Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 17

Plane 2000
	Caption caption (random free-license logo above)
Type	Airliner
Manufacturer	EADS (Airbus S.A.S.)
Maiden flight	27 April 2005
Introduced	25 October 2007
Status	Certified 12 December 2006
Number built	10 as of September 2007
Unit cost	US$ 296 – 316 million as of 2006

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 10

←

WT:Air

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

Formal deletion notice

The Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format page is up for deletion. I didn't even realize it existed. I thinks it's something that can be moved to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force's space, and perhaps expanded upon to be more general. - BillCJ 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

F-86 Sabre specifications

Lately, a question has arisen as to the information presented in the F-86 Sabre specifications table wherein the F-series is identified but due to the wide range of performance between the block numbers from F-86F-1-NA to F-86F-40-NA, the actual sub-type is not given. Is there a standard for choosing the "representative" aircraft variant that is chosen for the specifications table? by most produced? by most capable/best performing or definitive variant for modifications? It looks like the fastest and most potent of the F-86F series is actually the block 30-NA which topped out at 695 mph at sea level and while the F-86F-40-NA had a slightly higher ceiling and improved maneuverability due to an enlarged wing, the penalty paid for tighter turns at high altitude was seen in lower performance at both higher and lower ends of the envelope where is reached 678 mph at sea level. Which one of these would you choose, given that Ray Wagner's book gives full detail specifications for all F-86F block series? FWIW Bzuk 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Why not use both but identify the Sub type involved (or Block type) - I am sure the P-51A/A-36 Apachee was slower then say the P-51H I am also sure the XP-51J was lighter then the P-51H (btw the XP-51J was a lightweight experiment)

Davegnz (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Media content?

Can we have a discussion about the merits of including videos in articles? As an example, look at Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. The size of the video previews really overpowers the article. It seems to me that a link to the Commons listings would be sufficient. Comments? (Oh, and BTW, the media doesn't work in Netscape browsers...should this be a consideration, too?)AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Those things weren't a problem when they were simple links. I say either put them in a gallery or move to Commons. -Fnlayson 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen those large boxes on several aircraft articles lately, tho can't remeber which ones right off. I think the straight links are the best, with Commons as a second option. I'm not a fan of galleries, but can live with that if the consensus is for them. - BillCJ 19:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For two examples, Amelia Earhart had a discreet and well-placed video that is now no longer in the article whereas the H-4 Hercules has a much more prominent video section that like Akradecki has described, it is an example of a video that does detract from the overall graphic appearance of the article. Like BillCJ, I would have no objection to their use if there could be some means of limiting the overall size of the video "window." FWIW Bzuk 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

I would agree with User:Akradecki - the video previews overpower the article. I would suggest that the videos should be changed to a link and the previews removed. MilborneOne 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At the subject article, I've now combined everything into one gallery, and it looks more appropriate to me. Comments? AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Super! That worked well. I didn't think about images mixing in when I mentioned a gallery, but that works fine. -Fnlayson 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that some of these images still are in place, how do you reduce the size of the image? FWI Bzuk 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

New article

Just found this article, US Aircraft A-67 Dragon. Is't not bad, and seems to cite some outside sources. Definitely needs wikifying tho, if it's keepable. - BillCJ 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be keepable. Just needs work formatting and organizing first. The first sentence should say what exactly it is. -Fnlayson 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I copied it over to a sandbox before it got deleted. Hopefully I can make a decent stub article on it. -Fnlayson 00:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Project Maintenance

There is now a new page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance, that lists backlogged areas needing work, articles not covered under the assessment, etc. It is automatically updated by a bot daily. If your looking for something to do, check it out. If there is anything that you would like to see covered, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

New comparison article

I just stumbled on the new Comparison between Rolls-Royce Trent 900 and Engine Alliance GP7000 article. Do we really need an article on this? Most of the info should be merged into the A380 page, or the separate engine articles. Another alternative, considering how large the A380 page already is, would be to split off the whole engine section to a new page, possibly by moving and expanding this comparison page. Any thoughts? - BillCJ 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of this is already in the two engine articles - I don't see this page as being needed. Nigel Ish 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we discuss it here? - S. Solberg J. 16:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reason for creating the page was primarily to space for the engine comparison table, and considering the length of the article, that does make some sense. However, there are probably better ways to spin off sections of the A380 article that would be worht discussing. Perhaps an article on all the propulsion aspects of the design, including the engines, or on design features, or background, etc. One reason why it's a good idea to discuss splits and spinoffs is to get other opinions and options. Sometimes our initial ideas are good-faith attempts to improve content, but there may be better ways to accomplish the same thing, and discussions can bring that out. I'd like to recommend here that we take a look at the articlce as a whole, and see if there are sections that could be spun off and make good articles on there own. - BillCJ 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Lady Southern Cross/Lockheed Altair merge

I think that these two articles Lady Southern Cross and Lockheed Altair should be merged. It looks like I could do it but wanted to check first before upsetting anyone, any thoughts? Cheers. Nimbus227 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Infobox note

The note in the usage section here Template:Infobox Aircraft says to only list Primary user in cases where there are more than 3 More users (4 total users). That's not what's generally done in WP:Air articles. More like the top 4 users based on quantity (or other criteria maybe) are listed. I think the note should be removed or reworded to say top 3 more users. Suggestions? Opinions? -Fnlayson 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Check Wingweb citations for Air Vectors content

Greg Goebel, the editor of Air Vectors posted a notice on the Antonov An-2 talk page that an outfit named Wingweb.co.uk that is posting aviation articles which “are largely or entirely downloads of Air Vectors articles -- advertized as "original content & images" though they also lifted many of my photos and artwork.” It would be courteous to check any citations to Wingweb (including external links) that we come across and if they are copies of his work, then change the citation appropriately. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

All the external links should be gone and btw a quick google search on each on them clearly showed they were copy and paste from the Air vectors site. --McSly 18:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Unidentified Flying Object

Does anyone know what this aircraft is? A lookup of the tail number says it's a Bombardier CL-600-2C10, but it sure doesn't look like any of the aircraft in that article. --Carnildo 06:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

See: Bombardier CRJ. FWIW Bzuk 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

Listed as a Bombardier CRJ700 on Planespotters.net. -Fnlayson 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bombardier CL-600-2C10 is the official designation, it the same as the Regional Jet 700, 701 and 702 which are just marketing names (FAA Type Certificate). MilborneOne 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Carnildo 19:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on Image challenges

HELP, The following images have all been challenged:

Image copyright problem with Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:P-63 Kingcobras.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:P-59 Airacomet.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:B 26.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:B-25 refuelling.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:P-39N.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:B-25s in New Guinea.jpg Resolved
Unspecified source for Image:B 24 in raf service 23 03 05.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Capturedfw190 red.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Fw 190A starting up.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Fw 190As in flight.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Me 262 Abandoned.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88.1.jpg Deleted; copyright of digitized version of image claimed by Illinois Institute of Technology here and here.
Image copyright problem with Image:Junkers 88k2.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:Stirling of 7 sqn.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Spitfire V 316.jpg Resolved
Image copyright problem with Image:Mosquito Fighter-bomber.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:DH98 Mosquito bomber.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:Hawker Typhoon.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:Beaufighter252sqn.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:Short Shetland.jpg
Image copyright problem with Image:Fairey Barracuda.1.jpg
Unspecified source for Image:Westland Whirlwind prototype.jpg

All of these images will be removed by TabooTikiGod who has made the sweeping challenges. I believe they can all fall under

This work created by the United Kingdom Government is in the public domain.

This is because it is one of the following:

It is a photograph taken prior to 1 June 1957; or
It was published prior to 1974; or
It is an artistic work other than a photograph or engraving (e.g. a painting) which was created prior to 1974.

HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply)
More information.

See also Copyright and Crown copyright artistic works.

or

This image is a work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee of the Department of the Air Force, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain in the United States.

or other appropriate PD tags. Can you help! Bzuk 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

In reference to your claim, the webmaster of the website WWII in Color has a FAQ website which states the following:

"Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners. This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions)."

It further states:

"However, some of the images were photographed by private individuals, media or other government entities (such as the United Kingdom) that do not fall under public domain law."

