Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

→

Current and Former Operators

Quite a few of the Operators sections have been divided into "Current operators" and "Former operators" sections, often without proper citing. there is a problem with this approach, as while it is usually possible to find references to an operator ordering or receiving an aircraft type, it is often far more difficult to confirm with WP:RS that a type has been retired, particularly for minor air forces and less sexy GA-types. I propose that this sort of split should be depreciated unless we can find cast iron references for all retirements.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. The entries for former operators can include the retire date. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Never really liked the split of former and current, as this is an encyclopedia they should be in just one list with any retirement simply added to the relevant entry with a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:MilborneOne, I prefer one list with refs. - Ahunt (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree on single lists, but would really press for refs, for the original entry as well as for any retirement info. In practice we don't insist on them at present, in the sense of automatically adding c/ns when refs are absent.TSRL (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea that anyone would take any notice? I have only split article on of current and and former operaters on minor types such as the Handy Page Jetstream and the Scottish avaition Bulldog because time has moved on and many older aircraft have been replaced with 21st centuary types and i have like updating there status. Still i see your point and I don't know how to citate? I check the aircraft type and then the airforces that use it and go from there, if there not there in air force service on the wikipedia resource i put them in the former user category. I will continue to do this until asked otherwise. Lovetravel86 (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that you are making content changes based on what you've found in other wikipedia articles? If so, that's a Bad Thing - it encourages the propagation of errors. Do you have reliable sources, or would you like help finding some? bobrayner (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything that we add should be tracable to a WP:Reliable Source, and other Wikipedia articles never count as a reliable source by our standards (with many air force and airline articles being particularly poor).Nigel Ish (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-2

The Ilyushin Il-2 article needs a few eyes, an editor is adding large chunks of text, with big chunks of POV commentary, and is refusing to allow the commentary to be toned down.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Italian aircraft designations

Just for info the Italians have introduced an American style designation system for aircraft, for example the Agusta A109A is now the CH-109A the ATR-42-500 the C-42C - full list at http://www.dgaa.it/newsletter/newsletter60/AER-0-0-12.pdf MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Kaman SH-2 Seasprite merger proposal

Hi there WP:Aircraft. I've been doing a content refreshment of an article Kaman SH-2 Seasprite; I've been trying to respond to the concerns raised in the merger proposal I issued a while ago to merge the main SH2 article with the Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprite article - There were concerns that the inadequite coverage of the US Navy was going to be overshadowed by excessive coverage of the aborted Australian procurement effort. I feel the article looks a lot better now, and more suitable for a merger from its original state. To this end, I've created a mockup merged article in my sandbox - see this link. The decision to merge or not, is in the hands of consensus, currently it is running against this option. If you want to express a view, for or against, I would ask you to contribute it to the discussion. Any help in expanding and citing the Operational History wouldn't go amiss either. :P Thanks. Kyteto (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the major reasons we have so many variant articles is that WP:AIR/PC recommends only one specs chart for each military type article. In addition, some major printed reference works cover variants separately. WP:AIR has followed that pattern, as WP is not limited by print page restrictions. The SH-2 combined sandbox doesn't show the SH-2 G specs, which would make three spaces charts if we added that one. Perhaps WP:AIR needs to address that issue first, as it might mean a major revamp of how the specs on military aircraft articles are done. - BilCat (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I must admit, there is a bizarre inconsistancy to how we divide articles up be the need for specs charts. While for helicopters like the Seasprite and the Blackhawk, there is a considerable level of subdivision, others that could arguable have just as much validity to be split on that basis, are not: E.G. de Havilland Comet could be split into Comet 1, Comet 4, and SIGNIT variants as each have their own significantly different specs tables; Avro Vulcan could be split between the Tankers, the B.1, the B.2, and the Maritime Patrol; Westland's AW101/Sea King could be split between transport variants, AEW variants, ASW variants and so on; Saab's Gripen split betwee the A/Bs, the C/Ds, and the E/Fs. On one hand, there's a lot of subdivision; on other articles, that principle hasn't been applied at all. Ironically, the Comet/Vulcan articles might have come up with a fair solution to the issue, I recommend inspecting how their Design Table, although not within convention, covers the issue - it may just be worthwhile to consider as a means of dealing with this exact problem. Kyteto (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As a bit of an aside on the article of focuse itself; I didn't put the G's specs on the list as I felt that would be undue weight: There are twice as many UH-2Cs as there were SH-2Gs, yet they din't get a spec sheet either, nor did the HH-2D which had three times as many aircraft produced as the G. A question to ask is why the G should gets a spec sheet of its own, when more numerous examples of the class never have? Kyteto (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the SH-2G has different engines, and thus different (better) performance specs. Most of the UH-2Cs and HH-2Ds were upgraded to SH-2F standard, and their performances were comparable. As to the Comet, et al, not having separate specs or variant articles, it probably because no one has wanted to split them up. (We do have separate articles on the Nimrod, the Comet's even uglier yoiunger sibling.) We could adjust the Style Guide to allow more than one specs template on each page, or we could use multiple-variant tables as with most airline articles. One reason we don't use multi-variant specs tables on military aircraft pages is that it is easier to detail weapons on a specs template chart than on multiple-variant specs tables. Also, WP:AIR has never standardized specs tables used in the airliner articles, and some users have difficulty using such tables. (I rarely edited the tables myself.) That's why I brought the issue up. - BilCat (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bombardier Dash 8 page has a specs section that would seem to be the best possible model for this (albeit in table form) - items that are the same on all models are entered only once, and there is room for as many spec items as required. The only limitation is that it won't handle more than 5 or 6 models without going off the side of the page but that covers probably 90% of the types out there, rather than just a few.

	Model A	Model B	Model C
Length	29.0m	31.0m	35.0m
Span	27.0m
Etc, etc	..	..	..

