weight ratios. It's only division. The same goes for not leaving imperial or metric units blank.
2. Can we change the specs layout to make thrust/weight and wing loading links to pages explaining what they mean. These parameters can tell a lot about a/c performance but their meaning is not obvious to a layperson.
3. Can we add a Mach number to all fast subsonic and supersonic a/c when the altitude for the max speed is known? Explanation for calculating the Mach number and the Mach vs altitude tables can be found here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml
4. Is there a reason why climb rate is listed in m/s and ft/min in the suggested specs layout or this a typo.

Emt147 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Feet per minute is the standard measurement of climb in non-metric countries. I can't vouch for the accuracy of m/s, but I believe previous discussion stated that european gliders and the like use m/s. ericg ✈ 19:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that it is a good idea to encourage all contributors to enter information that they are not comfortable calculating. While it is nice if everyone would completely fill out the spec sheet on an aircraft, if the person is not comfortable doing the conversions and calculations you mention, they may not be accurate with them. Instead, I would encourage editors to learn about the different stats and do what they are comfortable doing, but in cases where they aren't sure they are putting the right information down, they should leave it to someone like you who is better equipped to provide accurate data. Remember, it may be only simple division, as you point out, but if the person doesn't truly understand the hows and whys of what they are doing, the potential for inaccuracy is great. Joshbaumgartner 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Rate of climb in m/s was from the votes table at the top. Are we going by units used on VSI (vertical speed indicator) instruments in imperial vs metric aircraft? Either way, IMHO m/s and ft/min on the same line looks sloppy. If I was reading the article, I wouldn't know which number to believe -- the logical assumption is that both are per second or per minute. Good point on erroneous calculations. There isn't a way to make automatic unit conversions with a template, is there? Emt147 05:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No, templates can't do that. I don't really see it as sloppy, though, and it's not really any different than comparing lbf to kN. It's using a different scale of units to compare the same concept, something seen in most metric-imperial comparisons. ericg ✈ 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The point with units is to ensure that our readership understands what's being described. According to discussions had previously, as noted by Eric, m/s and f/min should make the most sense to the respective audiences for which they're intended. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. :) Thanks! Emt147 04:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the book I use to write articles uses "Time to Climb", not rate of climb in some articles. Guapovia 10:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

128.170.208.100

Could someone else please have a look at Special:Contributions/128.170.208.100 and help sort out all the stubs? I've lost the will. Melchoir 00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I've finished. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking good! Melchoir 06:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Write new articles or expand stubs?

What do you all think would be more useful for the project right now -- writing new articles or expanding stubs to make them full-fledged articles (or as full-fledged as some of the rare/prototype aircraft would allow)? Stubs linked through the aero-stubs page number in the thousands, so there's plenty of work. A lot of articles on the New Aircraft page need to be copyedited as well. The copyedit tag has not produced the best results in my experience since it draws well-meaning wikipedians who are not necessarily versed in aviation history and a lot of weird language remains. So, expand or make new? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Any opinions at all? Anyone? FWIW, my preference would be to fix the stubs and messy articles first. We have all the biggies covered and most of Jane's claimed great number of aircraft consists of one-liners that make Wikipedia stubs look encyclopedic. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd opt for cleaning up messy articles and stubs first as well. McNeight 23:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback McNeight! One more thing -- if you do major updates, please note them on the New articles (aircraft) page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It's probably safe to say that nearly all of the most important aircraft have been covered by Wikipedia, so the main focus should be on expanding our coverage and quality in existing articles. Of course, the choice of which approach to focus on is left mainly to individual editors. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What makes a piper cub a piper cub?

the following is from Template talk:Piper Cub regarding what to include in the designation of piper cub:

Cubdriver has a page on his pipercubforum.com website titled What's a Piper Cub?. His argument is that there were enough significant changes in the Vagabond as to make it separate from the Piper Cub.

If not the Vagabond, then where should the line be drawn? Is anything pre-WWII considered a Cub, eliminating the PA-11, 12 and 14? Should Cubs from other manufacturers be considered Cubs, or as separate developments?

Just looking for more guidance and consensus on this. McNeight 22:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough on the Vagabond and successors. I suppose we should at least limit it to aircraft tandem seating rather than side-by-side that use the basic cub fuselage and/or wing. ericg ✈ 01:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. The J-4 is a side-by-side Cub (named the Cub Coupe by Piper), while the J-5 is a 3 seat Cub called the Cub Cruiser. Personally, I don't mind leaving them out, as they aren't what most pilots would consider a Piper Cub. This would also eliminate the PA-12 and PA-14, as they were follow-ons to the J-5.