Therefore, the images which you have uploaded directly from the website, unless specified, are not public domain. These images all have unverified sources which you have uploaded to Wikipedia and the Wiki Commons. -TabooTikiGod 23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the site and there is also a notation that the images are: "100% Public Domain" (Content is in the public domain, but privacy and publicity rights may still apply. For example, you can't use a photograph of John Wayne in a Viagra TV commercial without getting permission from his estate.) The rest of the quote which was not stated is: : an image in this gallery contains an unknown copyright status (these notices are available beneath the photo captions. NOTE: I am currently implementing this, not all images are marked) then it shall be known that it is being displayed on this website under the 'fair use' doctrine under U.S. copyright law that provides for the licit, non-licensed citation or incorporation of possible U.S. copyrighted material. In a nutshell, this means that those images, according to US law, can only be used by this website for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research and is therefore not an infringement of copyright as this website's sole purpose is to educate and research the World War II era.

Furthermore, ww2incolor.com complies and is protected in other countries under 'Fair Dealing' [CDPA] (United Kingdom, Canada)."

This issue has been reviewed before and was thought to have been resolved, now this crusader arrives with a new interpretation. I have already asked for a review by admins who have been involved previously. Bzuk 23:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

In reference to your claim, you have cited from the following: FAQ to Purchase CD The images on the CD for purchase are US Public Domain, however, the website does not state that all of the images on the website WWII in Color are public domain. Please see website FAQ about images. -TabooTikiGod 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Only the images that have a questionable status should be in question and the website indicates that. The others have no contentious issues of copyright and are believed to be in the public domain. The CD is based on the very same images that are displayed on the website. FWIW Bzuk 23:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC).

From what I have read, please see the FAQ on the website "This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions)" Please see WP:IUP -TabooTikiGod 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss first

{Deindent) First, TabooTikiGod, you really should have gone and brought this up for discussion first. Major actions like this, when done unilaterally, are both disruptive and plain rude. Common sense can prevail here. Yes, there might be images that are questionable, but with a little effort, they can be weeded out. To blanketly tag all as such, especially when some images are necessarily PD because of where they were shot from, is unnecessary. Let's try to approach this with a little common sense, shall we? I'll start looking through these and start trying to sort it out. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, these images meet the criteria for speedy deletion, I do not make up the rules for this criteria--Wikipedia does. Yes, these images are indeed in question, primarily the source which is for all intent and purposes--uncited and therefore not public domain. The webmaster on WWII in Color even has a disclaimer under the FAQ section. I suggest you learn how to communicate with other users on Wikipedia without resorting to making claims that I do not have any common sense. See WP:CIVIL -TabooTikiGod 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

image analysis

I didn't say you didn't have common sense, but I don't think you were exercising it. And before you go lecturing someone on not knowing how to communicate, consider that you could have made this whole process a lot easier for everyone by communicating first that there was a concern. Take for instance, the air-to-air shots in a war...had to have come from another Air Corps plane, so they were taken by somone during their duties, and therefore common sense says that there shouldn't be a problem with these.

Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.jpg: This was clearly taken from another Army air corps plane...and is obviously PD.
- I found a couple of other instances of this photo online including page 145 of the book Best of the National Air and Space Museum by F. Robert Van Der Linden (ISBN 0060851554) and as part of the online gallery at littlefriends.co.uk where it is credited to Al Richards, the pictured pilot's brother. I reassigned its license to PD-USGov. -- Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:P-63 Kingcobras.jpg: same as above...air-to-air inherently must be PD because of where it was shot.
Image:P-59 Airacomet.jpg: same, air-to-air

First 3, saving before looking at more. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:B-25 refuelling.jpg: This one could go either way. Bzuk, you noted on your license tag that the author had released it...I don't see that on the original site, can you point me two where you got this info?
Image:P-39N.jpg: Given the location and setting, could not have been taken by anyone other than another serviceman.
Image:B-25s in New Guinea.jpg: air-to-air during a bombing raid. No one was in the air except servicement.
- Found alternate source that proves this is a PD-USGovt image.
Image:B 24 in raf service 23 03 05.jpg: Another obvious one. As the plane is british, the brit tag is most appropriate.
Image:Capturedfw190 red.jpg: Copyright is claimed at source, so if you want to use this, add Fair Use rationale (it would be certainly legit...no way to reproduce that!) Incidently, the website URL for the copyright isn't working.
- Copyright notice is a general one for the entire website, applying to images regardless of where the images were obtained. --Born2flie 10:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Fw 190A starting up.jpg: Bzuk, need clarification on S. Kunker's release. I'll leave this one tagged for now.
Image:Fw 190As in flight.jpg: Bzuk, this one too. Incidently, there was discussion somewhere recently about captured Nazi material being PD...does anyone recall where this was discussed?
Image:Me 262 Abandoned.jpg, Image:Junkers 88.1.jpg, Image:Junkers 88k2.jpg, Image:Junkers 88.jpg More for Bzuk.
Image:Stirling of 7 sqn.jpg: This was properly tagged, as it is clearly before 1957.
Image:Spitfire V 316.jpg: Source has been changed to one that reflects image as being covered under Crown Copyright, which allows PD status for images over 50 years. This one should pass everyone's muster now, correct?

(Off to dinner...will review the rest later...Bzuk, could you please address the notes above for you?)

Learn to be more civil, it is implied, this is confirmed by your statement above. Again, I will refer you to WP:IUP and the FAQ website on WWII in Color, the copyright status of those images which you cited above have an unknown status, even with this knowledge that the source page states that the copyright status is unknown, you reverted the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P-51D_Tika_IV_361st_fg.jpg twice as indicated on the image history page. -TabooTikiGod 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This artificially created crisis regarding images is easily solved for nearly every WW2 photo of US aircraft. By far the majority were snapped by US servicemen in the course of their duties. No more quoting of ww2incolor's FAQ is required--it's rendered moot by WP's US Govt image license. Binksternet 01:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tiki, I have reverted, because of my notations above. And I will be reverting others. I have also asked another admin to comment as well. If you want folks to be civil to you, you could certainly start out by acting civil yourself, which includes discussing things before making major changes. Tagging the core library of images that are clearly taken by U.S. Servicemen, in fact could not have been taken by anyone else, was not cool. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am being civil, I am not the one who is implying to another user that he/she does not have any common sense. Furthermore, I will re-instate that these images are in clear violation of copyright status and meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I have also taken it upon myself to contact Wikipedia via email and other administrators to your actions. -TabooTikiGod 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As you are well entitled to. However, they are not in clear violation of copyright, as most of these, as I've noted above, are clearly in Public Domain. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Between reading the disclaimer on the FAQ website, Wiki policy WP:IUP and criteria for speedy deletion, the language is clear cut and it is not public domain. I will be contacting the Designated agent responsible for claiming U.S. copyright infringement and filing a formal online copyright infringement liability limitation act in reference to your actions. -TabooTikiGod 02:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

unknown copyright status

[edit conflict] Any and all of these images may be deleted at any time because of the unknown copyright status. I've already commented about this on Commons, which is an at least similar issue. However, TabooTikiGod could've used a better tone in communicating this, and please no legal threats, since (1) it isn't that serious, and (2) it's only done for chronic copyright violations, such as consistently claiming PD-self when the images were all rights reserved on another site. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:21, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

This is a very serious matter, copyright infringement and I have the right to file a formal claim using legal action. -TabooTikiGod 02:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen much more serious infringements than this, and they did not require any intervention of Jimbo. He would just laugh his head off when he sees this. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:29, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

It is clear that the images I tagged do not have a copyright status and should be deleted (not only from Wiki Policy but also from U.S. Copyright laws). Including the following images which Akradecki has already changed, even though these images are in violation of copyright infringement.

