Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

A380 routes

Just for information I have just proposed List of Airbus A380 routes for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and agree. I have seconded the PROD. - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that User:RadioFan removed the PROD tag, saying: "This may be notable as the possible routes are limited by infrastructure improvements at airports. Lets give this article a chance and delete if a good one cant be written". - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

USAF Vehicles

A user is suggested that List of United States Air Force aircraft and Vehicles of the United States Air Force be merged. As both appear to duplicate List of active United States military aircraft I have proded List of United States Air Force aircraft and removed the aircraft from Vehicles of the United States Air Force which leaves just a few motor vehicles listed. Just asking for a sanity check, support or otherwise. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Creator of the new article Vehicles of the United States Air Force has added back in aircraft to the article and is still suggesting that the older (well created this year) article List of United States Air Force aircraft is merged into his new article. Appears to ignore the fact that all the information is in and has been for a while List of active United States military aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Equipment of the United States Air Force is supposed to the umbrella article for the USAF air and ground vehicles (and Weapons & Ammunition. username 1). A lot of content repeated in all these articles and United States Air Force. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

MB1: I seconded your PROD. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a fan of list articles, so i created the new one which just needs to be expanded with prose.username 1 (talk)

The problem we have User name one is that the same information already exists in four articles and adding a fifth is not really adding any value. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, its sister article, Vehicles of the United States Army (which i created) also exists. Do we delete that too?? username 1 (talk)

No need again to duplicate the aircraft information that already exists. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your logic. username 1 (talk)

Il vs. IL

User:Aria613 has been "standardizing" the use of "Il" (small case "L")in Illyusin aircraft articles to "IL"; in most cases, both forms were used haphazardly. I've asked the user to stop making the changes to "IL", and present his case here to gain a consensus on the issue. I've reverted his changes to the Ilyushin Il-18, Ilyushin Il-62, and Ilyushin Il-96 articles, but will refrain from further changes until a consensus is reached here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since both were officially used haphazardly I would suggest going with capitals, if only for clarity since Wikipedia uses a sans-serif font with makes both letters look pretty much the same. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always seen it as "Il", not IL. That said, I don't have any reason other than that about which way it should be. SidewinderX (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur, as "Il" seems to be the general usage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My post-Cold War references consistently use Il, along with An, Tu, etc. I suspect the confusion arose from lazy or confused Western writers during the Cold War.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be me, FWiW (L&/orC) Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Agree. Seems to be standard to have capital plus lower case for all Russian types (I've seen), e.g An, Mi, Su, Tu etc. Since it is an abbreviation of a name, this is what you would expect, as in the Smith Sm-98. Russian seems to capitalize the first letter of a name but not others, just as we do, as in Илью́шин (Ilyushin). Two patronyms in MiG, of course.

There are times when sans-serif fonts (which personally I prefer for clarity) have disadvantages; one is the need to write L for litres when you would not write M for metres. But hey!TSRL (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Having said that, I have a photo of an An-38 in front of me. It's marked up in Cyrillic and the nose carries АН-38-100 i.e. AN-38-100, capitalised. Whatever we do (I'm still for Il) we should not, I think, make IL a special case: if IL, then TU, MIG, SU etc!TSRL (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about how the Russians mark their aircraft, which may or may not have their own rules, than about usage in documents, which seems more important for our purposes, IMO. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree entirely. It's as well to be aware of other people's choices, whilst being clear about our own.TSRL (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to BilCat regarding IL vs Il. The original IL-62 article used a mixture of IL-62 and Il-62 in text, seemingly at random, but I appreciate that this was due to various contributors having added text at different junctures. I originally standardised these on the IL-62 page only, due to the fact that Ilyushin themselves use IL-62 on their English language website http://www.ilyushin.org/eng/products/passenger/62.html, as do German websites such as http://www.ddr-interflug.de/Flotte/Il-62/Flotte-IL62_3.htm IL-62 also appears on English language Aeroflot route maps and promotional material. Two comprehensive texts on the subject use IL-62: OKB Ilyushin by Gordon, Komissarov & Komissarov (2004, ISBN 1857801873) (which incidentally was done in close collaboration with Ilyushin and also cites other Russian works as IL), and Thiel's IL-62 airliner in service around the world (2001, ISBN 392567120X, German & English) which has numerous photographs of planes from many airlines in which the designation used on the fuselage or engine pods is always IL-62. These include Air Ukraine, Uzbekistan Airways, Tarom (Romania), LOT (Poland), CSA (Czechoslovakia), Interflug (East Germany), Orient Airways, East Line, Sed Sad Airways, Air Mozambique, Cubana (Cuba), Air Koryo (North Korea), TAA, Aral Air, Yana Airlines, Georgian Airlines, and Alim Airlines. I have never seen an instance of the designation Il-62 used on any plane. For what it's worth, I used to collect airline promotional literature and have a fair amount in Czech, German, and Russian from the 70s- 90s and these all use IL-62. In fact I am unable to find a single item amongst them which uses Il-62. I appreciate the fact that the original article title was set up as Il-62, but early wiki articles and titles were replete with errors and inconsistencies, and I suspect that what happened was the first Ilyushin wiki article was set up with the Il designation and subsequent articles simply followed suit believing it to be correct. I’m happy to go with whatever consensus is reached here but would prefer to use the correct designation. I'm sure that if we started using Vc10 or Md-11 without justification, contributors would very soon be up in arms. Incidentally, whatever is decided the title of Thiel's book has to remain as IL-62 (I noticed this was also changed in the last edit of the article). Aria613 Oct 16th 2009.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aria613 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW Regarding the previous edit of the Il-62 page by BilCat which resulted in registration codes in the text and charts being replaced by question marks, presumably as a result of a global edit. I don't have time now to check if other un-intentional changes were also introduced, but it would be appreciated if you could reinstate the codes (and possibly look at the other Ilyushin pages that you modified). Aria 613 Oct 16th 09

Sorry, I don't have time either. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Going through the new article bot log I found this: R.A.E. - Vickers Transonic Research Rocket which does not appear very different to this: Miles M.52. Would seem sensible to merge the two. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Same subject, two articles - they need to be merged! Oddly enough they both use exactly the same image File:MilesM52 1.jpg which should have twigged someone that the articles were duplicated! - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I got a sensation similar to using a blink comparator switching between the two! Maybe I will contact the newer article's creator with this suggestion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably a good place to start. I think that when this happens it is usually because the creator didn't check around enough to see if the article already existed under another name. In starting new aircraft type articles that is always my first step - a good search. - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I redirected the page to the M.52 article. However, I actually think the article is about something else, per the article's title, but I really can't tell what, since it spends so much time on the M.52. Can someone who is good at reading confusing info re-read the article, and see if they can tell what it was actually supposed to be about? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I pasted both articles into my sandbox so that I could see the diff [1], the new article had obviously been created using the Miles M.52 article as a template. It is describing a scale model of the type which the given cite claims to have flown supersonic at 35,000ft in 1948, no mention of how it got up there or how it was controlled. If this info was included in the M.52 article it would need a copy edit first and some wikilinking. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A little more digging through the references reveals that it was air-launched under a 'light bomber' flying from St. Eval in Cornwall to be dropped over the Bristol Channel and was radio-controlled. Would be worth adding a summary of all this into a section of the M.52 article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Flight in 1946 has comprehensive coverage of the Vickers Rocket before testing. Might be more in later issues. Seems to be a valid addition to the M.52 article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The creator of R.A.E. - Vickers Transonic Research Rocket has reinstated the article, and rewrote the Lead this time. Should we have a merger discussion, or is the article now viable on its own. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fisher Flying Products

This article makes no claims of notability, merely that it exists. There are no sources that are available to the general reader except for the company's own website. My {{notable}} tag was removed on the grounds that WikiProject Aircraft claims that "all aircraft manufacturers who have designs flying are inherently notable". I don't think that that's an acceptable use of notability as there need to be claims of notability, not just of existence. But I was also quoted Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft), which, as far as I can find, says nothing about manufacturers of kits. Are there such low levels of notability? Where in that notability page does it say that? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There does appear to be a fairly lengthy list of references that would be considered sufficient to establish notability. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

Please point to those sources which prove notability and not existence. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The first two reference sources in the bibliography ( Flight Global Archive (1984). "Fisher FP-202 Super Koala" and the Experimental Aircraft Association (May 2007) "End Of An Era For Fisher Flying Products") indicate that the company has utilized computers in 1984 to create their aircraft, which was considered innovative for the period. The second article details that the company has over 3,500 aircraft completed and that the company is winding down its kit production with an eye to selling off its product line. Seems notable to me? FWiW, the company and its products easily meet the requirements of aircraft notability. Bzuk (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

Based upon your assertions, which I and the general public cannot see, I will assume good faith and stop this discussion. But I still don't see anything in the notability page which discusses notablity of companies. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Having really no dog in this hunt, my contention is that if the aircraft product is notable then as a corollary, the manufacturer that designed, manufactured and marketed that product would also be notable. FWiW, are you really speaking for all "the general public?" That seems to be a weighty responsibility (LOL). Bzuk (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

Sorry to come late to this discussion, especially as I was the one who started the article in question that raised this issue and suggested that User:Who then was a gentleman? bring it here instead of my talk page. I did want to add a couple of things to the discussion.

First on the subject of the general notability of aircraft manufacturer articles, Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) not withstanding. I would argue that all aircraft manufacturers who have aircraft flying are inherently notable, even under WP:N, which says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Almost all manufacturers have been written up in detail in Janes All The Worlds Aircraft, which makes them all notable under Wikipedia policy, irrespective of other sources.

In the case of this article Fisher Flying Products it most likely has entries in Janes form 1984 to date, but I would have to go down to my local library to confirm that. Lacking Janes handy, I cited six different independent reliable secondary sources, plus the company's own website, including AvWeb, Flight Global, EAA, AeroCrafter, Cliche and Kitplanes. I am not sure how that fails to meet WP:N. With 15 designs and over 3,500 aircraft flying, it seems to me that if this company is not a notable aircraft manufacturer then Boeing probably isn't either. - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Best layout for aircraft with 4 different engines?

I'm planning on starting to expand the Petlyakov Pe-8 article and I'm looking for suggestions on how to best present its specs since I have full data for it with four different engines. I don't really want to try and do it as part of the main body of the article since aircraft weights, etc. changed with the engine fitted. All that's coming to mind is to put each spec template into a table with four columns. Anybody got any better ideas?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The normal way to do the specs it to pick one variant and present the actual specs for that one version there, but specify the differences in the "variants" section, like in Fisher FP-202 Koala. This keeps the specs down to one list and allows a complete listing of the differences. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the way I've usually seen it. Take the most common one (or the one you have the most reliable refs for) for the main specs table. In the variant section say "Pe-8x: re-engined with xxx-xxx engine, which increased thrust to yyyy lbf and increased empty weight to zzz lb" -SidewinderX (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but the problem is that most of the specs changed for the Pe-8 because it was built with radial, inline and diesel engines; everything from ceiling, weights, speeds, ranges, etc changed. So it would seem very awkward to list all of these in the variants section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The main thing is that because this is an encyclopedia and not Janes it really isn't necessary to list all the specs for all the variants. If you check most aircraft type articles, like the Piper PA-34 Seneca that has multiple versions with different engines and specs, just a single sample spec is cited (in that case the Seneca I), not all of them. The really key differences can be mentioned in the variants, like "XX engines installed with increased cruise to 680 kts", but there really isn't a call to go into that much detail in an encyclopedia article. Alternatively you could try going the route of Boeing 737 with a large table, but personally I think it is overkill. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

BQM-147

I noticed that we have articles about the BQM-147 Exdrone and the BQM-147 Dragon. They need to be combined I guess. Neither of them are particularly well written, but there is no need to have two articles. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The pages defintely cover the same thing. BQM-147 Dragon is in better shape layout-wise and has more content. not sure which name is more correct or more well known. The BQM-147 must be out of production as there is nothing on BAI's site about it. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the BQM-147 Exdrone might be more correct. This link has some info. I'm not sure if it's still in production, but I wouldn't talk BAI's website to count for much... I've found that a lot of projects like this aren't well covered by their company's website. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, though I have already redirected to BQM-147 Dragon, as it is the better-written article, editedby known editors. We'll need to see about a histmerge, and then move it back to BQM-147 Exdrone. - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Surviving F-86s

Would anyone be interested in helping to creat a List of surviving F-86 Sabres and variants article? It should at least cover the F-86 Sabre, F-86D Sabre, Canadair Sabre, and CAC Sabre articles. The FJ Fury variants could be included too, but as these were only in USN/USMC service, an were not called Sabres, there has not been any tendency to add them to the F-86 Sabre article as with the other variants. The articel should probably follow the Milb1-style by country (especially since the F-86 was used in many countries) as used in List of surviving Supermarine Spitfires, rather than the more-confusing Dave-style by variants and block numbers. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There's merit in both by country and by variant lists, but I agree that by variant and the factory it comes from is confusing.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the use of BU no or other identifying production numbers as a means of sorting out the aircraft or logically listing them by variant sequence. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