The list could be knocked down to just the most relevant variants that are considered "true" Cubs: E-2, J-2, J-3, PA-11, PA-18. However, I don't want to make the call on where to draw the line without a little more input. McNeight 01:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

How about using the amount of contents rather than a specific model to determine the cutoff. In other words, I think a single reasonably-sized page covering the Cub and all its subvariants is preferred to 20 pages with three lines of text each. Seems to me like most variants can be described in a few sentences within the "Variants" section of the Cub page, e.g. J-4 Cub Coupe - side-by-side seating. J-8 - GAU-8 Avenger gatling gun under each wing, etc.

The rough and totally arbitrary guideline I've been using when deciding to merge articles about closely related developments is whether the text, not counting the specs, covers a full screen at 1024x768. No reason to scatter the information across many files when a redirect would do. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Good in theory, but I like to think big :)

Take a look at what I've got so far in Taylor E-2, and you'll get an idea as to what I'm planning on. In the meantime, I'd like to have a kind of roadmap as to which models to focus on, and I think I've pretty much got that in my head now. McNeight 03:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You are obviously a fan of the type. :) Go for it -- I just hate to see 50 stubs that could be one article. Please add the new stuff to the Wikipedia:New_articles_(Aircraft) page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

An idle thought

Looking at some of Fir002's new photos on Commons, I came across Image:Detail of g for george.jpg, a closeup of the nose markings on a preserved Lancaster in Australia.

It occurred to me that a short article on the tradition of putting bomb marks on aircraft, and the similar practice of kill markings on fighters, wouldn't go amiss - but what to call it? I can't seem to figure out a good general term for the concept... anyone here have an idea? Shimgray | talk | 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

For bombers, they're a record of missions flown, and I've seen that referred to as a "mission tally". For fighters I believe they're simply "kill markings". It's a hard one to look up. ericg ✈ 20:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The practice possibly dates back to cutting notches on a rifle stock for kills made (both hunters and soldiers used them, I believe), called "notches" or "hash marks". Possibly look under that? McNeight 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen reference to "kill marks" on knives, in various cultural contexts, as well. A surprisingly broad thing to look into... hmm, will put it on the back burner for now pending inspiration, it's just that we had such a good article to illustrate it :-) Shimgray | talk | 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say go ahead and call the bomber marking a 'mission tally' - that much I can confirm with various internet sources, including 'G for George'[1]. We can come back to the fighter article later. ericg ✈ 20:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

=={{Airtemp}} Loaded Weight vs. MTOW? ==

I'm a little unclear about the difference between the loaded weight listing compared with the max takeoff weight listing. Has anyone used each separately, and could you provide context for usage? Thanks. McNeight 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Loaded weight is a normal takeoff weight with fuel, crew, typical payload. MTOW, as the name implies, is the maximum takeoff weight. Use loaded weight for calculating power/weight and wing loading ratios.

So if an aircraft doesn't have a listed loaded weight, just leave it blank? Is there any way to flag it to disappear, ala the Armament section? McNeight 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

IF statements were recently added. I'll work with Ingo on implementing them once finals are done. ericg ✈ 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, is there a way to convert the language from loaded weight to useful load? It's simple math (gross - empty weight), but it might be handy to display. McNeight 19:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I just took my last final, so I'm going to look at the new if templates asap and see what I can do. ericg ✈ 19:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's done! This new template system is amazing. ANYWAY! Here's how it works. Add the following to your template, minus quotes: "|useful load main=" and "|useful load alt=". If you leave main blank on an unswitched template (ie. "switch order of units?=no") or alt blank on a switched one, the field will not show up. This won't negatively affect any existing aircraft, but can be added to anything using the template. Play ball! :) ericg ✈ 20:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done! And thanks for using Piper J-3 as an example. Now there doesn't appear to be any gaps in the information displayed, except for the metric equivalent of power/mass ratio. Anyone know what units to use? I'd assume kg/kW, but I've been wrong before. McNeight 00:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding power/mass, you're certainly right this time. ericg ✈ 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Except it should be kW/kg if it's power/mass. Minor, I know. Any way to make the template do the metric to imperial conversion math? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

merge of circuit (airfield) and traffic pattern

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Circuit (airfield) about which article the merge should terminate at. I feel traffic pattern should be the destination, but I'd like to gather opinions and get some consensus on this before we continue. ericg ✈ 23:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Macchi aircraft designation

Short question: Macchi MC.20x or Macchi C.20x ? We currently have both. AFAIR it is Macchi C.20x or MC.20x because M=Macchi but I'm not sure.