Please see User Akradecki contributions history

-TabooTikiGod 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

delete on policy grounds

Unknown copyright does not always mean infringement. They should be deleted on the basis that it violated Wikipedia's image policy on licensing. No Jimbo intervention is necessary. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:43, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

The web site's statement "The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status" mean the images have questionable status and are not clear cut copyright violations. -Fnlayson 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but Wikimedia policy still tells us to speedy delete them until we find a definitive licence that complies with the free mission of Wikimedia. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:48, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

The three images listed above, have been reverted by Akradecki and they clearly violate image policy on licensing. -TabooTikiGod 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

claim of certainty

reset

After a more careful review of the images, it is certain that they were originally published by the US and UK governments, respectively. However, as we can see here, TabooTikiGod is disputing this, since the sourced website only "mirrors" the images and puts them on display without knowing the complete copyright status. Emails to the various governments regarding the images should be sufficient. O₂ (息 • 吹) 03:49, 16 November 2007 (GMT)

Unless these images can indeed have a reliable source of the image, it is still criteria for deletion and should be deleted. -TabooTikiGod 03:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That criteria is easily overridden by the general "PD-USGov" license or the more specific "PD-USGov-Military-Air Force" tag. On many of the photos in question, one doesn't need the date of the photo, the name of the photographer, the camera he was using, etc. to conclude the photo was taken by a US Government agent. Binksternet 04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What does a United States government copyright tag have to do with the images, which do not have a source cited on the website and the webmaster from which the images are taken has a disclaimer noting that unless specified, the images copyright status is unknown and should not be used for as public domain. -TabooTikiGod 07:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User Binksternet has no regard for Wikipedia's policy on WP:IUP, see talk page. -TabooTikiGod 08:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATabooTikiGod&diff=171848600&oldid=171845455 Added message from talk page to appropriate discussion page where it belongs.

allegation of conflict of interest

I'm curious as to the reason why you are working to have all the ww2incolor.com photos removed from Wikipedia. Are you financially linked that website? The unfortunate truth is that Wikipedia is free to publish any photographs that were snapped by U.S. servicemen no matter where the images came from, who is storing them on their webserver or who scanned and uploaded them. Yes, I've taken a deep look at WP:IUP and it clearly doesn't contain any clauses or sections that overrule PD-USGov. Binksternet 08:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to fuel your infantile behavior and remarks, I understand the policy regarding Wiki's stand on Copyright policy. Furthermore, I will add that you are a very uncivil individual, see WP:CIVIL. -TabooTikiGod 08:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

“

I refuse to fuel your infantile behavior and remarks...

”

There is a model of civil behavior if I ever saw it. Still, by the letter of the "Wikipedia" law, TTG is right. No copyright notice on the source, and no clearly identified PD origin, qualifies the images for {{ifd}}. That doesn't mean that the images are or are not PD, just that it is within the guidelines to tag such images for deletion. --Born2flie 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

everyone needs to throttle back here

Oh, where to start. I think we have a fair number of people who may not be using the best approach here. A few points:

Discussion to start things off is appropriate. The approach taken by TTG to start this process was not very collegial. TTG also does not conform to our formatting norms which makes matters harder (giving image names without linking them is inconsiderate of others time who then have to cut and paste, and that's just one example of many I could cite)
In general if something doesn't have a clear license tag, it's eligible for deletion, as a violation of WMF policy, that's true here on en:wp and on commons as well as everywhere else.
The site does not give clear provenance for the images.
Common sense tells us that some of the images HAVE to be taken by someone who was in a military aircraft at the time. (air to air photos) but NOT that they were in the US military. Personnel of other countries were seconded here and may just conceivably have taken the photo. (conceivably... not likely, but conceivably) Reporters or photographers invited up on a lark might have been on board a craft, and may just conceivably have taken the photo. (conceivably... not likely, but conceivably)
To be validly licensed as PD-usGov, each image would need either a source that reasonably and reliably claims US government ownership, that we can point to (it has to be credible so we have the defense that a reasonable person would have believed it to be true), or needs to have a very solid chain of logic about why it HAS to have been taken by a US government employee. If someone not from the US goverment could *conceivably* taken the picture that's not enough...
Images that are kept on commons have to have a valid free license of some sort.
Images that are kept on en:wp have to either have a valid free license, or a detailed fair use rationale.
Reverting tags is edit warring and is not to be encouraged
Casting aspersions on others is not appropriate. Many editors here have been throwing charges at other editors right and left. That needs to stop.
Moving images from en: to commons (as I understand happened for some of these) without very solid licenses may have been wasting effort for many people. It should be discouraged if the licensing is at all unclear.
It may be appropriate to move some of these images back here. They clearly help the articles they are in and it would be a shame to lose them completely.
Someone doing research to try to find other sources would really be helpful. If they can be found in, for example, the USAF archive, that sorts that.
Some of these images, in my view, are not eligible to be on commons without further work. For some of them unfortunately, it may not be possible to construct airtight rationales for them with just what we know now.

The above is all my opinion as an admin here and at commons. I am not the biggest license expert there so I may be wrong but I think I'm fairly close.

The level of incivility here is not acceptable. This conversation is way too long and there are some editors who are acting in ways that are starting to shade into borderline disruptiveness. The conversation needs to move to discussion of the images and issues in a collegial way. I could name names but I won't, at this time. I will watch this and if I see things not moving in the right direction quickly, though, I may well be forced to act. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lar, that is exactly the kind of tone that should have been established from the outset: collegial, collaborative and respectful. Let's remember why we all do this, it's a global enterprise with "virtual" strangers coming together. Let's all treat each other the way we would if a stranger comes to our doors – we welcome them (not sure about those green men with big foreheads carrying death ray guns, however...) {:¬∆ Bzuk 14:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

It is clear that you, Lar, are not the "law of the land" and the repercussions of the use of images that are not copyrighted violate U.S. and international law. This is something that even the "community" has to abide by. -TabooTikiGod 16:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're accusations of violating the law are a bit over the top. Please quote the specific provision of the CFR that is being violated here. I've actually read and studied U.S. copyright law when I worked for a publishing company, and am familiar with the code. So if you're going to make legal threats, please at least have the courtesy of quoting the section that is being violated. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate the main contention that Lar has proposed, that being, there needs to be a sense of proportion and decorum in our interactions. Everyone involved in this contentious issue has an obligation to respect each other as members of a global "community" of researchers and scholars. (BTW, my own pithy advice here is when the discourse becomes overwrought and someone offers you a hand "in peace and friendship," don't swat it away. FWIW, that is my Platitudes 101 advice for the day.) -- Bzuk (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC).

Ju-88 photo deleted

Which one of the two got deleted because of copyright concerns from Illinois Institute of Technology? (Ju-88 index at IIT.) The first image (three bombers flying in formation, taken from another aircraft also in formation but slightly below 10-11 o'clock of the closest Ju-88) is available in larger size here, on btinternet.com, a site administered by Jeremy Lee. Lee's version doesn't have any attribution. The second IIT photo of a Ju-88 underbelly as it flys overhead is one I can't find elsewhere. -- Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The belly shot is the one I deleted. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ming Airlines and Qing Airlines

Would someone from here please have a look at these. —Moondyne 17:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

These are the only airlines I know that are based in China: Air China · China Southern Airlines · China Eastern Airlines · Hainan Airlines · Shanghai Airlines · Shenzhen Airlines · Xiamen Airlines · Sichuan Airlines · Shandong Airlines · Cathay Pacific (Dragonair) · Air Macau. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Both received Google hits, but it would be better if someone with a knowledge of Chinese tried to search for the [Chinese language] terms. --MoRsE (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

All the google hits for Ming Airlines look like typos for MNG Airlines of Turkey. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The two google hits for Qing Airlines only found the term inside Chong Qing Airlines Co. Ltd.. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt worry somebody has just deleted them both. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos that still need licensing detective work

These ones need your help before they get bit-bucketed on November 22 2007. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

~~All of these~~ The Japanese are public domain, since they, at the latest, were taken or published in 1945. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:43, 17 November 2007 (GMT)

Did I not see this picture in Meatballs & Deadbirds - might not be public domain?Davegnz (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Aeritalia G.91/draft