I can contribute information, but nothing more, as there's one only a few miles away from me. Photos available as needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, there is one on a stick, and one in a museum nearby. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

• 'On a stick' reminds me of a ventriloquist comedian's act. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(snicker) Might be a little hard to get to the aircraft's data plate!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The pylon bird is all buttoned up, sealed and a bit worse for wear but is a Canadair F-86 Mk 5 in NATO camo, the other is the last Canadair Mk 6 out of the factory, ending up at the WCAM in Pakistan Air Force colours and reputedly, a history of multiple kills during its combat life. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Any help with List of surviving Sabres appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Article has had an undiscussed move to List of surviving F-86 Sabres. Not using F-86 was deliberate as most (Canadian/Australian) are not F-86s. Any thoughts for a better title (mover thought it may be confused with swords). MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately he is probably right - it could have caused confusion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A boring solution, only to be used where the inclusion of the manufacturer's name (eg Gloster Javellin) doesn't help because there was more than one (North American, Canadair), would be to add "aircraft" after the name, so "List of surviving Sabre aircraft". Don't think there has bee a manufacturer called Sabre. Agree with MilborneOne that this is not a list of F-86 Sabres and we should not call it one.TSRL (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

TSRL's suggestion seems like a good solution IMO. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 16:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a reasonable suggestion fom TSRL. MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with TSRL's suggestion. Sorry if the move caused any annoyance or confusion - I should have thought that 'F-86' wasn't appropriate given that I live in a country which called them the 'CA27' Sabre rather than 'F-86'. Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• No problem the move was made in good faith - now moved to List of surviving Sabre aircraft as suggested, thanks to all. MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Operating certificate

I just found this article, Operating certificate. It needs some help and expansion, possibly with the aircraft-related info being split off. - BilCat (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly added to Air Operator's Certificate which is not the best article but it is a start. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree - they are the same subject and can be merged/redirected. - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not surpised there was a similar article in existance, and there may be more. - BilCat (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Malaysian Tu-160

Please keep an eye on a Malaysian IP user who has been adding Malaysia as an operator of the Tu-160 and B-2 he/she has also made other edits on non-aviation subjects (Malaysian Army and Navy) that probably need checking for accuracy but are outside the project. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess he (or she) figured they could fluff up the country's armoury here on Wikipedia? - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That behavior looks very similar to the IP editor who has been adding similar claims to articles on the Philippino military for the last year or so. I think that he's also targeted articles on the Malaysian military in the past, and I'm willing to bet that it's the same moron with a new IP. I've just reverted the claims about the Army as they look like nonsense (especially the bit about Malaysia using an obscure US Army super-heavy tank!). Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Mexican military articles occasionally have similar edits. If all the additions had been true, Mexico would have the world's largest air force by now! - BilCat (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

New "Developed into" Infobox field

The Aero Engine Task Force has been using a "Developed into" field in the engine infobox for several mnonths now to good effect, allowing developments that would not qualify as Variants to be listed. While the same field was also added to the Infobox Aircraft Type, I just discovered it was there today, while trying to addit myself! I've been experimenting with theparameter of several articles, including the F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet articles. Concern was raised a few weeks ago on the Mitsubishi F-2 talk page that the F-2 sould not be listed as a variant on the F-16 page. Hopefully, the new field will relive some of the contention concerning the Variants field by allowing a little more leeway. We will need to develop a guideline for the field, but I want to see how others will use it first, or if there is even a consensus to use it at all. I don't want to entirely duplicat the links in the Related section of "See also", as there are some related designs that don't really qualify for the infobox fields (developed from, variants, and developed into). Again, this is just an experiment to see how it goes, and how well it is accepted. We can always remove it if it doesn't work out well. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable suggestion. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Comparable" Aircraft, Rev 2.0

I brought this up a month ago, it was discussed without ever coming to a consensus, and it has since been archived. This issue has agravated me enough to bring it up again, hopefully resulting in a written policy that will stave off silly arguments and edit-battles over what is comparable and what is now. First, I propose changing the name from "comparable" to "similar". I think "similar" is a less combative word, which should help. Additionally, "similar aircraft" is how the field is labeled in the template, and it makes sense to use the same word in the template Second, I propose adjusting and formalizing the "role, era, and capability" guidelines stated here in the following manner.

"Aircraft listed under "similar" aircraft must meet the following criteria

• Function: Do the aircraft server the same function, such as fighter aircraft, experimental technology demonstrators, or wide-body airliners? For example, the Grumman X-29 and the Sukhoi Su-47 would be similar, as would the Boeing 777 and the Airbus A340.

Furthermore, the two aircraft must meet at least one of the two following criteria.

• Form: Do the aircraft the aircraft have a common form, such as triplanes, flying wings, etc.?
• Era: Are the aircraft from the same era? "

I think that changing the field title from "comparable" to "similar" and replacing the accurate but ambigous criteria in page content policy would give editors enough ammunition to prevent or end most of these comparable aircraft debates. Whew that's a mouthful. Any thought? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the criteria, not sure about renaming the label though. Seems like users would take more liberties with 'similar aircraft' and either ignore or not check the criteria that goes with it. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Still inclined just to remove it, if anything is really comparable/similar then it can be mentioned in text, although I suspect that would be a rare occassion. Perhaps it may be easier to use the categorisation system to find comparable/similar. MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with MB1 on this one - it is still more trouble than it is worth and should be mentioned in the text if it is significant. Far too often these days "similar aircraft" additions are merely the attempts to justify removing "orphan" tags from articles and consequently links get indiscriminately sprinkled everywhere, without much thought. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a solution I didn't think off... that would head off most of the griping at the pass for sure. The only disadvantage of that approach, IMO, is that have those link in the "See Also" section is useful. I often get in the mood to read about a bunch of aircraft and just move from one article to the next using those links. The navboxes are very useful for something things, but they don't help if I want to move from the F-106 to the MiG-25 or something. That said, if we got right of the similar aircraft, I'm sure I would learn to jump articles in other ways... -SidewinderX (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We may have to look at the cat system at the moment the F-106 is Category:United States fighter aircraft 1950-1959 and the MiG-25 is Category:Soviet fighter aircraft 1960-1969 so it would take a bit of "navigating" to get from one to another with the cats. Perhaps we should have a Category:1950s fighter aircraft based on the original first flight based categorisation. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I actually like having the Comparable/similar field, and I would prefer it to be named "Similar aircraft", as "Comparable" is often interpreted in odd ways. I also juse the links here to jump to other articles quickly, either for reading or when editing; categories aren't usually that useful for me. While remove the field altogether may seem an attractive option, I don't think we can "put the genie back in the bottle" after having had the filed for this long. Users will just put the same links in other places, such as under the "see also" heading or field, and we'll probably have even more work to do to clean it all up. While the proposed criteria is a good effort, I'm not sure it will help all that much to achieve the desired effect. One option that might help is to have separate "Similar configuration" and "similar role" fields, though this too might prove to be unworkable. Also, there was one user who was trying to exclused Indian and Chinese designes by claiming they weren't comparable because they had not flown yet or weren't in production! It got quite silly. My "criteria" are usually contemporaries in the same role, rivals that might not be all that similar but competed for sales or kills, aircraft of a similar design but not necessarily era, or, in extreme cases when there are few aircraft in the role, aircraft that the model succeeded or were replaced by. It's also OK to remove aircraft that might otherwise qualify if the list is quite long, such as with attack helicopters, where almost all the designs ever produced are still in use or production along with new designs. Moslty, we just need to emphasise that "common sense" be used in adding aircraft to the similar field, and that consensus can determine what is there when there are disagreements.. - BilCat (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess one thing to note is that core idea behind the field is the "See Also" part of it. If you just read about the F-15, what other articles might you be interested in reading about? The conflict seems to come, at least in a lot of the military articles, when you have people who have these silly misconceptions that it is bad to list the F-22 and the MiG-35 in the same article because the F-22 is so much more advanced than the MiG-35. The truth is that they are both recent fighter aircraft being produced at the same time. It's worth being able to get to one from the other. How to do that best is the question. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) 90% of "comparable aircraft" is a "see also" section that doesn't look quite so link heavy. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that it should be ditched entirely, and any "comparable aircraft" just put into a section helpfully titled "see also" to avoid any sense that these aircraft are equivalent. Sometimes it's painfully obvious (q.v. a320 and 737) that the aircraft are comparable, and the article usually outright says it. Whether or not an aircraft is comparable is subjective and possibly subject to WP:V. "See also" is obviously a purely editorial decision of "I think you might want to read this article too." SDY (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this section of the 'aircontent' template is useful if it is used with discretion and common sense, painfully obvious to us perhaps but not necessarily non air-minded readers, a young person beginning to learn about aircraft or a nervous airline passenger comparing safety records for instance. The same template is used in the aero engine articles, there are no guidelines for its use at WP:AETF but by applying 'sorting parameters' like similar era, similar layout (V-12, radial etc), number of cylinders and a capacity of +/- 20% narrows the list to less than a handful of engines, tightening the capacity to +/- 10% narrows the choice further, often to just one or two other engines. Perhaps the header needs to be changed to 'similar aircraft' as you could strictly compare a Sopwith Pup to Concorde if you really wanted to! I know that this subject has been discussed here many times, could be time for a consensus guideline to be added to Template:Aircontent. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

More template stuff to do with aero specs missing

Following the rename of the aero specs template ages ago Rlandmann suggested a minimum requirement for the spec section to define the use of the aero-specs template (now Aero specs missing), if it didnt meet this minimum then the Aero specs missing should be used. His suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content/Archive_2#Missing_Specifications was:

• Powered, heavier-than-air: span, length, wing/rotor area, at least one weight, engine type and power/thrust, at least one speed, range/endurance, and ceiling.
• Unpowered, heavier-than-air: span, length, wing/rotor area, aspect ratio (for fixed-wing types!), at least one weight, at least one speed, and glide ratio.
• Powered, lighter-than-air: diameter, length, volume, lift, at least one weight, engine type and power, at least one speed, range/endurance, and ceiling.
• Unpowered, lighter-than-air: I don't think we've covered enough yet to say anything sensible :)

Can we revisit it and add it to the relevant page instructions if eveybody is happy with it or a variant on the minimum required. MilborneOne (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some sort of set standard. My Tupolev Tu-14 article just got tagged with it and it has just about everything, IIRC, except climb rate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The heavier than air entries seem fine. Don't know enough to comment on the lighter than air part. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kawasaki Army Type 88 Reconnaisance Aircraft

Kawasaki Type 88 was moved to Kawasaki Army Type 88 Reconnaisance Aircraft. Is there a shorter alternative? Do we have an existing guideline for how to handle long Jampanese designations? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case, Kawasaki KDA-2 would probably be a better name - note that the article covers both the Army Type 88 Reconnaissance Aircraft and the Army Type 88 Light Bomber. Where possible, for Japanese Army or Naval aircraft dating before the more familiar short form designations, then the Company designations would probably be best (for example Mitsubishi 1MT rather than Type 10 Torpedo Bomber).Nigel Ish (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur that Kawasaki KDA-2 would be the best option. - BilCat (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Supermarine 179?

Does anyone have any info on the Supermarine Type 179 please? It is the first redlink in Template:Supermarine aircraft and is piped from Supermarine Giant. All I know is that it was a seaplane project (surprise!) around 1930, possibly not built. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

An All-metal monoplane transport flying-boat for seven crew and 40 day passengers powered by six 850 hp water-cooled RR Buzzards. Design started in 1929, Keel laid in 1931 but was cancelled/abandoned in 1932. 165ft span and was to be civil registered as G-ABLE. Probably needs more to create a stub? MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, not a lot there as you say, perhaps we need an article to hoover up some of the projects/lesser known Supermarine types. I asked because it is relevant to the origin and funding of the Rolls-Royce R (a tuned Buzzard). The 'Racing H' (Buzzard) became the 'R' engine, it was officially contracted to Rolls-Royce for the Supermarine 179, although the real (thinly veiled) reason was to develop engines for the Schneider Trophy racers. Does the 179 feature in List of Air Ministry specifications I wonder? Must have a look. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point about projects we have a lot of unbuilt aircraft and projects on the missing article list which will never have enough info to have articles. Perhaps we should have a standard projects spin-of like Supermarine projects and proposals or something similar for each aircraft company to collect these lesser unbuilt/half-built and cancelled projects/proposals. MilborneOne (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, same with the engines, probably would have to be in a 'List of' format. I left the Supermarine 179 out in the end as the reference to an Air Ministry contract was tenuous and appeared to be related to the 1931 Schneider competition (that the government reluctantly supported), two years after the engine was first used in anger. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete or Expand

Production of the Boeing 787? It's really not worth keeping as-is. - BilCat (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

there's barely enough info to make a subsection of Boeing 787, at the minute - is a breakdown of all the parts and their subcontractors notable. Why not prod it? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also a mechanism to propose a merge, but frankly there's not a lot there, and it's not a new article that someone might still be working on. Some of this information is already in the article for Boeing 787. Renaming the article as a list might also be reasonable if there's any burning desire to retain the info without expanding it. SDY (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not much to save I would suggest a prod. MilborneOne (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Prodded! We'll see how long it lasts. - BilCat (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

External link query

I'd like to have your input on an external link for commercial aircraft articles (excluding military, rotorcraft, general/private). It's a database that provides orders, deliveries, list prices, market values and lease rates. This data is normally sold through "data packages" that are rather costly. This database is closely monitored and updated but provided Free of Charge. I have seen many external links to websites other than the OEM of the aircraft such as spotter sites, news sites and various others. I think this database is just as complimentary to a commercial aircraft article as any of the existing ones so pls advise if you would approve such a link. I would appreciate it if someone involved with aircraft transactions provided comments as well. The database can be found here http://www.myairlease.com/resources/orders_deliveries_prices. Thanks for your time Aegn3 (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia aircraft articles tend to avoid dealing with aircraft pricing in any detailed way and this is a commercial website I would say that it adds little value to articles, is too close to WP:SPAM and therefore should not be included as an external link. It might be of use in some cases as a reference to support specific data entered in article text, however. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

UK B-class markings

I have just created United Kingdom aircraft test serials but really could do with some images to illustrate the subject. Appreciate if anybody has or has seen in other articles aircraft carrying UK test serials particularly the modern G-1-1 format or the original letter-number sequence. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

FA and A-class reviews open

A WP:Military history A-Class review for AH-56 Cheyenne has begun.