It really doesn't make much sense for articles like the S-60, H-2, Comet and others to be split when there isn't enough material otherwise to justify breaking the page up - and even then it should be list of operators, list of variants etc that should be split off, and not major subvariants since that isolates them and takes them out of context unless a lot of duplication is made which in turn results in more maintenance work - especially for articles being constantly redeveloped or those prone to vandalism. The other alternative would be to have specifications pages being split off so something like:

Specifications
main article: Model A specifications
main article: Model B specifications
main article: Model C specifications
With the individual sub pages each having just the specifications for that model - though this will have the effect of making it difficult to compare versions.
While on the subject of spec tables - I am wondering if there is a reason automatic conversions cannot be made? I am referring to when the published dimensions are in imperial and we want to include the metric as well (or vis versa) - we have to make the conversion manually in the template, but having it handled by the template would simplify matters. In addition, rather than showing both imperial and metric, could the secondary system not be put in a pop up the way notes are so that for larger tables, the duplication doesn't end up going overboard? I have been pondering this as I have a problem with the Waco Standard Cabin series and Waco Custom Cabin Series pages regarding this - there isn't a single model one can point to and say - that is the main variant that can stand in for the lot, and the differences are sufficiently important that most of them should be covered, yet, I can't put them in the variants section as a number of proposed models were not built, and so lack major portions of the specifications particularly regarding length and performance.NiD.29 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of OMNI Aviation Corporation

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMNI Aviation Corporation. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Air Force

Not an article I have had much to do with or watched but noticed that the fleet list has three alternates listed. Most strange approach, normally we would just find a reliable source and use it. Before I get bold and remove it down to one sourced column do we have a back story why this strange approach was taken. The talk page has a comment from last year about none of the reliable sources are reliable so we have to use lots of them which is clearly WP:BOLLOX. Any thoughts guys. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a rather... bold way of dealing with sources which disagree. It's not how our tables usually look, but I suppose it's better than arbitrarily picking one source. (Obviously at least some of the sources are wrong some of the time; with a bit of research we might be able to find the "right" one for each row). Also, the flags aren't great either. The Dauphins get an EU flag (eurocopter... starts with euro... must be european!) even though their origin, if you had to pick a flag, is really French; meanwhile instead of making a composite flag for the F-35s somebody just got a kind of F-35 project logo and used it in lieu of a flagicon. Also, if there aren't solid numbers or broad sourcing for any of the UAVs, it doesn't really make sense to put them in the same table; couldn't they be split out into their own section? bobrayner (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Beechcraft 1900 operators list

era operates 20 1900's 17 c's, 3 d's it should be added to that article, other people with list additions and changes should list them after this. 216.67.3.61 (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as this is specific to just one article this should probably be discussed at Talk:Beechcraft 1900. There is some guideance on the subject at WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Military aircraft by nationality

Template:Military aircraft by nationality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wright stuff

Am I being particularly dense or do we not have a category or navbox for Wright Aeronautical products?!! Would appreciate someone with enough inside knowledge of what occurred 90 years ago to create these (so that I can match engines to aeroplanes) otherwise I will have a wild stab myself! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The engine navbox is at Template:Wright/Lawrance aeroengines, but I don't know of one for aircraft. I'm still retired, so if you need to retool or rename it, that is fine. BilCat (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked closer and we don't have categories or navboxes for the Wright Company, Wright-Martin and Wright Aeronautical aircraft, no aircraft currently shown at Wright-Martin. I'll make a start on it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

South Africa additions

This month a user and some IP users have added South Africa as an operator of some aircraft articles. Today, I noticed these adds to the AC-130 and UH-1Y articles based on "Re-equiping the SANDF 2008 official video". I found a video on Youtube by this name here dated July 2012. This is some made-up video to look like a wish list for South Africa's military. I have not seen any reports of export sales for the AC-130 or UH-1Y yet. I wanted to point this out in case others see similar activity on other articles. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Good heads up! Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fnlayson. I can verify that the AC-130 and UH-1Y are not in South African service and have not been ordered. Darren (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Kyteto's August update

Hi WP:Aircraft. Been up to a few things on various aircraft, though to throw up a summary incase anyone wants to join in and take advantage of what's been done.

Significant content development to the Design section of the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit - I was trying to drag this up to the same standard as the other major bomber articles, I'm fairly happy with the results.
Expansion of the Aeritalia G.222, I'm mainly drummed the Development section into a better state; however the Operational History is still lousey to be honest.
I've been trying to lick the Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King into shape, I've never felt the article does the aircraft justice. Development and Operational History are both still quite lacking, in my opinion.
Proposed a merger of Lockheed C-69 Constellation and Lockheed L-049 Constellation; comments are welcome.
Tuning work on Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, I've been trying to more appropriately place existing content rather than develop more; note the tag placed within the Design section. Kyteto (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Overhaul of British Aerospace Harrier II has been conducted.
Overhaul of BAE Systems Hawk has been partially conducted. Kyteto (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Appeal for assistance: I'm still bothered on the state of the Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King; in my opinion, the coverage is fairly inadequite, Development needs details of later variants and the Design section needs citing - I'll keep trying, assistance is appreciated however. Kyteto (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

B-26 Operators

The B-26 has a non-standard operators page at List of units using the B-26 Marauder during World War II which has a lot of detail which would normally be in the squadron/unit articles. Should this be converted into the more standard List of Martin B-26 Marauder operators and some of the detail removed? MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO we should move the article as you have suggested, keep the paragraph at the top of the list (not the lede) as the lede, and just have some blue links and redlinks as normal. IMO the info about bases and decorations is completely unneccessary in this list; IMO two of the sources mentioned in the present lede are not WP:RS either. YSSYguy (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now converted to more standard fare at List of Martin B-26 Marauder operators. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of personal air vehicles

I just found this table-article from 2009. It looks like a very incomplete and almost unreferenced mess of WP:OR. Any thoughts or should it go straight to WP:PROD? - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

PROD away. It could be turned into a list I suppose if you had clear sourcing for the types in question being PAVs.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The parent article Personal air vehicle is a bit of a mess as well! MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, it needs some serious work too. - Ahunt (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Armed Forces Out of Service Equipment

Just found Syrian Armed Forces Out of Service Equipment created in May 2012, doesnt look like a standard article! not sure that http://www.worldairforces.com is a reliable source either. MilborneOne (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Article has been PRODded. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I made a note here to not forget to go back to the article, then forgot it! MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