Since Stefano isn't around to continue working on this, I've prodded it (even though prods really aren't for such pages, it's the only week-long timed delete method). I've done it this way in case anyone wants to mine it in the next week. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan, what exactly is being done on the article? I do not know what "prods" or "mining" is in Wikispeak? FWIW, just curious as I had recently run across a new reference source in a modelling magazine about the Fiat G.91 and was thinking of adding some content. Bzuk (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he means edit the draft page to reset the time from last edit to zero. Some pages get deleted after 7 days of inactivity, it seems. I've done some minor edits like that to articles to keep them on my watchlist page so I can come back and do more work later. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is incorrectly prodded. It can, however, be deleted on the basis of G5 or G8. Tagging as such. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:47, 19 November 2007 (GMT)

Imperfect as it is, we can save the article by moving all the draft material to the article page. From there, it can be improved. Binksternet (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Well, it's gone now, but if someone wants the text for a sandbox, let me know. Yeah, I know it was improperly prodded (for Bzuk, a "Prod" is "proposed deletion", a non-debated method of deletion that runs for a week), and that was actually an intentional IAR exercise, because MfD was overkill, but I didn't want it to be speedied, because I wanted folks here to give it a "last chance" review and mine anything useful. By "mining" I meant gleaning any useable info out of Stefano's rubble. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Loose ends

Now that Stefano has departed with a thunderous parting shot, there are a few loose ends that need cleaning up. The F-4 Operators article is shaping up nicely now that it's been trimmed. The above issue has been resolved. The other one that I'm aware of is Ki-61 Hien Comparison. It was split off the parent article because Stefano was adding so much material on the comparison issue that it was overwhelming the rest of the article. However, the way he did the sources, none of the statements can be linked to a source, and this was a classic example of Stefano's brand of OR...looking up raw data on the aircraft, then using the article to analyze and draw conclusions about the aircraft and which model was better. We really shouldn't be in the business of deciding which aircraft was "better" or "best". If someone else says that in a reliable source, that's different, but this here is just OR. I'm considering AfDing it, but wanted to get other's input first. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Aeritalia F-104S article is another that badly needs attention now the main F-104 article has been tidied, I'm working up the enthusiasm to go in there at the moment as it is difficult to know where to start. To be fair to SM it has recently been split from another article (F-104 in Italian service?). Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
He also left a bloated Technical description section in F-14 Tomcat. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Thundering parting shot" indeed! Can we be sure the ARBCOM has seen it? It'll probably lay to rest the chances of the 4-6 month appeal. Concur with the Ki-61 Hien Comparison AFD. Perhaps we can "mine" the bibliography for some sources that aren't in the compaired aircraft articles, but I don't think anything else is useful there. - BillCJ (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As someone who did a lot of clean-up work on the Ki-61 Hien article, I have to say I agree with BillCJ. Other than mining a few exceptional sources, I'd say we could AfD the comparison article and remove the rump section from the main article. I never liked the comparison section because it calls for us to make judgments. Furthermore, the original material he dumped read like it was someone's assessment and I still remain uncomfortable with its provenance. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look at the F-14 Tomcat, was that all down to SM? I quite like technical details but it is far too much and duplicated in many places. I also doubt that the controls are mechanical (should be some hydraulics somewhere) and that the wing skins are titanium, a very difficult material to work with. There is POV in there as well, I could have a go at it. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The Tech. Descrip. section was added in early Sept. It's been cleaned up and cut down a bit since then. Section has a lot detail on early avionics that were later upgraded/changed. I have some sources to go by on that now and can help. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've just been reading the talk page and can see the work that has gone in to fixing things, also just spotted History of the F-14 Tomcat that looks like half an article with its own share of POV. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Image situation resolved

I just thought I'd let you guys know that it seems Tiki got permabanned for legal threats. You probably won't be hearing any more out of him anytime soon. Jtrainor (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he sowed and salted before he left and many of the contentious images are now deleted. Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

Images are never permanently gone, and if support can be found, they can be brought back. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion needed

Because a suspicious IP editor keeps deleting an entire section on the article Fourth generation jet fighter, that article has now been S-protected, but a discussion and consensus needs to be acheived about the subject section, so all interested editors are asked to go to Talk:Fourth generation jet fighter, consider the material, consider the refs, and give their input. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Template discussion

There is a discussion at Template talk:Spaceport#Shorter names that might be of interest to some editors here. Details there. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What the beeswax is going on with the BetacommandBot?

The following images have been challenged: Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg, Image:Phoenix (static).jpg, Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg and Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg are all challenged under fair use. What does it take to have them qualify since three of them are screen shots and the other is an organization's logo. FWIW, this bot is notorious for removing images on the flimsiest of reasoning. Can someone help me save these images? Bzuk (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

Help with a new editor

I am having difficulty getting a new editor, User:Areskaratepe, to conform to MOS and project guidelines on articles about Iranian aircraft. In addition to his uploading of unsourced pics ( a separate issue), his is currently adding a very LONG list of iranian aircraft and related links to the "See also" sections of several articles. I'm at my limit on reasonable reversions, and could use someone else, preferably a non-native-English speaking editor, to help guide him and explain our policies and guidelines. He has added some good, sourced info to the Iranian aircraft articles, and I don't want to run him off simply because of my "brusque edit style". :) These are his contributions. Thanks for any assitance any editor can provide. - BillCJ (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Specification template

Something seems to have gone wrong with the aircraft scpefication template on some of the articles where it is used - anyone know what's happening and how to fix it?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Might be related to a Wikipedia software upgrade. I moved the first hidden note in the C-5 article and that seemed to fix things. Strange. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

C-5 article under review

The C-5 Galaxy is under A-class review on Military History here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/C-5 Galaxy. Please add comments and help improve the article if you can. It probably won't make it, but it can be improved a fair bit based on review comments. -Fnlayson 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Logos of individual aircraft in Infobox Aircraft

I implemented the possibility of inserting logos of individual aircrafts in Infobox Aircraft. I understand that there has been a discussion about logos in aircraft infoboxes before, but then the question was just wether or not to include the main company logo. (which was not fair use) Understandably, the main Airbus logo was removed from template:Infobox Airbus Aircraft.

My point is that it's fair use to have logos of individual aircrafts in the infoboxes. (Confirmed by an admin) And in my obinion, the most natural thing to do would be to do so, just like we do in the infoboxes of companies, organisations, game consoles, political parties etc. To place the logo of Eurofighter Typhoon in the infobox of its article makes sense.

But i was reverted by user:BillCJ who said "just because we CAN doesn't mean it's a good idea; please discuss at WT:AIR"

What do you think? I think it should be allowed when we indeed have the commercial logos of aircrafts. - S. Solberg J. 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the Aircraft Infobox wasn't designed with them in mind, and the Typhoon logo just doesn't work in it. It is the next image on the page. The Infobox is a pretty major component of aircraft articles, and changes need to be discussed first. "Be Bold" is not an excuse to do anything anytime without regard to what others may think. I have been promoting a "Country of origin" field for several months for the infobox,but have not just added it on my own out of respect for others. I am waitng till we have a consensus, or at least several other users support the idea. It would be nice if every once in awhile, you'd discuss an idea before implemeting it. At least then you wouldn't have me reverting you all the time. Gain a consensus to add product logos, and I won't revert them. - BillCJ 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never reverted you. And I've obviously now taken it to the talk page. You don't need to continue the flame war about 3RR and consensus from the A380 talkpage.

Wouldn't the most logic thing be to include a logo considering the fact that most infoboxes outside this WikiProject contains space for one? I'm not saying that i want logos for all infobox-types on wikipedia, but logos of individual Aircraft models would in my opinion not be the least logic thing to place in infoxes. Honestly, what's the problem?
"Typhoon logo just doesn't work in it" is a very strange and non-constructive sentence. Do you personally not like it? You should check out the infobox in the PS3 article; would that ordering of logo, text, main image be better? If you think the current infobox layout didn't work with the appearance of the logo in the Eurofighter infobox, you should remember that it's possible to redesign. - S. Solberg J. 23:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I never mentioned 3RR or revereting, nor did I have those in mind. And, I was promoting discussion on redesigning it BEFORE puting the logo in, not after. My point is you have a pattern of doing something first, and then being surprised when people (esp me, I'll admit) object to it. Minor tweaks without discussion are fine, but major changes should be done with the whole project in mind. Would it hurt to run an idea by someone else first? If something's a good idea, I support it, no matter who makes it. I'm not one for petty objections just because I don't like someone, but I'm not going to keep silent just because we have a history either. - BillCJ 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, please move on. - S. Solberg J. 23:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see a logo at the [very] bottom of the infobox, like where the EF logo image sits now. I don't think having a logo in the infobox helps much, but I'm not against it either. -Fnlayson 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly look strange to have the rectangular image above the logo.

