Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Admin help at Saab

A long-time editor, but not not one I've seen before, is removing the {{reflist}} tag from the Saab article, which I added a few months ago. The article has only one citation (which I also added), and one uncited reference. It is my understanding that this is the sort of situation the tag is intended for. I've already reverted twice. Any admin help, no matter your view on this relatively minor issue, would be appreciated. Other editors are welcome to chime in. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed it, it appears as though it is a tossup as to its validity there. I reccomend adding {{fact}} tags to the sections that are in question. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 22:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, Chris. I can probably add more cites from the same source I used before. I've always intended to do that, just have so many other things going on here too. One reason I use that tag is as a reminder to myself. Thanks, and good to see you around! - BillCJ (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the external links in P-61 Black Widow during the recent tidy up of that article. I converted the links to references and also added the links to the external links section. User:Davegnz has reverted my changes with the comment returned survivors section so to standardized with rest of survivors series of articles. As far as I know this is an aircraft article not a survivors article, I dont believe that the survivors articles follow any agreed format. As I cant see why this article should be an exception to External links should not normally be used in the body of an article and I have brought it up at Talk:P-61 Black Widow but just liked to bring it up to a wider audience for comment. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

maybe what I need to do is convert the P-61 survivors section to a stand-alone article - that way everyone is happy and and it fits with the scope of the rest of the survivors series.Davegnz (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure we need a separate article for four airframes, not sure either that the survivors articles are exempt from WP:EL. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Did what MilborneOne suggested and looked up the WP:EL - in a nutshell:
  1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
OK how does this apply to the survivors series -
I try and link each entry to a home page (if available) this takes care of #1, I also link to one specifice web site (under the aircraft s/n) which has I feel great information but sometimes too much detail - this takes care of 3)
The survivors series is a balancing act between what is published on wiki (different museums, aircraft in movies, famous aircraft etc...) and what is available on the internet or published - right now use both external links, wiki links and links in the reference section for a overall balance and complete picture - maybe in a year or so I might change the formatting but for accuracy and neutural point of view (which covers #3 & #4) feel that the survivors series has a good coverage on the subject matter.
According to the WP:EL, my usage of the external links conforms to standard practices accepted by the rest of wikipedia...
As far as having a dedicated page to the P-61 survivors, somewhere in time on one of the earlier project aircraft pages, I mentioned the reason for the survivors pages was to reduce the information on the main page(s) regarding an aircraft type - would make the B-17 article huge if one was to list all the B-17 Survivors under the B-17 main article.
Having only 4 aircraft as survivors does not impact the main article, in the case of the P-61. However, it should conform to the rest of the survivors series (as created and in its current format) - if not then maybe a breakaway standalone article needs to be created. Davegnz (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No - the rest of the survivors series should conform to how things are done throughout the rest of Wikipedia. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This conversation on the survivors series already has been beaten to death - the survivors series conforms to wiki-standards (ie lists are acceptable, the is a section available for people to do a very detailed write-up and it has a standard format) - end of subject Davegnz (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I dont think it is the end of the subject just because you dont accept that others have problems with the survivors articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Why does MilborneOne always have to cause trouble and contriversy on the Wikilists - maybe he needs to be banned from editing for a few months - at least be removed from being an administrator. Everytime he makes a comment, he likes to disparage and put down other editors works Davegnz (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's my fault - I was imprecise in my comment above. Davegnz seems to have taken it to mean that I thought there was something wrong with having the detailed survivor lists per se; whereas what I really meant (but didn't actually say) was that these lists should conform to the Wikipedia practice of placing direct external links in the footnotes, not inline within the text. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I looked up the the wiki reference you mentioned - nothing written in stone (or even mentioned) regarding placements of external references - if you look at the survivors seriers I use all three types of references, (wiki, reference and direct links). wiki states that direct references should be used to snet the user to a page where the subject is covered in detail - that is done - wiki also state the user should be able to link to additional reference (as needed ) in wiki itself (that is also done) - as stated, I have done everything per wiki rules and as stated before, this subject has been beaten to death. Davegnz (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered External links should not normally be used in the body of an article or include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox. in WP:EL. I am just trying to make it clear that the use of external links in the survivors articles is not normal practice, cant see any reason why the links cant be changed to refs as in the P-61 article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Davegnz is quite right when he says "this subject has been beaten to death". The policy is clear in that regard. WP:EL is very plain, external links do not belong in the text of an article, they belong in the "External links" section at the end, or better yet as cited references. The reason for this is pretty clear as well, Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and not a list of links. When I find external links embedded in the article text I turn them into refs or move them to the "External links" section.- Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahunt should read WP:EL (as stated below - external links embedded inside articles are acceptable practice -
From WP:EL
References and citation ---> Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations.
note: it states in-line or in a reference section. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I use both. I find that having to do two jumps (when trying to get direct information) is annoying, tedious and repitious. I use the direct reference to take the end user immediatly to a home page where the subject matter can be covered in depth. I use a reference section for two purposes 1) to links to other sites that cover the subject and 2) sites that have further information covering the subject.
The reference section is great when the end user can scroll down the big list and find numerous related sites for information they are looking for. I have also found the with the Survivors series, there reference lists can be huge - if I can help the end user by linking directly to a final home page withing the subject aircraft this can provide a quick and painless end result. Davegnz (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you are 100% right, as you say they "should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section". They are referring to in-line citation style or end references, not leaving external links in the text. You are supporting what MilborneOne stated above. - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Show me in the paragraph where it states "citation style" --> all it say is in-line... again you are creating something that does not exist. This para. clearly states that "in-line" links and only "in-line" links are acceptable in wiki articles. If you want to discuss Citations then this is a totally different article (as stated in the above para).
Maybe you need to read the section on how to link -
What I am seeing is that you want to cherry-pick what you want to use and if it does not fit your narrow interpretation that you have to try and bend the wording (or add words) that do not exist to fit your dreamworld. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegnz (talk)

Davegnz: please don't forget to sign your name with ~~~~ so everyone know who is leaving these comments. Also instead of accusing other editors of bad faith, just because they disagree with you, please read WP:Civil and WP:Assume good faith - Ahunt (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

oops system crash - sorry for not signing----Davegnz (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this subject should be closed ----> We got way off the subject matter and does not deal nor help inhance the P-61 article. ----> Asking all editors to refrain for continuing and to move on <---- thanks everyone Davegnz (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There are exceptions to almost every Wikipedia policy and guideline; but when you invoke one of these exceptions, there needs to be a pretty good reason for it. "So that the reader doesn't have to click twice" clearly isn't a sufficient reason to place external links inline, since this would apply to any external link used as a reference. Davegnz, at the same time that you're accusing other editors of "cherry-picking", you are choosing to ignore the general directive contained in the EL policy that such links should not normally appear inline, and instead, choosing to seize upon an exception provided for by the policy.
Is there a good reason why the "survivors" articles need to be treated as special cases? --Rlandmann (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Flanker variant articles

The Sukhoi Su-27 "Flanker" has been developed in a few follow-on models. I only know a little about these. In any event, a few weeks ago I noticed the Sukhoi Su-30 had separate articles for Su-30MKI and Su-30MKK variants. Then today I notice the Sukhoi Su-35 has the Su-35BM split off. This seems like too much splitting off to me, mainly with the Su-35BM. Should some of these variants articles be merged back into the main model articles (Su-30, Su-35)? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that most of them could be condensed, and that if possible, they should be condensed. Certainly, the Su-35BM article is not so detailed as to need to split from the Su-35. Re-integrating the Su-30MKI and Su-30MKK would be quite a job, but attainable if anyone wants to put in the effort. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Also take a glance at Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft), a proposed guideline for what is and is not notable. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The Su-35BM article should certainly not have been split off. There’s hardly anything to the Su-35 article as it is. As for the Su-30 itself, it was barely different from the Su-27PU and there weren’t many built of that basic design; the various Su-30MK models are rather superior to it. One can, therefore, argue that the Su-30M/MK warrants a separate article since it was the first fully multirole derivative of the Su-27 (and Su-30) interceptor, and that was a notable development. While the Russians never procured many Su-30Ms, for financial reasons, even the native type is believed to have originally been equipped with inferior systems compared to those on the Su-30MKK export model for China. The MKK has additional requirements requested by and developed for China and which are probably a modest improvement (and which have reportedly been retrofitted to Russia’s Su-30Ms), so one can argue either way about having a separate MKK article.
The MKI, on the other hand, is quite a bit more advanced, with its integration of state-of-the-art Western systems. It is probably rather close to the Su-35MB, which may have drawn on lessons learned by the Russians from the MKI’s development. It is certainly different enough to warrant a separate article.
One can make a fair case for having a separate article on the Su-30M series in general, with the MKI warranting a separate, more detailed article. As for the MKK, the separate article has a lot of material and depending on the reliability of it all (which I haven’t time to check just now) and the specs we have for it, the suitability of a separate article could go either way. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When is a GA accident notable?

A few months ago, this project adopted some notability guidelines for aircraft accidents and incidents based on what the Airports and Airlines wikiprojects are using, specifically that:

Accidents or incidents should only be included if 

   * The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
   * The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
   * The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

While these make good sense for commercial aviation, they don't seem well suited for general (or military) aviation. Many of us will be aware of the tendency for the GA accident du jour to make its way into an article on a type, or even for the occasional unremarkable GA accident to get an article of its own (which don't tend to survive AFD); but we probably need to set some kind of standard for these events. In particular, we probably need to work out at what point a GA accident is notable enough to mention in an article on a type.

Offhand, I'd say that an event that fits the third criterion above would normally qualify, as well as one that resulted in the cancellation or long-term suspension (how long term?) of a type certificate. The death of a celebrity or other person who would be otherwise notable enough for their own Wikipedia article might be another possibility. Thoughts? --Rlandmann (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You might consider adding a criterion for when the accident isn't notable, but the restoration is, though a clever person would just call the article "Restoration of Foo" and avoid making it about the accident. SDY (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
About a year ago, User:Akradecki put together a set of proposed notability guidelines for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. The proposed guidelines are here, and include something on GA accidents: Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved, notable people are involved, or the incident/accident otherwise results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. Note: momentary news coverage, which would not last beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident, does not confer notability. The rest of the proposal is good too, and perhaps it's time to re-submit it for cosideration. - BillCJ (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks Bill (and Akradecki, of course!) for that. Seems to be pretty much just what we're looking for. It looks to me like this was drawn up as a gauge as to whether such an incident deserves its own article. When we're looking at them, I guess we need to ask ourselves whether the bar should be set any higher or any lower for a brief mention of the incident in an article on a type.
One other criterion that jumps out at me that might make an event worth mentioning in a type article (but not its own article per se) might be the crash of a rare or unique vintage aircraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what the XB-70 Valkyrie article does, but that's different since it wasn't exactly mass produced. Spacecraft accidents (q.v. Challenger) I presume are beyond the scope? I'd refine "unusual circumstances" a little bit as well. Hillbillies drinkin' up a storm and trying to tip cows with their homebuilt is definitely unusual circumstances, but even if it makes the news (human or bovine interest story) it's probably not notable. SDY (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I like User:Akradecki's proposal - I think that hits the main points. You would certainly want to capture accidents that result in ADs in the case of certified aircraft, or any kind of airworthiness review process (as in the Bonanza V tail review), but avoid an endless list of pilot error accidents, unless there was clearly a human factors design problem involved, in other words an aircraft feature that was designed poorly enough to create a series of the same type of accidents. Accidents that were investigated and showed up design flaws (as in the case of the Flying Flea) I think should be included, whether they were corrected or production ended as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible for an incident/accident to be notable TO the aircraft type without being notable enough to merit its own article. Something like the first accident for a type would be worthy of mention in an aircraft type article, or an otherwise unusual incident. These accidents are often of "borderline" notability, and might fail to be kept in an AFD. I looked at the 777 article, and there are 6 incidents listed, and only one, the London crash this year, has its own page. Of the other five, probably only the first stands out as notable enough to be listed, but the others are all sourced (which is rare). Most of these would probaly not even be listed on an average airliner page, except that the 777 hasn't had any major disasters along the lines of the DC-10's early career. However, they are all somewhat unique in the career of the 777, and probaly just notable enough not to make a big deal of deleting. - BillCJ (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The three line notability was originally written by me for the airports project and was also taken up by the airline project. But I would agree that it is all that is needed for airports and airline articles a guideline based on Akradecki proposal would be more suitable for aircraft articles. The problem may be the more complicated the guide the easier it is for the my accident must be in the article types who will use the loopholes in the guidelines at AfD and similar discussions. So I think we need to make sure that any guideline is as clear as we can and Akradecki's proposal is a good basis for that. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Some people seem to wondering off the theme of this talk section - from working in aviation GA means General Aviation - not military flight (ie XB-70) not Commercial (ie 777 crashes) or Corporate - AD on the V-Tail Bonanza might qualify, The crash of Buddy Holly should be included - problem is the blurring of what is a GA incident and what is a Commercial/Corporate (ie Charter for hire - see [Avantair.com]) -
Would a Celeberty who crashed in his personal ex-commercial jet (say John Travolta and his 707) be considered a notable GA accident?? Is the A-380 owned by the Saudi King be considered a GA accident (I think in both cases since they were built and certified as Commercial aircraft the answer would/might be no).
Does an AD that Grounded all the AT-10's because of a misguided inspection technique be considered notible?? Would the Grounding and retirement of all the PB4Y-2 from Forest Fighting be notible because of one poorly built wing spar -
I think notable in this case would have to be the death of a notable person (i.e. John Denver) using a personal aircraft "Died" while in control or a passenger - but again was this aircraft certified as a GA or home-built experimental?? Davegnz (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right - the use of the term "GA" is imprecise because it means all aircraft that are not operated by the airlines or the military. A Saudi Prince's private A380 is a GA aircraft. Perhaps it would be better to ask if there should be a clearer standard for accidents involving aircraft of gross take-off weights of 12,500 lbs and below - the FAR 23/CAR 523/JAR 23 definition of a "light aircraft"? - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Davegnz is right in pointing out that we've wandered a little off the original topic, but that's OK - we need to consider notability for military and commercial incidents as well; I kicked the discussion off on GA since these are the (almost always unremarkable) accidents that tend to cruft up articles on aircraft types. A quick search of the NTSB database shows something like 300 such fatal accidents every year in the United States alone - undeniably tragic, but Wikipedia is not a memorial.
An AD that resulted in the grounding of a type is going to be significant to the history of that type, and probably rates a mention (whether we think that the reason behind the AD was reasonable or not - that's not our call to make).
If a Saudi prince's private A380 crashed, it would probably qualify as a notable GA accident because of the unusual nature of the event (the fact that it was an unusually large and expensive aircraft to be operated in private hands). --Rlandmann (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Consider all aviation for a second, maybe a WP:BLP1E-ish criterion for "integrate into main article":
  • If the plane accident involves a notable person, can the accident just be incorporated into that person's article? John Denver's death is probably best covered this way instead of having a whole article for the accident (unless the accident is otherwise notable).
  • Can the accident just be included in the article for the type? Consider the "Israeli F-15 without a wing" incident, which is currently and appropriately just in the F-15 article.
Another criterion that could be added: notable controversy, current or resolved, over the accident (i.e. the original Comets and the metal fatigue). SDY (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox Aircraft}} - alignment of attribute labels

(Copied from Template talk:Infobox Aircraft#Alignment of attribute labels to reach a wider audience)

The column alignment used in {{Infobox Aircraft}} isn't standard. Most {{infobox}}es use left-align for both label and value; this template's use of right-align on the label (to have a sort of "middle-align" of the columns) stands out and doesn't add any particular benefit. I reckon if left-align for both is good enough for the majority of other infoboxes it's good enough for this one. It also simplifies this template's code a bit, which should help with further work in the future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIKESHED. Might as well let him have his way, though. If he is anything like the other wonks that have complained that WP:AIR does things differently, he won't leave us alone till he gets his way. Although I would be happy to be wrong! - BillCJ (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Look on the bright side, Bill - at least Chris has had the courtesy to actually discuss the issue rather than just implementing it (as we've seen in the past), and either way, deserves civility.
While I agree that the suggestion (demand?) comes across as rather high-handed, the underlying reasoning is sound. While there is (as far as I'm aware) no actual "standard", this infobox is certainly uncommon in its layout. I guess that while we're talking about this, we should also revisit the perennial left-aligned caption bugbear, as another example of a bikeshed issue that we might not want to be revisiting every couple of months.
So - maybe a quick show of hands on the two proposals is in order? --Rlandmann (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Not sure what I did wrong to warrant that. For what it's worth, {{infobox}} is emerging as a standard way of doing infoboxen, but I'm smart enough not to propose that WP:AIR adopt it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you think that was uncivil, you should have seen my previous several drafts! (btw, I don't think I was was uncivil, just not assuming good faith - there is a difference!) I just have an aversion to people insisting that all projects have to do things the way others do, simply because the majority does it that way. In this case, no guidelines even exist stating the majority way is preferred. Btw, Chris, you might want to check out the talk archives from earlier this year where we were forced to spend many hours retooling the "See also" section to satisfy one guideline wonk. He even deigned to help on ONE page out of the several thousand we had to change. And that's not the only time it's happened either. I am just tired of drive-by editors trying to insist we are wrong somehow because we don't follow the MOS in lockstep. I'm not objecting to how you asked - you have done it 100% correctly, when you could have just made the changes - I'm just insulted you felt it needs changing at all. Again, it's a BIKESHED issue, and as such, I won't comment on the merits of doing it one way or another - it doens't really matter. - BillCJ (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Although most of the active participants in this project (me included!) seem to spend the vast majority of our time working on articles within this project's scope, I think it's really important that we never lose sight of the fact that we're a small part of a much bigger picture. And just as we like to insist on certain levels of uniformity within articles about aircraft, there are people out there who try to look after the uniformity of the look and feel of articles across Wikipedia more generally. That's a worthy goal!
It's just unfortunate that past experiences have soured our receptiveness to such suggestions. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Point taken! - BillCJ (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

1. Reformat {{Infobox Aircraft}} so that the data labels are left-aligned (compare, for example. the ship infobox on an article like USS Enterprise (CVN-65))

2. Reformat the image caption in the infobox so that it's centred underneath the image.

Template updates

I think that the comments and straw poll above indicate a general support for a facelift of {{Infobox Aircraft}}, so I've gone ahead and implemented this. Captions can be manually switched between centred and left-justified (see below). As a widely-used template, the changes will take a little while to propagate through, but should start to become visible in articles shortly.