For historical stuff I would trust worldairforces.com more than most webpages used as references - each country's page has a list of references, and he indicates how reliable he thinks each item of information is, and he makes occasional updates (just wish he'd do the big countries). For this though since it is so recent I wouldn't have used it. Perhaps it should be merged with current equipment page into a general page of Syrian Armed Forces equipment? It is often difficult (if not impossible) to tell if something is really out of service, or whether some were disposed of, while the rest were stored away for contingencies and I doubt that Syria is in the habit of announcing the retirement of equipment the way the US or UK has sometimes been known to do - so most of it would be guesses by analysts that have a history of getting these things wrong anyway.NiD.29 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Burl's Aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burl's Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fairey Gannet

Can somebody take a look at the recent changes made to Fairey Gannet? Good, bad, or? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The user has split the article and created a non-attributed Fairey Gannet AEW article, not always the best idea to create a copyright violation. I didnt think we used flags for operators either, just countries. No part of Hammersfan changes but Harness restraint issues appears to have been given undue weight. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Since when has forking been a good idea? Well not perhaps a fork as such. But its not as if the article was overlong and could not have covered the AEW version without undue (yes, harness restraint looks to be a case of undue) attention. Some articles we have cover multiple variants (bomber, night fighter, trainer, etc) and substantially different specifications with little problem. Assuming a direct revert is not appropriate, I suggest a merge discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It was substantially different from the ASW version (different exhaust trunking, new fin and rudder, redesigned canopy etc) - moreso than the Grumman S-2 Tracker and Grumman E-1 Tracer and they are split. The ASW versions can be linked from pages discussing ASW and AEW can be linked from pages about AEW without it being ambiguous or using mid-page links. I prefer them split. What do you mean by non-attributed - is seems to have plenty of refernces (though I am in now way suggesting it can't have more). I removed the unneccessary flag and the external images, as well as made the mid-stream gallery a bit less obstrusive - it should probably be removed though as it seems to be :OR.NiD.29 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Copying text from one article to make another without saying where it came from is a copyright violation. We have a number of templates that can be used to link back to attribute the edits to the original authors and at least a comment in the edit summaries helps. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK - trimmed seatbelt section on main page down to size - two quotes duplicating each others material and further duplicating the preceeding text was a bit much. Can an attribution for the copyright vio be fixed after the fact?NiD.29 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that technically it can through templates on the talk page that say "this article copied text from article X in edit Y" and vice versa for the other article, I don't recall the names of the templates, though... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC

Template:Copied is one. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is to be kept then I think Fairey Gannet AEW.3 would be a better article name, Gannet AEW is a made-up name so we should not use it if possible. MilborneOne (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to add I have moved it per WP:BOLD MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about the external images - an editor has readded an image with no fair use provisions and it clearly is covered by copyright.NiD.29 (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Its also not a reliable source so we should not link to it. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I see my list of accidents was removed! are we now ignoring accidents in military aircraft articles? MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It was my interpretation of Wikipedia:AIRCRASH#Aircraft_articles. If you disagree put it back in. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading it again I think you are right - I will find an appropriate list article to put them in. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No reason why the number of accidents shouldn't be mentioned, and if a source had commented on whether they were unusually common or uncommon. For my part 21 (if my maths is correct) aircraft lost out of 44 built seems high. Though equally there is the long service history to compensate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The text at AIRCRASH really concerns individual accident entries. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Operators

Noticed that some aircraft articles split the military operators between current and former operators, as an encyclopedia we shouldnt worry to much about such divisions I feel they should be in alpha order and the text properly cited can mentioned when an operator retires the type. Sure this is a recent change but I propose that we only have one operators list in those articles that list all military operators. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Just another moan on some articles we dont list civil operators at all either because they are not particularly notable and small numbers are involved or with thousands of aircraft in service in ones and twos it just isnt encyclopedic. On the other hand we list every military operator and sometimes on an aircraft type without a civil list some really minor and non-notable military operators can be listed. It appears to be a preset bias for minor military operators. An example is Piper PA-28 Cherokee where we obviously dont list civil users but we do list some really small non-notable military users. So are military users however small and insignificant to the type really that notable to list? MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, all military users are indeed notable and worthy of listing, because they are military (it sounds a bit circular, I know, but it's the best way to put it). Military service is notable for aircraft - any military service is significant to the type. Agree that fomer/current shouldn't be broken out into sections tho. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The number of military operators is small - worst case is ~200 countries with an average around 2 operators per country - contrast with civil operators where there can be many thousands in a single country (the Beech 18 or C-47 for example). Just one airframe may have had a dozen or more civil operators - check out the registrations listed here, with few of those having pages to link to. When most operators have pages, then it might be do-able, but many pages remain to be written. Any cutoff point between major (and thus worthy of inclusion) and minor will be arbitrary, impossible to maintain, a source for contention and impossible to complete. If it was used by a particular airline by all means list it on the page for the airline (many of these lists are grossly incomplete, especially for earlier airlines), but even splitting off a page of users for some popular commercial types would result in pages several times the recommended maximum page size, and would be of little use since the wiki page search function will return their operator pages (if they are so listed).NiD.29 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks for the comments, understand that we should list military operators but in most cases (particularly light aircraft and helicopters) we dont need a list of civil operators which is I believe the current consensus. We should however remove the current/former split. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - each entry can in any case indicate retirement date (when known).NiD.29 (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that service with an air force etc is any more important than with a civil operator. In particular, if a force which only ever had one or two of a type, for example experimental, impressed, acquired from the enemy or bought in an emergency, possibly illegally (think Spanish Civil War), etc I'd be inclined not to list them. I also think, though it might be tiresome, that list entries without cites should be removed after suitable c/n exposure: over the years particular aircraft accrete owners, without substantiation. Suspect some editors make a bit of a hobby of this -)!TSRL (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that they need to be cuted, but military service is very notable for any type. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wars are the gold standard of notable events as they affect a large number of people, and ultimately involve all the aircraft operated by each of the participants, while events affecting airlines are rarely notable to anyone other than themselves - including if they used a particular aircraft or not. This applies even to very minor types that may have seen no action - they are notable because they were there. That Pan-Am may (or may not) have operated Cessna T-50s is of little importance outside a listing of Pan-Am aircraft. That the Brazilian Air Force or Navy operated a similar number during WW2 on the other hand is a chapter in that country's military history. Far more notable.