The commercial logos are definitely becoming increasingly distinct, emphesised and prestigious for new planes. Of course the Spitfire didn't have a logo,(and we don't need to find one) but I think the aircraft infobox should provide proper room for 'logo-identities' of modern aircrafts. - S. Solberg J. 23:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A clear example is this official marketing of the JSF logo. - S. Solberg J. 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting the logo right below the image thing. At the very bottom or very top (current) of Infobox seems best to me. But whatever.. -Fnlayson 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a concrete argument for why no aircraft what so ever should be able to display its logo properly in the infobox? If not, I'll consider BillCJ's mandatory discussion finished, (for now) and available plane-logos will be inserted. - S. Solberg J. 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Only that logos are inventions of marketing departments and some aircraft have more than one logo which one will you use? - not sure that add any value. As far as I know all the logos that have been used in the past have been deleted by those that watch images. Not sure that a logo would look right in the infobox - not sure reading the comments that you can assume a consensus. MilborneOne 21:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I haven't heard of a plane with two different official logos. Every logo on this planet is obviously created by a marketing department, but still we use them on wikipedia. I'm aware that the current infobox isn't ideal for logos, so i propose this amending of the logo-space. What do you think?

Personally, I don't mind the logos, but I have little confidence that they'll be permitted to remain. Despite what one or a few admins say, there is a very concerted effort to remove all non-free images and logos – which are typically copyrighted and trademarked – can't be used both for product "branding" and be entered into the public domain under GDFL. (In fact, the only two I've ever added to articles were denied "fair use" status and deleted on just those grounds.) And, yes, corporate and product logos can and do change over time. It's a very common occurrence, even with long-lived, well-known companies and products. Anytime a marketing department thinks it might "spruce up" the image, a new logo can appear. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, you wouldn't mind logos. I don't want to start a deep and overarching discussion on wikipedia copyright here on this talkpage,(and nor should we) because I am 100% sure that the logo of the Joint Strike fighter would be just as legitimate to display in a wikipedia infobox as the logo of the PlayStation 3 in its infobox. And currently, we can assume that to be law of wikipedia. Why should it be so bloody different when it comes to planes? - S. Solberg J. 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If we were to use logos for planes, we would of course do the same thing as we do with companies, and always insert the latest, official version. - S. Solberg J. 03:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that its use is “just as legitimate”; I just don’t think the issue is worth getting worked up over, because the copyright issue is the “trump issue” that makes this particular issue moot. The so-called “fair-use nazis” are strongly determined to purge Wikipedia of “fair-use” images to the maximum extent possible, and their original goal was to achieve this by the end of this year; they have defined logos as inherently non-fair-use, so it's only a matter of time before the PS3 logo is gone as well. They have the upper hand since the Wikipedia Foundation’s legal expert supports them. I already “fought the good fight” over logos, but it has proven a losing cause. (Even the fact that editors have secured permission from companies to use their logos in Wikipedia articles – heck, it’s free advertising – has not prevailed.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

But now we deal with the current situation, which is that logos for planes are in principle allowed to be displayed in infoboxes. Who's in favour? How should the infobox layout be? Any new arguments? - S. Solberg J. 03:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the inclusion of an aircraft's photograph sort of negate the need for a logo? With companies, universities, et cetera, the logo represents the entity in one quick graphic. With an aircraft - or a car, for that matter - that's not really necessary, as the vehicle itself needs no further representation. ericg ✈ 06:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about game consoles? Their infoboxes have both an image of the console, and the logo. What's the difference? My point is that it's irritating to have the SVG versions of the sophisticated logos of modern planes like the Joint Stike fighter and Eurofighter without providing proper space for them in the infoboxes. New planes are more than 'anonymous pieces of machinery'; (like washing machines and fridgerators) they've obviously got a graphical profile the corporations want to emphesise, and IMHO more than most cars today. - S. Solberg J. 19:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Airbus A350 "Extra Wide Body (XWB)" logo

the commercial logo of the Joint Strike fighter

the commercial logo of Eurofighter Typhoon

the commercial logo of Dassault Rafale

- S. Solberg J. 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In an aircraft sense, a picture of the aircraft itself makes the logo not needed, whereas game consoles have them because they are not just recognised by the look of the console, but also by the logo. Aircraft is almost always recognized by the aircraft only; I can't think of a time where I recongnised one from a logo. O₂ (息 • 吹) 22:15, 13 November 2007 (GMT)

I'm totally aware of - and I'm not trying to 'change' the fact that graphical stuff for the sake of commers has been non-existent for aircrafts in the past. (which is probably why you "can't think of a time where I recongnised one from a logo") What I am trying to do here is to point out that a new generation of fighter jets (in particular) has begun to emphesise logos in the same way as most types of products have. Nobody is going to make logos for planes that never had one. The only difference a positive consensus here would make, is that the logos I mentioned above would be relocated to the infoboxes (where logos on wikipedia usually belong) of their respective article, from thumb-boxes in the text.-

\mathrm {S}

.

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

. 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

THere's nothing wrong with having the logo in a separate image below the infobox, as is done now. Why does it have to be in the Infobox? So gamers will think this is another game page, and think that they can add their cruft here too? As discussed before, the logos really won't fit perfectly without a redesign, and you don't have any support for adding the logos to the infobox as-is. You're welcome to work on one on your userspace, and present it (or them, if you end up with several designs) to the Project for consideration. Who knows, you may come up with a design that will gain a consensus to be included. If it is a good abnd workable design, I'll support it no matter who created it. The design would need to include all the fields in the current design, so it could be easily adapted to the new design. But please wait for a consensus before converting to a new design. - BillCJ 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't you see that i've made one already, and that I have placed it seven messages above this? Nobody has commented on it. (User:Ssolbergj/infobox and User:Ssolbergj/infobox/result)-

\mathrm {S}

.

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

. 08:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. My considered opinion is that it adds nothing to the infobox and if iut did it would have to take second place to an actual photo of the plane. I don't buy into the navboxes in the infobox either.GraemeLeggett 14:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The navbox is used today and is not my idea. Please can someone please come up with a new argument/comment after reading this discussion? "Adds nothing to the infobox"? -

\mathrm {S}

.

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

. 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people just don't take what they're given. GraemeLeggett did say that it would have to take second place to the photo of the plane, even if he isn't of a favorable opinion. Fnlayson said if it were to be included, it should be at the very bottom of the infobox. Too much discussion wasted on a freakin' logo that means little compared to the aircraft's likeness, and isn't available for the majority of aircraft. And, if you ask me, it is beginning to seem that you are only interested if we all clap our hands and jump up and down for joy over your innovation. Not a way to build a consensus. (Navbox in the infobox, when did that happen? Looks to be a modified version of {{Infobox Aircraft}}.) --Born2flie 21:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a modified {{Infobox Aircraft}}. (with my proposal for logo inclusion) But navboxes are used in infoboxes today. It has been pointed out before that my proposal would mean two images in the infobox; i answered that for example the game console infoboxes have both a logo and an image of the object itself. (A counter argument - the thing we write in talkpages.) I've also many times said that the fact that the majority of planes don't have logos doesen't mean that new planes shouldn't be able to get theirs in their infoboxes. (why would it?) Being sarcastic doesn't help. -

\mathrm {S}

.