Also a Featured article review has been started for Boeing 777.

All editors are welcome to participate with these. Thanks for review comments and/or help with these. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I added some Alt text to the AH-56 article. I'm not good at describing a visual with words. Could someone take a look at it and adjust/expand where needed? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a look - it looked pretty good as it was. I made a few minor touch-ups, hope that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good deal, thanks for the help. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can some editors help with copyeditting of the AH-56 article? I've gone over it multiple times, but have been too involved writing it to see all where clarification is needed. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Left you some comments! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Boeing 777 could use some rewording in places. One reviewer points out that "777" is repeated too often. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue has been handled. More reviewers would be good though. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look good with the Boeing 777 review. It's gotten several comments/concerns which have been addressed, but no Supports. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Spiteful/Seafang; merge or keep as is?

Both the Spiteful and Seafang articles are very short and both will stay C class. I'm wondering whether these articles should be merged and expanded as a single article, with some decent referencing. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep them as they are, two distinct (but very similar) types that had a short production run. I have seen worse B class articles (at least these two have images!!). There is no reason why the right person, with the right references and an intimate knowledge of the Manual of Style could not get both of these up to Featured Article level in theory, we even have Interstate highways as featured articles now! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Having has a read through them both I have to agree with Nimbus, they are good articles and stand alone well as they are and can only be further improved from here on. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur, both articles are fine and do cover the topic sufficiently. Merging them would not be an advantage. The links in both articles direct readers to the separate versions of the type. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

No problem. One good scource of information for both articles would be Morgan and Shacklady; there's also some good info in old issues of "Flight" magazine. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Linkspammer alert

User talk:Myaviationhub - see his talk paga. I've reverted his edits to several pages, but not warned him as yet. - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! I warned him and also removed his talk page advertising spam under WP:UP#NOT. He will likely be back, I suspect. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hawker Pacific Aerospace

Hawker Pacific Aerospace has had text added that reads like it's from a company brochure. I've deleted it once, but not contacted the user yet, who is possibley a company rep. Any assistance on this one would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I just had to redelete the text again... time to post a message... -SidewinderX (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Another comment-- some quick google-fu--http://www.acpc.com/ssl/anfguide/reg_list.asp She appears to be a representative of Hawker in some manner! -SidewinderX (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Specs templates?

Could I ask what the status is of Template:Aerospecs and Template:Aircraft specifications is please? I lost track somewhere! The latter is the new format to be used I think, should a note be added to the top of 'aerospecs' to that effect and possibly a redirect? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a fair bit of work combining the two templates features, and adding a few new ones. Right now the template I propose to replace both the current ones is at Template:Aerospecs/sandbox. Since I don't see any major issues, or a whole lot more that could be added to it right now, how about a show of hands; should we move this template to a usable name and start deploying it? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes! - Ahunt (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Gets my vote, if there are any problems they can be ironed out 'in service'. Can the content not be pasted in to 'Aircraft specifications' as an update/overhaul? I think we had a naming confusion problem with Template:Aero-specs. Do we have an article that is using a fairly complete version of the new template that we could look at? I have seen some new articles with strange coding errors but it could be an editor's slip. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I see regarding it is for the engines where you say that the eng2, eng3 parameters aren't to be used for engines fitted at different times, but for combinations of engines like piston engines supplemented by turbojets, etc. But your example seems to do exactly that. I'd also be interested in a tidy way to display multiple specifications for the same aircraft. The current template leaves a lot of blank space on the left that could be used to facilitate direct comparisons between models; I hate having to scroll downwards for an entirely separate spec.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In most articles we dont normally provide specs for multiple variants, normally the most common variant is used. If the aircraft is that different it can be mentioned in the text rather than have multiple specification sheets. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes to the new template to be moved into use. MilborneOne (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The new template documentation could still do with finishing from the looks of it. But looking at the examples at Template:Aerospecs/testcases it still lacks (so far as I can see the "|more=" functionality of the "aircraft specfications" as used to display information such as "Cruise speed: 150 mph (yyy km/h) at 15,000 ft (nnnn m)". The propeller section is confusing "prop blade number" seems to be work as "number of propellers per engine" rather than "number of blades per propeller" which it reads as.

Also when it fails (miss out a value or put a word instead of a number) then it fails badly (see this diff) - of which the aircraft specification template is more tolerant. I think it needs some real world testing against some of the articles already existing - a mixture of unusual aircraft configurations as well as some ordinary aircraft and especially those with only partial information so that we can see what needs to be done yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The template has some "more" functionality, currently it has "|more general=", "|more power=", and "|more performance=". I took the propeller stuff directly from Template:Aircraft specifications, which counted "number of propellers per engine", but I incorrectly interpreted it as "number of blades per prop", and coded it as such. Let me know which is preferred, and I'll fix it. I'll do some more testing to try to fish out any bugs, but using it on a few articles will probably find more. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 04:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since its name is similar to the specs template, I moved Template:Aero-specs to Template:Aero specs missing. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

How about an entry for internal fuel capacity? This might have to be in both weight and volume as I think that modern US aircraft use pounds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That could be put into the more general that follows the aircraft general characteristics but it is relatively trivial to add it to the template if needed/preferred. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had some success experimenting with Template:Aircraft specifications in Template:Aircraft specifications/sandbox. In adding in some parameters I cracked how to handle the plane/helicopter/gyrodyne/airship width issue (perhaps it wasn't an issue) - so I can display as "wingspan" the wings on an aircraft or as "rotor" the rotor diameter of a helicopter, both "wingspan" and "rotor diameter" for a gyrodyne and neither for an airship. (examples here Template:Aircraft specifications/sandbox/testcases) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Update to that - still slight problem with display of rotor diameter but otherwise not too bad. checking the code against the original found some parameters in the current template that hadn't been documented, so not all bad. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this being an issue. With the way Template:Aerospecs/sandbox is coded, you can use "|width=", "|rot dia=", or "|span=" and all or none will show, depending on if they are given a value. See this. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC) p.S. I am getting some sort of "each each each" error, but this should be unrelated and I'll fix it soon. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) PS. Fixed it. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 02:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we take the opportunity to define the wing area more tightly, e.g. as including ailerons and non-extended flaps? Sometimes sources separate fixed area from movable, giving both, and it would be good to have an agreed preference for such cases.TSRL (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What about adding a note to the value as cases dictate to retain flexibility with the source quoted. "area more=" could be added to handle the note within the template.

Keeping the span simple does make sense - in some cases tandem side-by-side rotors the span is not the same as the rotor diameter. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How often will this really come up? Could "|more general=", which already exists, be used? I think adding a "more" option for every eventuality is just the same as adding a specific parameter for each minor variation, they'll eventually add up to sink the template under its own weight. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK the engine editors are quite happy with the relatively simple {{Pistonspecs}} and {{Jetspecs}} templates, adding more parameters to these would lead to facts that are unobtainable in most cases or require original research with a calculator to complete. I do worry that the aircraft specs template could become unencyclopedic and difficult for editors (including me) to write up. I can't remember exactly why I raised the question originally but it was on behalf of another editor. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'd like to get this rolling, and use it on some live pages in order to see how it works and find any items that need improving. I'd like to move Template:Aerospecs/sandbox to Template:Aircraft specs and add it to articles. I'll initially start with articles that don't have either of the original specs templates, and if that goes well, I'll start trying it out on articles that do. If other would like to do the same, please report back here any items of note; parameters that don't work properly, parameters that are missing and need to be added, confusing usage instructions in the doc, etc. I probably won't have time to start this until tonight, so if there are any concerns, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 17:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A test & evaluation period seems like a good plan. Sure. Something off this list that someone(s) has specs data for. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is the list of aircraft that don't have a current template Category:Aircraft without proper specifications - ie those tagged with "template:aero-table". Unfortunately its not uptodate.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Aero-specs}}/{{Aero specs missing}} adds the article to Category:Aircraft without specifications. However, it'd be better if this template used the "Aircraft without proper specifications" category also.

I'm testing the new template and have a problem. How do I qualify a value, for example enter the max speed as "230 km/h at sea level", with units set to met? The metric results comes out fine with e.g an entry of "at sea level 230" but the conversion to "imp" fails because the first thing it hits is "at". Can the unit conversion template be told to ignore letters, or do we have to resort to a "more" line for each value? Or am I being dopey?TSRL (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• The 'more' fields help with that. With {{Aircraft specifications}}, the 'at sea level' part can go in the "|max speed more=" field (or |cruise speed more= , etc). The new template does not appear to have that now. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Something I've noted and may be of use for others testing the aircraft specs template is how the choice of units determines how the template functions. If you set it for metric then only those metric parameters are used and others are ignored. Eg if you put in both "|length m=5" and "|length ft=1" then the template takes only the first parameter and caluculates (using the convert function) the ft and inches equivalent. This might be problematic if you are using a mixture of sources (some in metric and some in Imperial units) to complete the specification - you will have to pre-calculate the values into one form before filling in the parameters. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's right. In one sense it is not a big deal, since til now we've all been pre-calculating, but it would be nice if it could be avoided. It arises not only with mixed sources; for example, single French sources often quote dimensions and speeds in metric units, but piston engine powers in c.v., which I've always happily assumed to be equal to hp.TSRL (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The alternative is to leave automatic conversion out - whether the template is a developed version of template:aircraft specifications or the suggested template:aircraft specs.

I have been working with the new template and it seems to work great so far! I really like the automatic calculation of metric when imp values are added and vice versa, as it saves a lot of time and effort, not to mention eliminating errors. Almost all sources provide one or the other or both, so I would suggest keep it as it is and for those editors who come across the odd reference that has mixed metric/imp units, you will just have to convert before you enter the minority items. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What about a toggle to turn the automatic conversions on or off? If this is simple to do, it would add some flexibility. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is possible, it would require addition of the switch either to each line of converted data or as 3 additional blocks to the code (there are currently three layout blocks and only the one is shown depending on the imp/met/UK switch). I would describe it as a simple step to implement. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If I can figure it out, I'd prefer to leave the automatic conversions always on, but add a feature that, for example, if you choose "met" it will put the met units first, but if you find a source with imperial units as well, the template will automatically convert units if you enter the "|span m=" parameter but leave the "span ft=" parameter empty, and automatically convert units if you enter the "|length ft=" parameter but leave the "length m=" parameter empty. That way you don't have to do any "in your head" converting. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Trevor's suggestion would be acceptable, I believe. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) How about adding a line for climb rate expressed as time to altitude as that's far more common for WWII-era aircraft? I suppose I could add it using the |more= line, but I'd prefer something more standardized, if for no other reason that to help to remember to put it in!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As in "|time to altitude height ft=" and "|time to altitude height m=" and "|time to altitude time=" or just "|time to altitude=" and just add the appropriate phrase? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we could add that. Is there a most common one? How should it look, i.e. " Time to altitude: xx ft in xx min. "? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good. I don't know if this would be a problem, but I've seen the times expressed both decimally (5.7 min) and 5 min, 36 sec. I'm about to build a new aircraft article so I'll use the latest version of the template and comment on the template's talk page once I'm done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that time to climb is all that needed as a dedicated line item, as it is a fairly rare parameter outside older warplanes. The use under other performance as in Polikarpov TIS works fine, as long as an extra asterisk is added to create a new list item on its own line. - Ahunt (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's rare at all, although it's certainly dated. The specs for virtually every aircraft made before 1950 use it, but the incredible climbing performance of the jets has obsoleted it, so I'd still prefer to have it built into the spec template, not least, to remind me to add the data! Thanks for the tip about the asterisk, but I remain puzzled why it was required when the |more general= line didn't need one added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