The listing of civil operators can quickly become WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:LAUNDRY, while military operators won't. If a reasonably complete list is possible, include it, however these notices have been placed on articles where the number of operators is in the thousands and would include many redlinks and barely notable organizations.

"experimental, impressed, acquired from the enemy or bought in an emergency, possibly illegally (think Spanish Civil War), etc " - these are unusual and by definition interesting and there are more written references to these than for the users of many commercial aircraft.

BTW WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS needs updating as it mentions a past operator section that should be deprecated.NiD.29 (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

AD-1 Oblique Wing

User:RadioFan has jsut created an article AD-1 Oblique Wing about an RPV drone used by NASA. I suspect thay have confused the RPV with the NASA AD-1. Not ideal I have moved the new article back to the original DSI/NASA Oblique Wing RPV but most of the content is for the real AD-1 not the RPV. All a bit of a mess. MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh and just to confuse I have redirected AD-1 Oblique Wing to the real NASA AD-1 MilborneOne (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oblique wing needs updating. It says this is a variable geometry design, but the RPV seems to have a fixed wing? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft of the President of the United States

A user has boldy converted Army One into Aircraft of the President of the United States! MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I really think that a new article should have been created instead of using Army One's edit history to serve as the history of the new article... then merges could be done onto it, but now, it looks odd if you go to the talk page, or go back through the history. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All a bit of a mess, really needs to be reverted and done properly, any suggestions? MilborneOne (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure it is technically correct as it is about callsigns used rather than actual aircraft. It also talks about callsigns used by other executives like the vice-president. MilborneOne (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs reverting and fixing from scratch! - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLOWITUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep as is: The fact is that Army One/Two, Navy One/Two, and Coast Guard One/Two, while notable, don't have enough information in them to warrant stand-alone articles. Exec One and AF2 may not either. Therefore, it makes the most sense to merge those three to five articles into a single article, and Aircraft of the President of the United States is as good a title as any for it p b p 15:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Totally revert and make a completely new article. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But you do agree that there isn't enough information on the Army, Navy and Coast Guard callsigns to justify whole articles for them, right? p b p 16:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont think anybody has said that a combined article on the callsigns would be bad idea just the mess that has been made of the article histories and loss of copyright attribution. The article name is not right anyhow as the subject is about the callsigns used not the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Marine One, Navy One, Air Force One, Coast Guard One and Executive One are all sustainable as independent articles. Can each one be expanded? Sure. Should they be combined or merged? No. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Marine One and Air Force One weren't merged, and I cannot fathom having two articles for callsigns that have been used a grand total of three times p b p 22:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Inconceivable! But that word does not mean what you think it means. You can absolutely have an article on a callsign used once if there is sufficent coverage in reliable sources to show that it meets the WP:GNG. If I was a gambling man, I'd bet that there is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There is also the article Vehicles of the President of the United States, which may be a more appropriate target for a merge if the consensus is that a merge is appropriate (which IMO is not - it seems to me this is another case of a solution looking for a problem). That article certainly could do with some fleshing out, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. YSSYguy (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Focus article for September: Vickers Viscount

Hi there WP:Aircraft; it's been a while since I tried doing one of these group projects. Thought I'd choose to one of the 'Brazabon' aircraft, the Vickers Viscount, an early turboprop aircraft that was quite successful in its day. The article's a little more, and I'm sure a lot of material can be added from various sources, simple Google searches have been pulling up good results at a glance. I'll be working on it in the coming days, and I'd look forward to accompanying editors to help me slog away at it. What help can be spared will be appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I will observe and pitch in if I can. You have already inspired me indirectly to pay some attention to the other Type II turboprop from the Brabazon recommendations - the Armstrong Whitworth Apollo. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Update, finally. I've made a big push today on the article, I suddenly found the time to really make progress with the article. Thanks to all the contributors so far, its good to see a long-undeveloped article finally getting some of the attention it deserves. If you haven't seen it already, go check it out! Kyteto (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick update: I've now successfully burnt through pretty much all the source material I planned to use; the majority of my changes have now been intergrated into the article. Kyteto (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this misleading?

Is adding an airline to a list of say 747 operators misleading if the airline only operated they type on short lease without applying any markings of the company to it? for example Afghan airline Ariana used 747s through other airlines on contract for a few months to fly pilgrims for Hajj, these aircraft were not part of Ariana fleet and did not even carry the airlines logo or title to identify them being used by Ariana, so can Ariana be listed as a 747 former operator? 59.103.205.19 (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Only if they actually operated them most Hajj charters are wet-leases or charters so dont count as "being operated". MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

But historical fleet section of Ariana article is listing 747, which is misleading information as these were not flown by them. 119.154.190.23 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography of encyclopedias: Aviation

Assistance needed in building this. List as many encyclopedia/biographical references books on this subject as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on articles, please...

Romanian IPs are once again hitting George de Bothezat‎ and de Bothezat helicopter attempting to change his nationality to Romanian using dubious sources (or no sources at all). More eyes on this would be appreciated - as would help to determine sources to settle this once and for all (one way or the other!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Another watcher.TSRL (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That can't hurt! - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit dispute over Aircraft article lead

Hi,

Hoping a few of you can help clear the air at Talk:Aircraft#Blurb_about_rockets_and_missiles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Very early jet: Coandă-1910 at peer review

Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Coandă-1910/archive1 if you would like to help review the controversial experimental jet Coandă-1910 made by Henri Coandă, the Romanian inventor. Was it the first jet? Or did it never fly? Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Blackburn B.20.jpg

file:Blackburn B.20.jpg has been nominated for deletion as unsourced -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

Japanese-based IPs from several different IP ranges have been vandalizing the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey article again. Could an admin semi-protect the article for 3-7 days please? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The V-22 Osprey article has been vandalized a good bit since early this month. Previously it was semi-protected in early August after similar vandalism related to MV-22 deployment to Okinawa, Japan. The IPer(s) use an IP address to vandalize once then switch to another address. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

semi-protected. MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, esp for making it indef! BilCat (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