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

. 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The sarcasm is for me, and it works for me. I don't like the images. They aren't uniform and since they don't add to the infobox (I know, you've already heard it) I'd prefer they weren't part of the infobox. I don't care what a game system uses for their infobox and it really doesn't irritate me that these images are out there or how, as a group, we have failed to make use of them. What's more, they don't represent the aircraft, they represent the team, the organization and its marketing that brings that aircraft to fruition. Since the article is about the aircraft and not the team, nor the marketing used during such campaigns (although some articles might include such information), the images are superfluous. Perhaps they might be a nice addition to the Development section of the applicable articles? --Born2flie 23:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm weighing into this very late, but FWIW, I'd strongly oppose the introduction of logos into our already-bloated infobox. IMHO, it's just unnecessary clutter. --Rlandmann 23:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As per Rlandmann, adding logos to infoboxes will add nothing but clutter. In most cases there is little benefit in having a logo in the article at all.Nigel Ish 23:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As per Rlandmann, adding logos to infoboxes does not seem necessary. Desirable maybe, but only if that is the PRIMARY means of recognizing an aircraft, which is usually not the case. I would vote to leave the logos out of the picture (pun intended). Raymondwinn (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

CombatAircraft.com spam

Earlier I had noticed the new user Mooner72 adding spam links on aircraft articles to CombatAircraft.com. I left a message regarding this and inviting the newbie to consider joining WP:AIR, but have received no response. Today I noticed that Mooner72 has resumed adding such links. I’m going on a week-long wikibreak soon, so I’d like to ask other project members to follow up. I have not yet begun removing links. Have a great Thanksgiving and a safe one! Askari Mark (Talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of TougHHead. Be wary. Bzuk (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

I say only keep the Combat Aircraft link in an article if it provides something the other links don't per WP:EL policy. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- The combat links I've checked so far only have specs and few images and are therefore covered by other links. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure we want to stop this? I just checked out several of the new links, and yes it's pretty much just specs, but the graphics are actually quite good, and I can see some benefit in providing this as a choice for our readers. I realize I'm about to get some AMRAAMS shot my way for saying this, but my personal opinion is that this is a net improvement for the project. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hum, I was going mainly comparing the text info. You have a good point about the images. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The images I saw looked similar to free DoD sourced images and we are already linking the commons galleries which contain similar things for most US Military aircraft. Maybe there are some articles here that have no DoD images, but the ones I reverted didn't look too special to me. Compare Commons:Category:F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/ffa18ef.aspx and tell me which images are better. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor keeps adding and re-adding the links. At this point it's clearly being spammed. I'm going to remove all of the links and if they keep coming back I'll ask for the site to be bloacklisted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Annoying Sinebot

Per User:SineBot#Entire talk page, it's possible to opt talk pages out of Sinebot's territory, provided there is consensus on the talk page to do so. Would anyone be interested in supporting the exclusion of Sinebot on this page, and possible all WP:AIR article talk pages? I for one find its activity annyoing since the bot does not distinguish vandalism, and this disables the "Undo" feature in the Wiki software, and have had edit conflitcs with SInebot on a number of occasions. I've talked with the bot's creator, and while he's considering adding anti-vandal functions, he's not inclined to expand the timeframe between the user's edit and Sinebot's signature (about two minutes right now. Perhaps if more users and projects opt out to the point where his bot isn't being used much, he'll be more condusive to making adjustments. - BillCJ (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me. The only trouble I've had with Sinebot, is it unnecessarily signing Archive links for me a couple times. -Fnlayson 03:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

SineBot should still be automatically signing these active talk pages, for the sake of archival. You might want to opt yourself out of automatic signing, just like I did. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 04:02, 01 December 2007 (GMT)

Personally I think Sinebot's benefits outweigh its bad side. It automatically signs people's comments, so then you don't have to look in the page history to see who it is. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 04:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have opted out! I honestly don't mind what Sinebot does - my major problems is with its owner's unwillingness to make adjustments which make my clean-up of vandalism more difficult. From now on, I won't be reverting any vandalism that Sinebot signs, since it disables the "Undo" feature, unless I have to make other changes to that edit. I'll leave that to someone else with the proper tools from now one, since my OS can't use TW, AWB and the like effectively. - BillCJ 04:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- It seems inefficient to me. If it just added an unsigned tag with the date that'd save almost 200 characters. Having to write the script for it might change my tune though... -Fnlayson 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had requested that the bot be fitted with rollback tools a while back. I think it could catch quite a bit of vandalism. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

One could get popups and it has a revert feature that lets you revert to a specific revision. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 19:29, 01 December 2007 (GMT)

You can always select the version you want to revert to from the History and rollback the vandalism AND Sinebot. --Born2flie 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Back on deck

Hey all - just letting you know I'm back from wiki-holidays and that I've finally uploaded the long-promised documentation for the aerospecs template. Hopefully those of you who know why I've been away will forgive the delay ;)

Very sorry to have missed the recent bunfight - what a doozy! Cheers --Rlandmann 03:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. Oh, which bunfight do you mean? I think their were several! - BillCJ 04:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The one that went all the way to ArbCom - a first for WP:AIR as far as I'm aware... --Rlandmann 08:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that was a doozy all right! Being in the middle of that one wasn't fun! But atleast it's over! - BillCJ 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo editing/CGI work

I have a small project that I could use some help on: I'd like to tak two different aircraft, and produce a combined image for satirical purposes, but I'm unable do anything beyond scanning (poor) hand drawings. Is there anyone with some talent and a little free time that might be interested in helping out? I can give details on my idea by email, as I'm not ready to reveal it publically as yet. - BillCJ 03:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds interesting... Can't help, just commenting. Good luck. -Fnlayson 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Bill - I'll bite! Email me. --Rlandmann 06:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ki-61 Hien Comparison

I'm thinking of taking this essay to AfD. Does anyone have any objections? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur. It was a split off of material Stefano added to the Ki-61 page. He's gone now, so we don't need to pussy-foot with it anymore. - BillCJ (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think we would lose anything useful. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The comparison article has an impressive reference list (long) and the table looks nice (code is overly long though). I suggest merge any main useful info back to Ki-61 and put comparison article up for AfD. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The impressive reference list is the same as in the main article - and virtually nothing is cited - there is very little that isn't OR to merge.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, and the fly off info is covered better in the Ki-61 article too. AfD time for comparison article or turn it into a redirect. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Given that there are only two links to the page, one here, and one in Kawasaki Ki-61, deletion shouldn't be a problem, as there's nothing else to redirect from. Also, OR and no sources is a key reason the ARBCOM whent the way it did. Hopefully this is the last such article still around, but we might ought to check anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK - the nomination is here --Rlandmann (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lockheed F-104 Good article nomination?

I believe that the F-104 article now meets the 'good article' criteria now after much work by many. It is at least as good as the F-105 article if not better. Any thoughts? Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am struggling with this guys, I have nominated it (under engineering-air transport but I notice the F-105 was done under history!?) and have added the nomination template to the talk page but it does not appear to be working. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know either. But try asking about the GA nomination on WP:Aviation assessment and/or WP:MilHist assessment pages or talk pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvellous! That's two things you've fixed tonight. Will be interesting to see how this goes, fingers crossed. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

An editor has failed the GA nomination with what I believe are incorrect conceptions and not an awful lot of thought given to the review. Comments have been left on the Talk:F-104 Starfighter page, any thoughts from you guys? Nimbus227 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Basic T

Is Basic T an article that contributes to our coverage of aviation? Creator says it now has context and sources, can someone who knows what this is verify? Thanks Mbisanz (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although this article is not going to be very long. I hold a JAR (European) pilot's license and the term is familiar. What has been written is correct. I have found a reference to it in one of my old training books, I will add that.

A diagram would be nice also or a photo of an instrument panel (specifically these instruments). Nimbus227 (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Having a further look this is covered adequately and with photos in Flight instruments and is also a redirect from Basic-T. A case for deletion and another redirect? Nimbus227 (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll support that Mbisanz (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It needs someone who knows the process to sort it out, I'm still new here myself! Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:Wujuanyu

This user seems quite active in our sector but his edits seem somewhat strange. Either a Troll or just pure vandalism. Please triple-check those edits if you stumble onto them. --Denniss (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A new wiki specially for Planes...

Hello members of WikiProject Aircraft,

I just wondered if anyone is interested in helping us with a new wiki, Plane Spotting World.

Please let me know if you;re interested!

