Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

2008 in review

It's been a big year for WP:AIR! I guess the biggest change has been bringing the article section order into line with the rest of Wikipedia, and the huge job of creating and implementing navigation templates to replace the old "sequence" parameter. In 2008, we did about 400 of these! More recently, the work being put into standardising and fleshing out our coverage of aero engines has been long overdue and after only a few weeks of concerted effort is already showing massive improvement. As far as coverage goes, we've entered 2009 with fewer than 300 articles to go to match Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation (around 3,900 entries). By the end of this year, Wikipedia should be the most comprehensive encyclopedia of aircraft ever published (once we make sure we've also matched the coverage of The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft, which I've only recently realised may actually be more comprehensive than Jane's...)

That's what stands out in my mind anyway - please chime in with other milestones and achievements and maybe we can find a spot for these on the project page somewhere?

On a personal note, a very big thank you to everyone here for the dedication, time, and effort that you've freely given away to make all these things and more come true. :) --Rlandmann (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to say thank you to Rlandmann for your guidance and hard work, I would also like to thank all members of the project for 2008, this project is a team effort and we have a good team. Keep up the good work. MilborneOne (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Many hands make light work! I have really enjoyed expanding engine articles, a voyage of discovery in quite a few cases. Finding images (and references) for some of them has been a challenge at times. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 has been a great year - thank you to everyone on the project. There is still much more to do, mostly making the existing articles better! - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has been a great year for WPAIR, and I think we have come together as a group really well. It's been a while since we've had such comraderie. Even though I've been working on some aeroengine articles over that past couple of years, it was Nimbus who really helped get the ball rolling, and spurred me to push for the new Aeroengine Task Force. It's been good to see others help out on them too, and again, the navboxes really have seemed spurred interest in adding and expending articles. Perhaps there are some other subject areas within WPAIR and WPAVIATION where navboxes could be created. Comparable aircraft perhaps, with the templates semi-protected? Anyway, I'm looking forward to another good year. Thanks to all those who helped to make it so enjoyable. - BillCJ (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New articles

I've got a new engine template for 2009, could someone archive and reset the new articles page please, I would do it myself but would probably make a mess in the process!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Added Jan 09, Sept 08 still needs to be archived. MilborneOne (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot to add a section header here in the excitement! ;-) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New feature - Collapsible designation navbox shell

A few aircraft out there have had more designations than is their fair share, which for us means that there are some articles where the list of designation navboxes is pretty long. A particularly egregious example was the Beech 18 which had a spot in eight distinct sequences (six US and two Swedish). This is how it used to look.

I've therefore created a shell to hold sequences once we get too many in one article: {{AircraftDesignationNavboxShell}} which I'm suggesting we use once we get four or more designation sequences in any article. Syntax is pretty straightforward; you should be able to pick it up from any of the examples I've implemented so far: Beech 18, C-130 Hercules, C-47 Skytrain.

Manufacturer navboxes are slowly creeping up as well for aircraft built by a few licencees. I can't remember seeing four or more on one page yet; but if anyone can point to an example, it will be very simple to create a similar shell to hold these. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks fairly straightforward. I don't see anything wrong with implementing it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with new article

Hi folks, User:Thruxton has been very busy creating articles for the Motorcycle project and has just created Advance Motor Manufacturing Company, he asked me to look at it as they built an early V4 aircraft engine (which I can find no reference to in my books), also mentioned in the article are four aircraft types which I have redlinked, don't think I have anything on them either! My redlink for the Handley Page 'Bluebird' might not be right. The books used by the webmaster of the main reference for this article are at the bottom of this page if anyone has them. All a very long time ago! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aeroneering

An article that you have been involved in editing, Aeroneering, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroneering. Thank you. BillCJ (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also for information the Schneider ES-65 glider article has also been nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schneider ES-65. MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone like to chime in

here?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD of unpowered aircraft

It seems to be a content fork of glider.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for AH-56 Cheyenne open

A peer review for AH-56 Cheyenne has been opened. All editors are welcome to participate. Thanks for the input provided. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotten some good input already. Prose needs some improving. Any other suggestions/ideas? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Some specific comments or help with prose and clarifying wording would be great... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's a peer review for B-52 Stratofortress going on now. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Colour schemes and markings

User:MarshallStack just added a fairly large Colour schemes and markings section to CF-104. It was originally posted after the specs section, but I have moved up below "operators".