A user has requested that Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor be moved to F-22, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this, it looks perfect now with the manufactuer name and otherwise this would be needed for every jet-fighter article. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As above, except I'd say counterproductive rather than merely un-necessary. Present name is as other aircraft articles. There are such things as redirects.TheLongTone (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Instead of here, please express your thoughts on this at Talk:Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Requested_move. - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Pro-Composites

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Composites. - Ahunt (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The nomination for this deletion was withdrawn by the nominator, but anyone who has refs that could more firmly establish notability are requested to add them to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm I do wish people would stop using AFDs for initial discussions - that's not its intended role, as this withdrawal clearly shows. - BilCat (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that was my thought, too. Now I just have to go to the main library and pour though Janes to cement this one. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to complete this thread, I have now gone to the central library and found complete rundowns in four recent editions of Jane's and added those. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Help requested for new article

Hello - I just wrote a new article, Peniche (fluid dynamics). It has a couple of sources, but I would greatly appreciate someone with an understanding of aerodynamics taking a look and checking the accuracy. Feel free to add, subtract, or change whatever seems needed. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

IAR 111

Can someone look at IAR 111? It seems to be contradictory, saying it's a carrier plane, but has no landing gear, and landing/takeoff on the sea surface. The design seems to have air intakes on the bottom of the plane (see references used, with pictures of air intakes), so if it has no landing gear, then these would be submerged on landing or takeoff... drowning the jet engines. (and being giant scoops, would submarine the plane when in motion...) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That could be a translation artefact. One of the sources says:

ARCA lucrează la primul avion supersonic românesc, care va fi folosit pentru lansarea rachetelor în spaţiu şi, poate, la turism spaţial ... Pentru a putea utiliza avionul la lansarea rachetelor în spaţiu, este necesar ca acesta să decoleze de pe suprafaţa Mării Negre, astfel că, supersonicul românesc va fi, de fapt, un hidroavion. "O să ruleze pe suprafaţa apei până ajunge la 150 de kilometri pe oră, după care se va desprinde, o să urmeze un zbor în palier, adică orizontal la circa 600 de kilometri la oră, după care începe o urcare destul de accentuată până la 16.000 de metri, iniţial la un unghi de înclinaţie mai mic, după care, spre final, zborul va fi aproape pe verticală", a declarat Dumitru Popescu. La această altitudine avionul va elibera racheta care va urma programul de zbor propriu. Avionul E - 111, fără sarcina utilă acroşată, va reveni planat pe suprafaţa mării.

"Carrier" may actually mean that it's a transport aircraft, designed to carry stuff. bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is intended to carry a "rocket payload" up to 18,000 m and release it, so last comment sounds right. Also the aircraft itself is rocket powered according to the article, so no need of air intakes.TSRL (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is clearly a "carrier" as in "launch aircraft" like the White Knight. Those supersonic-intake looking things are in fact the front ends of floats streamlined for supersonic flight. What looks like the inside of an air intake in some frontal images is just the under surface in shadow. The article could make these points a bit clearer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability of The Ruptured Duck (B-25)

Would anyone care to give an opinion as to how The Ruptured Duck (B-25) fits in with the project notability guidance. I personally don't see that its notability is established in the lede but that may be a case of omission of key info rather than that it is not notable in wikipedia terms. I don't want to suggest an AfD discussion without good cause. If it is notable, shouldn't it be at The Ruptured Duck (aircraft) (Ruptured Duck (aircraft) is currently a redirect).GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure this was discussed before (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 2#Ruptured_Duck) in 2008. As far as I can see Lawson is notable as he wrote a book but the aircraft was just one of many in the raid, the article seems to be a coathook to add more biog stuff. As much info as you need to know on the aircraft is already listed in a table at Doolittle Raid and Lawson already has an article so I suspect this could be chopped. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Now nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ruptured Duck (B-25). MilborneOne (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Maiden flight dates

For information Maiden flight dates is being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maiden flight dates. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Eyes requested on Aero L-39 Albatros

A POV editor on this article is adding every incidence of use in the Syrian civil war, along with YouTube refs that don't support the text. I have tagged these refs as "verification failed", but he keeps removing the tags and has now moved onto personal attacks while doing so. I have attempted to get a discussion going on the talk page but he isn't talking. I have warned him, but this article really needs some more editors watching it to make sure it doesn't deteriorate into a political diatribe and remains about an aircraft type. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for November: British Aerospace 146

As a follow-up to the productive work on Vickers Viscount, I've taken an interest in this article. Considering its claim to be "the most successful British civil jet programme", it seems highly noteworthy and thus of value for further content development. Although it would be no small feat to do so, it would be nice to build up an Operational History section for the type, who were the big major customers, things of note that it was employed for, incidents it became involved in. With over 300 aircraft built, there has to be a fair few bits of information that hasn't made it into what's there right now: including a good paragraph or three to cover its winding-down. I'll hit the books in the coming days and see what I can find. Thanks in advance! Kyteto (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I've decided to be quite ambitious with my editing work today, and have created a full-fledged seperate Design section for the article. If anyone has the spare time to help populate and flesh it out, it would be really appreciated. I'll keep slogging away at it tomorrow with any luck. Kyteto (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've pretty much burned through all the additions and sources I had planned. Does anyone have time to review or make comments? Kyteto (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A fledgling Operational History section has been launched; however it is very bare-bones presently. While this section does require more development, other sections are looking particularly good now; most of the sorely-needed work appears to be done. Can anyone spare any time to expand on the operational history? Kyteto (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Combat engagements

I notice that a number of articles on particular aircraft and missile types are growing accounts of specific combat engagements or even mere encounters, most of which appear to me to be not particularly notable from the historic perspective and, frankly, not sufficiently encyclopedic to include on Wikipedia. These accounts are mostly to be found in the sections on Operational history.

Examples include (but are not limited to):

Is there any guidance on how deep these articles should dig into such military operations?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any guidance beyond Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Operational_history, which simply says "Describing the history of the aircraft in use. This section is something like a "biography" of the aircraft." And "For information on when it is appropriate to include the aircraft the registration, serial numbers, construction numbers and other individual identifiers in an article or captions, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations."