• Macchi C.200, Macchi MC.202, Macchi C.205 --Denniss 12:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen both but it's easy enough to adopt one and create redirects from the other. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Easy yes but we should know it for sure, it seems it's a common problem throughout the web, one calls it Macchi MC.xxx and the other Macchi C.xxx --Denniss 22:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This Italian museum (english page) uses three different designations for the same aircraft in the same paragraph. M.C. 205, MC 205, and C. 205 all make an appearance, as do C.205 (no space) and MC-205 (in the header). ericg ✈ 06:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"The Complete Book of Fighters" by Green and Swanborough (1994) has it as C.200, C.202, and C.205V and C.205N. Just to make it confusing. (There was also a C.200Bis, but that was a one-off. Guapovia 10:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

updates to page content and other project guidelines

I recently updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content to include the newer templates. If anyone needs further clarification (or thinks it would help) on how the {{airtemp}} and {{aircontent}} templates work, let me know, and I'll try to do some more thorough walkthroughs. ericg ✈ 23:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Lockheed internal designation series

I've been trying to get a concrete sequence for internal Lockheed aircraft project numbers, and it's tough. If anyone can dig up some more information, that would be great - I've been working on a series cheat sheet of sorts for a while now, and anyone who finds more is welcome to add to it. Thanks! ericg ✈ 21:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Man! That cheat sheet's handy. Thanks for letting us know, I'm sure I'll make regular use of it. -User:Lommer | ^talk 02:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad it's useful - I'm going to merge it into a WP:Air subpage eventually. For now, if anyone can fill in gaps (Liason in particular is awful, and Cargo and Attack are missing altogether) that would be great. ericg ✈ 20:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Project status

Is there an easy way to update this? Were does the count of 1000 planes come from?--Technosphere83 22:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Counting the number of links to the Aviation lists template might give you some idea. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick count using the list of aircraft page (counting the non-redlink lines) and came with this figure : 2100+ aircaft.So the number roughly doubled since last year,in line with the expectations. The rate of new articles has slowed significanly however and now hovers at an average of 20 new articles a month.

--Technosphere83 11:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft images

Most of the aircraft articles lack images. However, doing a quick google search usually picks up a photo or two of the subject. Obviously, these are copyrighted works by definition (in fact, the USAF museum recently added a "no redistribution" policy on all images on their website even though most of their images are works of the US government and thus not copyrightable). However, I was wondering if it would be possible to utilize thumbnail-sized (say, 250 pixels wide) versions in Wikipedia articles under the Fair Use clause (the Wikipedia policy pages on the topic are not helpful here) for illustrative purposes.

I'm specifically talking about old photos of old aircraft that may no longer exist or be available for photography but are too new to call copyrights expired. The goal is not to raid Airliners.net or USAF Museum (honoring their request... btw, if they keep adding watermarks there won't be much of an image left soon) but to provide a single small thumbnail image to illustrate what something like an XP-41 looked like. Essentially, the only other way I can think of to illustrate the old/rare aircraft is to make drawings from the photos and then post those.

Curious what others here think on this matter. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 19:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally dislike fair-use as a justification for exhibiting images on wikipedia because it is so murky and prone to interpretation (and abuse). I would absolutely oppose any project to automate or make a concerted effort to use google thumbnails in a widespread fashion. However, if considered on a case-by-case basis for a few images, I'd agree that it would be quite helpful. My only remaining question concerns whether your proposed use actually constitutes fair use. Just lowering the quality/size of an image doesn't make fair use applicable, so I'm not entirely sure that such a plan would be legit. -User:Lommer | ^talk 08:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to automate the project. Google Images was given as an example of the fact that the images are available out there. With these old images, there is no easy way to find the author, is there? A lot of the books I seen cite "private collection of so-and-so" in the credits which most likely means the person has found the photos somewhere and stashed them away, not taken them. Thanks for your comments! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 13:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting side-note is something I found in Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ under Derivative works. Apparently, there has already been a case where reproduction of public domain images cannot themselves be copyrighted because they "lack originality". The specific case is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. However, it has been interpreted that photographs of three dimensional objects are covered by copyright as the photographer can pick which angle to view the item from.