Things to note:

Field justification - Fields are now left-justified

Captions - Captions now default to centred, as on most other Wikipedia infoboxes. To make long captions left-justify, simply insert the word "long" into the field name; so |caption= will produce a centred caption, and |long caption= will produce a left-justified caption.

Cleanup - Two of the data labels were wikied; I've delinked them for neatness. They were "Manufacturer", a word which I don't think needs any special explanation or expansion, and "Maiden flight", which needed to be linked as a kind of jargon, but which doesn't need a link if the data label is changed to the more prosaic "First flight" (which I've done). Working on the Draft notability guidelines for aircraft has made me sensitive to how problematic the word "type" can be, so I've changed this data label (but not parameter) to "Role", which reflects more accurately what we're actually using it for. (ie - |type=Agricultural helicopter will display as Role: Agricultural helicopter). If anyone has any objections to these, please let me know.

The way ahead - while researching how best to implement the Individual aircraft infobox discussed above, I took a long look at WP:SHIP's system of stacked, modular infoboxes - an elegant and simple solution to an otherwise complex bit of coding. I've therefore made a similar solution available in parallel to {{Infobox Aircraft}}. Instead of using the one template, this stacks three two templates together: {{Infobox Aircraft Begin}}, which contains the table formatting code and the name field, {{Infobox Aircraft Image}}, which contains the image and caption, and {{Infobox Aircraft Type}}, which contains the rest of the data from Infobox Aircraft. The fields in these three two templates are exactly the same as in Infobox aircraft, and the look on a page should be indistinguishable from Infobox Aircraft. I've put an example in place on the North American XB-28 as a demonstration. The beauty of this system is that {{Infobox Aircraft Career}} can be added to the stack if desired, or the same "Begin" and "Image" module can be used with the "Career" module and without the "Type" module for an article on an individual aircraft (see LZ 130 Graf Zeppelin as an example).

I'll document all of this properly over the next few days. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work, I like the ability to bolt on the career or type infoboxes. MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The manufacturer link is good to have to show that they do manufacturing, upgrades and other support. If it weren't for the last part I would agree it does not needed to be linked. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Just asking: What is the purpose of having the Begin and Image sections separate? Do you have something in mind, RL? - BillCJ (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, it was originally just a throwback to WP:SHIPS. I merged them at one point, then split them again. I thought that keeping them separate provides just a little bit more flexibility, allowing the modules to be more easily re-ordered, if that ever becomes desirable. But on further reflection, if we ever think that an extra module needs to go between these sections, it be added just as easily to an {{Infobox Aircraft Begin}} that contains the image code as well. I'll go ahead and merge them. Good catch! --Rlandmann (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like a lot of work for little benefit. We are not comparing like with like. The Aircraft infobox is a terse summary of the aircraft type; the Ships infobox setup does more work than the Aircraft one since it carries the specification as well as the key dates in its history. Unlike ships, where most all are notable, we have few notable aircraft. Unlike a ship which may have a career measured in decades and covering a number of notable incidents aside from its launch, commission, and scrapping, notable aircraft tend to be notable for a single incident - Spirit for crossing the Atlantic, Hindenburg, R101, Stardust for their demise. The articles on crashed aircraft cover from the point of the notable incident, and may use the {{Infobox Aircraft accident}} template. These extra templates are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Latécoère 300

Sorry to clutter up this page, but I just created Latécoère 300. I'm rather excited because until now I've mainly been a gnome; this is the first article I've started from scratch. (I reciently joined this and some other projects to try to get motivation to write articles.) I realize it's not much, but there's not a lot of information out there on this series. I guess I'm just excited and looking for some validation that I didn't screw things up. Comments welcome! Livitup (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GA under review

Hello there, the article AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Underground Mushroomers

I just found this newly created article at Brotherhood of Underground Mushroomers. Not likely to be notable on its own, even if it were sourced. My only question is: PROD or CSD? - BillCJ (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

CSD. No context, no content. SDY (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree CSD - there are no refs and a search pulls up no articles, except this Wikipedia article! Although I don't see which criteria it would qualify under - criteria 1 perhaps. You could always move the text to CFB North Bay - it could be a sentence or two there and then make the article a redirect to that. Still need a ref, though. - Ahunt (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree that this article should be merged with CFB North Bay not enough information to qualify it as a stand-alone Davegnz (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well, but as a concession to WP:BITE, I've left a note on the contributor's talk page asking for a reference. If he can indeed provide one, then we can go ahead and merge rather than delete. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

List of aircraft of Iran

I found this article, it hasn't been touched since November 2007! What should we do with it?

It appears to have been specifically a list of aircraft used by the Iranian Air Force. I've therefore redirected it to List of aircraft of the Iranian Air Force. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done--EZ1234 (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

User:John had removed the {{avyear}} links in the SEPECAT Jaguar infobox, I added back the avyear link on the first flight as it allows the reader to reference the first flights to the contempary scene in aviation (other notable events and first flights). I am sure that we have discussed this before and the avyear template for use in the infobox came out of the last discussion. User:John has asked me to explain how this hidden link serves the reader. I have suggested that he comes here and asks the project. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Milborne. I am keen to ensure that aircraft articles conform to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context and I think this kind of link breaks that. --John (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with John on this issue. I have always found these dates that link to "XXXX in Aviation" to really mislead the reader. When I first started reading Wikipedia aircraft articles I clicked on many of these "first flight" links hoping to find out more information about the first flight of the aircraft in question only to be lead to a "XXXX in Aviation" page that didn't even mention the aircraft type in question. I was told by people writing the "XXXX in Aviation" articles that they wanted the links out there, but I always thought they misled readers and took them to pages that weren't relevant. At the very least the "XXX in Aviation" page should at least mention the event being linked from, which almost none do. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I like the 'avyear' feature. The first flights don't link directly but if they are missing it is because we have not yet entered them. I might be wrong but in the 'aircraft infobox' instructions it says' don't forget to add the first flight date to the avyear page' or words to that effect. Can't see how this link breaks context personally. We could have categories such as 'First flights in 19xx' but that seems a backward step to me. Nimbus (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is centered on the fact that "XXXX in Aviation" links won't work with the date preference links. We were advised that the latter took precedence over the former. However ... since the MOSNUM style masters have recently been deprecating use of the date preference links – due to the unsightliness of all the blue bolding, an apparent inability to disable that feature for datelinking, and the fact that non-registered editors are not able to benefit from datelinking – the time has probably come for reinserting "XXXX in Aviation" links. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Some interesting points there. My experience has been similar to Ahunt's; these links, as well as being hidden, easter egg, piped links, usually do not lead anywhere useful, even once one has found them. As Askari Mark says, we no longer need to link full dates; however I wouldn't agree that this would be a justification for adding more easter egg links. I still can't see the benefit of these links; also, it's important to bear in mind that Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context is a project-wide consensus and style guideline. As far as I know this is the only project which has this local policy and I really am not seeing the rationale for it yet, sorry. --John (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

F-20 help request

Could I get some eyeballs on F-20 Tigershark? I'd like to bring it to FA in the short term. Maury (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks everyone! Maury (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Aircraft of the Battle of Britain

Note that there is a new editor who is pushing a POV on the aircraft involved in the Battle of Britain. There needs to be some revisions as to weight. It seems to be another "my aircraft is better than your aircraft" argument. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC).

Agree. A study of the edit history will tell anyone that this editor is reverting cited material, then has the (moronic) nerve to call me a vandal! Dapi89 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a repeated offence of calling the other editor liar, moronic explains the issue without much to be added. Refer to discussion page. Previous editors were vanadalising the text and were deleting integral parts of it, replacing with wishful claims, that were not supported, despite asked. Dapi89 needs to be warned for better manners and more constructive approach rather than just pushing the undo button if he sees some referenced material he does not like. Kurfürst (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't bandy about claims of vandalism, that goes to WP:Tendentious editing. Use the talk page to resolve contentious issues. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

Some light relief?

Anyone who needs a little something to lighten the mood should head on over to TAW-50. Hurry before it's gone! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm surprised in didn't have FTL or hyperspace capability. I'm pretty sure Lock-North are working on those too. ;) Thanks RL! After running into to WT:MILHIST#Proposal to dismiss Nick Dowling as Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject eariler tonight, I definitely needed something lighter! - BillCJ (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow that page certainly explains the US budget deficit! - Ahunt (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what the toilets seats on this thing costs - I am sure Al Gore will be buying one so he can spead his message about global warming...Davegnz (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It was hilarious, but I'm afraid I have deleted it as a hoax rather than letting the PROD run. Sorry to be so boring but this is not what the project is for. --John (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Seaplanes and flying boats

A suggestion has been made over on WP:AVIATION to rename this category to Category:Seaplanes, thus leaving the way open potentially to subcategorise this into Category:Flying boats, Category:Floatplanes, Category:Ekranoplanes, and Category:Amphibious aircraft, all of which are presently grouped together under the present category. While I'm not sure that we need that level of subcategorisation, I think that the suggested rename of the parent category makes sense. Thoughts? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the subcats although they would not be harmfull as most readers dont know the distinction between the different types. Dont see a problem with Category:Seaplanes will List of seaplanes and flying boats need to be renamed ! MilborneOne (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"Seaplanes" is exactly how Transport Canada classifies them all in this country, so that would be consistent terminology. - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that the list should be renamed as well. Indeed, I probably named the category after the list without stopping to think about the suitability of the name. I agree with TracyR's thoughts on the WP:AVIATION page that as it stands, the category name (and the list it was named after) implies a false dichotomy between "seaplanes" and "flying boats" when one is actually a subset of the other. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft of September 11, 2001

Looking for a home for the detailed information regarding the aircraft of 9-11. Tried the September 11, 2001 attacks page but keep getting information thrown-out. they keep refering this information to the individual pages for these flights, but feel that a simple para on the 9-11 attacks page should also cover this subject... wondering if a quickie page would cover this subject (see my homepage / sandbox for this info) Davegnz (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I bellyfeel that info about the planes should be included in the article about the crash, i.e. American Airlines Flight 77. SDY (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The other 9/11 flights are listed in {{Sept11}} if you don't have those handy. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree absolutely. Actually, most of the information is already contained in the crash articles, so it won't be a big job to integrate it if desired. These individual airframes are absolutely non-notable outside the context of those tragic events. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
So what is the decision here - add it to the September 11 article, start a new article or what?? REason I ask is I can not get it added to the main article (where I think it belongs) and need help from someone up to food chain to get it to stick and not deleted (over and over). Davegnz (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the detailed information should be in the individual incident articles, but it is strange that the main article does not mention even the aircraft types used or have a summary that directs you to the four individual articles. I would have thought that at least a Airline Flight Number 99 was a Boeing XXX registered NXXX on a scheduled flight from x to x should be in the main article under its own subheading. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This is very very bad - actually agreeing with my fellow editors (need to check my meds again) <bg> - Exactly my point, take a quick look at my home page and you can see the quickie section I tried adding and was dumped. I think the editors over at the 9-11 article do not want to dirty up there article with messy aviation information - I think right now, need to do a quickie article and leave it as a stand alone Davegnz (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I see what you mean, I added the names of the aircraft (Boeing 567 and 757) with the names of the pilots and got an immediate reversal saying the information was "trivial." On attempting a smaller follow-up edit, the submission was immediately reversed with the comment: "1st, read WP:MOS - your revs are poorly written; 2nd, aircraft types says nothing about transcontinental nature; just write and cite "transcontinental"." You would be better off creating a new article or adding to each individual article. The warriors on the ramparts seem to eager to protect this article from any new submissions. FWiW, not worth the fight IMHO, but I did ask the editor in question to reconsider how he talks/writes to people which verges on incivility. Bzuk (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

Supermarine Spitfire variants part one and two

These are some really extensive articles, requiring two parts, but I hate the "part one/two" titles. Before I propose on the respective pages that they be moved, I need new titles. Any suggestions? My thinking is to rename them "Supermarine Spitfire Single-stage Merlin variants" and "Supermarine Spitfire Two-stage Merlin and Griffon variants". - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"Early" and "Late" would seem to be an intuitive split, though I'm not sure how well it would work for the specific topic. Splitting all of the mass-produced designs into one article and the one-offs and experimentals into the second is also reasonable. SDY (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
How about Merlin and Griffon series? FWiW, otherwise, I like the early and late differeentiation. Bzuk (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC).
In reference books this kind of split is typically done chronologically, so "early variants" and "late variants" would be good. However Spitfire development was unusually complex, so not all books do this - some choose the Merlin/Griffon split, and some follow the Mk numbering - typically under the "Early" and "Late" headings (the Mk numbering was not always chronological in practice, although it usually was). That last one would be my choice. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You could perhaps add a second table to the comparison article, summarising all the variants with a row for each Mk/subvariant along with a few salient details. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree "Early" and "Late is probably best. I suggest those titles, but the articles may need some reorganiztion to actually reflect that. I created the comparison article from from moved content, it does need major expanding to include all variants. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with renaming as Trevor suggests but I would ask that User:Minorhistorian is at least consulted as he has done the vast majority of the quality work in those articles. I would also agree that the article titles are not ideal. I have helped occasionally. Many readers may not know what 'single stage' and 'two stage' means. The Griffon section is relatively short and could easily be expanded into its own article, Supermarine Spitfire (Griffon powered variants) which leaves the Merlin variants to be split in half. It is not easy to split by mark number (first Griffon variant, MK IV) so it could be split Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin powered variants) and Supermarine Spitfire (late Merlin powered variants) which is still a bit clumsy but is a variation of what has been suggested here. Nimbus (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Of, course. I'll let him know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
When I first suggested splitting the original article it was to try and keep things to a manageable length, using the Wikipedia guidelines. The titles were really "working titles", in lieu of seeing how things would evolve. My initial reaction was that these articles have appeared under these titles for so long that a change would be unnecessary and/or confusing. On reflection I think a change of title to something more descriptive would be in order; however a brief explanation of the phrases "single-stage" and "twin stage" for the engines would be needed in the case of Trevor's suggestions. How to split the articles? For now I would suggest that the "generational" change brought about by the adoption of the Merlin 60 series is the most convenient break point. As they stand the articles are reasonably balanced in length and a different type of split would require extra work to reallocate references, notes and bibliography. I say go for it!Minorhistorian (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
But you have to help!! Nice one. A bit spooky but the phrase 'working title' was in my head, honest. The Griffon article could easily grow. It is worth spending some thought on getting the titles right to avoid future discussion. When I started here there was just one Spitfire article, spoilt rotten now! Nimbus (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
No worries! Anyway, Trevor started it! Nimbus (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think for simplicity and clarity Trevor's Supermarine Spitfire (early Merlin powered variants) and variations thereof is the way to go. "Single-stage" and "Two-stage Merlin" engine variants would be too confusing to those who don't know the meaning of the terms. I was also thinking something like Supermarine Spitfire variants Prototype to Mark VI, Supermarine Spitfire variants Mark VII to Mark XVI etc; trouble is that as the Spitfire range expanded the Mark numbers gave no indication as to the engines installed. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I also think that a seperate article for one-off and special production mks. (it PR versions, navalized, long range, high altitude versions, high speed versions, trainers) could also thin-out this article
  1. Early Merlin Spitfire (Mk 1-Mk V) [Battle of Britain Mks)
  2. Late Merlin Spitfire (Mk VI-XX)
  3. Griffin Spitfire (Mk 21 - 28)
  4. Experimental & Navalized Spitfire

Davegnz (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The articles and their talk pages have now been moved to their new pages and the articles with the "working titles" have been deleted under WP:CSD G6 "non-controversial move" provisions. I'm now working through those pages which have links to these articles to amend them. For now the articles are reasonably well balanced for length and further splitting will probably be complicating things a little too much. I think another priority could be to look at updating the Supermarine Seafire article? Minorhistorian (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Observations on our style and content guides with respect to FA/A-class article standards

I’ve been working on improving the F-16 Fighting Falcon with an eye towards its eventually becoming A-class or even FA. However, in examining the handful of aircraft articles we have in those two categories, I’ve found that there’s a wide variance in topical section coverage and arrangement, along with any clear standard distinguishing FA articles from A-class.