In looking at the template coding for more general and more performance, the first has the asterisk built in whereas the latter doesn't. I am reluctant to change it for fear of the outcome, put perhaps Trevor can look at it and see if it can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that two different ways we're built in, I'll change it. Should the asterix always be built into the more paramteres, or should it be without to allow for cases where it isn't wanted? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 20:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I say leave off the asterisk for the reason you gave. {{Aircraft specifications}} has one for the "|more general", but not "|more performance" field. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If I can control where it displays, like after speed so I can give height, etc., then it needs to be left off. If I can't control it then it should have it. Regardless, it needs to be documented.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be included unless it will display when the section is not used which would look messy. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just been using the new specs template in earnest for the first time. This involved a majority of numbers from one source (so that went in at the top) but another couple of numbers from two other sources. With the old template there was no difficulty putting in refs at (say) wing area=, but because of the converter this approach fails. It's important that it is clear where each piece of data comes from; but how to do it with this template?TSRL (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The multiple refs within the specs template problem and the "more" issues above can be fixed the same way. I'm thinking of having a more parameter for every existing parameter. See Template_talk:Aircraft_specs#to_add. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I say stick to the ones already present in either of the prior templates. Eg there will be few instances where a note will be needed for the length of the plane compared to the amount of bloat added to the template.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

But the problem is that the way the convert template is implemented means that we cannot do the necessary things that we did easily before, without "more". Using "more" is something I've never used, I think, but agree with Trevor that we seem to need it on each line now. The automatic conversion is nice, but we have lived without it and it seems to entail a serious loss of flexibility. I do appreciate the work that's gone in ...TSRL (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the autoconversison is the gamechanger here. With it, we'll almost have to have the "more" parmater for every field, and that may take some getting used to. If we want to keep the older format, then we'd most likely lose autoconversion. This is partly why we're doing the field tests, to see how everything works. I think we should run the test anohter week or so, and then poll the membership here to see what features the project wants to keep. Perhaps autoconversion will not gain a consensus, but it might. I know it's been a lot of work for Trevor, but it's not fruitless even if we don't keep some of the new features. There may well be a way to use some of then anyway, but less intrusively. We'll see. - BilCat (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope fully have the "more" parameters, which I am now going to call "note" parameters to differentiate from the "more" parameters ("more performance", "more general" etc") will be faily intuitivve to use. I've stated with 1 example on Canadair CL-84. In the original article without the template the range was:

• Max Range: (with max wing fuel, VTOL, & 10% reserves) 420 miles (680 km)

Now you can see with this edit that to get the same effect you use

|range miles=420

and

|range note=with max wing fuel, VTOL, & 10% reserves

I can add a parameter for each item. Then note parameters will be the same name, eg |wing area= with the word note attached, |wing area note=. If the parameter name includes a unit, drop it and add note: |range miles= and |range note=, |ceiling ft= and |ceiling note=, etc. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I've started testing the notes. See this edit, where I added a note to the cruise speed and range. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Again with Canadair CL-84, I added note to the MTO, see this edit. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've used |(param) note= in Cranwell CLA.4 and it removed all my worries. Simple and powerful- good stuff, Trevor!TSRL (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But I'm having difficulty entering separate upper and lower spans for this biplane (22 ft 0 in upper and 27 ft 4 in lower). Any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That section of the template hasn't been coded yet. I've used the note to handle the upper/lower statement on the Cranwell CLA.4. I think I can add the code for next time aroundGraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you have fixed it: thanks. You have put |upper span= in Cranwell CLA.4 which works, whereas in Template:WPAVIATION creator it is |span upper= , which works there but not at Cranwell CLA.4! So I'm a bit confused but looking forward to my next biplane page.TSRL (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, the conversation about this template has moved to Template talk:Aircraft specs. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 18:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

As part of the continual discussion on the F-15 Eagle page to add comment about a fictional likeness connected with Transformers I have added a neutral non-specific statement to the article. The F-15 has also been popular subject as a toy, and a fictional likeness of an aircraft similar to the F-15 has been used in cartoons, books and both animated television series and animated films. I believe that this still meets the spirit of the WP:AIRCRAFT guidelines but does mention as a generalisation other uses in popular culture. Your comment on this compromise may be required on the F-15 Eagle page. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As part of the discussion on a compromise with regard to the popular culture section a user has created a new article Aircraft in fiction that can be linked from the popular culture section. If we can provide any help to make sure it doesnt go the way of previous popular culture sub-articles it would be appreciated. I am sure in the long run finding a solution to the continual arguments on aircraft articles can only be good for the project. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Article moves - Blohm & Voss to Blohm + Voss

User:Petebutt has just moved all the Blohn & Voss aircraft articles to Blohm+Voss - there appears to have been no discussion of this move, not even at the Blohm+Voss page. Most of the sources I have (i.e. Smith and Kay's German Aircraft of the Second World War, William Green's War Planes of the Second World War , Bill Gunston's World Encyclopedia of Aircraft Munufacturers) uses the form Blohm und Voss . The aviation subsidiary of the shipyard appears to have been named Hamburger Flugzeugbau GmBH from 1933 until 1937 and then Abteilung Flugzeugbau der Schiffswerft Blohm und Voss. According to the Blohm+Voss Wikipedia page the parent shipyard was not renamed Blohm + Voss until 1955, long after Blohm und Voss had anything to do with aviation. Can someone sort this out?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Using Blohm & Voss was correct for the aircraft of this time as this was the company name before the recreation in 1955. Using Blohm und Voss is plain wrong, using Blohm + Voss is even worse. --Denniss (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

First thing, move the articles back, sinple enough. Second thing point out what happened is not the sort of thing that is appreciated and that such blanket action goes beyong "being bold".GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't this unilateral, controversial type of move taken place before, with the same editor involved? "Lucy! You've got some 'splainin to do!!" FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Don't know, but there seems to have been no discussion on the subject on the B&V/B+V page. Anyone else able to shift a few articles back. (I notice they hadn't done anything about the sorting out redirects) GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles should now be back at original location and in original state. Still awaiting an explanaition from Petebutt though. --Denniss (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This was in the discussion page for Blohm+Voss:-& versus +

So far, no response from B+V on when they adopted the + versus the &. Anyone have any insight? -Joseph (Talk) 03:26, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

Their logo has Blohm+Voss, without spaces, and & is the accepted way of abbreviating ‘and’ in text, both in German and English, so either way the current page title is wrong. 89.49.98.233 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Petebutt (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Two comments from 5 and 2 years ago does not a discussion make. This issue seems to come up again and again. If you want to make a change affecting multiple articles, it's best to get some current input from the other members of the project. Many of us check the page often, so discussing it here first is best. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The German wiki article [2] uses the '+' form as it is indeed their current logo, just below the infobox however is an image clearly showing the '&' form on a company sign. Our own BV article indicates that this change was made in 1955 as Nigel says (though I note that this is uncited, might be further down). As these aircraft are pre-1955 then surely they should use the '&' form ? Both Jane's and Flight [3] use '&', that advertisement is most likely a BV production. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The official company website has a history section (available only in German) that confirms the formation in 1955, they use '+' throughout despite the same image being used at the top of the page [4]! If in doubt I use Revell! The European branch is based in Germany, see [5], please note that this is not a cite but an illustration of the usage by a very reputable and long standing model kit manufacturer, the English version of that page is currently broken. Corporate name changes or subtle changes such as SNECMA to Snecma, National Westminster Bank to NatWest, etc. have been done by marketing people to 'jazz up' and re-invent the company. By WP:NAME (note 'This page in a nutshell') we use the most common name of the subject, in the case of possible confusion consensus has to be gained if there is doubt, in the case of Blohm & Voss aircraft it was already established, consensus needs to be gained to change it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I note the confusion with the current Blohm + Voss article, I would compare this to BAE Systems, I will always know this company as 'British Aerospace' from the time period that I worked on their products. The BAE Hawk is not named BAE Systems Hawk (redirect) for instance. The convention with article naming of extant companies appears to be the most recent name, quite fair but as we see, can cause problems. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Having had a think over this, the company's name in German is Blohm und Voss which in English is "Blohm and Voss". the + or & is just a way of rendering the und (and) part. To that end we could say the correct place for the article name in English s "Blohm and Voss". The problem is compounded (or simplified) because our interest is in the aircraft section (Abteilung Flugzeugbau der Schiffswerft Blohm & Voss) which is not linked to the current B+V. To that end the B&V is historically correct. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I've just spotted what looks like vandalism by user 210.212.207.4, who in about 15 min this morning made large changes to the max speeds and engine powers in the articles on the Heinkel He 112, the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 and the Junkers Ju 90. There is a bit of history on his/her talk page, but aircraft are new to the contributions list. I've only been able to check the Ju 90 numbers against our cited specs source, and there the "new" numbers are not those of the source, which was accurately quoted before. The Ju 90 and the He 112 have also had engine details changed. A minor complication is that the "new" engines of the Ju 90 were used on some prototypes, but not on the production aircraft whose specs we give.TSRL (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If cited numbers are changed without providing a new source, that's nonconstructive. Just revert it. Otherwise the values appear cited that really aren't. It may help to clarify which version specs are listed for, but that looks to be already done with these articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A-class Review for Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3

A WP:MILHIST A-class review for the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 has begun. All interested editors are invited to comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Old article moves - Avro to Roe

While looking to clean up Template:Avro aircraft's links, I found that Avro Type D, F and G had been moved to Roe Type D, F and G, while Avro Type E is at Avro 500 and Avro Type H is at Avro 501. I understand the 500 and 501 names are because the aircraft were military, but why are the other named "Roe", and should they be moved back? - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's Avro Aircraft since 1908 gives Avro Type D, Type F and Type G.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it should be Avro, the earlier triplane was known as the Roe triplane but by the time the company built the Type D it was Avro. A line drawing in the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft shows the Type D with the name "AVRO" on the tail! and the type F with AVRO in big letters on the fuselage !! Suggest they are moved back. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You will have noted the mover, of course. It seems that Avro never sat down and did a retrospective renaming as HP did in 1924, or did much in the way of systematic naming at the time. So there may be no guaranteed right answer. In the absence of that I'd take Jackson as the best guide (perhaps a later ed. than my 1965 one), since he spent longer than most with original texts and pictures. Of course, if authoritative new material has turned up since that trumps Jackson, we should use it. He has Roe Biplane I, Roe Triplane I, Roe Triplane II (the first product of A. V. Roe & Compnay), Roe Triplane III and Roe Triplane IV, followed by the Avro (letter) types Nigel gives. Alternative numbers and letters appear for Avro 500 (Type E) and Avro 501 and 503 (type H), as we have. The numbers began about 1912. The same mover shifted the page I started on what I called the Avro Duigan to Roe-Duigan 1911 without asking, but since Jackson calls it the Duigan Biplane, maybe we are both wrong.

Reading Jackson, it's clear that naming aircraft came a poor second to getting them flying pre-1912: he says of the Avro Type D "In later years aircraft of this type became known as the Avro Type D ... " But once again: please can people discuss possible name changes and get agreement before going ahead?TSRL (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since we all seem to be in agreement, I've moved the pages (including the Duigan page) back to "Avro". - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 01:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons categorisation

On Commons they have added a category to each image related to the registration, no problem with that but they appear to be removing the aircraft type and operator categoryies so it only has the registration category. So to find a decent image of say a Boeing 737-300 you need to open every registration category to see the images rather than have them all show under Boeing 737. Bit of a pain to find anything, not an expert on commons does anybody know if this is discussed anywhere or agrees it appears to be daft. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is daft! - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I do a fair bit of categorising over there, not seen anything in discussions, probably the work of a single editor who does not understand quite how the system works. The cat system seems to be a bit of a mess generally. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

Posted this on the Rotorcraft project with no response - any here have an opinion - Just for information Fairchild Hiller FH-1100 has been moved to FH-1100 (Helicopter). Not sure why ? appears not to have been discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been moved on the basis that FH1100 Manufacturing Corporation has purchased the type certificate - since they don't appear to have built any new aircraft (and they don't have any news on their website later than 2006 - it seems reasonable to move it back to a title that people might be likely to find.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I have moved it back. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

N64606

This new article, started today, is about a single example of an H-21 helicopter that belongs to a museum. I would like to get some opinions about whether this is suitable to be a stand-alone article or whether it should just be a single line in the Piasecki H-21 article (which it already is). - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge any cited info and redirect. Plenty of sole airworthy survivors of aircraft types around. My only other thought is that naming an article by an American registration could cause problems because they often get re-used. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't need its own article! -SidewinderX (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have informed the person who started the article User talk:Hughes-MDflyer4 and also left a note on the article talk page to indicate that this is being discussed here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The article has been PROD by User:Rcawsey. Not really notable for a stand-alone article already mention in the H-21 article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have seconded the PROD. I agree with his and MB1's reasons. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I started this article mainly since there is only one H-21 still flying. It is not like everone goes around creating articles for random aircraft. The page can always be deleted or the info merged with the main H-21 article, I guess. - Hughes-MDflyer4 (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate that the article was created in good faith but the very little content at the moment could be added to its entry on the H-21 page. If it was later found to have had a notable military career or similar then a stand-alone article could be created in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, it looks like someone updated the page. I like the added info. I'm hoping to go to the museum this weekend, so I'll see if I can get any more info. :) Hughes-MDflyer4 (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

MilbourneOne and I have been fixing it up a bit. I also discovered that the museum it is in did not have an article, so I started one at Classic Rotors Museum. This may be a better place for this info, than a stand-alone article. Pictures to illustrate that article would be greatly appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be sure to get pictures when I go to the museum! Hughes-MDflyer4 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be great! I have also moved all the substantive text from the N64606 article over to Classic Rotors Museum, so that it will not be lost when the PROD is complete. I think this is the best location for this information, rather than the Piasecki H-21 article, as it pertains to the museum and their use of the individual aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Going to the museum in a couple hours! :D Hughes-MDflyer4 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are links to the pictures. I don't know how to add them. You can crop off the date if you want.