What I think this means to aircraft pictures (IANAL) is that while pictures of aircraft that the museum itself has taken are covered by copyright, scans of pictures that are in the public domain (such as combat photography or other pictures taken by the US Government) are also considered in the public domain. McNeight 20:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

But the Museum itself is, as I understand it, part of the Air Force itself. How does that affect copyright? ericg ✈ 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. Sorry. I got generic and specific in the same sentence. In the case of images from the National Museum of the US Air Force, I feel it doesn't matter. They can plaster as many watermarks on the picture as they want, but it doesn't change the fact that the image is in the public domain.

In the case of images from the Smithsonian or other museums where it is obvious that the picture itself is a military picture (gun camera footage, stock photography from USAAF press releases, etc.) then if the original image is public domain, all faithful reproductions of that image are also public domain. McNeight 23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question,but i'll ask it anyway.Is it possible to get pictures/reproductions from US archives? --Technosphere83 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a silly question, unfortunately. It's not very intuitive, and there is no guarantee that the image you want is either available online or even cataloged online. For example, I found the main starting point to be [2], and from there I discovered [3]. Clicking on the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) link gives you some detailed information on how to find what photographs they do have online. Good luck, as I'm still trying to navigate this myself. McNeight 09:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivia and video games

I get so tired of seeing entries in articles about aircraft (and other topics) like this [4]. I really don't think this kind of stuff belongs in articles about the aircraft. By the way, I reverted this particular edit. Is there a concensus that this kind of crap doesn't belong in an encyclopedia? --rogerd 03:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if the aircraft played a major role in a major film/book/whatever, then I could see adding a line or two, but as it stands its getting way out of hand with even the tiniest mention of an aircraft in some obscure work apparently meriting inclusion. A quick look at buddy's contribs [5] reveals that the C-5 wasn't the only aircraft he added that to; it looks like he's on a mission... -User:Lommer | ^talk 05:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• A lot of those anime/video game references are too specific/obscure, could be a Namco employee doing advertising for all I know. I agree with nuking those changes. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 08:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Guapovia here!

Just signed on in WikiProject Aircraft. I've submitted articles on the Albratros D.i, D.II, D.IV, and D.V. Also the Fokker D.I. I'm also goign through tech specs and histories on other aircraft. My source for fighter aircraft is "The Complete Book of Fighters" by Green and Swanborough (1994). I have a lot of aviation magazines, too - might as well put them to work. Drop a note on my talk page or here if there's anything I can do to help. Until then, I'll just be working my way through the book. I'm doing WWI fighters right now...progressing mostly chronologically. Kick the tires and light the fires! Guapovia 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How complete are we?

Anyone willing to make a guestimate of how close we are to complete coverage, at least in stub form? The list of US military aircraft still shows a lot of red but other countries don't have exhaustive lists like that which makes it harder to track the progress. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly? Just my fighter encyclopedia claims to have 1700 entries. Given that we also have bombers, transports, airliners, and other small civilian aircraft, the 2100+articles I saw claimed for aircraft somewhere on these pages is just scratching the surface. Guapovia 08:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Air Ministry Specifications

I have created List Of Air Ministry Specifications, though its rather stubby, to list those specs issued and the aircraft that were built and accepted for them. If any one comes across one while going through the aircraft articles it would be appreciated if they added it/cross referenced it to the list. Ta. GraemeLeggett 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Guapovia 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wild Weasel - a call for collaboration

I just looked at the Wild Weasel article and it's pretty abysmal. Would anyone be up for a concerted effort to turn it into something special? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll watch it, and do some copyediting and formatting, but I don't know enough about the topic or have the resources to put out new content. Either way, it would be an appreciated improvement. ericg ✈ 06:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

At your service, amigos. Big expansion of the Wild Weasel article done. Also, there's an article called SEAD which should be merged with Wild Weasel. After all, Wild Weasel is essentially a nickname for SEAD. Perhaps the Wild Weasel information could be merged into SEAD, with WW redirecting to SEAD? This way we could put in information about Navy and international SEAD efforts. Cheers, Guapovia 08:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with merge/redirect. I'll take a look at the article after my brain recovers from rewriting the F-4 page. :p Thanks for jumping in on the WW project! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 09:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My sincerest pleasure. Let me know if there's anything else I should take a gander at. :) Cheers, Guapovia 07:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Here are some formatted references I've gathered over time. Please expand and add to articles you edit as appropriate.