FA-class
The B-17 Flying Fortress article goes from ‘Design and development’ to ‘Operational history’ with no aircraft description; however, it finishes up with a lot of space dedicated to what is essentially related “trivia” – with respect to the article’s subject itself (i.e., ‘Noted B-17s’ and ‘Noted B-17 pilots and crew members’).
F-4 Phantom II likewise has no aircraft description, but does have a ‘Flight characteristics’ section (an assessment-type entry) – and “analysis” and “comparisons” sections have been deprecated elsewhere due to their tendency to draw NPOV contributions. This article also has ‘Operators’ before ‘Variants’ – the reverse of what I see in most aircraft articles – and sections on ‘Culture’ and ‘Survivors’.
A-class
Concorde seems to me to be the best-developed article of the lot, but underweighted in the ‘Design’ section and overweighted in the ‘Main problems overcome during design’. The most balanced, however, I feel is the Sukhoi Su-25.
The F-84 Thunderjet and Tupolev TB-3 articles are rather idiosyncratic in their coverage. The former has a ‘Flying the Thunderjet’ section, but not one on variants; the latter has a ‘Description of construction’ section that is separate from the ‘Design and development’ section.

In short, it appears that WP:Aircontent and the WP Aviation style guide don’t play much of a formal role in FA/A-class assessment. Should we become more assiduous in their application?

A related question is whether these should go further and delve into what specific design elements should normally be covered (from an encyclopedic viewpoint). For instance, the Su-25 article includes the cockpit, wings and fuselage, power plant, and avionics as major subsections. Should this become the norm? Furthermore, if avionics are to be covered, how should we handle long-lived and much-modified aircraft like the F-16? (Address it in the ‘Variant’ entries instead?)

Thoughts? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The spitting of the splitfire question above shows that it's not just avionics that causes problems for long-lived and frequently updated aircraft. My gut feeling on this is that we should develop a relatively consistent layout for articles on aircraft, maybe a "template" of sorts by broad groups, so that the F-16 article is structured like other articles about fighter aircraft. Since many readers will look at the "see also" or "comparable aircraft" it makes it easier to read when the articles cover the same things. Mindless consistency is obviously a bad idea, since "operational history" of aircraft that never flew is a rather moot point and doesn't need a section. This proposal would require some rigorous categorizing, and there will probably be disagreements over where to categorize some planes. SDY (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to resort to that - we already have a well-documented layout that's used more-or-less consistently in hundreds (perhaps thousands) of articles; where sections are inapplicable for some reason (as in your example of the Operational history of an aircraft that never actually flew) we simply leave them out.
As I see it, the real question is whether there's any particular type of material that (a) is cropping up fairly regularly in articles on aircraft types and that (b) isn't already covered in one of the standard sections.
I don't think there's any harm in articles containing one-off sections when there's something particularly significant to say about an aircraft or its history and which doesn't fit readily into one of the standard sections, or would add undue weight to that section. But when such a section is turning up time and time again in disparate articles, we should move to standardise what it's called and where it fits in relation to other sections. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify - the standard sections in their standard order are set out at WP:Aircontent as noted by Askari Mark above. We also have {{Aerostart}}, a template that pre-loads the standard article layout when starting a new article about an aircraft type, or renovating an old one. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I certainly would never propose “mindless consistency” (indeed, I’m avoiding inclusion of a section that would be unwieldy), but I do believe that a degree of consistency is a good thing (which is why we have these projects in the first place). In particular, one would expect this of the “best of the best” of our products – yet, as I outlined above, there’s no clear way to discern what differentiates FA-class from A-class as far as this project is concerned. Furthermore, there does seem to me to be an evolving organization of topics for inclusion (at least in modern aircraft), and it may behoove us to consider some degree of formalization for the subtopics we might want to see in our articles (where appropriate). The current guidance only covers general topics. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this has been covered but I don't see it. FA and GA follow wikipedia wide standards and are not tied to what project they follow under. However the A/B levels are project ratings. That's partially why a FA article may be laid out a little differently than the project guidelines. Fnlayson (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
And the degree to which the FA-gang pay attention to the recommendations of the WikiProjects has waxed and waned over the years, with the current climate decidedly anti-WikiProjects. So on the one hand we have MOS telling us that "consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles", providing a major raison d'être of the WikiProjects, and then on the other, we have FA saying that an article so acknowledged is an example of "our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation", but (at best) not giving a tinker's cuss about whether the presentation of an article is consistent with the rest of its subject area.
Of course, there's no reason why any project's prescribed standards and those of the project more generally need to be at odds with one another. FA could be a great mechanism whereby "eccentric" standards by certain WikiProjects (ahem) get gently pulled into line, and by the same token, where great ideas arising from one WikiProject or another could be promoted throughout Wikipedia more generally. Unfortunately, we're a long way from that ideal, and consequently, chasing FAs seems to me to lead more usually to less cohesion and consistently IMHO.
Give it another couple of years and the pendulum may swing back the other way :) --Rlandmann (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine (I'm personally agnostic about FA anyway), but that still leaves the question of what our standards for A-class should be. Those are under our control as to defining what's the "best of the best". A-class should ensure that the "article is consistent with the rest of its subject area" – which is more properly an WikiProject concern than an FA concern – and I cannot recall seeing a FAR where the FA reviewers have demanded removal of such consistency. (Not that I would dare to assert it could never happen, considering some of the things I have seen happen at FAR.) In any case, I think we should have clear guidance for achieving such consistency for our editors with regard to A-class. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft of the Battle of Britain

I feel uneasy at the way the Fighter Aircraft Main types: Hurricane, Spitfire and Bf 109 section of this article has developed; from being a relatively small, easy to understand section in the main Battle of Britain page the editing has turned into a dogfight. I count myself as being partly responsible through my irritation at the way some editing has been done. Forgetting recriminations and finger pointing I advocate that the page be re-written with the following points in mind; other editors thoughts please:

1. What is the objective of this page? Is it to be a reasonably straight-forward summary of the aircraft involved or is it to be a technical analysis of all aspects of the design of the aircraft? The latter is interesting to me and I can delve in such stuff like a water buffalo in a paddy field; however, I am seriously asking whether it has become a page which can only be confusing to the general readership. Personally, I think much of this kind of detail should be handled in the pages of the respective aircraft types. That's what wikilinks are for

2. Verifiability of source material. Straightforward, I would have thought; if editors are to use material, standards have been set in Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.[2]

There are a number of references cited which do not meet this standard. The material must be accessible to all readers for it to make sense and for quoted extracts to be placed in context; are websites okay to use? If people can read Wikipedia, they can access material cited from websites whether it is 100% accurate or biased is then up to the reader to decide. It is all very well to quote a source, but the editor MUST provide enough details to provide access to that material.

For instance, after a long search on the internet, I recently requested a cited report "Fuel Supplies to The British Empire And Its Commonwealth; Outlook, Ramifications and Projections For The Prosecution Of The War, February 1941, {Australian War Memorial Archives)" from the Australian War Memorial Archives: I cited the title of the report; I have just received a reply from the researcher of the AWM stating that;

Thank you for your inquiry. Yes this appears to be a mysterious item! The reference should have included a series and item number if the report came from our official records. I cannot find any publication in our books database with this title. Wikipedia should be contacted to request the writer provide a more precise reference.

ie: the material is not available for general use until more details of where it can be found are provided. Again, it may well be fascinating read and a 100% accurate report explaining the situation in regard to fuel supplies to the RAF, but if it cannot be read, the information cannot be verified. Simple, straightforward.

3. There's nothing wrong in stating or defending a POV, especially one that can be reasonably backed up with supporting material - turning it into a "pissing contest" is an exercise in futility. Unfortunately two editors lost their editing rights over this. Personally, I look back at some of the things I posted on the discussion page and I cringe a little, for getting drawn into such an exercise. As I said some time ago, I couldn't give a hoot about the Spitfire Vs 109 schtick - all I was asking is that others respect my right to cite material without have it summarily removed because it came from a "revisionist source". I couldn't give two hoots about the opinions of someone else who can supply no evidence as to why such material is questionable and should not be used. That is a great way to get my back up and make me wanna do the same thing just to show how irritating it is!

Any other thoughts?Minorhistorian (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the "problem" of overanalysis, I think that having this information on this article is desirable, that is what it is for. Putting it onto the pages of the respective aircraft causes more problems than it solves, IMHO. The Bf 109 and the Spitfire saw action throughout the war, and with the article in question, we can stick to a select few variants that belong to this particular theme, without having to do the same for the later ones (which would need to be done for thoroughness), which would have to be done were it to be moved. Easy (in theory). So I say keep the detail where it is.

In everything else I agree with Minor'. My edits, though harsh, unnecessary and said with my brain cavity heating up by a few degrees, were simply to defend sourced edits against unreferenced claims, and I got blocked for it. The information might exist and be true, but if it isn't available, let alone cited, it cannot be used.

I have noticed a further information request has been put next to one of my citations, and although the website provides the book source, I can cite it when I receive that book (I have it on order). Dapi89 (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well it certainly looks 'hot' in there! I wikilinked this section title for easier navigation, hope you don't mind. From a quick glance the lead does not match the title at all and grammar, spelling and punctuation have all gone out of the window during the 'exchanges'. The 100 octane issue seems to be misplaced, although relevant to performance it is not an 'aircraft of...' and is more connected to Logistics of the Battle of Britain as would the parts supply problem that Douglas Bader overcame in his own unique way. The Spit, Bf109 and Hurricane sections are mostly comparison which I am sure are covered in their own articles, I've seen a few aircraft comparison articles deleted recently. There is a Spitfire photo in the Defiant section. The article seems to have 'lost its way' a bit, needs to be thinned out by editors that are not involved and the relevant points made clearer, it is not until near the end of the 100 octane section, for instance, that the significance of this problem is explained, it should be the opening sentence IMO. The good news is that there is a lot of text to work with. I could be bold and have a go but it is likely that I would also get drawn into the 'dogfight' (good pun, BTW) by deleting an editor's favourite sentence, that's the way it seems to go unfortunately. We have to remember who might be reading this, if I was a 14 year old schoolboy I would give up after a couple of sections and go back to Playstation land. Hope that was informative and does not upset anyone. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's a fine line between analysis and original synthesis of material; and overly-detailed technical comparisons tend to push that boundary. While I'm not saying that it's been crossed (yet) in this article, this is one of those occasions that I think we need to remind ourselves that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and articles here need to limit their scope and granularity of detail to what one would expect to find in an encyclopedia, or at most an "Encyclopedia of Aviation" or "Encyclopedia of World War II".
To me, it looks like the level of detail in this article is starting to push past this into what we might expect to find in a specialist monograph for military historians or enthusiasts (like the Osprey and Schiffer titles I think most of us are familiar with). It's great for those of us with fetishes for the technical details of flying machines, but I'm not so sure that it's encyclopedic.
In trying to keep perspective on this slippery notion of encyclopedic, I've found it useful to spend time in public libraries and non-specialist bookshops, perusing the books on aviation, aircraft, and aircraft types to get a feel for where we should be aiming.
Imagine a whole book on the Battle of Britain written in the same tone and same level of detail as this article, and then ask how likely it is that such a book would be on the shelves of a reasonable-size public library, or non-specialist bookshop; or whether it's something they would have to order in for you. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a fetish for oily Tiger Moths, is that normal?! That was an aircraft of the BoB was it not? Sorry, got silly there for a minute. RL, can you define what 'encyclopedic' is for us again? It might help. I could not honestly tell you past my own thoughts except that I used to think that it was 'a big book, full of facts'. Nimbus (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a big book but it covers many subjects in a volume. The content on each is summarized. For example I have a couple encyclopedia of aircraft type books. In them an aircraft type might get a few pages, while a dedicated book might give 100 or more pages on the same aircraft type. Wikipedia:Summary style might be of help also. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually we've already got an encyclopedia article on encyclopedia right here! :)
There are a couple of different characteristics of an encyclopedia that I think are relevant here. Fundamentally, an encyclopedia aims to be a compendium of accumulated knowledge (rather than a publisher of new or original knowledge); this is why we have such strict policies on original research and synthesis, and why we (sometimes counterintuitively!) preference secondary sources over primary sources.
The second characteristic, the main one that I was referencing above, and which Fnlayson has just provided a perfect example of, is that an encyclopedia conveys information in a summarised, concise way. That specifically doesn't mean that it's "dumbed down", but this can be a really hard balance to find. An encyclopedia article doesn't attempt to include every fact about a subject or be the "last word" on a topic; quite the reverse. It's a "first word" on the topic, an introduction, a jumping-off point. It says as much as it needs to in order to brief the reader on a subject and give them the essential concepts and vocabulary they need to go off and learn more about it.
I've often thought that the "not paper" part of the What Wikipedia is not policy is a very mixed blessing. The writers and editors of paper encyclopedias were forced by logistical and economic concerns to keep their material on-topic and stick to the salient, seminal facts. "Longer and more detailed" does not equate to "better".
There are many different genres of non-fiction writing; and an encyclopedia article is a different animal from a newspaper story, a historical monograph, a pilot's handbook, a textbook, or a college term paper. We have many "encyclopedia articles" that read more like one of these other genres though.
OK - off the soapbox! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Very good, not 'soapboxing' at all. I am beginning to feel quite strongly that we (as a project team) should slow down on creating new articles and expanding new ones but concentrate on improving the quality of the existing ones. We probably avoid this because it treads on other editor's toes at times. There is an awesome backlog of articles needing attention. I have created a couple of articles, they have been expanded to a sensible level with the grateful help of other editors and I don't feel the need to expand them much further as their points will be lost. I would think that this is a WP wide problem as the number of notable subjects covered falls. Nimbus (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rlandmann; for an article titled Aircraft of the Battle of Britain there is detail here that would bore people who aren't aviation buffs spitless. When I step back and look at some of the information I've included, I've fallen into the trap of assuming that anyone reading the article will understand the detail. Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy or Price's The Hardest Day are great examples of books we could well use as a guide; in both a reasonable blend of technical information has been written into a narrative which is able to be read, understood and - most importantly - enjoyed by those who wouldn't be too interested in the nuts and bolts of the weaponry. I just wish I could write with the clarity and precision of either of them. I will go through material I've included with a stiff wire brush and try and be objective about cleaning it up.
Nimbus' point about improving the quality of existing articles, rather than creating a swag of new ones, is also a good one. I've created a couple of article that need some TLC, but I've been too tied up with other things to be bothered.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's nothing that says that an encyclopedia article has to be particularly interesting to the reader (but of course, it would be an ideal!). Across Wikipedia we have articles on hundreds of thousands of bugs, plants, obscure aeroplanes, rocks, stars, Pokemon characters, and what-have-you that are little more than a dry account of what that specific thing is, and for the most part, that's all that an encyclopedia article on that subject needs to say about it.
As I see it, the biggest problem with technical detail overkill is not so much that it's boring for a reader without the same fetish (no-one's holding a gun to their head and making them read it, right?) it's the "forest for the trees" effect. The more minutiae the article includes, the more likely it is that the main points will get swamped and lost, and thereby the article fails in its purpose of briefing the reader on the subject.
Of course, there are some extremely skillful writers who can convey a wealth of fine detail while still keeping their main points clarion-clear above it all. That's really hard to do at the best of times, and on Wikipedia, two effects specifically make it even harder.
First, the collaborative nature of the project makes this "best case" scenario a moving target. As soon as you think you've achieved the balance I just mentioned, someone else is likely to come along, see that you've mentioned that the DB 601 was fuel-injected, and then dump in a whole paragraph about the specifics of the fuel-injection system of that engine. "Gilding the lily" is a very real problem on some articles. Some will then cry "censorship!" or "dumbing down!" when you try to remove it.
Second, it's much easier to achieve that tricky balance when writing from a specific POV, in order to advance a specific position. We try (and I say, rightly so) to achieve balance by presenting any and every point of view - even a passing nod to the loony fringe. This is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, but it almost inevitably results in reducing the directness and therefore clarity of the writing.
I wish I knew the answers! I just try to keep the "inverted pyramid" in mind, and keep referring to aviation books aimed at a general readership who don't need or want to know the cabin width of a Piper Cub, size of a Bonanza's baggage door, or the distance from the ground to the centreline of a B-29's propeller hubs. (OK - I made up the first two. But the last one is a real example). --Rlandmann (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
If only everyone would follow my POV on everything! It would be boring, but safe. Anyway, getting back to the article I'm in the process of winnowing out excess baggage while keeping the main POVs. Personally, I would prefer not to have the flight test reports. While interesting, thaey are also subjective and full of contestable information. I'll leave it alone for now. In the meantime I'll sit back and see what others think...*fingers cramp while crossing* Minorhistorian (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
So If I were to reference in the article about the Piper J-3 Cub how many Rock Stars can fit into the cabin while protecting a rare plant or bug all while playing Pokemon character - it would be an ideal situition Davegnz (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Aeroengine

With the recent changes to {{Infobox Aircraft}}, it is now less sutible for aircraft engines, as illustrated at Armstrong Siddeley Mamba. Specifically, the change from "Type" to "Role" is now insufficient for aeroengines, as Turboprop is hardly a "role"!