Side/front http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2903/dsc02822jpgk.jpg

Front http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6811/dsc02825v.jpg

Inside http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/9162/dsc02832z.jpg Hughes-MDflyer4 (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are good photos! But you need to upload them yourself, because you took them and have to indicate a licence. The best idea is to open an account at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and upload them there. You can then add them to the article yourself using the [[File:Photoname.jpg|thumb|right|caption here]] format. Let me know if you get stuck. - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictures Added! Thanks! Hughes-MDflyer4 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a little formatting on them. They look good, I think museum articles should all have photos - thanks for going out and taking them! - Ahunt (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Good discussions here. Keeping all info on 606 in the Museum article is appropriate at this time. It may take months to years to track down the history of 606. It took me 8 years to track down the history of one F-100D... interesting history, but not noteable. Once a more complete history of 606 is document and determined, then a separate article can be created. A separate article could be supported if the Museum uses 606 for "flight experiences" and educational programs, like other aircraft B-17s, B-29, and others that have their own articles. Side note, there was a H-21, called the "Holy One", once belonging to the Vatican, recovered, transported to Canada, and then to California for restoration to future flight status... do not know if 606 is the one. The Museum should have its history... maybe MDflyer4 could make an appointment with the Chief Curator at the Museum and study the paperwork of 606 and report back. Maybe we can wait for another week or two before deleting the article, for MDflyer4's report. Cheers. LanceBarber (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the PROD expires in a few hours, so it will be deleted unless someone removes the tag and perhaps redirects the article to Classic Rotors Museum. However it is not critical, as if it does go it can be recreated later when needed, and probably should have a more descriptive article title then anyway. Personally I am just going to let the PROD run out. We have moved all the needed text and refs to the museum article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The PROD has now expired and the article has been deleted - Ahunt (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce R, FAC nomination

Although it only has one letter for a name I have nominated this aero engine article for FAC, your comments would be very welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce R/archive1, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sports plane

What can be done with this stub article? It has been around since 28 September 2004 and remains unreferenced and probably quite rightly tagged as WP:OR. There is no doubt the terms sports plane, sport plane, sportplane and sport aircraft are used in the English language, but they seems to be mostly used in the general (i.e. uninformed) media to mean any small aircraft or by manufacturers to make their product sound less stogy than the competition. Tony Bingelis named two of his aircraft construction books, The Sportplane Builder and Sportplane Construction Techniques without ever defining those terms. Those books' texts tend to indicate that he uses the terms as equal to homebuilt aircraft or ultralight aircraft and excludes certified aircraft, even if they are aerobatic, etc. I decided to see if I could source a definition and have been through many dozens of aviation texts, aeronautical dictionaries, glossaries and even general dictionaries without any success. A Google search reveals that almost all definitions are cribbed from the Wikipedia article. I guess I could cite them and try for a WP:CIRCULAR tag. As usual I can only conclude that Wikipedia has amazing reach and anything in any Wikipedia article, whether unsourced or not, gets quickly spread around the web as fact and takes on a life of its own thereby.

Does anyone have any suggestions as what can be done with the article? Does anyone have a ref that can be used to fix it? Is an AfD in order to force the issue of fixing it or removing it? - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Light-sport aircraft? It's a bigger article although that is also unreferenced. 'Sports plane' if it is a real category seems to be an American term, the other article would need to be adjusted to reflect worldwide classification. I don't think that there is an official category like this in the UK, for pilot licensing purposes this class would be categorised as SEP(L), (Single Engine Piston Land). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that Light-sport aircraft is USA specific so that is fine but there seems to be some articles linking to it that are not quite right, Cessna 152 for example? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, some Cessna 152s meet the "light sport" designation (partially depends on on takeoff-weight). -SidewinderX (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. In the USA Light Sport Aircraft is a legal category with a matching Sport Pilot Certificate to go with it. On the other hand Sports aircraft seems to be a vague and undefined term that is applied to many aircraft at the whim of the labeler. I wouldn't want to corrupt the Light Sport Aircraft article on that specific category by mixing in this vague term. Nimbus brings up a good point on usage - this term isn't used often in Canada either, perhaps it is an American colloquialism? Perhaps one of our US editors can comment?- Ahunt (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that checking the what links here for the page shows that quite a wide variety of aircraft have the term linked from their articles - none of them LSAs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the action is to just delete it and not redirect it? And hope the internet figures it out? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this issue and have in fact been tracking down some refs. I was recently at our city central library and went through some of the big aviation reference books, like many of the old issues of Jane's All The World's Aircraft, amongst others. In the mid 1980s Janes started adding sections for hang gliders, ultralight/microlights, homebuilts and others. Then with the 1986/87 edition they combined them all into "Sport Aircraft". I checked everywhere, including the introduction and forward to see if John WR Taylor had defined the term, but he hadn't, although he clearly meant that it include all non-factory production aircraft. So a factory-built Pitts would be in the regular section, while a homebuilt Pitts would be in the Sports Aircraft section. Other refs I found used the term but did not define it and used it to variously include balloons, gyroplanes, aerobatic aircraft and ultralights, whether factory completed or kits. In his series of books which I have here, including The Sportplane Builder, author Tony Bingelis does not define the term either but uses to to mean homebuilt aircraft only. It seems that the term is fairly widely used, but there is nothing close to any agreement as to what it means. I am starting to lean towards WP:PROD on the article as non-encyclopedic. Any thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, lacking any objections I am going to PROD it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The PROD has been started. Comments or seconding the PROD are welcome. - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The PROD has now expired and the article has been deleted - Ahunt (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now cleaned up all the links to this now-deleted article and CSDed all the redirects to it as well. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Flightstar Sportplanes Flightstar series

This article has now been moved twice and seems to be suffering from nomenclature problems. Explanation and debate going on at Talk:Flightstar Sportplanes Flightstar series. Input from project members would be appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

CFM56 Peer Review

I have just opened a peer review for the hugely updated CFM56 article. Feel free to whack at it if you have some time! CFM56 Peer Review Link -SidewinderX (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sleeping while on duty

The Sleeping while on duty artice is going nuts. We have several IPs and an editor continually re-adding a blurb about a parlimentarian sleeping in an EU Parliment session. This is a minor news event of relativley little importance, regardless of news coverage received, which is apparently not much to begin with. Am I off-base here? I'm sure hundreds of news reports could be listed of people falling asleep on duty, and this seems no different. This trivial event has no comparision serious incidents in which people were put in harm's way. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No you are quite right. Here in Canada the whole Senate and much of the House of Commons sleeps all day in session - it isn't even newsworthy. The less these people are awake the better off the country is, anyway. Besides that particular addition to the article is seriously off-topic. The article is about people on duty such as pilots, cab drivers and nuclear operators, etc, not desk workers and parliamentarians. Not notable addition. Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Focke-Wulf Ta-183

Shoulnd't Focke-Wulf Ta-183 be at Focke-Wulf Ta 183? Looks like a user played musical names in Jaunary, undiscussed of course, and that's where the music stopped. All the interwikis, plus most online sites (non-en.wiki mirrors) use Ta 183, with no hyphen. Note that this will have to be moved by admin. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had it moved via {{db-move}}. - BilCat (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Found article advice

I just discoverd the Electronic control system for the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle article. It was created in October 2006 by a user whose only edits were to this page, including one edit in June 2009. Most of the information could probably be covered in the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle article, which is the precursor to the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle, also cpovered on that page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed content in that article about the vehcile itself. The Electronic system info can easily be handled at Lunar Landing Research Vehicle. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sukhoi KR-860

I've PRODded Sukhoi KR-860. It's not based on reliable sources as far as I can tell. (The site looks official, but it's in German, not Russian.) In addition, the writing is atrocious. This article has been up for nearly six months, and is quite embarrassing. Seriously, people need to ask for help in writing an article if they know their English skills are not good. Sheesh! - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed and seconded! - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The project does seem to have existed - it gets an extremly short mention in the 1999/2000 Brassey's - basically, one of the pictures given in the link and the statement: Proposed 860 seat ultra-large airliner. I doubt whether it got developed sufficiently to warrent an article however.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just read the German reference which says that the project was cancelled, not an official website from what I can see. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well an IP editor just removed the PROD tags. Do you want to go to AfD? - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That IP series seems to be the only person currently editing the article. He also removed the {{vc}} tag I added to the source, which I've restored. Does the Brassey's mention make it notable enough to keep? And as written, the article makes it seem like a current project, which does need to be changed/updated. Otherwise, I'd have no problem with an AFD (except I can't do them myself yet - I have tried lately, and bombed!) - BilCat (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the key thing is whether it meets Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Notability#.22Types.22 or not. It seems to qualify under #6, although the lynch-pin is "if it is verifiably through reliable sources". Unbuilt projects that have designations from established manufacturers are okay, if there are refs available. Rumours of projects are another matter and without refs it is a rumour. - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Phil Bridger has just marked it as undergoing a major revision, so let's see what he comes up with - some reliable refs perhaps? - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He could have done without the snarky edit summary: "mark as in use while I do something more contructive than tagging for deletion." That's not very helpful. I'm tempted to AFD it just to spite him! ;) - BilCat (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest we give him a chance and see what he can do with it. It will all hinge on refs. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Key worde: tempted"! DOn't worry, I'm not that petty! I just didn't liek the attitude. If the PROD and AFD threat got the attion of someone who could improve the article, then that's constructive too. - BilCat (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree and so far he is doing a good job - he has found some good refs that at least show that the project did exist at one time. I agree that he could have been a bit more subtle in his edit summary. - Ahunt (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has now been worked over by several editors and is looking much better, even conforming to WikiProject Aircraft layout! - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft in fiction

I was just having a look at this article, which is tagged as belonging to the project. It looks like the fan-crufters have had a field day or is the idea to give them this article to run amok in, in exchange for leaving the "aircraft type" articles alone? - Ahunt (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to do some cleaning up at Talk:Aircraft in fiction. Discussion and/or help solicited. - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It came out as a solution from an F-15 transformers debate if I remember. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As a playground that makes some sense - what do we do with all the unsourced text? Should it be left just to not disturb things and send them scuttling back to the "aircraft type" articles? - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The creator was involved in lengthy discussions on the Talk:F-15 Eagle page, and created the article as a result. The concept has been tried before, and failed, for the reasons you've noted, mainly lack of reliable sources and too many trivial mentions. I'm surprised the anti-pop-culture-article nazis haven't AFD the page yet, and I doubt it would (or should) survive. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to AfD it for fear of all that cruft ending up back in the type articles. I actually think having this sort of "repository" for this sort of thing is a good idea, but are we going to set aside WP:V for the sake of "peace in our time"? I am fine if we need to do that, but perhaps it all needs a careful political consideration. Through the addition of links to articles like this one: Antonov_An-225#Notable_appearances_in_media it is sort of sneaking back in anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopters in popular culture for an example of why the "repository" concept failed. Note that the AFD nazis don't give a whit about such uncited trivia remaining in aircraft articles. For the record, I and several other editors tried to maintain WPV on that article, but the workload was overwhelming once the crufters discovered it. I even created an Air Force One in popular culture article, managed to keep it trimed, and it was still deleted per WP:NOT, as outlined here. It's been a couple of years now, and perhaps it would work now, but only time will tell. - BilCat (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I would like to retain and fix this article, but only if the fallout isn't worse that leaving it be! Let's see what everyone else thinks over the next few days and whether we can get a "critical mass", to continue the nuclear analogy. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope it succeeds, but it's going to be a LOT of work once the crufters discover the article en masse. - BilCat (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree! We do seem to be making some progress though, over at Talk:Aircraft in fiction. - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I found some useful guidance in the essay at Wikipedia:Handling trivia. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have done some clean up on this article and have now asked the tough questions. Opinions are solicited at Talk:Aircraft_in_fiction#Unsourced_text. - Ahunt (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Adults needed

Talk:BAC TSR-2‎ has some contentious discussions by IPs and novice users. It could use some cool heads to step in and moderate this. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tried a bit of diplomacy and haven't followed up but perhaps an admin looking at this makes sense. You listening, Mil? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am probably old enough so I have made a comment about improving the article see if we get any sensible reactions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming Aircraft Projects/Programs?