• Bowers, PM. (1979) Curtiss Aircraft, 1907-1947. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0870211528
• Bowers, PM. (1966) Aircraft in Profile No. 80: The Curtiss Hawk 75. Profile Publications. ASIN B0007KCRKO
• Bowers, PM, Angellucci, E. (1987) The American Fighter. Orion Books. ISBN 0517565889
• Davis, L, (1994) P-35: Mini in Action (Mini Number 1). Squadron/Signal. ISBN 0897473213
• Donald, D, Lake J. (eds.) (1996) Encyclopedia of world military aircraft. AIRtime Publishing. ISBN 1880588242
• Donald, D, Lake J. (eds.) (2002) McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies. AIRtime Publishing. ISBN 1880588315
• Francillon, RJ. (1987) Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0870218972
• Jackson, AJ. (1987) De Havilland aircraft since 1909. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0870218964
• Kopenhagen, W (ed.) (1987) Das groβe Flugzeug-Typenbuch. Transpress. ISBN 3344001620 (The big aircraft book)
• Mason, FK (1991) Hawker aircraft since 1920. Putnam Aeronautical Books. ISBN 1557503516
• Smith, MJ, Jr. (1986) Passenger airliners of the United States, 1926-1991. Pictorial Histories Publishing Company. ISBN 0933126727
• Swanborough, G, Bowers, PM. (1989) United States Military Aircraft Since 1909. Smithsonian. ISBN 0874748801
• Bridgeman, Leonard. "Aircraft Name." Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II. London: Studio, 1946. p. ##. ISBN 1 85170 493 0.
  • ({{Ref Jane's|Aircraft Name|##}}

• Степанец А.Т.(1992) Истребители ЯК периода Великой Отечественной войны. Машиностроение (Stepanets A.T. (1992) Istrebiteli Yak perioda Velikoi Otechestvennoi voiny. Mashinostroenie. ISBN 5217011920) (Yak fighters of the Great Patriotic war)
• Шавров В.Б. (1994) История конструкций самолетов в СССР 1938-1950 гг. (3 изд.). Машиностроение (Shavrov V.B. (1994) Istoriia konstruktskii samoletov v SSSR, 1938-1950 gg. (3rd ed.). Mashinostroenie. ISBN 5217004770) (History of aircraf design in USSR: 1938-1950)
• Широкоград А.Б. (2001) История авиационного вооружения. Харвест (Shirokograd A.B. (2001) Istorya aviatsionnogo vooruzhenia. Harvest. ISBN 9854336956) (History of aircraft armament)

More {{Airtemp}} Requests

While editing the Cessna 150 page, I noticed a few nice features that maybe should be incorporated into {{Airtemp}} as flagable:

• Never Exceed speed: 141 kt (259 km/h)
• Stall speed: 47 kt (87 km/h) clean, 42 kt (78km/h) with full flaps
• Service ceiling: 14,000 ft (4,300 m)
• Rate of climb: 670 ft/min (204 m/min)
• Wing loading: 10 lb/ft² (49 kg/m²)

While it already has Service ceiling, Maximum rate of climb and Wing loading; I like the fact that these items have wlinks to the description pages. Also V_NE (never exceed speed) can be different from max speed, and stall speed would be handy as well. Maybe even include the V-speed symbology? I'm asking here because:

1. I don't understand templates well enough to do it on my own without screwing something up
2. I'm not sure if the template was designed to be this all-encompasing

McNeight 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Done, done, done, done, and done. I think I even managed not to break anything. :)

• For Vne, use "never exceed speed main" and "never exceed speed alt" (without the quotation marks). For stall speed use "stall speed main" and "stall speed alt" (without the quotation marks). I will update the template info page with these parameters as well. Thanks for your suggestions! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason we did not link before (we did discuss it) was that it winds up looking extremely cluttered. I don't particularly mind, but that opinion will always be in the back of my head. Never exceed speed is unnecessary to anyone but pilots, and if you're looking for V speeds on the internet there are much better places than an encyclopedia. Stall speed is basically just as irrelevant to the average reader. ericg ✈ 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I must've missed that discussion, sorry! Feel free to revert the changes. How about adding a link to a glossary of aviation terminology to the Aviation lists then? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Average reader, maybe. Above average readers are what I'm trying to aim for. It doesn't have to be a textbook on airfoil theory, but speeds where either a) the airplane comes apart or b) the airplane stops flying can be important. Links might make a page look a little bit more cluttered, but the whole point is to provide context availablility with the click of a link. It's nice to see a link to service ceiling, because it never was very clear to me what that meant (why similar aircraft had different service ceilings) until today.