Therefore, I am picking up the discussion on an infobox for aircraft engines, which is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 20#Engine infobox. - BillCJ (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Layout

Same as {{Infobox Aircraft}}

Proposed name -
Needed fields
  • Class - reciprocating piston, gas turbine, etc.
  • Type - Radial, Turbojet, etc.
  • National origin
  • Manufacturer
  • First flight (?) - not certain we can always find this, but it should probably be an option anyway
  • Primary applications
  • Developed from
  • Variants

- BillCJ (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I hadn't noticed anyone using {{Infobox Aircraft}} on aeroengine articles. Are you aware of any other examples? --Rlandmann (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe add a line for thrust or horsepower and or thrust/engine weight? Bypass ratio for turbofans might be a field to add, and there are a variety of other numbers that get kicked around that might be better to include in an infobox instead of cluttering the text. SDY (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think in general we expect aircraft engine pages to conform to the standard form of aircraft pages. The specs template work fine to the specs section, but the pages should also have an infobox at the top. The large number of engine articles would seem to necessitate the use of a separate specific infobox. Rocket engines, such as De Havilland Spectre, use {{infobox rocket engine}}, perhaps a template should be created to allow its use on rocket, turbine, turboprop, radial, and piston engine pages. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've got a first bash at it up and running now at {{Infobox Aircraft Engine}}, and have implemented it in a handful of articles for testing.

It uses the common {{Infobox Aircraft Begin}} module to control its formatting, and is named to be consistent with the other members of this family of boxen.

Most fields are common with {{Infobox Aircraft}}, except:

  • {{{type}}} displays as Type:
  • I didn't add the suggested {{{class}}} parameter yet - is there any advantage to splitting this from type, since one ios necessarily a subset of the other?
  • I swapped {{{first flight}}} for {{{first run}}}, since the latter seems to be the more generally available date for most aeroengines.
  • I swapped Infobox Aircraft's {{{primary users}}} and {{{more users}}} for {{{major applications}}} after test-fitting the template to Rolls-Royce Merlin left me feeling that the split between "primary" and "more" was somehow inappropriate. In articles about aircraft types, the split is (almost) always based purely on who bought most of this aircraft, which is usually easily established for commercial and military types (and usually irrelevant for privately-operated types). To implement this in a parallel way for aeroengine applications would rely on figures that are not as generally available, and begs the question of whether we're counting engines or airframes in twin- and multi-engine applications.
  • I've added a {{{developed into}}} field, since this probably better reflects the relationships between different engines we have articles on. I'll note here that the "Variants" parameter of Infobox Aircraft was originally there to cope with articles about subtypes, but has now become a tangle of both subtypes of the type described in the article and new types developed from it (yes, I know it's not always a clear-cut distinction). It would be nice to untangle this one day, but that would be a Herculean task. Anyway - I don't think it's very likely we'll be having articles on subtypes of any aeroengine any time soon.

I'll take a look at the rocket engines and see what can be learned. I agree that articles about rocket engines for aircraft should conform to aeroengines more generally, so this would involve creating something similar to {{jetspecs}} for them and moving their specifications out of an infobox and into a section within the body of the article. Hopefully, that won't cause too much friction... --Rlandmann (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I also note the existence of {{Infobox Automobile engine}} used on around 150 articles, but that WP:Automobiles has noted serious shortcomings with it. Maybe we could develop a common Internal Combustion Engine infobox with that project, and a common Rocket Engine infobox with WP:Space? And using separate {{Infobox Automobile Begin}} and {{Infobox Space Begin}} modules would mean that all three projects could share the same basic code, while still formatting the infobox to fit in with the rest of their content.
It's probably inevitable that any such joint venture would want to place the specifications in the infobox itself; WP:AIR's placement of Specifications in a section within the article body is a real anomaly, and one that I fully anticipate someone to take issue with at some point in the future (actually, it' already come up at least once in a FAR, but nothing more came of that). --Rlandmann (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Take a nap, and everything happens! Thanks for all the comments, and to RL for his great work. I like it. Btw, the Mamba use of Infobox Aircraft was a test by Milb1, and the only one I know of. I honestly think we should just use our own templete for aircraft, esp. since we don't use specs in them. As far as I know, no one has been placing Rocket or Automobile engine infoboxes on aircraft engine articles, so I don't foresee them would objecting to our template.- BillCJ (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I posed the question because Trevor noted above a couple of instances where {{Infobox rocket engine}} has been applied to rocket engines developed for aircraft use - ie, the same template that's used for rocket engines developed for launch vehicles and spacecraft. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, gotcha! {{Infobox rocket engine}} was created in late April 2008, and has only had 2 editors, and no talk page or Docs page. It's probaly worth approaching them to see if they want to be involved. I imagine it would not be that dificult to add a performance module for space rockets pages to use. - BillCJ (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the reason I decided to bring this up now is that some aircraft engine articles, including Rolls-Royce Merlin, are being tagged as needing an infobox (tho I don't know what infobox they had in mind). I added {{Infobox Aviation}} to the Merlin page, as it has been added to some other aircraft engine articles. However, that's a generic box that's only an interim solution for engines, so this seemed like a good time to bring up the issue again. Anyway, I'm satified with what RL has put together. I would like to see consensus to use it in a few days so we can begin adding it to the tagged articles. Thanks again for all the quick discussion and work. - BillCJ (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Implementation

Any objections to going ahead an implementing this template? I'll mainly be doing it as I come across engine articles. - BillCJ (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming question (radar, avionics)

I wrote a couple of radar articles, and when I was "linking around" I found some others that were named differently. I named mine with the style "company name"+"product name", like "Emerson AN/APG-69". However, it seems that most of the ones I found were simply the product name, "APG-69". Is there a standard here? If not, I would propose the former simply because it looks much more like the aircraft naming standards, and avoids potential namespace problems in the future. Maury (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maury: I have to agree with you, that will save a lot of problems later on! I would add in this case that "APG-69" should redirect to "Emerson AN/APG-69" as well. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
With mergers and acquisitions, leaving off the company name would help with that. I'd be fine with the full name/designation including the AN/ part and leave off the manufacturer. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually prefer simplicity, going with just APG-69. Every US DOD radar uses the "A/N", so it really does nothing to help disambiguate or identify. I am OK with the "A/N" in the title line, though, as it is part of the official designation. But of course, I'll support whatever guidelines the project adopts. We might ought to check with MILHiST and SHIPS to see if they have any standards for US DOD sea- and ground-based radars. - BillCJ (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with Maury and recommend "manufacturer"-"designation". We cover systems other than those with US-DoD designations, and maintaining separate US/everybody else naming standards has been a pain in the backside for aircraft. If a manufacturer gets bought out or merged, the article can easily be moved; the new manufacturer's information will need to be inserted into the article at some point anyway. But, per, BillCJ - let's find out what other projects have done, and try to be consistent with them. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up: It looks like a de facto standard exists amongst both sea-based and ground-based targets radars to include the "AN/" prefix, but not the manufacturer name. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In aviation literature the manufacturer's name is sometimes included, sometimes not - much in the same way that an aircraft's manufacturer may or may not be included. Some types have product names and/or military code names, such as Ferranti's Blue Fox. Looking through the List of radars I think the situation is as impossible to standardise as it is for aircraft types. For the US types I think it is reasonable to do what we do for aircraft - and what is already de facto - which is to leave out the manufacturer's name. I have no "aviator's" opinion about use of the AN/ prefix, but it would at least help to reduce the risk of namespace clashes. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All good points. Particularly germane is Fnlayson's note about mergers -- what led me here was the General Electric APG-67, which is now the Lockheed Martin APG-67! Buuuut, my guess is some day we're going to have something called "APG-67" that's either a protein or gene, so I'm still of two minds about this. But we don't have to come to a conclusion today! Maury (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That example, covering both manufacturer and genetics, shows the advantage of "AN/APG-67" -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that AN/APG-67 shows as a sub-page of AN, and so on. Does that cause any problems? I'm genuinely asking because I do not know the answer. - BillCJ (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It used to cause a problem, but doesn't any more. The link on the talk page is a throwback to those times. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I just wasn't sure. - BillCJ (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

S-211 help needed

An IP has been dumping text into the S-211 article per this diff]. I've already reverted twice. User admits he translated the text from an "Italian defence magazine", and it reads like it! Any help, esp from our residents admins, would be much appreciated. It's possible that our banned "friend" has returned, but I don't think so at this point. Note, I have been planning to split the M-311 off to its own page in the near future, and the Specs he has added can be used then. I've removed the M-311 specs now as the article already has S-211 specs there. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've warned them. Yes, I wonder too. --John (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Also note that material that the contributor claims to have translated from an Italian defence magazine will be a copyvio; translations are specifically derivative works of the original. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, RL. That thought had crossed my mind too. Also, I've split off the M-311 to Alenia Aermacchi M-311. I appreciate the help from MilborneOne in getting the main text written and sourced. - BillCJ (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Should light aircraft articles include operating cost information?

I wanted to let the other members of the project know that we have just started a debate on this issue over at Talk:Cessna 150. The project page content guidelines seem to neither recommend nor prohibit an operating costs section. The reason the debate is happening on the Cessna 150 page is that it seems to be the only article that has a "costs" section. I would like to invite all the other interested members of the project to participate in the discussion. I think the issues are well summarized there on that page, so I will refrain from repeating them here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Renaming sports planes categories

I've finally got round to initiating the CFR for this tree - you can find it here if you want to weigh in. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Aviation

For information our general use infobox has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_Aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted B-17s

Have noticed that in the B-17 Flying Fortress there is a lot of duplicated information, some, like the Memphis Belle (B-17), The Swoose, and Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby, Nine-O-Nine, My Gal Sal (aircraft), etc all have extensive articles that deal with this information. These aircraft (Memphis belle, the Swoose etc) also have been summerized in the Boeing B-17 Survivors article - It it necessary to duplicate these articles, etc... with this section.

Asking for a vote to have this section removed from the B-17 article because of redundant information Davegnz (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with an FAR

Does anyone know where I can go to get accurate information on the B-52 Stratofortress, in particular with regards to the bombers payload capacity? It would really help with an FAR I and others are working on. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the variant. If you are you interested in the current Air Force H model see B-52_Stratofortress. The B-52 talk is a better place to ask this... -Fnlayson (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

'Accidents and incidents’ sections

‘Accidents and incidents’ or just ‘Incidents’ sections have appeared in a number of articles, and it’s unclear just what these include or exclude. I’ve seen an entry that might or might not be an “incident” deleted because it wasn’t an “accident”. Just what distinguishes an “incident” from an “accident”? This is not made clear in the style guide; if it’s just accidents, why don’t we simply call the section “Notable accidents” and leave it at that? “Incidents” is so general a term that just about anything could be entered into the section on that account. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both these words have very specific meanings in aviation. As defined by the ICAO, an accident is an event in which a person in or around the aircraft is killed or seriously injured, the aircraft suffers serious damage or structural failure, or the aircraft either goes missing completely, or can be located but is completely inaccessible. An incident is any event other than an accident that affects the safe operation of the aircraft, and a serious incident is an incident which almost resulted in an accident. Hijacking is an example of an incident that is often notable, but is not an accident, but few incidents will otherwise be notable. We need to be considering this issue in conjunction with the discussion a bit further up about notability of accidents more generally.
You can find these definitions (and some examples) in more detail in Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I do know the ICAO definitions. My rhetorical question was meant to question whether it's reasonable to use an arcane and not-intuitively-obvious technical nomenclature as a heading, expecting that the average WP editor will know what is meant. In general usage, "accident" can cover all three ICAO definitions, while "incident" is even broader in meaning(s). It would, from the perspective of the general public, be a suitable place to add a note concerning a large wargame maneuver (as was recently removed from the F-16 article) or even mention of a speed or altitude record. It also invites insertion of trivia. Simply calling them "Accidents" would be well understood, but then we'd eventually end up with a list of every ICAO-type accident/incident that ever occurred. While "Notable accidents" avoids this, it isn't a perfect solution either, which is why I'm inviting discussion. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:JARGON basically says "avoid it or explain it." Considering that the definitions are relatively straightforward, why not just say "the ICAO defines it thus.[1]"? SDY (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
On most of the articles I spend time on that have this section, esp the more popular airliner page, we use "Accidents and incidents". When lack of notability becomes a problem with new additions, we change it "Notable accidents and incidents". Does it cure the problem? No, because many WP users can't read big words lie "notable", but it does help some, and with admins who do know what notable means! As far as I can tell, that's the most workable solution we have right now, even if the heading is a bit longer than I'd like. - BillCJ (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree on BillCJ point leave the definitions as accepted by the aviation industry...why should the editors "dumb-down" an article because the end-users can not use big words or incapable of using a dictionary. Next thing you know, we will have to replace entire sections with colorful crayon pictures (ie story book) with captions like: look, look, look, see the airplane, see the airplane, it flys in the sky, it flys in the sky, it has two engines and goes RRRRRRRRR, can you say RRRRRRR. Can you say Merlin (very good)... can you say evil Mosquito fighter bomber, can you say airplane that killed hundred of passive Germanys who were making Europe safe .
oops sorry got into the liberal version of WWII here (rotfwl) Davegnz (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue isn’t “dumbing-down” (nor notability, for that matter) but rather that we have an instance where the common words being used do not have their normal meaning, but rather a specialized technical definition. We certainly don’t require editors to become experts in such arcane subjects to contribute here; yanking out good-faith contributions by well-meaning editors lacking appreciation of the terminology is rather on the rude side when we’re supposed to be encouraging more editors to become active on the project. If we are going to employ jargon for topical headers, perhaps we should reference – as SDY suggests – the ICAO definitions, possibly in hidden text at the start of the section, and require it for those sections. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I just wonder if Askari Mark feel that this should be the policy across all of wikipedia - lets see, for people writing medical articles we replace "he Lacerated his hand and removed the third digit" with he got a big bo-bo on his pinkie", Naval terms - "Keel" with "bottom of boat", Veternary: "bitch with "Female dog" etc...
Right now, aviation has its own specified terms and meanings - you can go into any airport and say these terms to an aviation technician and they know what your are talking about - once you start "adjusting the technical definition" the terms become useless in there original context - the same can be said for any other technical field which has its own "speak". I did not spend 20 years in aviation so that the unwashed can undertand what I am talking about when discussing a problem on the jetway with my fellow mechanics (the EPR on #2 was high - the PT6 line was blown, also found the CSD was missing a mounting bolt to the PTO - also had to replace some BACB30LU3-3's) - Agree that is using the terminology of the industry then either a ICAO article needs to be written where the terms can be defined or a wikilink (or both) needs to be used.Davegnz (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Dave, I’m afraid you’re missing the point rather badly. The issue is not whether technical terms (like “avionics” or “laceration”) should be used for headings, but about what should be done when the technical terms mean something quite different than their colloquial usage and the casual reader has no clue that something else is being meant. While one can look up “avionics” or “laceration” in a standard dictionary and find a general-use definition that is identical to the technical meaning, if you look up “accidents” or “incidents” you will most certainly not find the ICAO definitions (nor any indication that they exist). My point is that in this particular case, we either need to provide a means for the casual editor (without any knowledge of aerospace jargon) to be able to learn what is supposed to go in that section or else use a term more intelligible than the jargon usage. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Mark think you missed that I was agreeing on some of your points - there needs a way of educating the great unwashed without eliminating (or dumbing down) the article with small words - Many professions have there own technical speak which has a specific meaning within the community. But, does wikipedia need an article with just technical jargon or can an artilce on the internet be "mined" for the information necessary - I think that is the 64 dollar question Davegnz (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a hidden message I added to an Incidents section in an article: "Before adding an incident entry read the notability requirements in the Incidents section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content." This may be of help in other articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin help with cut/paste move

This and this. I stand by my assertion that Honeywell RQ-16 is the proper name per our naming conventions, but the improper cut-paste move is the real issue. And now I'm not just "prickly" anymore! - BillCJ (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but I have an observation and question. By extension, it appears to me you would be looking to rename the rest of the "RQ" articles as well. None currently have the manufacturer in the article name; they have the common name following the military designation in a manner similar to the article about the P-38 Lightning, which does not include "Lockheed" in the article name. Can you define more clearly the direction you want go with these? Here are the other RQ articles:
RQ-1 redirects to MQ-1 Predator
RQ-2 redirects to RQ-2 Pioneer
RQ-3 redirects to RQ-3 DarkStar
RQ-4 redirects to RQ-4 Global Hawk
RQ-5 redirects to RQ-5 Hunter
RQ-6 redirects to RQ-6 Outrider
RQ-7 redirects to RQ-7 Shadow
RQ-8 redirects to MQ-8 Fire Scout
RQ-9 doesn't exist yet; should redirect to MQ-9 Reaper
RQ-10 doesn't exist yet; if appropriate, should redirect to CQ-10 Snowgoose
RQ-11 doesn't exist yet; should redirect to RQ-11 Raven
RQ-12 doesn't exist
RQ-13 doesn't exist
RQ-14 doesn't exist yet; should redirect to RQ-14 Dragon Eye
RQ-15 doesn't exist yet; should redirect to RQ-15 Neptune
RQ-17 doesn't exist yet; should redirect to an as-yet unwritten article about the MQ-17 SpyHawk.

Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: My issue was not with the renaming, but how it was done. THe user has twice performed cut-and-pastes move, which are not allowed because they break the article history. Even had I approved of his choice of name, I would still have reverted the cut/paste move, as i have doen on several past occation
Naming: the WP:AIR/NC Naming conventions specifies "Designation, official name (or popular name)" for US products with DOD designations. If there is not an official name, or clear popular name, then "Manufacturer, designation" is preferred. In this case, "MAV" is an abbreveiation for "Micro Air Vehicle", of which there are many, not just the RQ-16. When an official name is assigned to the RQ-16, then it would be appropriate to to move it to the new title. If the consesnus is to keep the article at RQ-16 MAV, then I'll abide by it, but the cut/paste moves which broke the article's history will still have to be repaired.
The reason I asked for admin help on this is that, because of the user's comments towards, me, I have no reason to believe he won't just keep on reverting my attempts to correct the cut/paste move. I gave him the standard templated warning that explains why cut-pastes are not allowed after his first move, yet he did it again. Some people are just dense for whatever reasons, but at least an admin has the tools to deal with policy breakers. - BillCJ (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, RL, for cleaning up the mess! It would be nice if, someday, they'd add some move clean-up priveliges to the Rollback-User tools, so you guys woulnd't always have to do this kind of dirty work! - BillCJ (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, looks like I spoke too soon! He moved it again, this time using the move feature. His edit summary is interesting: It is against US military policy to call officially designated military equipment by manufacturer's name. Designation RQ-16 belongs to US military, not Honeywell. The article started appropriatly with title RQ-16 and was inaproriatly renamed "Honeywell". Even if this is true, we aren't in the US military. If it's an actual US federal law, that would be different case. But given we have probably dozens of US military aircraft types listed by "Manf./Desig.", and have never heard a word from the Foundation Legal Department that the DOD or DOJ contacted them about WP breaking federal law, I'm inclined to view his summary as an attempt to make his choice sound "official". What next? - BillCJ (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don’t know that it’s USG policy – I can’t recall ever seeing such a policy – but the designations are indeed assigned by the US military. One reason to not use the manufacturer’s name is that a given weapon can actually be produced by more than one contractor. The GBU-12 Paveway II is a good example. Still, since the issue is his using an improper renaming method and he’s now using a correct one, this isn’t such a problem ... although it would be courteous of the editor to announce his intention beforehand on the talk page at least a few days before doing so. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Notice of proposed moves

Several months ago, I moved Army Air Corps to Army Air Corps (United Kingdom), and created a DAB page in its place. After nearly five months with no complaints or concerns, an editor in now proposing to revert the move, and place the DAB page at Army Air Corps (disambiguation). Please weigh in at the respective talk pages, whatever your opinion. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be precise, it was done 4 months zero days ago, and I am requesting a revert to the situation that existed before that since Jan 2004. By the silence is consensus model you are trying to assert, there was no problem to fix with a move in the first place. MickMacNee (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Before March 2008, there has been no discussions of moving or renaming Army Air Corps on any of the talk pages of the articles linked above. That's where these things should start. This proposed move is at Wikipedia:Requested moves now. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we going to start renaming all the Air Force pages to something like United States Air Force (United States) and US Army Aviation to US Army Aviation (United States) and Royal Air Force (United Kingdom) etc... Davegnz (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aircrew member

I just ran across Aircrew member: It needs major help, starting with its sources - it has none! - BillCJ (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is aircrew member the right term doesnt sound right to me I always thought aircrew were well aircrew! Didnt think flight attendendants were classed as aircrew? MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree: It is superfluous, since Aircrew already exists. Candidate for deletion? --TraceyR (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, considering that article was started on 18 November 2004 it is truly awful. Not only does it have no sources, but it is badly written, sounds like a personal essay and presents opinions that do not conform to any known standard or references. For instance in the Canadian military pilots, navigators and flight engineers are classified as "aircrew" (i.e. essential to the operation of the aircraft) but flight attendants are "flight crew". In Canadian civil aviation there is no such thing as "aircrew" (ref CARs definitions and Aeronautics Act definitions). I have no idea if any country defines anyone as "aircrew" and this article doesn't clear that up. I have to agree with MilborneOne too that "aircrew member" is poor grammar. It should have been "aircrew" or nothing. Incidentally Aircrew redirects to Aircrew member. I would suggest that this article needs to made into a disambiguation page with a simple list that includes Aviator, Flight attendant etc. It is a rotten article as it is. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Good to know I didn't think the article stunk because I was up at 5am! - BillCJ (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thai International introduces new lime green crew jackets
I kinda like the intro picture: "Aircrew members of Thai International Airways" - though I think the lime green jacket is a little bit tacky and is Thai Airways really hiring 5 years old to pilot their aircraft Davegnz (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

F-16I Sufa

An article on the F-16I Sufa had recently been created. It currently has no sources, no major links, and has less info than the F-16I section in the F-16 article. Of course, those issues are easily addressed, but will the article ever be much more than a stub? I can't see the differences of the F-16I as warranting a separate article. Should we just redirect back to F-16 Fighting Falcon? Please comment at Talk:F-16 Fighting Falcon#F-16I Sufa. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article creation assistance

There's a new template Template:WPAVIATION creator that can be used to assist in creating new articles. It will start things off by creating a page with all the standard information/headers/infoboxes, etc. You just have to fill in the blanks and save. It's still in the early design stages, so check it out and let me know how it can be improved. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I tested it and it looks pretty helpful! I assume that it will be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Templates or somewhere else to draw attention to it, once it is "operational"? - Ahunt (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, and I thinking of adding it as a header to pages like Wikipedia:Aircraft encyclopedia topics, User:Rlandmann/JAE and other places to find redlinks. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Good idea! I have already linked it at User:Ahunt/Refs and I am sure others will put it up on their user pages as well. It may be well to link to it from the main page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft as well, if possible. Nice piece of work! - Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep - Great tool! Thanks Trevor! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice and easy! Don't forget the engines! Cheers Nimbus (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks very good, thanks, Now to do the "Seddon Mayfly"- yes, that was a real aircraft! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

A380 production list

Although it has been brought up before the A380 production list is listing all the A380s built and providing links to images of every single aircraft. Most of the A380s are not notable and I have brought it up on Talk:List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries. Appreciate any comments on that talk page in support or to tell me I am wrong! (Just going away to work out how long it will take to list all 13,000 DC-3s!!) MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Turning into a bit of a bun fight, despite concensus on the talk page the A380 fan club keep adding the production list back in. Getting a bit tiresome but they appear not to be able to live without it! latest comment is Please leave this alone, we use it!!! It does not belong to you!. Sigh!! MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, for what it is worth, my hat is in the ring - Ahunt (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
We could probably use a bit more help on that page. I'm not willing to do three reverts, but we have some IP address editors who keep reverting and seem to be refusing to discuss the issue on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

North American Aerospace Defense Command

The North American Aerospace Defense Command article has ben subjected to POV additions by users trying to prove that NORAD was at fault for not stopping the 9/11 attacks, or something like that. WHile the additions have been cited (sloppily, but at least the sources are there), the conclusion of the section is entirely OR. I've not had a chance to check out the given sources yet to see if they are reliable or not. Other editors have tried to remove the sections, but they have been restored. If anyone is interested in tackling this, I'd really appreciate it, as I'm really not up to a massive POV battle this week (health issues). Thanks. (I am also posting this at MILHIST.) - BillCJ (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox Aircraft}} - border along the bottom of the image

Is this really necessary? Current code: 

{{!}} colspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #aaa; text-align:left;" {{!}} <div style="border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">[[{{{image}}}|300px|center]]</div>

Using a div here is pretty hackish anyway. I think we can do without the border, which really just appears as a faint line under the image. New code: 

{{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align:left" {{!}} [[{{{image}}}|300px|center]]

Any objections? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - while the line does indeed appear as a faint line under the image when there's no caption present, it helps separate caption text from infobox content when there is a caption there. At one point, I tried to find a way to incorporate the code into the caption parameter, but couldn't figure it out, hence I left the (admitted) hack as it was. I'm open to suggestions, though. Does anyone else here think that the line serves a purpose when there's no caption present? --Rlandmann (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
If we need a line we should add one using the ---- code or an <hr />rather than hacking one with an image border. If consensus is that the line should be kept I'll adjust the editprotected accordingly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Can the line format/code be moved to within the If caption part? -Fnlayson (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Piece of cake. Sample code:
{{#if: {{{image|<noinclude>-</noinclude>}}} |
{{!}} colspan="2" {{!}} [[{{{image}}}|300px|center]]
{{#if: {{{caption|}}}|<hr /><center>{{{caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}</center>|{{#if: {{{long caption|}}}|{{{long caption<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}}}}}
{{!}}-
}}
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Chris - I've implemented three small fixes (line should be below the caption not above it; line should appear below long captions as well, not just short captions; grey border should appear around the image) and put it into play. --Rlandmann (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Modeling the F-101 Voodoo

Any thoughts on this? Seems to bend WP:NOTHOWTO a bit and other guidelines. Not yet tagged as part of the project. I used to do plastic models and like this kind of stuff but I fear it is not allowed here, could be altered to become List of F-101 models I suppose but this is probably not acceptable either. No contribs on WP from the creator since Jan 2008. Nimbus (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this one actually falls outside the scope of this project. - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, quite possibly, but it is linked from the F-101 Voodoo main article which is how I found it. I was after general thoughts as WP editors really. I did see it once before and passed it by (very quickly!). A lot of the aircraft modelling (excuse spelling) articles are in a mess and perhaps need a task force or project of their own. I'm not a deletionist but this could easily be a candidate for AfD. An easy answer would be to delink it from the F-101, nobody would ever find it! Nimbus (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's not our purview; and a quick browse of likely candidates suggests to me that there's actually no WikiProject that looks after hobbies, or even crafts. The closest living relative seems to be WikiProject Toys, but I'm not sure how readily the scale modelling crowd would be to get in under that umbrella! FWIW, I don't think the article in question is of encyclopedic value. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a tricky one. Of 22 articles in the 'Model aircraft' cat, about four or five have this project's banner. Some of the articles are quite good, others are 'interesting'!!! I get a feeling that it is a 'stone that we don't want to turn over', it would be a lot of work for someone but it is an area that deserves to grow, like any other. If a task force was set up I would be willing to help, at the risk of upsetting a few editors and 'their' articles (which seems to be the 'norm' nowadays!) Nimbus (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we need a WikiProject Scale Modelling to set standards and templates, etc. This one isn't ours - I suggest go for the removal of the link from the F-101 article - Ahunt (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Done, but I felt guilty of a 'cover up'. Where are new projects suggested? Nimbus (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Take a look here. However, the commonly accepted wisdom is that "if you build it, they will come" doesn't apply to Wikiprojects - there are nearly 300 inactive projects now. You really need to make sure that there's already a "critical mass" of editors keen to work on a project before setting one up (the guidelines suggest at least 5 editors; IMHO that's a very conservative figure, unless they're 5 very motivated editors.) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wise words RL, I don't think that I am a 'critical mass' although Mrs Nimbus says otherwise! Certain minority subjects will remain 'unorganised' sadly. I see that some of our own task forces have wilted over time. Nimbus (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually a little surprised that the scale modelling hobby is a "minority subject" - it certainly has enough adherents (oops! pardon the pun!), no apparent end of specialist publications (read: "reliable sources") and plenty of activity on web forums. Where are they all? Even model railways seem sadly under-documented here. Maybe the place to recruit contributors for a scale modelling Wikiproject would be out there on the forums, rather than internally in Wikipedia (then, imagine trying to bring a mob of enthusiastic newcomers quickly up to speed with our policies and practices all in one go...!) --Rlandmann (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The forums are strange unmoderated places apart from two that I contribute 'build threads' to. Modellers can be an eccentric and very opinionated bunch of people (and I am one!). We should steer away from 'scale', it is a minority within a minority, so to speak. I could contact some of the active editors to see if there is any interest in a WikiProject but I will not hold my breath. The active 'audience' is likely to be teenagers and most of the older generation do not own a computer, let alone know how to contribute here. In the UK aeromodelling is a dieing hobby. I would like to keep it going for a bit longer.Nimbus (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fokker

Some uncited, very-POV info has been added to the Fokker article, as in this diff]. I know absolutely nothing about the Fokker company during WWI, so I can't judge whether the original or new text is closer tpo being accurate, as neither are sourced. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph about the joint venture with Junkers appears to be very dubious - any stealing of information from Junkers is refuted by Weyl in Fokker:The Creative Years Fokker's wooden cantilever wings employed very different structure and sections than the metal wings used by Junkers. In addition, the Fokker Dr.I, which is claimed to be a product of this "Theft", was actually flown BEFORE the joint venture was set up!Nigel Ish (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lists

Template:List of aircraft has been moved to Template:Lists of aircraft, which makes perfect sense. But this has got me to thinking. The page the template "replaced" is List of aircraft, but this page, too, is perhaps better named Lists of aircraft. Should the page be moved, and "List of aircraft" be made into an actual list of aircraft, maybe a transcluded list of the combined "List of aircraft (0-Z)". See List of airports in the United States for how this transclusion would work. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The List of aircraft is our long, flat, alphabetical list of all aircraft types, broken into subpages only because of its length. I think that transcluding them into the one page would make it unmanageably long.
I see no particular harm in creating a Lists of aircraft page that just holds a copy of {{lists of aircraft}}, but no particular point either! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm also thinking about redoing the list articles, in sortable table format to add more cross referencing. I've got a workup going at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/List pages#List of aircraft 2 - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any firm opinion about the other lists, but with the main List of aircraft being very much a work in progress, I think that this kind of formatting makes it much harder to develop and maintain (for the moment, anyway). I also think that one of the greatest virtues of that huge list is its bare, uncluttered simplicity, but maybe that's just me! ;) --Rlandmann (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

New page; Comparison of P-51 variants

Oh blast! now I've just gone and created a whole new page. What was I thinking?? There's still some work to be done; much of my P-51 information is packed away and inaccessible for the nonce (house renovations) and the table has yet to be completed properly. My thoughts are to add another to cover the "lightweight" P-51s, along with the H and an F-82 or two. I've explained the aims in the opening intro on the discussion page. Hopefully this article will be useful. Thoughts (kind ones) welcome.Minorhistorian (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we used to have this: [1] and some other comparison articles that went as well. Your article is referenced but perhaps needs inline cites in the text. Have you had enough of Spitfires?!! Nimbus (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That was quite a different beast: that author used the technical specifications of the Ki 61, Bf 109E, Macchi C.202 and Reggiane Re.2001 to draw his own conclusions about the relative merits of the types in question. Nevertheless, "comparison" in an article title should always ring alarm bells. What about moving the table to P-51 Mustang variants and using it as the core of a detailed article describing the subtypes without comparing them? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that 'SM' may have used a little too much WP:OR! All part of the WP:NPOV thing, best to let the reader decide. Nimbus (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I see Rlandmann's point about "Comparison"; ditto Comparison of Supermarine Spitfire variants. Part of the reason I created this was because, in spite of all the information available out there in www.land, there doesn't appear to be one single webpage which gives a clear, easy to read list of P-51 specifications - Wikipedia is often the first site people go to when looking for such information. In the meantime I've given myself yet another job...Minorhistorian (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive request

Could we archive some of this page please? I'm wearing my touchpad out! Is this one not using a bot? Cheers Nimbus (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We've got a bot, running on a 30-day cycle. Would anyone object if I changed it to 21 days? Looks like this group isn't short of words, and I acknowledge that I'm one of the worst offenders :). I usually just use the end key to cut to the chase. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, it would be the Home key that I was after! You really don't know how computer illiterate I am! Support 21 day setting. You live and learn. Nimbus (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pitts Special

This month marks the second anniversary (!) of this article being tagged as having no references. I think most of what is there is probably correct, but I have very little comprehensive on this type. I may be able to find a few refs on some of the variants. Does anyone here have any references that could help lend some credibility to this article? - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The amount of 'cite' tags does water the eyes and maybe some of them are not necessary, my Tiger Moth syndicate partner owns a share in a Pitts S-2, I'll ask him if he has a good book on the beastie that I can borrow. Nimbus (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
At least the tags show where the refs need to be inserted. They are there to motivate editors to add refs and warn readers that the article is not reliable! Any refs would probably make this article better. I'll add what I can to it, too. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I found one book on Amazon and they wanted nearly £200 for it, must be good (or very rare)! Nimbus (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
No luck from my friend unfortunately, he only has a poor photocopy of the flight manual. Nimbus (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a very tiny entry in Janes's Encylopedia and will incorporate that at least. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC).
It is a very tiny aeroplane so that should be ok! I wondered if the online Flight magazine archive might be useful for this one, have not looked yet. Nimbus (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Price on that book? The pitts...*cough* I have piles of the Aeroplane Monthly, Aeroplane, Air International etc. I'm almost sure I have some info on the wee beasties.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I had to put my glasses on to make sure on the price! Have posted a link to the 'Flight' archive on the article talk page, should be some reliable info in there. Nimbus (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm guessing that would be Budd Davisson's book. Must be a collector's item: two copies showing on abebooks.com - one at $US 250 and one at $US 350 - this for a 128-page Motorbooks book! One went on eBay Hong Kong for $173 a few months ago. Maybe someone needs to tell Motorbooks that they could probably sell another print run of these :) --Rlandmann (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who has "attacked" this article. While there is still room for some more refs, it certainly looks better than it did! I am impressed with all the help here, this project works well! - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Adam, in defense of these addled types who "tweaked" (trademark protected LoL) the article, you were the lead on this mission. Thanks should first go to you. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC).
Ha ha! I don't think we should give out credit for those who point out where the problems are - that would be a bad precedent! - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Captions