What's the convention on naming aircraft programs? I was thinking of starting an article for the US Air Force's current "T-X" Program (new trainer), and wanted to know what to call it. T-X is a terminator article.... should I go with T-X Program or something like T-X (aircraft)? -SidewinderX (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Probably keep program in the name, like "T-X program", or "USAF T-X program". Program should not be capitalized unless it is part of the official name. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking we need an article on the program also. Do you have a sandbox for it yet? I'd go with USAF T-X program, and probably request the T-X be moved to a DAB page. - BilCat (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't started a sandbox yet, this was on my list to do once I've settled with the CFM56 peer review that's currently underway (read it if you haven't already!). If you're ready to jump on it, feel free to make the sandbox and I'll pitch in. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. All I've really seen on T-X so far is the recent article from FlightGlobal, and it was primarily on BAES's Hawk entry. The Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS) article would probably be what I use to start the new one, if I get to it first. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft Name in Infobox

Currently the guidelines at WP:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Infobox state "For the most part, as there is an appropriate field in the infobox itself, including the manufacturer in the "name" field is not necessary. Some exceptions exist, such as aircraft which only have model numbers."

The logic that the manufacturer is listed in a separate field and does not need to be repeated. However, the aircraft's designation can seem incomplete without the manufacturer name with it. Does this guideline need to be adjusted or clarified? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We also have different interpretation of what model numbers means as well! Can I suggest the name in the infobox should be the same as used in the first sentence of the article. Not the article name as it sometimes can be a common name and be non-standard. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone interpreted it in a different way here. Could be time to revisit the guideline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone involved in the discussion which formed the wording for the guidelines, "model numbers" refers to numbers without any letters in them, such as 707, 747, etc. As such Boeing airliners generally have "Boeing 777z", and Bell helicopters have "Bell 206". That's the original intent of the guidelines, anyway. Airbus is also used in "Airbus A300", as the euro-fanboys threw a fit because the Boeings had the name, and the Airbuses did not! Seriously! I don't care which way we chose to go, just that we be as consistent as we can, and that the guidelines be clear on what we want. - BilCat (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never considered there to be any significant difference between a model number with letters, a model number with numerals, or a model number with both. We could have the Hughes XYZ, the Hughes XYZ-123 or the Hughes 123 and all three instances would be treated the same way. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a book for references

Does anyone have access to a copy of Bristol F2 Fighter Aces of World War I By Jon Guttman, Harry Dempsey ISBN 1846032016  ? Looking at it in Google Books, I'm pretty sure it has the references I need for observer aces Gass, Fletcher, Hayward, Cubbon and Edwards on pg 87. I need it to complete the list List of World War I aces credited with more than 20 victories. If someone can just confirm the names are listed on that page, and the scores match what's on the list, I (or you) can add the references.- Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ADF aircraft template

Bit concerned that the Template:ADF Aircraft is being added to numerous aircraft articles, it is not like other navboxes a designation based navbox just a list of aircraft types operated. If the DC-3 was to have a nav box for every military operator of the type it potentially could have a few hundred navboxes. The only current navboxes (two one for US designations and one for Japanese on DC-3 as an example) are all designation based, not just a list of types operated. Just think it is a bit of a slippery slope. Any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it much different from Template:Canadian Forces aircraft? - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more effective as a list of Austrialian air force designations or a number of smaller templates as the ADF doesn't actually exist pre 1976? The canadian forces template is 1968 onwards. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that the US and Canadian's give the aircraft a local designation the Australian is just a list of types. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would make sense to just convert the nav box to conform more to those other nav boxes - it would make it much more compact. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The template doesn't list designations, but type-based serial number prefixes, which the template has never made clear. I do think it's useful, as it is a fairly unique system, but the names of the aircraft do make the list longer in appearance. However, we're now seeing "Vehicles of Foo Air Force"/"Equipment of Foo Air Force" templetes cropping up, even for the USAF, and these are redundant to the designation lists in most cases. SOme aritcles, such as those on Chinese military aircraft, are now getting two or three templates which overlap to a large degree, and I think that's more of a problem. To me, most equipment lists are better handled on list pages, and those can be linked to from the "list" parameter in the "See also" section, and that should suffice in most cases. Perhaps we need to take a look at the differing ways of using the navboxes, and develop some guidelines for overall use. - BilCat (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps we need to take a look at the differing ways of using the navboxes, and develop some guidelines for overall use" That sounds like a very good idea! - Ahunt (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point to raise, navboxes are one area on WP where 'making it up' (for want of a better phrase) is rarely questioned. Would it be too much to ask for reference sources to be given on their talk pages? We have to do it for articles. This would prevent any 'discussions' over what entries should be in them. Easy for manufacturer navboxes like {{De Havilland aeroengines}} but not so easy for general ones like {{Aircraft components}} which definitely serves its own useful purpose. There is general advice at Wikipedia:Navigation templates of course, with air force listings I would prefer to see them only in the particular air force article and not added to every aircraft type page, we could end up with some very large stacks of navboxes otherwise. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As an experiment I just added the reference sources for the de Havilland engines on the main template page [6] (more visible than on the talk page), they do not affect the template itself as they are outside the coded area. Could be a way forward, guidelines for use could be added in the same space if it was felt that they were needed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a fair stack of navboxes at de Havilland Tiger Moth#External links with ADF aircraft recently added, I would argue (discuss?!) that three of them are not strictly relevant to this particular article. Links to the operating air forces are already in the article, its overseas type designation should be added to the variants or operators section (and the lead if there are not too many) then there is no need for the extra navboxes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never liked this template. There's no need for a template listing every aircraft the Australian military has used (we have articles listing them) and the use of serial numbers to designate the aircraft is confusing to most readers at best, and may be outright misleading as these designations are not normally used by the ADF to describe its aircraft (eg, the Army flies S-70 Blackhawks, not A25 Blackhawks, the RAAF operates C-17 Globemaster IIIs, not A41 Globemaster IIIs, etc). I think that this template should be deleted as it seems to achieve nothing other than cluttering up articles and confusing readers. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not looked at it closely, it is in the Royal Australian Air Force article and have no objection to it being only there. I see that it duplicates List of aircraft of the RAAF as mentioned earlier. Many of our navboxes do duplicate sections of lists but that can be ok. Would seem more useful to me if it was a navbox based on current aircraft. Rather than deleting the template it could be improved (to be discussed on its own talk page). Had a quick look at the Spitfire to see what navboxes are in there, one operator (Sweden). Why just Sweden?! I think the answer based on the outcome of this discussion would be to remove operator navboxes using good judgement, making sure that they appear in the relevant operator article (which a few are not at the moment). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably because Sweden allocated the Spitfire a designation S 31 which is why it is the only operator navbox. MilborneOne (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be:

• Type designations (like USA, Canada, Sweden) - navbox
• Current operators - category
• Former operators - list of .. Just an idea MilborneOne (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No comments - can I propose that the Template:ADF Aircraft be removed from aircraft articles as it is not a type designation (or manufacturers) nav box. MilborneOne (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gets my vote, seconded. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thirded. And the proposal looks goo too. - BilCat (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses I have deleted over half of them it is/was used in a lot of articles, I will try and do the rest later. I will look at some better wording and the best place for the navbox/cat/list idea. MilborneOne (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Engli-talian alerts!

The English-challeged editor Big Gian is back. Some of the articles incloved are:

• Fiat CR.42
• Gloster Gladiator
• Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Goudkov LaGG-3
• Lavochkin La-7
• Macchi C.202
• Yakovlev Yak-1
• Yakovlev Yak-3

FWIW. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Following that guy around with a broom is almost a full time job. ^-^

Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but he purposely dumps dirt where someone has attempted to clean it up! On the Lavochkin La-7, he had added this: "By late 1943 the La 7 was probably the best dogfighter in service in the world, and it was selected by almost all the top scoring Soviet aces." It was sourced from a Bill Gunston book that I own, but I've been unable to find it! I added a {{vs}} to the sentence, but he removed it , and added another source. This is not helpful, as I want someone who speaks fluent English to verify this, not Gian himself, who does not. ANyway, I've re-added the tags to both sources, but I don't expect them to stay for very long. Sigh! - BilCat (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Operators

In some articles like Beechcraft King Air and some biz jets I have replaced the random and incomplete list of civil operators with a description of the type of operators that use the aircraft. Most of these aircraft operators have only one or two aircraft and sometimes we only list of few out of many hundreds that could be listed. For example in the King Air it says The King Air is used by many corporate and private users, it is also used as a light transport liaison aircaft with both government and non-government organisations. It is also used by air-taxi and air charter companies. or in the Gulfstream G550 The aircraft is operated by private individuals, companies and executive charter operators. A number of companies also use the aircraft as part of fractional ownership schemes. Just looking for some sort of consensus that we dont need to list every civilian operator in aircraft and helicopter articles and that an overview is fine. Any thoughts, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing problem, not to mention trying to source the individual operators as well. This might be a better solution. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur on all points. - BilCat (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Some advice please - use of an image without attribution

Hi everyone, I would like your thoughts on something please. This company has used a cropped version of this image, taken by me, to illustrate an article in its mail-out company newsletter about modifying the aircraft pictured, without attribution to Wikipedia or to me. Without knowing, I would think that the distribution of the newsletter would be quite wide within the Australian aviation industry. I would like opinions on what, if anything, I should do. YSSYguy (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a form letter type thing that can be sent to someone for using text and/or images without following the license instructions. Either send the company one of those or write an e-mail with your own words. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pop-culture essay

Over the past 3 years or so, I've written several very-long posts regrding WP:AIR's policies/guidelines on Pop-culture, along with the rationale/need for such guidelines. I've seen similar posts by other editos too. I think it would be easier now if we just had one essay that could be linked to in a discussion on pop-culture items. Such an essay could include common objections to the removal of such items, along with responses. (I'll try to search my contributions for some of my posts to use as a basis fo rthe essay.) While many of our cruft-spammers have low comprehension for understanding anything above the reading level a 4-page game manual, it might be helpful to some users. Would the project be interested in such an essay on the project space? Also, would anyone be interested in participating in writing it? (I could just do this on my own userspace, but I would like this to be a collabroative effort of the project.) We might even have a short and long version. Thoughts/comments? - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea Bill, can I suggest if you find your comments then that could be used as a starting point and we can all help to make sure it is sound. Interesting to see Aircraft in fiction compromise article has now survived over six weeks! MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it survived longer than I thought it would, but I've had one lats 6 or 8 months, and it survived one AFD, only to fall at the second. Anyway, perhaps the anti-pop-culture-PAGE-wonks aren;t around as much now as a couple of years ago. Only time will tell. - BilCat (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Games come with written manuals? I like your idea, Bill, but would prefer to see it as a "guideline" rather than an "essay", either added to or supplementary to WP:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Notable_appearances_in_media. That section needs more specifics and more muscle! Actually I would prefer it as a "policy", but that is just wishful thinking. - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I said 4-page manuals! What I have in mind will probably be too lenghthy for guidelines, but it should be written to support the guidelines, and we may add to our guidelines based on the essay(s). One thing I want to tackle in the essay is why pop-culture items are so easy to add. One reason is that while not everyone can contribute to the technical and historical details of an airifcraft article, almost everyon has seen a given aircraft in a movie, ame, etc. It's an easy way to particlipate in "the Online Encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" And the crufters often bring that up too! To be honest, that slogan can be quite misleading, as it's often interpreted to mean "anything can be added by anyone", which is certainly not true. - BilCat (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why an essay and not a proper guideline? Pop culture sections used to be discouraged by WP in general (perhaps they still are) with the advice to work the notable information into the text if possible. Most of them are utter rubbish to be honest. Why is the aircraft notability guideline an essay? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The notability guideline is an essay because the guideline-wonks don't think it's been accetped as a guideline by the project yet. I think when you see what I have in mind for the essay, you'll understand my resoning. It's a more a rationale for why we the guideline as it is, than a guiideline itself. I'll see if I can get a rough draft to present in the next few days. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• (E/C) I believe BilCat wants the essay to be something like a FAQ page, a page to provide canned responses/explanation to likely concerns. Also to provide reasoning behind the guideline. The Pop Culture guideline will be separate but connected. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I can live with an essay that backs up some stronger and more specific guidelines. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Who are the 'guideline wonks'? Surely having established guidelines eases things at AfD etc. Why not bring the notability area essay back to turn it into a consensus guideline. My wish for 2010 is that we firmly resolve issues, many of these discussions tail off to obscurity with nothing being done. When I manually archive talk sections at WT:AETF I try to put an action comment at the bottom (resolved, actioned, not actioned, in progress by ... etc.) The archive bot is beating me at the moment and can not do this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bölkow Bo 208