The links work great. It's a work in progress, but take a look at ERCO Ercoupe to see them in action. McNeight 04:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Template code in progress

I'm doing a small cleanup of the template code using boolean statements to eliminate all the sub-sub-sub templates. This would go in place of airtemp-switch-yes or airtemp-switch-no.

I don't see a particularly easy way of eliminating the airtemp directing to switch-yes or switch-no without making a gigantic qif statement mess or using two separate templates (airtemp-imp and airtemp-metric, for example).

I wish the Calc extension was installed so we could do conversions on the fly. :\

Anyway, the work in progress is at User:Emt147/Airtest and User:Emt147/Template:Airtest.

- Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I updated the templates with the new code. The old code is archived on the respective Talk pages. Nothing is broken AFAIK but please holler if you notice something. Be aware that it's absolutely case and word sensitive - like the instructions say, the only valid words are plane, copter, jet, prop, yes, and no. No caps, no quotation marks. If something doesn't work as intended, this would be the first thing to check. If we ever get the meta calc extension running on Wikipedia, it would be a piece of cake to change the template to do metric-imperial conversions on the fly. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that rate of climb got lost in the process. McNeight 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's back. So is the both-jet-and-prop option. (meaning the Convair B-36 works properly again) ericg ✈ 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• My bad. Thank you for fixing that one! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I took a stab at the templates, and re-added the wlink from Climb rate to Rate of climb. I'm noticing that there are also pages on Vno, Vne and Vso as well as a specific page on V speeds. Perhaps link the speeds as well? McNeight 02:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I dunno, that might be too much. You end up with a lot of bold and links, and I don't know how big of a hit on speed happens with each additional qif check in the template code. I wonder if un-bolding the text in specs would be a reasonable thing to do? Anyway, there's only half a dozen or so pages using the template right now and the conversion is rather labor intensive - trying to bring consistency to Wikipedia is like herding cats. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Too much is never enough! ;) I was wrong about Vso (although a disambig & redirect to Stall speed, which is already wlinked in the template, might be called for). I just did a major cleanup on both Vne (Never exceed speed) and Vno (Maximum speed), and I'm looking for information on cruising speed. Not that they should automatically be entered into the template, but something to think about. McNeight 03:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist and certainly for all appropriate information but I think integrating too many specs into the template would make for a very cumbersome template to work with. It already fills several screens at 1024x768 resolution. You can always manually add specs not in the template using the standard markup language. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need all those specs? Too much information is a bit unwieldy, and to be honest, if you're looking for the Cessna's Vne, you're going to grab the POH, aren't you? Guapovia 16:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my point to begin with. I don't agree that the template itself is too large - users don't really see that or have to fill in all fields - but the information included might be. I still feel that V speeds and wikilinks in the specs section are distracting, and in many (most) cases V speeds will be difficult to find. Even major publications like Jane's don't include the various V speeds like V_NE and V_A - many of which change based on configuration or weight. ericg ✈ 18:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess my original points were:

1. Some of these speeds are already included in the template, such as Maximum speed and Cruise speed. Adding a link to the pages explaining these speeds (e.g. Maximum speed and Cruise speed) would be a benefit, simply becuase not everyone is familiar with the differences between max, cruise and V_NE
2. Adding V_NE and stall speed "completes" the basic reference speeds on the airspeed indicator. Stall speed is generic enough that I don't think we need to differentiate between V_S, V_S0, and V_S1. V_FE tends to be the "forgotten" airspeed (until you forget it the first time...).
3. By making them optional, the editor of the page can opt to leave them out if they want to, and they won't show up as blank entries.