Bluegoblin 7 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ps, this is NOT a recruitment drive, it is something that should be of benefit to this project, and as we allow all sorts of content WP doesnt, the idea is that they can work hand in hand, side by side. Please ask if you want to know more...

Hand in hand? How? Will your site host images that have major copyright problems which render them not appropriate for WP? Or will you just collect a bunch of airplane sightings? Gee whiz, I don't see the purpose. There are a bunch of me-too image sites and mirror sites out there; if someone wants to see images of a certain aircraft they have a lot of choices. What's your business plan? Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Well we allow Google and YouTube vids, spotting reports, and we are very unbeuracratic and ver open minded - the allow thing governing what we do is legal stuff. Want to know more?

Bluegoblin 7 07:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

FA MOS question

Article being considered for Featured Article but conflicting instructions between Manual of Style and Wikiproject

The Boeing 747 article is being considered for FA. However, an editor disputes awarding it FA and cites the "Related content" appendix at the end saying that it is not allowed per Manual of Style. That appendix is common to most or all aircraft article. I am seeking consensus on whether we should change WikiProject guidelines or allow the appendix as a MOS exception. I seek guidance, not troublemaking.

Since there is a lot of WP:aviation and WP:aircraft, you may wish to follow the discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Manual_of_Style_dispute

Thank you for your consideration and advice. Archtransit (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WPAIR already has an MOS for its articles, and I don't see any movement to change it from what we already have. You need to take this up at Wiki MOS itself, as to whether or not projects should continue to be allowed to vary from the Wiki MOS, as they have up until now. Also, it would be nice if you could keep the discussion in one place, rather than asking differnt questions on several, just place a link. - BillCJ (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The question proceeds from a false assumption. It's true that WP:AIR's standard page layout differs trivially from (some? most?) other pages in Wikipedia in the way that it orders appendix sections. However, the MoS specifically states that the order of these sections is irrelevant. It is not therefore an "exception" to the MoS, since the MoS already allows it. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose restoring the Boeing 787 "Related content" section to conform to WP:AIR/PC guidelines. It is apparent at this point that User:O has not attempted to build a consensus for requiring WP:AIR to conform to Wiki-MOS at the WIki-wide level. Instead, he continues his campaign on an article-by-article basis. Per (admin) Rlandmann's advice on the 747 FA page, O needs to go th the WIki-MOS pages to try to build a consensus first. As such, I don't think we need to have the 787 page out of order any longer. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support restoring the article as per this project's guidelines: but that should really be discussed on the article talk page. OTOH, are you aware of any other pages that User:O has "crusaded" on? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Other articles? Not right off, no, but there might be some others. I'm just tying to do some consensus-building here before bringing it up on the 787 page itself. - BillCJ (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hum, I had thought of the 787 changes as a test or example. In any event, it shouldn't stay different forever.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please continue discussion at this link so that it will be in one place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Manual_of_Style_dispute Archtransit (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with WP:Aviation. The page content guidelines in question are maintained and administered by WP:Aircraft. It would make more sense to move those comments here. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

From whats been said on the various talk pages and in the FA review for the F-4 Phantoom, a group of editors who appear to be uninterested in the content of articles but are dedicated to defend there idea of the MOS - even when it isn't what the MOS actually says, have declared war on WP:Aircraft. Forget any ideas of getting any article through FA (or even GA) until this is resolved. There seems little point in wasting effort trying to improve the articles are arguing the point because minds appear to be closed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that may overstate the case somewhat, but the combatative and wikilawyering attitudes that prevail in these discussions (don't they just love the word "breach"?) are one of the main reasons I refuse to participate in the FA/GA/quality scale process. So how about we concentrate on the content of our articles, and leave that arena to those who enjoy bloodsports. Wikipedia, via WikiProject:Aircraft, will very soon become the most comprehensive encyclopedia of aircraft ever published in English, and probably in any other language. That's something to be very excited about and proud of! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the ordering of the bottom sections is now being discussed at WP:MOS[1].Nigel Ish (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum Images

Just noticed the following image Image:TR 000978 kittyhawk.jpg of a Kitthawk in 1943, used on Curtiss P-40 and No. 112 Squadron RAF. It is from the online Imperial War Museum Collection [2] and has been categorised as PD-British Government on the grounds that it was taken in 1943. The IWM website specifically says that the images are Crown Copyright 2003 and has restrictions on use (which do not include Wikipedia). I understand that was why the wealth of aircraft images in the IWM collection have not been used (as it is a recent digitisation project). Can one of the image experts tell me what it the position please. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it depends on where the photo originally came from - some will have been taken by the UK government - and therefore be crown copyright expired - some will be donated or purchased and therefore not be Crown Copyright expired - so I don't think that it is safe to claim IWM images as CC expired without further back-up (and I also think that IWM is playing fast and loose with copyright laws and claiming copyright for items which rightfully have expired). Nigel Ish (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it's not uncommon for libraries, archives, and other bodies to claim copyright where none exists. However, the onus is on us to prove that copyright has expired if we want to use it. The only effective way we can do this is to find a copy of the same photo in print where its copyright is attributed to the Crown. You should probably contact the original uploader and ask why they think that this photo belonged to the Crown. If they've got no evidence, then it needs to be deleted. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Brought it up on 112 Squadron talk page and the uploader had the following comment - The original photo wasn't taken in 2003 and the Wikipedia image is significantly different from the image on the negative — by me using picture editing software — so I don't believe it is copyrighted under UK law. You will find that many museums/libraries/galleries try this stunt of claiming copyright, when they don't have a leg to stand on, legally speaking. I have asked User:Grant65 to prove it not copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Cockpit sections

A user has been adding preserved cockpit sections to various British aircraft articles in the survivors section. I have been removing them as non-notable, the user has reverted this on the Vickers Valiant article. Some older aircraft types have a lot of cockpit sections (and other big bits) extant but if the individual aircraft is not notable then I understand that it should not be included. Just asking for opinions that my interpretation is along project guidelines. Thank You. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK there are no specific guidelines here, but I think that your stance makes good sense. Additionally, I think that it would probably be worth noting cockpit sections and other significant portions of airframes if no complete example has survived. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment - agree with no complete survivor point. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points here - There is a lot of museums without a lot of space that have just a nose section on display - I can think of 4 B-24's right off the top of my head (3 B-24D's and one B-24J) that are viewable to the general public. Same with other historic aircraft. The second point being it is just not the general public that might use wikipedia - there are true aviation historians that might have a need to see a partial airframe / or sectionalized airframe - the airforce museum has a deskinned F-86, SAC Museum has a cutaway B-25, the Imperial War Museum in london had a walk-thru cockpit section of a Halifax & Lancaster - I can think of numerous examples. My critea for being included in the seperate survivors series has been 1) extent of airframe remaining (75-80 intact structure) 2) Is it recoverable/restorable (ie Glacier Girl) 3) Is it in a museum / on display / viewable to the public 4) airworthy 5) historic. Big question is what is historic / restorable etc... Several years ago saw a cargo container from Russia opened and what was removed was a pile of rusty tubing and wing sections - should this have been included in a survivors section - this pile of "junk" turned out to be the basis for the complete restoration to airworthyness of two Hawker Hurricanes. Been sseing a lot of "junk" being recovered off the Normandy coast (a ME-109E & a historic P-51) and restored - so it is a tough choice (who would have thought a P-61A could be restored? Davegnz (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Pützer Elster

Another German translation/expansion for you guys to look at, the Pützer Elster. I have another missing aircraft in the pipeline (it's Christmas quiz time, can you guess what it will be?!!) Will keep plodding through them. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD heads-up

G-APSA is up for deletion. Folks here may want to weigh in. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

G-APSA at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-APSA (20 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