There isn't really much direction on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content - under Body-Design it says "If noteworthy describe markings that the aircraft flew in, especially distinguishing or unusual schemes."

The section is also completely unreferenced, although from my time in the CF seems to be generally correct. I have unref tagged the section. I am posting this here as a general question - is this encyclopedic? Does it belong in an article like this or not? If so I may be able to find some refs for it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

While of interest to scale modellers, this doesn't seem to be within the scope of an encyclopedia article to me. Certainly, there are occasional aircraft whose markings need a mention, but these tend to be individual examples like Richthofen's Dr.I or perhaps ANA's "Marine Jumbo". But an article on colour schemes and markings of the RCAF/CF might be sustainable? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up my concerns, useful to scale modelers but perhaps not encyclopedic, plus no refs. I'd like to hear from anyone else with thoughts on this too. - Ahunt (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side comment, the number of possible paint schemes for widely used aircraft would take a mind-numbing amount of space. Unless there is a functional reason for the color scheme (e.g. anti-flash white, the false cockpits on CF-18's, experiments with daytime stealth on the F-117) or it is unusual or otherwise remarkable (i.e. nose art), I don't see much reason to include it. A general article on aircraft paint schemes (and the paint itself, if unusual) and markings would be appropriate, but specific information on routine color schemes isn't something I'm interested in. Your mileage may, of course, vary. SDY (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that while it may be justifiable in principle (encyclopaedic is synonymous with all-embracing), it is just impracticable to cover them all. IMHO there's no place for them in aircraft articles except for the unusual and/or distinctive, as per project guidelines quoted above. --TraceyR (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A sentence or two about distinctive color patterns would be alright to me. But the CF-104 section has a couple paragraphs on unit markings. That's too much detail. Might as well list famous pilots and crew too. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I too can see real problems in trying to include info on colour/markings schemes. For many aircraft types whole books have been dedicated to the sheer variety of colour schemes and markings. While noting different or unusual schemes would be of some interest (eg: the use of pale "Camoutint Pink" on some photo reconnaissance Spitfires) it would be better to leave such a subject to more specialised websites and publications. Just my thoughts :) Minorhistorian (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus here on this issue. I did leave messages for User:MarshallStack to participate, but haven't heard from him. Based on this I will removed the section in CF-104 Starfighter and also add another sentence or two to clarify Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content. I would like to thank everyone here for their considered opinions.- Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Stearman

I think there is some confusion in the Stearman article, seems to concentrate (with nice big pictures) on the Boeing-Stearman Model 75 rather than the company, suggest a page move to Stearman Aircraft Corporation and fix from there (move content to relevant articles, add aircraft list etc). Have not discussed on the talk page as it is currently empty. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Or "Stearman Aircraft". Probably ought to mention it on the talk page some others will be aware of it. Has not been many edits there the past few months so not likely to get opposition to the rename. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I just took the red link from the bolded part of the lead paragraph, I'm not very good with US aircraft company names. Maybe it needs a DAB page creating, it was not until I saw the Stearman XA-21 article that I realised that it was a company rather than just the biplane with a distinctive noise that we all know and love. Will post a link to this discussion on the talk page. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with moving Stearman to Stearman Aircraft, and then make Stearman a DAB page. "Stearman" is a legitimate nickname for the Model 75, and so is likely to be a common search term. I can do that tomorrow if there are no objections by then. - BillCJ (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, good job. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I created the DAB pge, and actually found a few more entries to add there besided the company and the plane. I've also added a products list to the Stearman Aircraft page, and I think I found all the Stearman aircraft articles that we have. - BillCJ (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories and navboxes