I've gone ahead and been bold and made the changes. Discuss further or revert. McNeight 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But if you want to be a reference work, we need to know what stall speed is used - otherwise it's meaningless. Especially in an aircraft with slotted or blown flaps, the difference between V_S0 and V_S can be huge. ericg ✈ 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it meaningless, but you do have a point. If you want to add Stall speed (clean) and Stall speed (dirty) to the template, I'll help. McNeight 19:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my initial point - we're getting way too in-depth. These are values you won't find anywhere but a POH — and wikipedia is not a POH. If you want to add it separately on a per-aircraft basis, go ahead, but adding it via the template is excessive. ericg ✈ 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ericg on this one. Some of this information can be presented in the text describing the handling of the aircraft (e.g. "so-and-so has been lauded for its easy landing characteristics with a stall speed of only...") but it's overkill to make a template for 5,000 things. Wikipedia is not meant to be a reference, not the definitive source of information on a subject. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

potential template issues

There are apparently problems with using qif and templates within templates. This has recently been brought up on the {aircontent} talk page, and will probably spread to {{airtemp}} soon. I feel both templates are valid, convenient, and important, but others do (or likely will) disagree – including developers. Discuss. ericg ✈ 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think they are particularly convenient -- I paste the basic page layout from a text file on my computer before editing and templates, particularly specs, are more cumbersome to edit than plain text. There is also a noticable difference in speed on template vs non-template pages. I think the role of the templates is to provide a unified, agreed-upon, layout and formatting for all articles. The problem is that users create new aircraft articles without looking at these pages. Templates or even CSS don't really circumvent this though -- you still have to visit here to learn about the template. This is an inherent problem with Wikipedia (herding cats, I tell you!) and the only way to deal with it is to relentlessly go through and revise/reformat articles. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Keep in mind that with a template system you already know what's been properly formatted. Without, you have no way to know other than watchlisting every page with specs. ericg ✈ 23:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • True, but I watchlist every page I edit and I edit layout before anything else. I guess in the end I'm not sure what exactly we are gaining with the template. If people actually read this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content before editing, all of this would be a non-issue anyway. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Bolded specs

I'd like to reopen discussion on using bold for specs. IMHO it creates a lot of clutter. Opinions? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

A-10 Thunderbolt II

The A-10 Thunderbolt II article has as much information about movies and computer games as it does about the actual aircraft. The aircraft info reads like a copyvio and there is not a single word about the development history of the type. The A-10 is a bit too new for my interests (I'd rather write about older birds) -- would anyone be interested in making an AIRPLANE (rather than a computer game) article out of it? I'll be happy to throw in bits and pieces of info as needed. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would. In fact, I have a magazine around with some details about an experimental 2-seat version of the A-10. I'll try a cleanup, first. Guapovia 07:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there's now a section on "origins" and I broke up the "description" page. I put some of the info on the GAU-8 into "Trivia" and put in a section on nicknames. The TV, Games, and Whatnot I kept, because it's on the end, and who knows? someone might be curious someday. So what do you think? Guapovia 08:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, check out a guy who has way too much time on his hands - http://www.brickfrenzy.com/index.php?m=a10 :) Guapovia 09:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Category rename

Please note that all of the 'U.S. aircraft' categories have been nominated for renaming to 'American aircraft' on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Make sure to voice any opinion on this matter there within the next week. Josh 08:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I opposed. I think it's not needed. Also, a lot of people use "U.S." to talk about "U.S. Forces" or "U.S. President" or something like that. Join me in opposition. :) Guapovia 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I opposed. I encorage everyone to voice your opinions. Bear in mind that the name change will disrupt over 2,000 articles and I suspect the proponents of the rename who have nothing to do with this project will not be up until 5 am fixing the links (yes, I know bots do the renaming... when they work correctly. It's still US-centric.). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History has a new Task Force: Military Aviation

It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_aviation_task_force - and I've been asked by the project's coordinator to see if any of us are interested in joining this TF. I feel that the military aviation is rather neglected in the Military History Wikiproject. Not though anyone's fault, really - it's just that Military History, conventionally, has been about battles and soldiers and guns.

This task force would be a joint effort between MH and WP:AIR. Here in WP:AIR we have the expertise and the resources to really bring military aviation up to speed in Wikipedia. We could provide the aviation background of the airplanes and the men who designed them; Project MH has the background in history that could show how these "fabulous men in their flying machines" really came about.