New SST articles

User:Trulystand700 has created two new articles about supposedly-current SST program(me)s. The first, High Speed Civil Transport, has ONE source, a NASA page, which CLEARLY states the program was stopped in 1999, yet the article claims it was restarted later and is ongoing. The second, Avion de Transport Supersonique Futur, has absolutely no sources whatsoever, and is a possible hoax, or at the very least a pipe dream. Comments and further directions? - BillCJ (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Avion de Transport Supersonique Futur could have been a real project ten to twenty-years ago, the use of Aerospatiale and British Aerospace in the future tense when the companies have both moved on since. I would think it could be just a reference and a few lines in Supersonic transport - although that is full of similar statements from old programs reading as if they are still current. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'Avion de Transport Supersonique Futur' was a project during the 80s and 90s to develop a successor to Concorde by the French and the British. I remember seeing articles on it but the project didn't go very far and in any event I haven't heard anything about it in at least 10 years. This may warrant an article. I'll try to dig up some additional information, but the sources will probably be in French only. --McSly (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur. The NASA source for the HSCT gives enough info and notability to keep it. Assuming we find a similar source for the ATSF, it can probably be kept too. Neither one seems current, so that info will need to go. The author has warnings on his talk page on uploading unusable imapges, so those will need to be checked too. - BillCJ (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search reveals that ATSF was real enough and notable enough. Given that neither Aérospatiale nor British Aerospace have existed under those names for many years, I doubt that anything is "being designed by" those entities in 2007. Like the HSCT, this part of the story could be an honest mistake, a hoax, or wishful thinking by the contributor, but the article itself should stay. We've actually had the ATSF mentioned on the disambiguation page for many years! :) (ATSF) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

He may have been taking his cue from old, undated articles thinking they were recent. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairing

There has been some discussion in the motorcycle project concerning fairings.

Fairing has become the disambiguation page.
Aircraft fairing has been created with the aircraft section from Fairing
Bicycle fairing has been created by moving Full fairing
Motorcycle fairing contains all motorcycle-related content.

You might see some activity while the editors update the links in the aircraft articles. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done and most links from aircraft articles seem to be updated to direct to Aircraft fairing now. ww2censor (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairing redirects to Fairing (disambiguation). That ought to be changed. While not the norm, a cut-and-paste move seems to be the only way to preserve the history of both pages. FWIW, I would have moved the Fairing page to one of the daughter pages, leaving the main name open for the DAB page to be moved there. Perhaps an admin can still do that by merging Fairing's history with a duagheter page. Or there may be a better way to do it. - BillCJ (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fairing articles

Per the discussion on the Project Motorcycling page, I tried to cleanup the mismash of fairing articles. I have renamed Fairing to Aircraft fairing and Full fairing to Bicycle fairing to make them parallel to Motorcycle fairing. I've updated the Fairing (disambiguation) page and all the aircraft and bicycle articles that linked to them to reflect this. I've also moved the launch vehicle related text from Aircraft fairing article to the existing Payload fairing article. Hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Thanks. Some of them could be grouped together, but that's another topic. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Aircontent template navbox conflict

The Aviation navbox built in the {{aircontent}} seems to be in conflict with the Manual of Style. The MoS says the External links should be at the end. The Layout guide says navigational footers (navboxes) must be at the very end of the article. It also says for the Standard appendices only the Reference sections need to be together.

So I propose simply removing the {{aviation lists}} from the aircontent template. That will allow the External links to be placed after the Related content and the navboxes at the bottom. That'll require manually adding the aviation list navbox if desired. The aviation list does not seem that important, at least to me. What do you think? -Fnlayson (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I've been in support of this since the TFD and for the reasons above. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:32, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

Oppose, as MOS itself does not assert that it is a blanket requirement. However, I did support the suggestion before, assuming it gains consensus here or at an appopriate MOS page, which right now is FAR from happening. Keeping working on changing it at MOS, O, but please stop being disruptive with your GA/FA campaigns and other action. - BillCJ (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The MOS is linked from WP:FA?, though not very clearly. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:45, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

I don't see external links as being dissimilar to other reference sources and the style in which Notes->Bibliography->(Further reading/viewing [optional])->External links is presently organized under a general heading of References makes sense. Other related lists can follow. If there is no "hard-and-fast" rule to follow, the Aviation Project Group has been steadily formulating basic procedures that work and fit the unique characteristics of presenting information about aviation topics. FWIW, is this a "tempest in a teapot" issue? Bzuk (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

The basic issue here is that our related content section is actually a navbox that's no longer formatted as a navbox - you can see its early stages of development here. As for being a "tempest in a teapot" - yes; I suspect that if we drew a coloured line around the section in question, we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RL, if you haven't read it already, I laid out a pretty detailed plan for O to follow in trying to change the Related content/airlistbox positions, including a split of them into two separate sections, above at #Formal TFD notice. For the most part, User:O completely ignored the suggestion beyond throwing bombs at me, and has continued his disruptive campaign against WP:AIR's consensual guidelines. Rather than simply trying to change concensus here, he has contintued his disruptive campaign againt the project, including challenging GA and FA applications on a case by case basis solely because he views the MOS as mandatory. If he had proposed that we change our guidelines to match the MOS, and just focused his efforts on changing the consensus here as per WP:CCC, the issue might have been solved. However, he apparently veiws our guideliens as "illigitimate", and the trying to change consensus here would imply that we have the "right" to have our own guidelines, which he will not deign to "grant" us even for the sake of peace. I stated there, and will state again, that while I won't vote in favor of the changes, I will support them if the gain the consensus here. User:O's behavior is very disturbing, especially from someone who makes no secret that he wants to be an admin here, and is an admin at Commons. Very disturbing indeed. - BillCJ (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Formatting whole thing like a Navbox is even better. Sorry Bill I wasn't sure what was being split off with your suggestion before. And I was looking for a quick fix here. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Jeff. I was really just trying to get the discussion going on the chage/split, and not really proposing a specific one per se. It is amazing to see tht the section started off as a navbox, answering the question as to why it's where it is. Since it no longer fulfills that purpose, I am rethinking my position on the split. However, I stand by my assertion that is is the place to have has such discussionsin the first place, not on individual articles or GA/FAs. I'll discuss options in another section. - BillCJ (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow Bill - that's what I get for missing staff meetings. I completely missed the TfD stuff in October, which certainly paints User:O's recent actions in a far worse light than I had had seen them in before. However, if we can put aside our reactions to the messenger and look at the message instead, I think your analysis back then is sound. As I see it, we're under no compulsion to change, but unless we do, we're going to be having this same argument regularly every couple of months and have big problems with any FA or GA nomination (for those who care about such things).

As for the history of the footer, it's also worth noting that when it was designed, the "Template" function didn't yet exist in the Wikimedia software, which is why so much of it is still hand-coded in each article, even today. We also didn't have the show/hide functionality that's built into navboxes now - that's why we have the "three forward, three back" convention for designation sequences - the alternative back then was to have a hand-coded box with everything from the P-1 Hawk to the F-117 Nighthawk and every designation in between taking up half a screen at the end of every article about a USAF fighter! Put simply, our current way of doing things was shaped by technical limitations that no longer exist in 2007. That, per se, is not a reason to change, but I thought it might offer a little more perspective on the situation.

If we want to leave these fights behind, we need to re-shuffle this content somewhat we need to ~~deprecate Template:Aircontent and replace it by:~~

~~Creating a new "See also" section immediately following the current "Specifications" section~~

~~Creating standard subheadings within this "See also" section for~~
- ~~Related lists~~ - Oops - hadn't read below when I wrote this - repurposing the existing template is of course a better idea!
Replacing "Designation sequence" with templated navboxes as needed. While some of our sequences are very short (2 or three types), there's precedent for this in WikiProject Ships, who use templated navboxes for classes with only a small number of hulls. Template:Bismarck class battleship springs immediately to mind as an example of a two-ship class.

Template:Aviation lists can stay where it is, grouped with any other appropriate navboxes.

I guess it's come to the point where I'd support doing this; my annoyance with the MoS hardliners has finally overwhelmed my apathy. Basically, I don't want to be having the same argument over and over again forever, even if the outcome is always that we don't have to change anything. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the more horizontal layout and shading on the initial aircontent footer. A shaden background (light gray or something) would make it look more like a navbox too. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comet revert war

De Havilland Comet is experiencing a minor revert conflict over an odd sentence that one user insists on re-adding to the page, but will not discuss outside of edit summaries. See Talk:De Havilland Comet#Comet wings for details. Thanks for any assistance that can be rendered. And if my opinion is wrong on this, please point out why. - BillCJ (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)