Anyone know how to center a caption under a picture (instead of the default left) Davegnz (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Using <center></center> tags works, as in this example:
[[Image:Beech18C-FSFHonFloats.JPG|thumb|<center>Beech 18 on floats in [[Manitoba]], 1986</center>]]

- Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank youDavegnz (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for F-16 Fighting Falcon now open

The peer review for F-16 Fighting Falcon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Askari Mark (Talk) 22:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Radar frequency band nomenclature preferences

Do we have a standard or preference for which system we use for classifying radar frequencies (e.g., IEEE or NATO), particularly for military aircraft radars? I'm unclear on whether I should use X band or I/J band for fire control radars. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally ignorant when it comes to avionics, but one question: does either system have meaningful gaps in coverage? In other words, would we ever have to use the other system anyway because there's no way to describe it otherwise? If both systems have equivalent coverage, I'd go with IEEE over NATO since it's a nominally more neutral organization, though that's an arbitrary gut feeling rather than a reasoned argument. In general I'd say either is acceptable as long as you mention what system you're using in the article and the article is internally consistent. SDY (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyvio

Image:F35test edit.jpg - This is from the JSF site, and is one of the "Courtesy of Lockheed Martin" images, not a US Govt pic. The label shows up when the mouse is hovered over the thumbnail on the image gallery page. This is a Featured Image, so my attempts to have the deleted are being thwarted by editors who should know better. I am about to the point of contacting LM directly - they should have better luck! - BillCJ (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

At F-35A gallery the mouse over message did not show up in Firefox for me. But it did in Internet Exploder. All of the images appear to state "courtesy of Lockheed Martin". -Fnlayson (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree looks like an unfree image from http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/products/f35/f35_2.jpg and the related http://www.lockheedmartin.com/disclaimer.html basically claims it is copyrighted - should it be proposed as an Image for Deletion I dont think they can just delete that from the image. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have asked the question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as the copyvio tag is being challenged with the request to go to IfD. Cant find any exception for featured images to the copyvio process. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note image has now been deleted as a copyvio. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Jeff and Milb1 for looking into this. There is also a discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/JSF Images that explains the situation with the images from the JSF site very well. Glad to see that they are looking into this at Commons also. - BillCJ (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of P-51 variants and Comparison of Supermarine Spitfire variants

Both of these pages have been created with a view to setting out the statistics on different variants of these aircraft; however, as discussed previously, there is some thought that these pages could be renamed to avoid use of "Comparison" in their page titles. Any thoughts as to how these pages could be renamed? TIA Minorhistorian (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

P-51 performance and specifications. ? MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
P-51 variants and Supermarine Spitfire variants (currently a redirect)? SDY (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I prefer MilborneOne's suggestion; I would expect "variants" articles to address a wider range of differences between variants, and in greater depth than just comparative specs and performance figures/tables. Just my opinion! --Red Sunset 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaning to MilbourneOne's suggestion, which is straightforward and gives a reasonable idea of the article's intentions. Minorhistorian (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Any article with comparison in the title smacks of OR. If there is too much information for a single Supermarine Spitfire variants then at least there should be a summary with further information in other articles. The same can apply to the P-51. And while on the inclusiveness of the article, what happened to the Griffon engined variant information? That seems to have been lost along the way.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately none of them have OR. I do think you're right about the "missing" Griffon engined variants - that's another reason to retitle the Spitfire page.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest Supermarine Spitfire variants as an overall listing of the variants then use "Griffon-engined Supermarine Spitfire variants", "early Merlin engined Supermarine Spitfire variants" and "later Merlin-engined Supermarine Spitfire variants" as the detailed articles. If you are going to stick with bracketed article names I would move "variants" outside the brackets so "Supermarine Spitfire variants (Griffon engine)". But a straightfoward list is required somewhere of the variants. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
suggest variations not variants - If going to use Supermarine Spitefire then the P-51 needs to be North American P-51 Davegnz (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
If we are using standardized terminology then "variants" and "P-51 Mustang" are correct. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC).
The comparison page has now been speediedNigel Ish (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, new titles (for better or for worse) P-51 variants: specifications, performance and armament and Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament. Note: there is an accidental full-stop at the end of the Spitfire title. If there are no powerful objections it might as well stay. In the meantime I have more data to add to the P-51 page.Minorhistorian (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bombardier Global family

Both the Bombardier Global Express and Bombardier Global 5000 pages are fairly short. Given that these are closely related aircraft, is there any sense that they should be covered on one page? If so, which one should be the primary title? - BillCJ (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

They are both on the same Canadian type certificate (A-177), the Global Express is marketing name for the BD-700-1A10 and the Global 500 is a marketing name for the BD-700-1A11. The Global Express was certified first so I would suggest put them both in the Global Express article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, based on that they are really variants of the same type. - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Embraer E-Jets images

I would like to invite other editors to participate in a discuss on substitution of images at Talk:Embraer_E-Jets#Substitution_of_images. We have a little problem here [2] as another editor is insisting on replacing existing photos with his own and I would like to get some further input. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I infact don't OWN the photo. You seem to dislike having your image replaced with a cleaner, larger res image. Bidgee (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Please carry on this discuss at Talk:Embraer_E-Jets#Substitution_of_images - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft)

Please note that this proposed guideline has been rejected on the say so of one person over at WP:N without any discussion here or at the talk page of the guideline with a statement that "they will be ignored at AFD anyway". Expect a campaign of mass deletion, since it is clear that the great and the good of Wikipedia have nothing but contempt for the Avaition Wikiproject.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because we're arrogant enough to think for ourselves, and don't worship at the feet of the AFD stormtroopers and guideline wonks! - ~~

It's actually no biggie guys - historically, notability guideline proposals have proven notoriously difficult to enshrine in policy. Some have taken years to reach that status. Discussion went stale, and it's been (rightfully, for now) labelled a failed proposal. I thought we were close for a while there, but new questions arose and my attention was so taken up elsewhere that I didn't have time to deal with them. However, since the proposal can be revived at any time, I'm sure its time will come :) --Rlandmann (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we were on the path to coming up with something useful there. Let's revive it some time in the (northern hemisphere) autumn when most of the people who contribute here may have more time to focus on it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It might actually help if we had a unified guideline for trains, planes, ships, and cars (Conveyances?) since they really share the same kind of notability issues. Might be worth chatting with the relevant projects. I think one of the objections to the current proposal is that it is simply too specific to a single project. SDY (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if there were any specific objections, it looked like another editor was merely bored by the topic especially since there didn't seem to be any movement in the discussions. FWiW, the general category of notability in transport may be a good idea to pursue. Bzuk (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC).
I've dropped a note at WP:SHIP, WP:AUTOS, and WP:RR to see if there's any interest out there. SDY (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've drafted a Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) that is a generalized version of the proposed guideline. SDY (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I read it! Bravo - good work done there! - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Crew-One pilot?

This might be a bit trivial but in the specs tables I often see 'Crew-One pilot' or 'Crew-One (pilot)' or variations of this. Is it safe to assume that if there is only one crew member then he (or she) is most likely the pilot?!! Nimbus (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless it is a UAV! - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Is the 'U' not 'Unmanned'?! Here is an example in a fairly famous aircraft: [3] Seriously though this has been bugging me for a while. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well there have been proposals in Canada for UAVs that would have only a non-pilot crew member on board (payload specialist or perhaps parachutist) and the aircraft would be remotely piloted. But other than that "remote" possibility, "Crew: one" would mean that the person is the pilot to most people. Incidentally it won't be me crewing on a non-piloted aircraft! - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
So hopefully it is ok to write 'Crew-One' without fear of reversion. It does get more complicated with light two-seaters like a Cub or Tiger Moth, Student and Instructor, Pilot and Passenger or in my case Lost Pilot and Clever Map-reader/wireless operator! Just seems an obvious awkward phrase to me. Nimbus (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that "Crew:One" would mean one pilot. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess that a way being consistent with 2 or more crew formatting, e.g. Crew: 3: pilot, co-pilot, and flight engineer. Doesn't matter much to me. It's extra info for people that have some aviation knowledge, but may be of help to the average reader. That's mainly a crew of 2 or more. Surely people will know the one is the pilot. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox name

Would you have An-26 as the name on top of the infobox or Antonov-26 the full name?--EZ1234 (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For Antonov An-26 put An-26 in the infobox name. The manufacturer, Antonov, is linked lower in the infobox. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for a bit of help

I have now twice today taken the same spam links out of both Cessna and Schweizer Aircraft and left a note on the editor's page, but he keeps putting them back in under his own account and an IP address. I don't want to do a third revert. If anyone else has the time to remove them and perhaps leave him another note that would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tossed a revert or two at it. He (presuming) is now putting them in the references section. Probably a newcomer, since I don't think he quite understands how easy it is to just look at the changes and find exactly what was moved. Careful of WP:BITE, I guess. SDY (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I saw that he tried moving them to "refs". He isn't quite a newcomer, the welcome message on his talk page is from 28 December 2007. - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've posted an entry on this to the COI noticeboard and posted a COI warning notice on his talk page, which should give him some relevant reading. He seems to have stopped adding spam links after being notified that his article on a company he apparently works for was deleted as spam. BTW, most of his "references" – none of which are used for citing info in the articles proper – are links to news items he himself has reported on. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I did a little sleuthing and discovered all his edits are the same self-promotion efforts. I took them all out. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Flying wing

I think the lead in the flying wing article has got things badly wrong. It would be good if someone could check out my proposed edit and give a second opinion. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Premature article

The AC-27J "Stinger" Gunship article has just been created. Per the info in teh current Alenia C-27J, this new page is premature, and highly speculative. IIRC, the AC-27J is just a study at the moment, with a prototype being considered. I'd recommend merging any sourced info to the main C-27J page. Any further comments or options? (My memory is fuzzy on this, but has a similar page been deleted/redirected before?) - BillCJ (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree - This can be merged back into the main C-27J article for now.There isn't enough new info in the source to warrent a new article yet.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read the source again, and [http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/modernization/Pages/FillingtheGunshipGap.aspx found this link to another article. It does appear, per that sourse, that "The AC-27J “Stinger” is now a program of record." Still merge for now, but if more info starts coming out, it could easily overshadow the rest of the C-27J page in the next few months, at which point we should have a clearer view of the title. - BillCJ (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I asked about the "Gunship Lite" on the C-27J talk page a couple weeks ago and started adding some basic info to the C-27J article. I guess keeping the new article will be alright as long as the AC-27J development does not fall through. Seems as though the Air Force has expressed more interest in the AC-27J variant than the C-27J cargo aircraft. I guess that falls more on the Army side. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I am beginning to agree about keeping the new page for now. The USAF seems very keen to get it, and as long as the new Pres administration/Congress support the program (not a given), it should be around for awhile. I added an link to an AvWeek story from late last year in the EL section of Alenia AC-27J (note new article name), which details Alenia's interest in selling derivitive versions such as the MC-27J and AC-27J to Italy, the US, and other users. Seems their efforts are showing fruit now. I'd recommend we go ahead and move the AC-27 details from the main page to the new one. - BillCJ (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image guidelines

We're working out a set of guidelines for images to be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. Go to the page content talk page and the Image guidelines section at the bottom. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Any captions should be concise and not overwhelm the image. - captions when possible should be detailed as possible but concise and to the point - no captions like B-57 Flying or B-57 sitting in a hanger (which is essentially useless) - but detailed usable and verifiable. Real Aviation historians want / need details and photo captions are for many editors fillers and these editors are too lazy to get the details (or nuts and bolts) for the pictures they select.
Captions should include:
Aircraft type and model (P-51D-5NA) & s/n 41-23456
Markings " Big Momma "
Unit assigned 357th FG / 44th FS
Quick information
this is very simple, does not overwhelm the reader, gives essential details, right to the point, easy to verify, and is easy to standardize. Davegnz (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you consider the expedient of Captions could include, rather than making a blanket requirement which may not be feasible. The statement:"captions when possible should be detailed as possible but concise and verifiable." may be a better phrased encapsulation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
I believe in most cases requiring specific content in captions will not work and cannot be adhered to. For one thing your proposal only applies to military aircraft. Many photos shot of aircraft, particularly civil aircraft, won't have this kind of information available. Some information, such as registration or serial number for civil aircraft, is usually trivial in an encyclopedia context. I think the consensus derived statement that we have there now: "Any captions should be concise and not overwhelm the image." is probably the best solution. All we want to accomplish is avoiding verbose captions. - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
We need to keep in mind Wikipedia captions guidelines here. Listing all that info does not seem to be succinct to me. All that can go on the image page however. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Although Davegnz makes a valid point about obvious captions, the detailed information and external links he has added and is suggesting for image captions are better of on the image page. Think we should leave the guideline as it is as any caption should be relevant to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Captioning styles controversy

An issue has arisen on the F-16 Fighting Falcon page regarding the best approach for captions. Since this follows a revert war and heated language, I would like to encourage a more collegial discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Captions. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

N 250

I just found the N 250, created in Feb. 2008. It's a complete mess, with no sources whatsoever. It's hard to tell from the text if the aircraft was even built, though the infobox gives a date of first flight in 1995. Does anyone know of any current sources? Is it even salvageable? - BillCJ (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Crap! A good prortion of the text is taken verbatim from Airliners.net. There's actually more info on the webpage, but it's only up to about 1997. - BillCJ (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Over-bolding?

I've noticed alot of bolded words throughput the text in the Aircraft arcticle. I'm not familiar with the guidelins on bolding, so could someone who is take a look? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The guideline is at MOS:BOLD, and this usage seems consistent (barely) with what it calls a "definition list" --Rlandmann (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd say not in compliance and not helpful in the article as written. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
IMHO definitely not in compliance, and compounded by bolding links. We can't even get away with bolding variants of a type within its own article without falling foul of MOS:BOLD and scuppering the article's chances of attaining GA or FA, so I don't see how this level of bolding for apparent emphasis is either compliant or useful as it stands. SandyGeorgia would have a field-day with this one – I'd personally remove all bolding except for the first mention of "aircraft" in the first sentence. --Red Sunset 17:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Done! --Red Sunset 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Red! - BillCJ (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

JF Duck/J2F Duck

The JF Duck article is in pretty bad shape - basically just a stub. The related J2F Duck page is better by a bunch, but still needs improvement. Neither aricle explains the difference between the two types, and accordign the my source, there isn't that much to distinguish them. Would the articles be better off if we merged them, or is there enough material out there to support two decent articles about the same basic airframe? - BillCJ (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They're essentially the same aircraft, so from a purely technical standpoint I'd say go ahead and merge. However, from a policy point of view, we're usually guided prima facie by whether the manufacturer and/or major operator regarded them as one-and-the-same or as distinctive types. In this case, both the US Navy and Grumman assigned separate designations to these two takes on the design (indeed, the JF spanned four separate Grumman designations, while all J2F subtypes shared one). Eventually, enough details of the operational histories of the two types could supply a basis to split them again, but that day's probably a long way off. so for now, the only harm in merging them is probably one of precedent. Of course, this is coming from a card-carrying splitter. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point on this, and in some cases I agree. But I do try to take a case-by-case approach, and in the case, it's a differnt case. Anyway, it's that "long way off" I'm worried about! Of course the ne3xt question is, if we do merge, wha tdo we name it. My first choice, "JF/J2F Duck", isn't always a popular format aboung "certain" editors! ;) - BillCJ (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with such names is both that they're inconsistent with how things are named on Wikipedia more generally, but also because they're confusing for non-specialists coming to the article. We know that the slash isn't part of the designation, but we shouldn't assume that everybody does. There's a world of difference between "JF/J2F" and "F/A-18". (The more general problem goes back to problems we had with naming back in the early days when almost everything was a redlink and we wanted to maximise the chances of a wikilink in another article finding the one we'd just written; while this is no longer as much of a constraint, it has shaped the culture of how articles are named throughout the encyclopedia).
As for which one to choose - I usually choose the base model (since that's where the story starts), unless the original designation were all prototype/pre-production machines. So, if it were me, I'd probably still go with JF in this case, but YMMV! --Rlandmann (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
And, of course, in this instance, Grumman Duck is another convenient way out, like Curtiss Hawk and Curtiss Falcon (and the reverse of Curtiss P-40) --Rlandmann (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ilyushin Il-86

Is it me, or does [4] look slightly overlinked?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Woo yes, a lot of blue and red there. Looks like I could spent hours removing excess links, and formating that article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I delinked the intro, with the edit summary to see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking, but the whole article needs combing. This article is the baby of new user User:Peter Skipp, so I think a little explaining of Wikipedia MoS to him would be nice.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I delinked one more section. The article has some great potential. I'll see if I can do some more work on it in the next while. Thanks for pointing it out. - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Peter Skipp has done a huge amount of work on it so far. Take a look at on of the versions from before, and you'll see how much he has done to improve it. He is new, and obviously still learning, but when a novice turns out fairly good work right from the start, we shouldn't let them get away! - BillCJ (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is quite good, just needs fewer superfluous links in it - easy to do, just have to find the time. - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay I have had a run through it and removed a large number of irrelevant links. I would appreciate it if another editor could have a look and see if there are more to remove, or if I over-did it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Make Aerodyne a disambig / redirect page

I have proposed redirecting the main content of Aerodyne to Aircraft. Comments welcome here. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I could go along with that move. Note the use of that pesky "aeroplane" is present in the text/body. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
"Pesky"?!! Gad Sir, if I was any younger.... -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Methinks, thou takesth mine words too earnestly, forsooth... FWiW, if thy has a second, let him approach me with a glove slap, if an affront is seen. (LOL)

Bzuk (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Peer Reviews Going Nowhere

It seems as if our Peer Reviews, and A-Class Reviews are not moving at all. I figure if all our users make it it a priority to review just one then things can go forward. A-class reviews especially, as there are many that need to be passed or failed. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tabbed articles

I've recently become aware of an idea being developed by User:Joopercoopers to implement tabs in article space (as we have here in project space) - see an example here. It's not quite at "proposal" stage yet, but I think the advantages to this project should it ever be implemented are obvious. I've left a note to that effect on the concept talk page - maybe others here would like to chime in as well. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cessna Citation

I have finally gotten all of the Cessna Citation's major variants split of onto their own pages. The whole history of this is at Talk:Cessna Citation, and I encourage anyone who want to respond to read that first.