We can certainly develop more specific guidance than that! - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thousand Up, thanks

Give or take one or two I have just created my 1000th aircraft type article (Sopwith Sociable). I cant claim to be the most prolific creator of articles but I could not have done it without the support of the project. So I would just like to thank everbody involved, the guys who tidy up after me with typos and stuff, those that greatly expand the articles, those that do the article assement and move them on up the assesment scale, those that keep an eye on recent changes and keep the articles sane, the vandal storm troopers who keep trouble at bay. Thanks to you all. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to raise a metaphorical glass of yummy bubbly stuff and say "Cheers! To MilborneOne". YSSYguy (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done, keep up the good work! - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This is worthy of celebration; quite an achievement! I'd like to thank the participants of the project for all thier work; it is to them that this project owes so much. Kyteto (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done MilborneOne! Keep up the good work. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, very well done. Must be time for a lie down and a Jaffa cake! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty awesome, really. I don't suppose I've made that many edits over the same period. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the grand! Most impressive; and you combine this with getting folks like me started, tidying up our messes, calming disputes ... Brilliant!TSRL (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Golden Hawks

A user is keen to add pilot biographies to the Golden Hawks team article. Although the edit has been challenged the user believes we have to find a reason why he cant add them rather than them making a case and gaining consensus. Bzuk was the original challenger but I have reverted it twice so it could do with some new eyes on it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Coming to the party almost a day later, it looks as if a consensus is now close or even touching. Do you still have a problem to deal with? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Bzuk is making some suggestion to try and gain a consensus so other opinions would help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Manufacturer-based aircraft navigational boxes

One of the projects nav boxes Template:Thaden aircraft has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012 December 1#Template:Thaden aircraft, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

List of aircraft shootdowns

Maybe more for the military project but I came across this quality! article List of aircraft shootdowns. I removed links to some war and military action articles that we not clearly shootdown specific. No point in just linking to a war. We also have the similar Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses. It probably could do with something doing to it, any ideas? MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is very incomplete and an a bit indiscriminate. Does it add much over Category:Aircraft shootdown incidents? - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

DASA

DaimlerChrysler Aerospace was originally at DASA, the common name of the company. It was moved to the current name in 2006 by a now-defunct user with the summary "Make room for DMB - this is a defunct susbsid and there is no reason for it to have the namespace over a current government agency". I think he was referring to Defence Analytical Services and Advice, which was created a few months later. Anyway, DASA the company appears to be the clear primary topic, and was always used by the company, inspite of several name changes (Deutsche Aerospace AG, Daimler-Benz Aerospace AG, and DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG). We still have a few links pointing to DASA that were never corrected in 2006. Any thoughts on whether it's worth moving the page back to DASA? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Should DASA perhaps be a disambiguation page, since it seems to stand for multiple organizations? - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could point it to Dasa (disambiguation); things called "DASA" are not always capitalised that way, and there are other subjects called "Dasa"... bobrayner (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Google reveals that there are quite a lot of things called DASA, and I suspect that over time more of these will need to be disambiguated. Pointing DASA at dasa does seem the neatest way towards the future. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't usually pre-disambiguate until we actually have other articles to the point that there is no primary topic. If there's no consensus that DASA is the most common name for the company, then I'm fine leaving DASA as a redirect at this point. I'm still not sure that "DaimlerChrysler Aerospace" is the best title for the article, as it was only in effect for about 2 years, but there really isn't a clear common alternative other than DASA. Perhaps "Deutsche Aerospace" as the spelled out version of DASA, even though it wasn't that commonly used. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Cold war categories

A user has been adding Foo aircraft of the Cold War categories to aircraft articles, a bit of a wide defintion, presumable anything used between 1946 and the 1990s. Not sure if it fits in with our by war categorisation. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Helicopters also. - BilCat (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The cat seems to be added somewhat indiscriminately, such as to modern variants/derivitives of historic aircraft, such as to the Sikorsky CH-53K Super Stallion page. - BilCat (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be a newish user who probably found one of those script-things to add cats, I suspect they dont really have any in depth knowledge of the subject. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for December: Hawker Siddeley Nimrod

Hi WP: Aviation Ifelt it was time to clear one of the long-standing candidates on my to-do list, the recently retired Hawker Siddeley Nimrod. Although perhaps more famous in later years for several tragic losses, it was a traditional workhorse in support roles to many large military operations and a staple part of European anti-submarine patrols during the Cold War. The article could use a good spruce up, particularly in its Design section. For an aircraft directly descended from the first ever jetliner, there's a fair bit that hasn't made it into the current article, I'll be doing my bit to contribute over the coming weeks: I look forward to seeing you there as well. Thanks! Kyteto (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to get some time to start working on the Design section, and made some headway on it. If anyone can help fill in the avionics and equipment details, that would be a big help. Kyteto (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, a lot of work on the design section has gone ahead; does anybody have any more to add? I'm considering putting the article in for GAN; the Operational History could use some tweaking IMO, but it's minor compared to how it was just last week. Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Fins and foils

An experienced editor created this new nav box on 14 November 2012 and since then has been adding it to many aviation related articles, such as Airfoil, Chord (aircraft), Leading edge, Trailing edge, Propeller and so on as detailed in the nav box. I wanted to discuss this nav box here and see if there is a consensus as to whether it should be kept in aviation-related articles or not. My main concern is that I am not convinced that it is all that useful to readers as it seems to list a very loosely tied together collection of articles like aircraft parts with boomerangs and boat sails. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it at all! I removed it from one article (aircraft flight control system) as that is about the systems, not the surfaces and it wasn't linked. In two other articles I moved it as it had been placed below 'aviation lists', I didn't remove it because the subjects were included as links but I guessed that we would be having a chat about this template. The image of a shark looks very out of place when you open it from an aviation article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that the template creator put it back in that article after you had removed it too. I left a note about this discussion here on Template talk:Fins and foils, so hopefully we will get some wide input on the usefulness of the template, including from the editor that created it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We cant just have navboxes for random navigation of vague ideas, a bit like a navbox for things painted blue. Suggest it is kept out of aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That was kind of my thought - that the box is pretty indiscriminate in what it collects together, similar to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Ahunt (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all comments made. It should be removed from anything aircraft-related. In fact, I think it should be deleted from Wikipedia altogether - I can't think of a topic where it would be any use. Meanwhile, I also pinged the editor's talk page, see here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFD is an option. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, TFD is probably the best option at this point, as it will give the template a fair herring. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