Can someone have a look at this article? Apart from being a mess (which is fixable), someone appears to have copied a flight report from Air Progress magazine into the middle of it - which is probably a copyvio. Should be just remove the offending section and fix the article, or just redirect it back to Malmö MFI-9 (which also needs fixing)?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is a direct copy of the report it should be just deleted as a copyright violation. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange Bolkow Bo 208 is redirectd but Bölkow Bo 208 doesnt ! it may be worth redirecting it doesnt look like that much difference between them. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the probable copyvio - which was originally added as blockquotes! Bölkow Bo 208 and Bolkow Bo 208 were both created as redirects to the MFI-9 - someone un-redirected one without sorting out the other.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bizarrely enough, Swedish origin is also a redirect to Malmö MFI-9.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a copy of [7], which purports to be "Air Progress 1964". I've checked the first few paras and they are identical. No reason why this should not be an external link, but in the article it is inappropriate stylistically and surely a copyright violation. I vote delete: overtaken by events during edit conflict. Yes, both articles need a serious sort out and I'd say merge into one, though we would need to find out out what the 208A and 208B were with respect to the MFI-9 Junior. JAWA 1966-7 says the 208 C Junior is the licence built MFI-9 Junior. The current redirection means that if you click Bolkow Bo 208 on the MFI-9 page, nothing changes! On names: presumably the German version is really the Bölkow Bö 208 (2 umlauts, give or take a full stop) and the redirect from Bolkow Bo 208 is for the umlautly challenged (most of us). I notice JAWA has it as Bölkow BO.208. Once upon a time it was the Andreasson BA-7. The MFI-9 infobox has the Saab Safari as a variant, but it's not in the variants list; same designer, both shoulder wing, but varianthood needs support. Nigel's "mess" seems fair.TSRL (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely. I'll change Swedish origin to redirect to Sweden. Can't think of any better use now. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've also redirected Bolkow Bo 208 to Bölkow Bo 208 - it looks like a case of an inexperienced user trying to do more than he knew how to do - He even put a link to Bolkow Bo 208 in the Malmö MFI-9! I guess we were all at that point once. As for Swedish origin, this talk page is the only page linking to it, so it should probably just be deleted.

Finally, both articel are really just stube, and the specs seems pretty close, if not identical - it's the same engine in both specs, anyway. Even the German WP article, de:Malmö Flygindustri MFI-9, covers both aircrft on one page. I think we should do the same, at least for the time being. Do I need to run a formal merge proposal? - BilCat (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible reference for older U.S. aircraft?

Among the sources listed in the Resources section of this project's Notability page is the FAA database of Type Certificate Data Sheets. I've just stumbled across another source in the FAA's Regulatory Guidance Library which might also be of use. Titled "CAR 0 - INSPECTION HANDBOOK", it is actually eight parts scanned from "Chapter XVIII: Approved Aircraft" of the Civil Aeronautics Administration's Inspection Handbook dated December 16, 1940 (though most of the internals seems to be of later revision). While there are unfortunately sections missing, it does have a full index of the types covered, TC numbers, and airworthiness directives which applied to them, followed by copies of the type certificate data sheets for many older types. I don't know if any of the types listed here are missing from the main TCDS database, but it's possible that some are, and at the least this provides a possibility for comparison. Hope this may be of use.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Many non-productive edits to B-24

An IP user has made many edits to the B-24 Liberator article, While some are consturctive, many are non-productive, such as overlinking and minor quibbles. Worse, though, none on his additions or changes to content are cited. I am installing a new hard dirve for my laptop now, so I don't have the time to go through his edits line by line. Also, I'm not very familar wirh the B-24's hstory details. If anyone can takle the analusis of this article, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, a lot of the editor's edits are unneeded. Furthermore, a lot of them are actually making the language more awkward, rather than streamlining it. I'll watch the page and see what I can do, but there are a lot of edits so I don't know if I can get all the bad ones. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tsking a look. Several other good editors have showed up, and togeter I think we're making some headway. - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been having a bash at ironing out some wrinkles and in the process started to add some cite tags, both to entire unreferenced paragraphs and to statements within a para, assuming in good faith that existing end-of-paragraph ref points cover the preceding info in its entirety. However, after a while of doing this I came to realise that there are great chunks of unreferenced material despite there being a very comprehensive bibliography present, and was loath to add many more tags. Hopefully those who added the information and listed their sources will sally forth and do some inline citing. Another point is that some of the lead stuff doesn't appear in the main body of text – not difficult to rectify, but it would need citing. A copy of this will be posted on the article talk page. --Red Sunset 15:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Stinson Voyager

Just created Stinson Voyager from a redirect, a lot of the Stinsons redirect to the wrong the types, probably due to the confusion with mil designations. Cant find a decent set of specs for the Model 105 or Model 10 if anybody can help. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Specs for 105 addedNigel Ish (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment of Tupolev TB-3

We do not have a formal process for reassessing older A-class articles as does Milhist. They've downgraded the Tupolev TB-3 for lack of citations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tupolev TB-3. Should we do the same or is it necessary to conduct our own review? If so, do we want to establish a formal mechanism for doing so in the future?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Aviation probably needs some reassessment process. Except for a cite tag, it appears fully referenced. But footnotes for individual entries would make that more clear. The MilHist reviewers brought up other issues too though. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of page numbers is pretty key, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Where exactly is page numbers stated as a requirement for A-class? WP:ACLASS doesn't get into that much detail. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• I guess the "approach the standards for a Featured article" part plus WP:CITE#HOW suggests that. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Carter Aviation Technologies

I have tidied up the new Carter Aviation Technologies article which read like a company website. The new editor User:TGCP who created the article has reverted most of my changes. Any help appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Ahunt for his help. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No probs - I knew where to find the refs for this one! It stands watching, though. - Ahunt (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Xian Y-7

A registered user has created the Xian Y-7. Unfortunately, much of it repeats the same information in the Xian MA60 article. This get's old. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd corrected the title from Xian Y7 to Xian Y-7, per the other PRC designations, and several print and online sources, but he is opposing that. He's also suggested merging Xian MA60 into the Y-7 article. Big sigh. - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I tidied up the Y-7/Y7 article and removed the MA60 as it had its own article before I read the request!. No reason why the MA60 cant stand alone. I also removed the MA60 from the An-24 as it was appearing in three articles. I suspect that Y-7 is the mil designation and the civil one is Y7 but as they redirect I cant see a problem. MilborneOne (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The White Bird

A user has re-directed Levasseur PL.8 to The White Bird on the grounds that unlikely to be able to support a separate article. The White Bird has a lot of information but is not really a conventional aircraft article. Any thoughts ? MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the white bird the only Levasseur PL.8 ever built? The article seems to say so, but isn't clear. If there are others then we need an article on the type, if not then we only need one article, the question then would be which title it should have. - Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Adam's questions. Also, {{Infobox Aircraft Career}} should be added to the infobox stack, as this is useful for individual aircraft articles. {{Infobox Aircraft Type}} should only be used if it is the only PL.8 built. - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I did find this on a russian webiste [8] A year after the tragic events at the company built a new Levasseur PL.8, this time for the carriage of mail. Its first flight took place on September 18, 1928. and this from SV:Levasseur_PL_8 1928 produced an additional PL-8 equipped with a Hispano-Suiza engine with 600 hp. which infers they may have been two? MilborneOne (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

White Bird tells the story but does not describe the aircraft, the redirect should be undone. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming there was an article there in the first place of course! Needs a redlink. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If there were two then I agree we need a type article to replace the direct. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

1983/84 Janes

In trying to complete the Fisher Flying Products series of aircraft I hit a bit of a dead-end. I have started articles on all of them except the Fisher Barnstormer and Fisher Boomerang. According to the 1986/87 edition, these limited production aircraft are described only in the 1983/84 edition of Janes All the Worlds Aircraft. Naturally that is the one volume that our city library is missing. Does anyone have access to that year's edition, so we can complete the Fisher series? - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jane's does not have AWA articles for those aircraft online. Eventually the online ones do not go back that far. Maybe somebody will have access to that set.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking! I hope that book turns up in someone's library, my city's is just too incomplete a collection! - Ahunt (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look in Lexis Nexus when I get home... maybe aviation week or someone mentioned it once. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything enough to get an article done would be a help! - Ahunt (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can wait until the New Year, when I return to work, I can check in our library. I'm quite sure we have a copy. Anything else you need looked up in that, Ahunt? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that offer! It is just those two aircraft needed to complete Fisher Flying Products. - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

STOL aircraft list

Two editors (a reg-user and an IP) have tried to restore the aircraft list on the STOL page. This was removed per discussions/consensus here in March. I've already reverted twice, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am on it. At least we have a previous consensus that the list of STOL aircraft doesn't belong in the article, however that doesn't help much here, since the editor saw fit to bypass the consensus on STOL and start a new list instead: List of STOL aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on whether List of STOL aircraft‎ should exist at Talk:List of STOL aircraft‎. The participation of project members is requested. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I made some points at Talk:STOL that may help clarify what should be on such a list, if there is one. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those. Unfortunately other editors have made the valid point that since there is no accepted definition of STOL (one of the definitions you provided even states that) that we can't pick and choose definitions and have to accept aircraft that meet any definition provided, which makes for a pretty non-encyclopedic list in my opinion. We seem to have come to a consensus to leave the list article, let it expand and then see how it looks in the future, before further action is taken. Much more on this at Talk:List of STOL aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce R Featured Article

This article (spearheaded by User:Nimbus227) made it to FA and is on the Wikipedia homepage now. Since FA's tend to attract a whole bunch of vandalism, especially while the kiddies are off school for Christmas with little else to do, it would be helpful if some other editors can put it your watchlist! - Ahunt (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian World War II planes

Each of the below categories only has a single page (in each case the DAR-10). Were there other Bulgarain planes in use during the war, or is there a case for some categories being deleted - at least the last two? Eldumpo (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:World War II Bulgarian light bombers

Category:World War II Bulgarian reconnaissance aircraft

Not likely to more than five in each, delete them until they are needed. Shouldn't they be of the form "World War II x of Bulgaria" anyway? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:World War II bombers has the general format of 'World War II "COUNTRY" bombers' Eldumpo (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's standardization for you! - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why we need World War II foo cats they only duplicate the standard country-type-year ones. Is somebody going to create them for every war! MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's very useful to have specific aircraft categories by country for WW2, given its scale and interest. It's much better than having only the 'by decade' ones whereby you would have to click on every entry to determine if a particular plane had been involved in WW2. Eldumpo (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Think the answer to the Milbourne question is yes; not only hot ones either. Maybe Reconnaissance aircraft of the Cold War? I'd rather not. Bomber aircraft of WWII are also much more difficult to define than Bomber aircraft 1940-1949. The latter seems to fit only aircraft first flown in that period which were specifically designed for the bombing role (possibly as a variant or as a multi role machine). The WWII bomber might be any aircraft used in that role, however briefly so long as its use was in WWII, but not in conflicts going on at the same time like the Russo-Finnish war. Given the enthusiasm of some editors to give every aircraft a military role, we might find that Avro Cadets of the Greek AF dropped bomblets in 1940, etc. What about the kamikase aircraft? Or any fighter lashed up with a bomb, in the stress of conflict? And would the countries be those of the originators or the operators? We'd need tight guidelines and get long debates. I'm in favour of keeping it simple, as it is.TSRL (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Redlinked hatnotes

A user added a hatnot to the Alenia Aeronautica article per this diff with this edit summary: "If you do not understand what "codes of nomenclature" are, do not even *think* about removing the redlinks, OK?" He also added a similar hatnote here, with a less uncivil note.

I've removed the redlinked hatnotes per WP:HAT#Non-existent articles:

Hatnotes should not be used for articles that do not exist since the notes are intended to point the user to another article they may have intended to find. The exception is if one intends to create the linked article immediately. In that case, consider creating the new article first, before saving the addition of the hatnote.