My main question concerns what to do with the Cessna Citation page itself. Should we keep it as an overview article, like the Harrier Jump Jet page, or should we convert it to a DAB-page style list, such as I did with the minimal-content Dassault Falcon page? Given the confusing history and constant re-branding the Citation models have been through, I can see the advantage in keeping the "family tree" that Alan (Akradecki) put together. Now that all the main variants are gone, it should probably be reformatted to use main-level heading for each family. However, a DAB page would be far simpler to maintain, especially since all the models are covered on the variant pages. Any advice or alternatives? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of the complexity of the subject, I'd suggest something more on the "Harrier" end of the scale than the "Falcon" end; the family tree is great! It illustrates the relationship between the various members of the family really well. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I was of two minds on this one, just was not sure which was the best option. I'll try to work on it some more. Is there any content besides the family tree and some images you think ought to be included on the overview page? - BillCJ (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a guideline regarding whether it is preferable to link to a Commons gallery or category page? The gallery page always seemed to be the preferred link in aircraft article pages when I first started on WP, and that is the pattern I have generally followed. The gallery pages, when they exist, seem more useful to me bacause they are sortable, but there are usually more images on the cat page. But while the cat page is almost always linkd on the gallery page, the gallery page often does not have a link on the cat page. Thoughts? - BillCJ (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Had not thought much about this. I have just used a Commons page unless it does not have many images and the category page does. Gee, the category should be linked in the gallery page. Must have been missed if not... -Fnlayson (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Airplane/aeroplane

Has there been a MOS change on the use of these words? I've started seeing them show up more in the past few days, even from regular editors. I was was under the impression we were still using "aircraft" in their place,and the last discussion I saw on the issue here a few months ago showed no since of that changing. - BillCJ (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's quite likely me, I must have arrived after the previous discussion. I always try to distinguish between "aircraft" which include rotorcraft and suchlike, and specifically fixed-wing aircraft which do not. The terms "airplane" or "aeroplane" are more readable and far more widely used, and not every reader will grasp the niceties of what "fixed-wing aircraft" means (for example that both a floppy sailwing and a variable-geometry swing-wing are technically "fixed wings"). Being a Brit, I instinctively use "aeroplane" over "airplane". -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Aeroplane is now deprecated as an "arcane" term that is no longer in current use, even the venerable Aeroplane magazine in their style guide recommends the use of the term, "aircraft". "Airplane" is considered a derivative of "aeroplane" and is therefore also deprecated in use, while the colloquial term, "plane" is defined as a planing tool. Please use "aircraft" whenever possible. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

(Edit conflict) Steel, I wasn't you or any other WPAIR editor that I had in mind. It's an odd compromise anyway, since, per ENGVAR, the country involved should determine which of the two words is used. However, there are a small group over proponents on both sides of the issue who refuse to allow the other word to be used under any circumstances, and who can be quite derogatory and insulting towards the other side when making changes. It's a sad situation, because both words are legitimate English words, and have a specific meaning that is widley accepted. I'd love to see us go back to following ENGVAR, but again, I can't see it happening right now. (See BZuk's comment above for proof of that!) - BillCJ (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a curmudgeon, it's two different issues here. "Airplane/aeroplane" are technical terms that are accepted aviation terminology, whereas in literary usage, a differentiation has been made because of the steady deprecation of the word "aeroplane" which was the worldwide norm at the turn of the 20th Century but is now no longer in current use in non-technical publications. The use of "aircraft" and "airplane" is now the accepted standard descriptor, although for our purposes, it is often easier to standardize on one term. I would argue the case for "airplane" more strenuously as it does have both a technical and literary connection. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

There is another division of issues:

  • Whether airplane and/or aeroplane are acceptable synonyms for aircraft. IMHO they are not.
  • Whether they are acceptable synonyms for fixed wing aircraft. IMHO they are.

-- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of terminology, "aeroplane" is now not current usage, and although I could argue for the use of "airplane", the former term is no longer preferred in writing. FWiW, I use "aeroplane" at times when referring to the dawn of aviation, and in writing/publishing, "airplane" is often the standard, as it is closely related to the type of aircraft. Bzuk (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
Out of interest the UK Civil Aviation Authority uses 'Aeroplanes' and 'Helicopters' in their current documents and licenses so it's not quite dead over here. The only word that really bothers me is 'plane' although I have to admit that it was apparently the first word I ever spoke!! Nimbus (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What I am referring to is the current popular useage in both speech and publications worldwide. Recently, I wrote a book about a test pilot for an British publisher, Creçy Books, and had to determine what the "house" style guide was for terminology. In doing a search through their style guide, as well as many other British publishing houses including Aeroplane magazine (surprise, surprise?, this "institution" recommends that "aeroplane" not be used even though it belies their historic title/banner), it was quite evident that the word "aeroplane" was no longer in use. It was a matter of popular convention that dictated usage, and although a certain generation may be comfortable with the term, it evokes a certain kind of nostalgia but nothing more, it falls into the same "arcane" category as "betwixt", "'twas" and many other words/idioms/colloquialisms that gradually fall out of use. However (LOL: modern placement of the conjunctive adverb...), I could certainly make a case for the use of the word "airplane" which is accepted worldwide as a contemporary term and has a clear definition in the wider category of "aircraft". IMHO Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
I wondered how the ICAO dealt with the 'problem', they seem to call anything that leaves the ground an 'aircraft' as can be seen here: [5]. We could do worse than follow their convention. Nimbus (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I am constrained again to observe that "aircraft" and "airplane" (or "aeroplane") do not mean the same thing, and therefore they cannot be automatically substituted one for one another without, in a great many cases, also changing or muddling the meaning of the entry. Each usage of one or the other of these terms should thus be determined on a case by case basis and decided in favor of the one more appropriate to the specific context. Accuracy and preciseness should always be favored over any blind accession to arbitrary style. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC))
Again, it's a minor issue and it behooves editors to find a suitable word at times, and I certainly don't see the problem in using any of the terms, given the context of the material. FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC).
I agree fully with that last from Bzuk. Looking through the half-dozen or so publications I have to hand, spanning 1975-2008, "aircraft" has long been the general term to use, with "plane" (referring to fixed-wing types) remaining common throughout in descriptive text. A recent (2008) magazine article on the forthcoming Rocket Racing League uses "plane" throughout. Authors and/or editors only resort to other words where these will not do, for example in a formal discussion ca. 2003 of Cayley's fixed wing, the term "aeroplane" is used. Over-zealous use of "aircraft" even leads to blunders, such as a description I find of the Dornier Do-X as the "largest aircraft in the world" in 1929 - of course we all know that the Zeppelins around at that time were far larger. Finally, I am yet again minded of the Wikipedia policy to Ignore all rules if they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. So if nobody minds too much, I will seek to improve the accuracy and readability of Wikipedia over and above any slavish adherence to stylistic guidelines - especially where the situation is as complex and contradictory as this one. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed Steelpillow. This is exactly my long time point on this issue (as I extensively discussed here in May). Blind adherence to "style" should never be allowed to trump accuracy. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC))
A reminder that guidelines are just that, and not "set in stone or concrete." Just recall the first point made that "aeroplane" may not suit the purposes well as popular convention has now predicated that "airplane" is the better choice. Regardless, I have used "aeroplane" to describe the machines created in the early years of aviation. FWiW, the way that this issue seems to have evolved was to deal with the use of a mainly colloquial terminology, "plane" and as "aircraft" is an accepted term, that is what is recommended. Regardless, refer to my earlier statement on stone/concrete. Bzuk (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Terms like "slavish adherence to stylistic guidelines" and "Blind adherence to 'style' should never be allowed to trump accuracy" miss the point of this particular guidelines: It was a compromise that attemted to keep the peasce between two sides of an often contentious issue. Implying that those who follow the guidelines are blind or slavish won't help your case in the long run. It is more an issue of choosing one's battles, and some editors, for whatever reasons one has. I choose to follow the guidelines, not blindly or slavishly, but because I accept the compromise, albeit for the time being, as a way of keeping peace in a potentlially contentious situation. I'm pretty sure most of the other editors here who follow the guidelines do so for the same or similar reasons. The decision to use aircraft was made long before I joined WP two years ago (this week!), and up until recently, ethre has been no sign of the matter even being discussed again. Discussion pages are the correct forum to push for change, but meanwhile I choose to honor the guidelines, even though I don't support them, partly because I hope that guideliens I do support will be followed by those who don't support them. That is what compromise is about. It's never perfect, and oftentimes we wonder why anyone supported certain compromises, but they are usually products of their times. I'm not blind, nor a slave, but rather someone who is learning, still with some difficulty, to get long with others who have opinions that differ from mine, and who chose to compromise in different ways than I do at times. Doesn't necessarily mean they are open-eyed or free! - BillCJ (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  • PS - I also support allowing "plane" to be used, as, in context, it's usually apparent whether were talking about an aircraft or a carpenter's tool, even for the average dumbed-down public school educated Amercian, and any similar not-so educated people the world over. I mean, Tatoo saying "Boss! Boss! De fixed-wing aircraft! De fixed-wing aircraft" just doesn't have the same ring to it as the original "De plane! De plane!" - BillCJ (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I have never had an issue with using "plane" in place of either "airplane" or "aeroplane" as it would be quite clear from the context that this, as the accepted contraction for both of these words, would have the same meaning as either one. However "aircraft" has a broader meaning (i.e., while all planes/airplanes/aeroplanes are aircraft, but not all aircraft are planes/airplanes/aeroplanes) and therefore cannot be universally substituted for any of the three without the potential of also changing the meaning of the entry. I have no problem with stylistic guidelines, but not if they are employed at the expense of accuracy. (Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC))
As Bill Z says it behoves us all to use the right words, in the right places. I really can't see what the problem is and we are using many kilobytes of space discussing it. As I understand the discussion we can call a Spitfire an aircraft or aeroplane or even 'plane' but not 'airplane' (because of WP:ENGVAR), we can call a Jet Ranger an aircraft but not an 'airplane' or 'aeroplane' because it is a helicopter. This is something that I knew already. I have obviously missed the point of all this. Nimbus (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, didn't we just go through all this ad nauseum last May? The consensus can pretty much be summed up by two observations made at the time – mine:

This whole debate is nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill. The assertion that the terms “aircraft” and “airplane” “have significantly different meanings” is not exclusively correct. “Aircraft” can, in some uses, be employed as a broader term than “airplane”, but they can also be completely synonymous – as is frequently the case in common usage. There are certainly a few articles where non-synonymous usage should be employed for clarity, but otherwise either is fine (as is “aeroplane”). Indeed, “airplane” can also include helicopters, although such usage is uncommon (although not illegitimate). As an aerospace engineer, I can attest that “aircraft” is often used in preference to “airplane” in technical writing; “plane”, however, is more a slang term and can lead to confusion in technically oriented text, so it should be used sparingly, if not deprecated altogether. In short, I see no problem using “airplane/aeroplane” for American/Commonwealth-related articles, but the word “aircraft” should not be rooted out and replaced by them except when differentiation is pertinent (which is rare).

and Rlandmann’s immediately following comment:

"[A]ircraft" provides a convenient US/Commonwealth-neutral alternative to "airplane"/"aeroplane". I further agree that there's no harm in using airplane/aeroplane from time-to-time either for stylistic reasons, or where aeroplanes/airplanes need to be specifically distinguished from other types of aircraft, but the more neutral "aircraft" should be used wherever possible. Indeed, this is what Wikipedia articles on aircraft have done in the overwhelming majority of cases….”

More briefly: Feel free to use airplane/aeroplane where stylistically useful and appropriate – but sparingly; “aircraft” is ENGVAR-neutral, but take care to use it concisely where there may be confusion from colloquial usage. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Great summary, Mark. --John (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) I think my first comment explains quite clearly why I brought up the issue now, and that was because edits are being made that changed "aircraft" to airplane in situations that are beyond the scope of the limited usage you just mentioned. WIth the myraid of MOS changes being made under cover of darkness lately, I honestly was not sure if this had been changed too, by whomever. (I'm sorry I don't have diffs on these changes, as I've viewed/edited ALOT of pages this week, and I really didn't think I needed to provied any.) Steel took it to mean his edits, and so that opened the door to the overall discussion. IIRC, Steel was not around the last time this was discussed, so this is new. I see no real harm is periodically discussing the matter every few months, and people, and even opinions, will change. At one of these discussions, there may well be a change in the sense of the consensus on the issue. But as long as all the participatns are civil towards one another, and as long as each has no problem following the existing consensus when the discussion is over, all we've done is kill a few kilobytes on the WP server! And, hopefuly, the newer memebers will have a better understanding of how the guideline came about, how it works, and will at least feel their opinions were heard. Contrast this with those who oppose the date auto-formatting delinking and our disgraceful treatment on the MOSNUM talk page, or, though a much minor case, the C-class ratings issue at MILHIST, where many members there did not find out about the discussions on not adopting the C-class until it was over, and are basically being ignored. (This last attitude is atypical of MILHIST, but oh well.) - BillCJ (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
If one were to employ the logic that "airplane" is synonymous with "aircraft" then the same logic would mandate, for example, that "submarine" would be treated as being synonymous with "watercraft" which, of course, is clearly not the case. In each instance the former is a sub-category of the latter, and if not treated as (and understood to be) such could engender false assumptions and lead to Korzybskian misunderstandings in many instances. That being the case, I intend to use the most appropriate specific term (i.e., airplane, helicopter, glider, airship, free balloon, hovercraft, autogyro, etc) in my contributions when I mean to discuss a sub-category and "aircraft" only when I mean the general category which that describes. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC))
There seem to be two different approaches here:
  1. Use "aircraft" as per the guidelines, unless there is a compelling reason not to.
  2. Use "airplane/aeroplane/plane" wherever they are appropriate, i.e. where "aircraft" would lead to a false statement or loss of clarity.
These are the same thing approached from opposite ends. I think we all meet in the middle.
And the other lesson is that newbs will seldom get it right first time (ahem). -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add some Jet-B to the fire here, this is what we have always used in Canada on this question, at least officially:

"aeroplane" - means a power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft that derives its lift in flight from aerodynamic reactions on surfaces that remain fixed during flight; (avion) From Canadian Aviation Regulations 101 Definitions

"aircraft" means ...any machine capable of deriving support in the atmosphere from reactions of the air, other than a machine designed to derive support in the atmosphere from reactions against the earth's surface of air expelled from the machine, and includes a rocket; «aéronef» Aeronautics Act, Interpretation