By all means delete the template if it is so upsetting to aviation people. I guess I was coming from a different mindset, looking at the role of fins and foils as an evolution which has occurred in many independent contexts, but with the same underlying principles, as sketched, for example, in the article on fins. Nothing vague about that to my mind, certainly nothing like "things painted blue", but we all see things our own way. I apologise if I reinstated the template on an article. I added it to articles in stages, and failed to notice it had been removed from that article. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has now gone quiet for a couple of days, so perhaps we have heard from everyone interested. I am reading the main consensus here to remove the box from aviation articles and presumably also to remove the links in the box to them, although second option seem to be to send the box to TFD. Based on the split conclusion I am inclined to go with the former as the box may be useful to other projects, rather than send it for deletion discussion. Any thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Epipelagic, thank you for a calm and polite response. The longer I hang around here, the more I appreciate such things. @Ahunt, Yes there has been a reasonable consensus for removing it from aircraft articles. I don't think we have any kind of consensus to go messing with the template itself, and while TFD seems our own best idea, we are simply going to remove/ignore it as far as aircraft are concerned – so what real reason do we have to put it forward for discussion? Live and let live might be more appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

- Simply removing it from Aviation related article seems fine to me. I think tightening the scope of what the template covers would be enough. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The template is about stepping back and taking an overview of fins and foils, which have played key roles in biological evolution for over 400 million years, as well as key roles in modern technology over the last 200 years. The article on fins hardly scratches the surface in setting this out as a topic. The template also has a fairly precise scope – it is clear which articles belong on the template and which don't. If all reference to aircraft fins and foils are to be removed then the template as a whole fails in its purpose and should be deleted. The issue should not revolve around whether the reference to aircraft fins and foils should be removed, but whether the template itself is fundamentally misconceived, and should be discarded. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Have to say, I think we bunch of aero grouches are the wrong people to be discussing the template for its own sake. Best we leave it to those who already have a positive vision for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And we tend to be over-protective of our WPAIR articles, perhaps even tending to WP:OWN at times. However, open discussion beforehand can help to alleviate the grouchiness somewhat. We already have the Template:Aviation lists navbox, and linking to the main article on aerodynamics might be the best soluition for our articles. As to the navbox itself, the name is definetly too informal, and should probabla include aerodynamics and hydrodynamics in its title, if it is kept. - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled the template, and may replace it with a modified one. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I tracked down the removal of this template to this discussion. I think the discussion to be valid but the outcome of pulling the template from the article to be incorrect, albeit performed in good faith. I believe that this discussion has been held in too narrow a context. If the template was to be deemed not to be useful then Templates for Discussion was the correct place. It is not the case that a misguided editor has created carnage. Indeed the rationale described here for the creation is sound.

It may be that narrower cast templates for the individual groupings are more appropriate, but, in the wider scheme of things, the commonality of fins and foils across multiple interest areas is indicated strongly by this template. Part of our job is to interest Wikipedia readers in wider issues. As such I see this template's wider value. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent, but the fact is that the aviation people have decided that articles within the scope of their project should not appear on the template, and that makes the template unworkable. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Epipelagic has started a new template at Template:Fins, limbs and wings, which excludes aviation subjects. It makes good sense to me. - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And to sew this issue up User:Epipelagic blanked the template in question after starting the new template at Template:Fins, limbs and wings and so I listed the old template for WP:CSD and it has now been deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Glider aircraft

Glider aircraft has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Glider aircraft -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 6mouv

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6mouv. - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You can note that it was speedily deleted as spam. - Ahunt (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wings Over Kansas

An old article at Wings Over Kansas, is this website really notable (as one of 500 best website in 2001). Lot of aviation websites around but what makes one jump over the notability high jump, like airliners.net. I think NYCAviation is also in this iffy is it really notable area. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Marsh Aviation

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsh Aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-115?

I've just encountered the Kamov Ka-115 article on a Russian light helicopter, which allegedly, first flew in 1999 and is in production. While the article doesn't seem to be a complete hoax (Brassey's 98-99 refers to first flight being due "Not before 1999", while Jane's 2003–2004 mentions that "...there have been no progress reports on this light utility helicopter programme in recent years", I cannot find any hints in reliable sources that it is (or has been) in production, has flown or even actually progressed beyond a mock-up. Does anyone have any useful sources? And if it is an abandoned, unflown project with no hardware built, does it warrant an article?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The article currently claims it was flown in 1999, but if it does turn out to be an unflown project, because it is a well-known manufacturer, it should probably be retained, as per criteria 6. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems genuine enough, wouldn't trust the references given though. No mention of it in the Flight archive or Kamov's own website. The intended engine seems likely, the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW200. It has articles in German, Polish and Russian, the German article says first flight in the infobox as 1999 but in the text says 'one mock-up built, has not flown as of 2005'. Sounds like an abandoned project but still worth an article, better refs would be nice. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but there are no photos on airliners.net, which would be very surprising if even a single production example had been built (a.net has a lot of photos, and some photographers deliberately seek out the rare/unusual stuff). bobrayner (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a photo on Aviastar that looks like it could be a mock up. Aviastar is problematic, though. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Jane's 2003–2004, has a photo of what looks like the same mock-up, captioned as a mock-up.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Zeppelin nomenclature

I've recently started fiddling about with the articles on these accidents waiting to happen, and have found an inconsistency in naming convention. Most seem to refer to them using the form "Zeppelin LZ2", but the articles on the later examples use the format "LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin. The main print source I have consistently uses the space, which I would imagine counts for little since British airships are consistently (eg) R33 rather than R.33 as print sources generally use. I don't have strong feelings either way, but do like consistency. Thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia articles consistently use a space, their Zeppelin navbox does as well. It would be consistent with the space used in RLM designations. Looking at the interwiki links at LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin 16 languages use the space, two don't and the remainder have a different title (Graf Zeppelin). The decider is usually the form used in the majority of English reliable sources but I would follow the Germans myself if I was creating the articles from scratch. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance at a Zeppelin museum website (I think there are two) shows them using the space, 'LZ 10' is mentioned. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Jane's 1913 mostly has spaces, though a couple of occurrences (British editorial lapses?) don't. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