I think it's a great opportunity to show that Wikiprojects can collaborate on items of mutual interest. So come on down, click the link, sign up your name, and let's make history! :) Guapovia 03:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this different from what we are already doing with WP:Air (which is VERY military-heavy, by the way)? If you adhere to WP:Air guidelines, you should be writing about the aircrafts' development and service history anyway. I suppose I should ask this on that project's page. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the project page. Guapovia 11:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

F-35 JSF

I am working on the F-35 JSF, to help bring it up to featured article quality, It is already listed as a good article. Can anyone who knows more about it help me? Thanks! --The1exile 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

One useful tool is Wikipedia:Peer review. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was also going to mention its failed FAC, but you seem to have seen those comments already. (You said that you had addressed the concerns of those commenting.) Ingoolemo ^talk 08:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's back on the Featured Articles list --PopUpPirate 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend F-35 JSF as it has already been rated as a good article and is currently undergoing Peer review so it can be pushed up to featured article standard. --The1exile 18:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Convair B-36 has been Featured, but I feel that in its current version it needs a lot of work before it can even be considered good. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I wil ad them to this table when I have time (or your group can). :) Thank you! Gflores ^Talk 00:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Phantom peer review

I submitted F-4 Phantom II for peer review. Please jump in with feedback! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

F-35 for Featured Article again!

PopUpPirate submitted this article for FAC again, after being voted a good article and having gone through PR. So far we have 4 supports and no objections. Take a look at the article, and if you think it's good support it! --The1exile 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Must admit, I hadn't realised it had only just been up for FAC (having mainly concentrated on music stuff till now), but saw the article and thought it was great. I've done some heavyish editing - not of the facts, but just re-arranging and pruning to satisfy requirements. Of course, feel free to rip it to shreds! --PopUpPirate 00:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay, JSF is now Featured! Cheers to all contributors! --PopUpPirate 12:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to all those contributed. I promised to do an extencive review of the article myself, and am currently working on it. When completed, I will post a full explanation of my changes at Talk:F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to all who contributed and/or supported! --The1exile 21:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations

Hi all. To ease bringing articles to FA status in the future, please please please insert inline citations at the time of writing using Harvard_referencing. I've gone back and added inline citations to my edits but after some time passes its difficult to recall where the information came from. ~:P If you are reading someone else's unreferenced edits, it's basically impossible to figure out the appropriate citation. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 21:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, the F-35 article citations which also meet recommendations are now OK for FAC. To me, the Harvard references are long winded (intended for print), but whatever, the more aircraft articles featured the better. --PopUpPirate 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:CITE,

Many of today's style guides forbid or deprecate footnotes and reference endnotes when used simply to cite sources (Concordia Libraries). The APA style does not use footnotes to cite sources. The MLA style manual has deprecated reference footnotes and reference endnotes for decades in favor of in-line bibliographic references.

Good luck with F-35 FAC! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Air Ministry specifications list

Because there's no such thing as "too many projects," could anyone help to expand/complete the List_Of_Air_Ministry_Specifications? Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Airfoils

On a nudge from User:Petersphilo, I wrote a rough page on NACA airfoil sections. I think it would be nice to add the airfoil information, where available, to the specs because it gives a huge amount of information about the aircraft's wings (or helicopter rotors) and because for 4- and 5-digit NACA sections you can actually plug them into a java program and see what the wing looks like for yourself!

Yes, it is a bit technical but it's only an extra line of information per page and from the standpoint of describing performance, the airfoil shape is as informative as wing loading and power loading. I propose this format:

• Airfoil (wing root/tip): NACA 12345 / NACA 67890 (yes, that is a very strange-looking wing :)).

This page has a ton of airfoils. I checked a few of them against my refs and they are spot-on. http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html

Thoughts? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Problem with aircontent template

User:Christopher Mahan brought up a problem with Template:Aircontent. It places External links as a sub0-section at the end of Related content rather than as a separate section following References. This is in conflict with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content as well as the general manual of style. Unfortunately, because the template is called following the Related content tag hard-coded into each page, there is no way to rewrite the template to place the External links above it. Any suggestions short of manually editing every page using the template? (I'd advocate for replacing it with conventional text). There are several hundred pages using this template... I'd appreciate the help! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to help. Thanks for your concern. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of all the planes from the PB4Y Privateer to the end of Special:Whatlinkshere. Ingoolemo ^talk 07:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Have now made it to A2D Skyshark. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Finished the first 50 (787 was the last one I did). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Did the next 50, Tupolev Tu-204 is the last one I did. --Sylvain Mielot 05:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I'm starting at the end and working my way towards the beginning. Ingoolemo ^talk 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reached the A2D Skyshark from the other end, so I guess we're done. --Sylvain Mielot 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everybody!!! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 01:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)