Yes Transport Canada rewrote the rules to include rockets as aircraft, but exclude hovercraft. However, clearly the two terms are not interchangeable as "aeroplane" is a subset of "aircraft".- Ahunt (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a helicopter pilot, but I call the helicopter "airplane" every once in a while...sometimes you have to dumb it down for people. It seems to me that ENGVAR was edited. Originally, or rather, the last time I was forced there to read it by another editor, it discussed the use of fixed-wing aircraft in place of airplane and aeroplane individually. Fixed-wing airplane and fixed-wing aeroplane are ridiculous. They are akin to me saying rotary-wing helicopter. --Born2flie (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note, the idea behind not using "plane" is still in place, it is a colloquialism, or a popular derivative of "airplane," and if you must use "airplane" go ahead, but not "plane." (This is the accepted origin of the word. In June 1908, "plane" appeared in a quotation from the London Times that mentioned one of the Wright brothers. Aeroplane, first recorded in 1866, is made up of the prefix aero-, "air, aviation," and the word plane, referring to the structure designed to keep an air vehicle aloft. Originally the plane in such contexts was imagined as flat, hence the choice of the word plane; in practice this surface must curve slightly in order to work. The word aeroplane for the vehicle is first found in 1873. The first recorded appearance of the form airplane in our current sense, which uses air- instead of aero-, is found in 1907.) This conjures up other ickies: "aerodrome", "flivers", "kites" and "jets". Bzuk (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC).
I really can't see that any convincing argument has yet been advanced that would mitigate against using the term "plane" to describe the sub-category of "powered fixed wing aircraft" as long as it is clear from the context that that is what it means and which, it seems to me, is the overriding basis for all word selection in the first place. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC))
I think using plane is worse than using airplane or aeroplane I would not expect it to be used in an encyclopedia. Most readers would understand the use of aircraft/airplane/aeroplane in context but plane is just sloppy and slang. Perhaps the next suggestion is to use Copter instead of Helicopter! I dont see anything wrong with using Aircraft if possible but dont throw your toys out if somebody uses airplane or aeroplane in the right context. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Point, Milb1. There is one usage that is totally correct, though. I replaced over a dozen mentions of "airplane"/"plane" in the Berlin Airlift article, then I had to go back and restore about 4 of them, buecause they were in a direct quote! While that should be obvious, sometimes it's easy to miss the fact that it's a quote in the midst (sorry for using a slangy or archaic word) middle of several changes on an edit summary page. And direct quoting would be a way to slip in the words a few times! - BillCJ (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the correction, Adam. THe Mediawiki geeks have eplaced the large short-cut list (which I use to use to get the strike-out code) with a drop-down list. Nice idea, but I do wish the drop-down list actually worked! Brilliant! Now I have to actually learn all these codes I only use twice a month. ANyone know who tyo contact about this? - BillCJ (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The main reason for not using "plane" is that a connection to "airplane" is not a primary or first level definition in most if not all dictionaries; The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary does not even list it as a derivative word. Merriam-Webster also does not identify any other meaning: "Main Entry: Pronunciation:\ˈplān\, Function: verb, Inflected Form(s): planed; plan·ing, Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French planer, from Late Latin planare, from Latin planus level — more at floor, Date: 14th century, transitive verb 1 a: to make smooth or even : level b: to make smooth or even by use of a plane 2: to remove by or as if by planing —often used with away or off, intransitive verb 1: to work with a plane 2: to do the work of a plane." It is first and foremost, a colloquialism (slang) that is not the normal chosen word for publications, of any sort. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
The selection of the word "plane" (as opposed to "airplane") is probably less appropriate for usage in some purely definitional contexts, but surely acceptable (and often even preferable) in more narrative situations (see, for instance, examples in Charles Lindbergh) and also is quite commonly and correctly used to describe some specific types of airplanes such as "mail plane", "training plane", "jet plane", "aerobatic plane", "float plane", "fighter plane", "pursuit plane", etc, as well in such terms as "plane crash" and the like. Also the Random House Unabridged Dictionary contains the following entry under "plane" (5th of 11 definitions): "5. Aeronautics. a.) an airplane or a hydroplane: to take a plane to Dallas. b.) a thin, flat or curved, extended section of an airplane or a hydroplane, affording a supporting surface." (Centpacrr (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
"'da plane, Boss, 'da plane" is the only instance I can see of using a slang/colloquialism. We are treading on WP:LAME here. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
The point that Centpaarc makes is one that I noted earlier - plane is commonly used in historical and similar descriptive texts, both with respect to sub-types such as X Planes, and also as an abbreviation to break up endless repetitions of "aircraft" and improve readability. In no way is this usage mere slang or colloquialism. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"Plane" is not recognized as a first-level definition for "aero/airplane" anywhere. See any dictionary. FWiW, now we are into WP:LAME. Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
Hmm, see [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13] as just a few dictionaries in which the definition of "plane" includes "airplane." (Centpacrr (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
I am at a loss as to what might be used as a basis to justify classifying the word "plane" as being either "slang" (very informal usage in vocabulary and idiom that is characteristically more metaphorical, playful, elliptical, vivid, and ephemeral than ordinary language; writing characterized by the use of vulgar and socially taboo vocabulary and idiomatic expressions; jargon of a particular class, profession, etc; the special vocabulary of thieves, vagabonds, etc.; argot) or a "colloquialism" (words or expressions more suitable for speech than writing; in informal, conversational style). If you could direct me to such a verifiable source I happy to be educated and enlightened, but otherwise frankly I just don't see it.
A casual search, for instance, of aviation literature relating to an area of your own expertise, the Avro Arrow, reveals the frequent and common usage of plane which does not does not in any way seem to be meant as being either colloquial or as slang. (See for example Avro Canada History Avroarrow.org, The Avro Arrow: Canada's Broken Dream CBC Digital Archives, or your own user page which contains a reference to you having written The Avro Arrow: The Story of an Incredible Plane... in 2004.)
I am unable to find any basis to classify the word "plane" as it relates to aviation as anything other than a well understood and universally accepted part of everyday English vocabulary and usage. (Centpacrr (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
"Plane" is not recognized as a first-level definition for "aero/airplane" anywhere. FWiW, see any dictionary and also a new source: Plane Talk: A Lexicon of Aviation Slang (Poteet 1997), how much more clear can that be? Bzuk (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
Hmm, see [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21] as just a few dictionaries in which the definition of "plane" includes "airplane." (Centpacrr (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
In none of the examples provided is "plane" a first-level definition, it is relegated to common or popular usage ("slang" or colloquialism). Plane Talk: A Lexicon of Aviation Slang (Poteet 1997) makes that abundantly clear. FWiW, this is WP:POINT on both of our parts, I see you are a "plane" talker whereas I do not see it as an encyclopedic choice of terminology. See comments above by a number of editors that we have plane exhausted this topic "ad nauseum". Plainly, let's give it a rest. Bzuk (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC) BTW, the title, The Avro Arrow: The Story of an Incredible Plane... was an example of an author choice being overruled by a supervising editor. Bzuk (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
The author or publisher of the book obviously substituted the homonym "plane" for "plain" in the expression "Plain Talk" in the title as a humorous affectation because it is a book relating to both aviation and speech. I do not in any way, however, see that as meaning to imply that the word "plane" itself is or is not slang. (If you think otherwise, then please refer me to the specific page and entry in the book in which a reasoned and sourced claim is made that the word "plane" should be viewed as slang.) I'm also not sure what you mean to imply by "first level definition" or, for that matter, why it would make a whit of difference for a word so clearly accepted and well understood in everyday common English usage. Most words have multiple definitions, but that hardly means that all but what someone considers to be the "first level" definition should be dismissed as slang and therefore not usable in polite society. That logic really seems to me to be a huge stretch. "Plane" in aviation usage is simply a contraction of the word "airplane" the same way that the word "bus" is a contraction of the word "omnibus" or "auto" for "automobile."
You also did not comment on the three examples I provided of published writings relating to the Avro Arrow (including the one on you own user page). The brief article on the Avroarrow.org site uses the word "plane" ten times, while the CBC page uses it both in an article title and within the text. None of these usages seemed at all like slang to me, but I will certainly accept that you may have another view.
You are, of course, perfectly free to not use "plane" in your Wikipedia contributions, and I (and the many others who apparently agree with me) are equally free to use "plane" in our's as there hardly seems to be any reasoned consensus mitigating against its usage. I guess it is best to just leave it there. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
The many other supporters is apparently one editor according to this page. For a counterintuitive approach, run the word "airplane" through a synonym listing in a thesaurus and the same thing happens, "plane" is not the first level use of the word. BTW, "plane" is listed as slang in the Slang Dictionary. FWiW, please do call for a consensus vote. Bzuk (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
The only place that the word "plane" appears in the Slang Dictionary page you referred to is in a sentence illustrating the slang expression "good to go" ("The plane is good to go.") There is no entry for the word "plane" itself claiming it is slang. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
At the risk of prolonging this and with respect I can say that every graduate of the No. 1 School of Technical Training including myself had the word 'plane' well and truly drummed out of them during training. It is certainly not a term that any UK aviation professional would use and is therefore not 'universally accepted' as you state. As far as WP goes, I see it as a contraction of the US 'airplane' and if I see it in an article on a US aircraft I tend to leave it. Nimbus (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, "plane" is a choice that is routinely deprecated in publishing as a contraction, common usage, or unconventional usage. Although I still see many applications of the word in popular literature, however, it is not a particularly good choice for an encylopedic work. No dictionary or thesarus recommends it as a first choice. I agree that it's out there, do I choose to use it, no. If others do, I wouldn't recommend it as a first choice. FWiW, have I missused choice enough here?! Bzuk (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
Just to be clear, my preference in most cases is to use "airplane" over "plane" and the only reason this ever seemed to have come up is the kerfuffle over the apparent cultural sensitivities amongst some relating to the American and Commonwealth spellings of airplane/aeroplane. However as the suggested use of "aircraft" as a universal substitute for both is clearly deficient in many instances because it has a broader meaning than "airplane," I thus attempted to mitigate this issue in my contributions by using "plane" instead as that word is not afflicted by the objected to spelling conflict. My bottom line is, therefore, I have no problem using "airplane" over "plane" in the vast majority of circumstances, but I see no way to justify the use "aircraft" over either "airplane" or "plane" in any instance when so doing would materially change the meaning of the entry and thus degrade or muddle its accuracy.
Airplane and aeroplane are certainly not the only differences in spellings between English as used in the US and Commonwealth countries, but trying to cobble together and enforce a third artificial "neutral" spelling protocol seems self defeating and will just lead to many more of these unworkable compromises. If all were to simply agree to accept Commonwealth spellings in primarily Commonwealth-centric articles and American spelling conventions in US-centric articles instead of trying to enforce a non-existent and unrealistic spelling neutrality I expect that virtually ALL of the side disputes over word usages this has engendered would go away. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
I can understand "plane" being considered slang, and deprecated (mostly anyway, as at least one editor used it in a book title), and that it's not encyclopedic. Yet WP/WPAIR has also deprecated a perfectly good word, "airplane", one that is a first-level word in every North American English dictionary. I can therefore understand the sentiment of "To heck with the guidelines - I'll write the words what I want!" Since the point of entry seems to now be first-level status in dictionaries, pehaps it's time to forge a new compromise, and allow "airplane" to be used at will in North American-related articles. Hopefully even the proponents of using "plane" will agree to not use it if they are allowed to use "airplane" in its place. - BillCJ (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't I say that a zillion parceps ago? IMHO Bzuk (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC). Bzuk (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
Yes, and I'm just agreeing with you! :) - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Reality check. A great many words are used in contexts which are neither slang nor colloquialism nor first-level definitions. If any author stuck to first-level definitions only, their work would be pretty unreadable - and many concepts probably have no associated first-level definition and so could not be expressed at all. An example is the phrase "X Plane". This is universally recognised, and I own an excellent and scholarly volume entitled The X Planes. None of The X Aircraft, The X Airplanes, or (perish the Anglo-Americanism) The X Aeroplanes is anything other than ridiculous to the highest degree. "Horses for courses", as the saying goes - use the word that makes most sense at the time. In a technical discussion, plane means a particular lifting surface, as in the upper and lower planes of a biplane wing, or a canard fore plane. No doubt we should all be referring to biwings and canard forward horizontal stabilisers. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Remember the first question in this "string" was about the suitability of "aeroplane" in wiki aviation project articles; we have certainly strayed far from the original gensis of this discussion. The proponents of one term or other, nothwithstanding, it is contingent on editors to use the most appropriate terminology, and so far, "aircraft" and possibly "airplane" fit that criteria. Bzuk (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC).
Just out of interest found this today - British Air Ministry Order A1089 of 28 October 1943 ruled that the term 'aerodrome' was henceforth to be superseded by 'airfield' or 'airport' as appropriate. It also rules that 'aircraft' was to be used in place of 'aeroplane' (except for specific legal cases). MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind that at that time in Britain there were no rotary-winged craft, and hence the Ministry had no need to distinguish aircraft generally from fixed-wing types in particluar. And I wonder why their lawyers insisted on keeping 'aeroplane'. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That is interesting, as in Canada we got those terms from the UK, of course and they are still very much used here. In Canada the term "aeroplane" is the official term for a fixed wing aircraft, as mentioned above and

"aerodrome" means any area of land, water (including the frozen surface thereof) or other supporting surface used, designed, prepared, equipped or set apart for use either in whole or in part for the arrival, departure, movement or servicing of aircraft and includes any buildings, installations and equipment situated thereon or associated therewith;"[22]

"airport" means an aerodrome in respect of which a Canadian aviation document is in force;[23].

In Canada "aeroplane" (or "airplane" as it is often pronounced) and "aerodrome" are very much still in daily use. - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The main reasons for deprecating use of “plane” for “airplane” are: 1) to avoid disambiguation; 2) slang and contractions are not considered to be proper encyclopedic style; and 3) this particular usage of the word is not a first-level usage in most dictionaries. Is it used in terms like "jet plane" and "aerobatic plane"? Certainly, but note that it has to have a modifier to make clear what sort of ‘plane’ it is not. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That last is untrue, for reasons I gave earlier. We are in danger of repeating our arguments here. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know you disagree – but I was (and am) disagreeing with you in this particular case, as “plane” has an equally widespread primary definition in the form of its mathematical sense. Because it can be confused in technical discourse, aerospace professionals like myself generally use “plane” in its mathematical sense and “aircraft” (or much less frequently, “airplane/aeroplane”) for the air vehicle. Using “aircraft” to specifically mean “airplane” is not a “dumbing down”; it is an accurate reflection of current technical usage. I’m still at a loss to understand, though, why some editors feel “airplane” is completely verboten. It’s not. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out in these discussions, there are times when “airplane” should be used because precise usage is absolutely required. It can also be used prosaically to lessen the tedium of endless repetition of the word “aircraft”. What should not be done is to root out most uses of the word “aircraft” and replacing it with “airplane” in pursuit of some chimerical sense of “smartening up” airplane-related articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry didnt want to restart the discussion I just thought the Air Ministry document was interesting. MilborneOne (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Not your fault: new information is good. The comparison between British and Canadian usages is indeed interesting. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to confusificate things there. I was just trying to show that even though the UK officially eschews the terms they are still in official use out here in the colonies. It is one of the challenges of trying to write an international encyclopedia - the words are different all over the world. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Like the German 'Flughafen' for airport (flight harbour), Flugplatz (flight place) or Segelflugplatz (gliding flight place) and I think Flugfeld (flight field) as well. Off topic, is anyone having server problems? Seems to be crashing which is a pain after long edits. Nimbus (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the Wikipedia servers have been running very slowly for weeks now - often don't load pages. In Firefox running on Linux I can always back up a page and try again, but alternatively you may want to copy the entire text of the article to clipboard prior to hitting "save", just in case it fails. Some editors will even save the entire edited article in a text editor as a dodge against loading problems. We should probably send them some money to by more servers. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, it's not just affecting me then. I'm losing stuff even in the sandbox so I am just reading today! On topic, I forgot 'Flugzeug' (Flying thing) and 'Luftkissenfahrzeug', my favorite (Air cushion travelling thing)! Nimbus (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Just adding fuel to the fire – in response to Ahunt's comment re the challenges of trying to write an international encyclopedia, this is precisely why IMHO the neutral term "aircraft" should be the first choice with "airplane"/"aeroplane" (or whichever type of aircraft is being referred to, and depending on context) used where necessary for precision, or to avoid confusion or word repetition. "Plane" should only be used when referring to an aircraft designated as such (X-plane etc...), in verbatim quotes, or when the alternatives are ludicrous. I'm sure that will meet with disapproval from some, but I believe it's the best compromise in a situation where there is no definitive answer. --Red Sunset 12:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I still fail to see the sense in opting for a less specific word ("aircraft") for the more accurate word ("airplane") when what is really meant is "fixed wing powered aircraft" (which is what an airplane is) for no other reason other than perceived cultural sensitivities over there there being more than one spelling for the term (airplane/aeroplane).
There are literally thousands of words in the English language with more than one spelling but which are still well understood and accepted in everyday usage. To mitigate against the usage of any of them, and instead substituting a less accurate or vaguer word, simply because that word has only one common spelling seems to me to be counterproductive. "Airplane" is a perfectly well understood term, but if there is to be a policy which favors one spelling over another then "airplane" would seem to be the logical choice owing to it being far more commonly used as reflected by 62M+ Google hits for it which is more than ten times the number of hits (5.8M) for "aeroplane." (Centpacrr (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
I wouldn't go as far as saying the use of "aircraft" as a general term is counterproductive, and I think we're getting accuracy and precision confused here – "aircraft" may not be precise in a particular context but it is accurate nevertheless. However, I think we have to agree to disagree here – I fully understand your reasons for advocating the use of more specific terminology, but I fail to see why we can't apply a neutral term once specifics have been attended to. Once a precise description has been used at the start of an article, leaving no doubt in the mind of the reader what is being referred to, the meaning of "aircraft" (even if 'vague') thereafter will still be understood. There's no harm in avoiding issues/arguments associated with perceived cultural sensitivities which are definitely counterproductive. ----Red Sunset 15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The conflict over "airplane" vs "aeroplane" (and the substitution of "aircraft", a word with a different meaning) is really just a manifestation of a much larger and more central issue: the "dumbing down" of Wikipedia articles to the lowest common denominator in an attempt to enforce artificial "cultural neutrality" in language at the expense of greater accuracy. That is what I find to be counterproductive. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC))
Re: following comment just posted further up:

"...I’m still at a loss to understand, though, why some editors feel “airplane” is completely verboten. It’s not. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out in these discussions, there are times when “airplane” should be used because precise usage is absolutely required. It can also be used prosaically to lessen the tedium of endless repetition of the word “aircraft”.... Askari Mark (Talk) 02:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! My two main points all along, Thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_21&oldid=1144652231"