All the Commons categories use a space (bar one, 'LZ54' which someone has emptied and filled 'LZ 54' instead which is the way category re-naming is subtly done on Commons!). One German language book source that I have uses the space. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the space has it. I'm curious about why List of Zeppelins has eliminated it, since I'm fairly certain the article was cloned from the equivalent German article. As far as my print sources go, I have LZ#, L.Z. #, LZ-#, but the sources I'd rate as most authoratative (Douglas Robinson & Hugo Eckener) use LZ #. Which does beg the question, why does WP use R# rather than R.#?TheLongTone (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The list was changed in May 2004 no reason was given for the new format and nobody questioned it. I would wait a while for any more voices to be heard here then the answer (assuming a positive consensus) is to move the articles, I can help with that if you like. Not looked at the 'R' numbers, we still do have a lot of inconsistency across the project but we're getting there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The titles we use should be based on what the sources call the subject. Some level of "inconsistency across the project" is unavoidable from time to time, because things in the outside world cannot always be lined up neatly as we might wish to line up articles. bobrayner (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of howls of protest, the general usage on other wikipedias & the usage in my sorces, I'm going with the space.TheLongTone (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for a name change

Need more eyes to look at what is a bit of a contentious issue in assigning a name to an aircraft-oriented article. FWiW (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wording for comparable aircraft

As we cannot seem to kill the comparable aircraft lists, how about this for a policy wording:

Comparable aircraft: This is a list of aircraft of the same era that multiple reliable sources have noted as serious competitors to the aircraft in question, either competing for the same contact or matched against each other in operations.

Okay? Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I still think WP:COMMONSENSE is the best policy... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The advice for the equivalent in the aero engine articles is...For 'comparable' engines it is desirable to limit the number of entries by selecting the closest similar types. Some useful parameters are era, layout, number of cylinders, engine displacement and power/thrust rating. It works well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with commonsense, is as we have seen with comparable aircraft lists, it isn't very common.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Ship-to-Shore Connector and the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey have the same engines and I don't think anybody thinks they're comparable. Hcobb (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

LLRV or LLTV

This is a copy of text i have posted at Talk:Lunar Landing Research Vehicle:-

There seems to be much confusion between the LLTV and LLRV. The LLTV was quite disimilar from the LLRV in that it had large oleo legs on each corner instead of the Aluminium alloy trusses with pogo shock absorbers, and the cabin was sat on top of the machine instead of cantilevered out at of the side. Piccies illustrating the point can be found at:

which show LLTVs suspended by a special rig to allow control, note the single large legs.

A picture of LLRVs can be found at

As can be seen they are two similar in concept, but distinctly different animals in the flesh.--Petebutt (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can any one help clear up the confusion?--Petebutt (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made a start. Not unearthed the full story but I hope it helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Euro-ALA Jet Fox

An anonymous editor has added an accusation of fraud (last line in Design and Development), unproven and without source. I was about to remove it but thought it might be better if this was done under an appropriate WP guideline.TSRL (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it as unsourced, not even sure it is particularly notable for the article either. MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Swiss Air Force

Just to note that Swiss Air Force page has large sections of text and information being added, not sure if they are copied from somewhere but if anybody else can have a look it wouldnt do any harm. I removed the list of serial numbers a twice but the user keeps addign it back in! Certainly as it stands the article will need a lot of work to restore it to some order. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Identical slabs of text have been added to Radar control, an article which ought to be quite important, but currently needs a lot of love.

I believe the text has been translated manually (not machine translation) by somebody who speaks more German than English. Original text is here. bobrayner (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

...which in turn looks like it was copy-pasted from a Swiss air force publication (in German), but I don't have a copy so I can't check the copyright status. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The same range of IPs have been dumping text into the Pilatus Aircraft article, with the same tendency to adding far too many details,and no sense as to what level of coverage is appropriate on WP. Perhaps we ought to see if a fluent German speaking editor can help get the message accross. - BilCat (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the content is potentially a big improvement for articles, but there are still problems. There are lots of editors who fix thousands of typos per hour &c and cleanup after a German-to-English translation is not massively difficult - I won't lose too much sleep over that - but we should ensure that the sources are solid, that there is no copyright violation &c. And if somebody doesn't communicate and just keeps on making the same edit, that's a problem in its own right. I have asked 85.1.75.33 to come here. bobrayner (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This has just been reinserted. Still no communication. This is frustrating - it's not going in a good direction. I'm sure this editor could make some much bigger improvements if only we could discuss a few things... bobrayner (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the text dump from Radar Control, it may possibly be a machine translation from de wiki. I think we need to set the Swiss Air Force article back to the last good as well as it is impossible to know where these text dumps came from. It looks like the user may have changed IP which doesnt help. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The last text I examined seemed to be manually translated rather than machine translated, for what it's worth. I think the editor may be a regular editor of similar articles on dewiki. bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

They continue to editwar to re-insert their textdumps in Pilatus Aircraft, Radar control amongst other articles - I think that semi-protection and/or blocking may be appropriate, particularly with the copyvio concerns on Radar control.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted them both - pretty obvious copyright text dumps, especially the Radar article as they didn't even strip out the footnotes from wherever they copied it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur that semi-protections and possibly blocking are needed here. Competence seems to be an issue here too, and I suspect that's not just a problem with the English language. Editors don't generally lose all editing competence simply becasue they aren't fluent in another language. :) - BilCat (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

More text-dumping at Pilatus Aircraft - I think semi- is needed here.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

He indicated that it is all unattributed text dumped from German WP, so that makes it a copyright violation. I have reverted it, but it needs protection now. - Ahunt (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is copyvio, if it's the same editor who wrote the same text on dewiki ;-) Nonetheless, something has to change. bobrayner (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless what he wrote on dewiki was already a copyvio! ;) The user has now dumped the text which was deleted from the Pilatus article onto Ahunt's talk page, which I've reverted. - BilCat (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)