The user repsoned on my talk page with a very condescending note here. The user has been on WP longer than I have, so he's familar with how WP works. However, he claims "The general MoS has no bearing on this issue; the codes of biological nomenclature are mandatory for enyclopedic works such as Wikipedia and homonymy cannot be tolerated." WTHeck?? For a user who has been on WP for 5 and half years, he still doesn't seem to understand redlinks, and that linking a redlink somewhere won't keep someone from creating an article somewhere else. In fact, we find articles all the time for which an article on that topic already exists. How is a redlink in a hatnote going t help?? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• The above comments were originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Redlinked hatnotes. - BilCat (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me either, redlinks don't belong in hatnotes, it is pretty simple! That user has 66,000 edits, perhaps he can explain what he is talking about? - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite odd to me too. Here is his reponse [on my talk page, and see if you understand it. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he's expressed his opinion on this issue before, at Wikipedia_talk:Red_link#Disambiguation, if that sheds any light. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, CDH. If I understand what he's trying to do, it'd be much easier to just watchlist the "incorrect" titles he's worried about being created, and move them to the proper title when an article is made. We find duplicate aircraft articles created at alternate names, even when there's been a an articel for yeafrs at the accepted title. Redlinks on some unrelated page isn't going to stop people from making up their own names! - BilCat (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact the redlink will encourage someone to click on it and create the article - you really should avoid making redlinks to articles that you don't want created. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In cases like this where guidelines are being questioned I usually direct the editor to the talk page of the guideline, in this case Wikipedia talk:Hatnote as that is where the consensus for change needs to be discussed. I note that many of our articles have redlinks in the 'see also' sections which is also against the guideline for that section, a clever way to deal with it is to no-wiki the links, I found this yesterday in an engine article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As a user, I'd much rather be taken immediately to to a disambiguation page than to be taken or redirected to a page which was not what I wanted. In the absence of such a page, I'm sure a biologist would expect to go to the genus, not to (for example) borrowings of the name for companies or rock groups. Corvus is a good example of the first method; its disambiguation page contains Corvus (genus) and various other links, some red. This works fine. There is (in my view) something about hatnotes that seems to blame the reader for being in the wrong place.

I think the biologists may have a problem though, and this chap's red hatnotes inadvertently show it. Alenia (butterfly) is red, but alenia (skipper) is fine, though a stub. As a simple physicist, I'd have thought Alenia (genus) (like Corvus (genus)) was the right answer, but its not my question!TSRL (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

{Unindent) Well, he's been been forced to create stubs at the redlinks, and says "Thanks" for tying me up with pointless work! However, this edit summary is a bit insulting: "so that you nitpickers are satisfied and stop bitching about things you don't grok. You might have read the editorial note instead of just rv'ing". "Grok"?? Again, he's being very insulting nad near-uncivil towards established users.

It looks like he didn't know Alenia (skipper) existed, which might illustrate his perceived problem with "improper" article names. Alenia (butterfly) is a near duplicate now! Very strange. Anyway, as I don't "grok" these matters, I'll just pray the wiki-gnomes discover the dupes on their own! - BilCat (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Talking of strange language, I've been meaning to ask you for a translation of "crufters"! When I've got the wine and mincepies out of my veins, I'll see if I can work out to do a proper disambiguation page, perhaps starting with Selenia, to replace the redirect. Not my usual sort of Moths, but hey.TSRL (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think redlinks are permitted on DAB pages too, so that miht be a more useful way for him to go about things like this. For WP's use of "crufter" (one who adds cruft), see Wikipedia:Fancruft. - BilCat (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Dysmorodrepanis#Uncivil_edit_summaries - Ahunt (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Northwest Airlines Flight 253

This is about the attempted bombing by the Nigerian. We could use some knowledgeable editors to watch over the article and talk page. particulrly, the question of whther the aircraft/flight should be listed as Northwest or Delta has come up. I've attempted to answer that one, but it's really beyond my knowledge. Any help would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class Review for CFM56

Just letting everyone know that I have opened an A-Class Review for the CFM56. Please drop by and leave your comments! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a little "bump" if you will. I would appreciate it if a few others could take a look at the article and give me a critique and/or support for the review. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A little reminder/request: the A-Class Review for the CFM56 is still open! I would really appreciate it if another couple editors could head over a take a look at it and leave comments! Specifically, if someone could take a look at the sources (regarding reliability) and the images (regarding suitability), that would be great (see Nimbus's comments on the review page). Thanks. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

COI and ownership problems

Langley Flying School was created by User:Dparry, who has admited to being the company's owner on the article's talk page. He continually reverts edits edits to clean-up the article, and has even removed headers that I've added regarding the articel's issues. I am (supposed to be) heading to bed now, so I havn't tried to engage him in a conversation I won't be able to respond to for some time. Any help, particulryly a diplomatic one, would be appreciated, as would any admn intervention. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page. It is pretty bad as it is now, totally POV and COI/corpspam. The article has been protected until 03 Jan 10, so we can work on a clean-up then. The best solution would be to have a large number of editors have a look at it with an eye to improving it and then watching it to prevent it from becoming an NPOV problem again. The alternative is to WP:AFD it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Nick-D did the protecting, and he's generally very reasonable. If we come to a consensus on the talk page, he'd probably be open to unprotecting it before then. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I can wait, that sounds good to me. I think I have provided enough notability data on the talk page now, that we can come up with a consensus to either fix the article or go to AfD on the basis of notability. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Brantly International

The Brantly International article is in need of clean-up. Some of the paragraphs are written in poor English, and I am not familiar enough with the hisotry of the company. There are cited references in the text, but not are linked to online copies of the stories. (That's not required, but more difficult to verify.) SOme of the sources are from Flight, so we should be able to find those. I've done what I could to clean up the grammar, but more surgery is needed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AFD nomination Langley Flying School

This article, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for deletion. Members of the project and other interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley Flying School. - Ahunt (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Xian H-6K

I noticed that an editor has created a seperate article for the Xian H-6K variant of the Xian H-6. He's got a decent amount of information in the new article, but it doesn't conform to the WP:A format and, most importantly, it's still just an upgrade variant of the H-6. I know there is some precedent for splitting off variants into new articles, but I don't think the plain H-6 article has enough information/detail in it to necessitate the split... what do ya'll think? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the general default position should be anti-splitting. Splitting has the advantage of allowing more detail, but with the disadvantage of a loss of context, e.g. in this case that the H-6K is one version of several of an established Chinese version of the Tupolev Tu-16. One has to be sure the extra detail is important enough to justify the loss. Putting the variants together on one page does encourage critical thinking about what matters, and equal levels of detail. There is also a danger of multiple splits leading to damaging incoherence to the core article. There will always be exceptions, but I think I'd seek consensus with a contents list etc before going ahead with any split of my own. Don't know enough about the H-6 to be certain, but I'd like to hear the case for the split made and debated. For what it's worth,I thought the new article a bit overblown.TSRL (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

^ This is a good post on this matter. The type article first needs to get long to justify splitting off variants. Probably needs to be some appreciable differences in the variant to split it off as well. The H-6 article could use subsections for variant groupings to better cover them. Maybe a subsection for other minor variants and testbeds. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The H-6 article isn't exactly massive, they should be merged. Only known difference is engine upgrades (Chinese turbojets replaced with Russian turbofans) and possibly the number of weapon stations under the wings.--Hj108 (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"The only known difference is the engine upgrades." This is simply not true. Are you sure you have read the sources? For example: "The nose section of the H-6K has been completely reworked. The new version is missing the navigator’s cockpit and the attendant glass paneling. The nose has therefore become shorter, with a visible change of proportions compared to all the previous members of the H-6 family. In place of the navigator’s cockpit, the bomber has a radome covering a powerful radar of a new type"[9]. Offliner (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be merged, TSRL did a great job of explaining the general reasons. This variant seems like an important one, so it's reasonable that it could have its own subheading in the main H-6 "Development" section that covers most of what is in this article. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, adding subsections in the Development section can be added for improved versions or next generation versions (e.g. UH-1 Iroquois, Boeing 777). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. The article is long enough to stand on its own. As demonstrated in the article, the H-6K is a huge improvement from previous versions, being described as China's first proper strategic bomber. In rocketry articles (an area that I'm familiar with) this version would almost definitely get its own article. We have Proton (rocket), Proton-K and Proton-M for example. Having all the versions in the same article would be as stupid has having all Soyuzes in a single article (Soyuz-FG, Soyuz-U, Soyuz-2b, etc.) The Soyuz is also a decades old design like the H-6, but has been subject to numerous incremental improvements and each version is clearly a different rocket. Offliner (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not the article is long enough. The only difference listed is that the aircraft has new engines. I'm not disputing that it might be important; it can be emphasized in its own subsection in the main H-6 article. If there are other substantial differences, differences that would by and far set this variant apart, they need to be mentioned in the article. -SidewinderX (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added some more info about the differences. My impression is that the new version sets itself apart enough to deserve its own article. Offliner (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I find that this variant of the Xian H-6 is notable enough to have it's own article. The Xian H-6, by all means, is a rather outdated and aged military aircraft, and the improvements from the Xian H-6K are much more modern. Sure, they are more or less the "same plane", but then again, there is more difference between the Xian H-6 and H-6K than the Nokia N86 8MP and Nokia N85, as an example. Similarity or having many components the same does not necessarily mean that one variant is more notable than the other. It seems that this variant was designed to be more suited towards CJ-10 cruise missile armament than strategic bombing by means of dropping gravity bombs, evident by the preference of flight range (increased fuel tank size replacing the bomb bay) over carrying bombs. The H-6K clearly was built for a different purpose to the H-6, due to its structural differences. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Those are good points, very specific. I think as more information becomes available, especially specifications and photos, a separate article can be recreated. As of now, the article sections are somewhat repetitive, and can probably better covered as a section on the H-6 page. - BilCat (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Same basic purpose of air to surface attack, but different modes of doing it. One is by dropping bombs and the other by launching stand-off missiles. The mode change seems similar to the proposed RS-70 on the ill-fated B-70 program. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Benlisquare invited me here to comment, but I'll have to say things right now are favoring a merger. This project is just one of hundrends of H-6 upgrade project for the PLAAF, and most of the H-6 upgrade projects are failures. If this project is working properly and carries nuclear missile for the PLAAF, the FAS or the Pentagon would start to make loud noises by now. So aside from the fact that this bomber suppose to carry CJ-10 cruise missile, which may or may not work since the project is still in prototype stage, there really is nothing to distinguish it from other failed upgrade attampts for H-6. Default merger unless either multiple sources confirm that this bomber is in operational status, or Pentagon started to list this project as a threat in a Taiwan senario or something. Jim101 (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This citation stated that "H-6K project was wholly funded by XAC without the PLA’s support." It just means PLAAF would not aquire this brand of bomber unless H-6K sell well internationally or completely blow everybody's mind. In a Tu-16 airframe, that is a tall order. Jim101 (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd merge, if the specs are significantly different, a second specs section can be used within the main article. Other articles cover variants in a separate article if necessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

F-35 testing

F-35 testing has been created. It's an unsourced list of F-35 test serial numbers that I had previously removed from the main F-35 page as non-notable. - BilCat (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Still not notable! PROD added. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, non-notable and unreferenced, PROD is the only humane thing to do. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:User name one removed the PROD tag, saying "will find references within next week starting on January 2nd when i get back from wiki break. otherwise you can userfy it to my userspace". - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Quelle surpreez! It's only going to get harder next year. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Was the PROD for being unreferenced or non-notable. Adding sources won't magically make it notable! -SidewinderX (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Both. I've added a couple of tags to ensure the Titanic effect. Seriously though, we are going to be batting some rubbish out next year and it will become an overwhelming full-time job. I worry. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Shall we go to AfD? - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] Actually, they are not serials, but rather codes assigned by the manufacturer to the various developmental prototypes. The chart shows the purpose of each of the prototypes. I recall that when I first explained the coding system, editors there were appreciative in that it was helpful to their understanding; might it not then be a reasonable deconfliction table to add to the article? Perhaps its inclusion should be discussed on the F-35 Talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Still boring and very un-notable, sorry. The line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise I will start an article on Tiger Moth serial numbers and list all 8,000 of them making sure to add roundels in the table code (and I can account for them all, almost!). As Rlandmann used to hammer all the time, it's unencyclopedic. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting retaining the separate article, but rather raising the point it might be better incorporated into the main article. As I mentioned, they aren't serials, and it might be encyclopedically useful to address the purposes for which these pre-production prototypes were used. In the end, macht's nichts to me, but if the editors found the info useful, it might also appeal to general readers wondering what they signify — and it's rare for manufacturer's designations to get such wide publication in the general and commercial press. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the info from first row or two of that table in text would be enough for the main F-35. Basically explain the nomenclature in the text and it would fit well in the Testing section. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Either a description or an explanation would be fine IMO. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange I cant find any reference to the aircraft having real serial numbers! Just a thought if the article actually explained what the testing was it could be usefull. A bit like:

Flight science - eight aircraft are being used to test the aircraft dynamics, flight profile and performance:

• AA-1 is the first prototype F-35A used for basic aerodynamic testing
• AF-2 will evaluate engine performance
• BF-2 will evaluate vertical take-off and transition
• CF-2 will evaluate carrier capability

Mission system - eight aircraft are being used to test various aircraft mission system:

• BF-5 will evaluate the bit of kit that stops you getting lost.

OK I made some of it up but what do you think as an idea, if anybody has any references. MilborneOne (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)