(Edit conflict) Thanks Bill, good stuff and thanks very much. I have been wondering lately on the relationship between categories and navboxes, many groups of articles have navboxes but not categories for instance. Many of the navboxes are now more accurate than the 'lists of' articles which can be caught up with in time. I have not read the guidance on categories recently, just a general question. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Good issue to bring up! While I do try to assign categories when I write a new article, I find that the nav boxes are much more useful and I am guessing that the casual reader would use them more often to find similar or related subjects. Categories seem to be an older way of organizing Wikipedia, but at least in this project we have specialized nav boxes for almost every collection of articles now. Categories require you to leave the article page and click sometimes through dozens of sub-cats to find related articles, whereas nav boxes are right there on the article page. Do we really need categories anymore for articles? - Ahunt (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we do need categories as they are the a basic method of organising content in wikipedia, not really difficult to maintain all that is needed is to add a cat everytime you add a navbox, so Template:Bristol aircraft should also have Category:Bristol aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few categories to add then! It's an area that seems to have been 'neglected' for want of a better word. It's fairly easy with 'HotCat' but I have to manually pipe the category afterwards for alpha order in the category unless you guys know of a better way of doing that? Some of the 'commons' categories could do with a look through, I found a Honda Goldwing motorbike in the 'Radial engines' category, I struggled to see the connection as it has a flat four or six cylinder engine! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I just found Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates which recommends that we have both categories and navboxes in articles because users navigate in different ways, which sounds good to me and answers the question. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NTRS

No doubt others have discovered this site which I've just found and bookmarked; http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.jsp?method=aboutntrs and http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp while looking up information on the Spitfire. NASA Technical Reports Server is, IMHO, a most valuable resource and one that has been added to Wikipedia:Free online resources.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

3000 photos now available

For sometime there have been available some 3000 photos from a photographer in Switzerland who has a wealth of photos, especially from the 1970s-1980s of aviation in Europe and the US (and elsewhere). He has licenced them all under GFDL. I have uploaded several dozen over time, and they can be found at Commons:Category:Photos by Eduard Marmet. All available photos can be found at http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Eduard%20Marmet. Only Eduard Marmet's photos are able to be uploaded. If uploading, do so to Commons only and use this template Commons:Template:EduardMarmet. Using this template will add the necessary OTRS permissions and will also place the photos in Eduards commons category. If uploading, be sure to remove the airliners.net banner from the bottom, etc also. Bookmark those link, and make use of them, as they are available and there is a wealth of photos there for all aviation topics. Any questions, contact me on my talk page as I may not see discussion here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gimli Glider

Does this Boeing 767 belong in Category:Glider aircraft? See this edit summary. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Category has been removed by another user, no it is not a glider as usual the cat has been added to make a point in the glider article. Despite the need to get rid of unpowered aircraft it is far more suitable a description than glider for this particular incident. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

interesting picture of biplane

File:Ismailiabiplanecrash.jpg

I came across this picture in a collection of a deceased relative. It has the note, 'RAF crash ismalia Egypt'. I thought someone here might be able to help identify the aircraft and then it might be an interesting picture to include somewhere. If you look closely you can see the bullet holes. Sandpiper (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a Vickers Vildebeest to me, from the attitude and damage on the rudder it has probably 'nosed over' on landing. The RAF Museum might have a record of 'K8087', I used their research department recently with success. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer is here!. Good stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

{ec) According to this website the a/c in the photograph is a Vildebeest IV, K8087 of 45 Squadron. It swung on landing and overturned at Ismailia 27/03/39. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wondering why the elevator is in the 'down' position when gravity would pull it to the 'up' position unless the Vildebeest had a powerful spring trim system? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Or a body in the cockpit holding the stick! It has a lot of bullet holes in it! - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WIkiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tandem Triplane

The article Triplane (in addition to having no external references) includes the description of modern jets with canard configurations as "tandem triplanes", along with an image. While this term may exist, IMHO it doesn't warrant hijacking the Triplane article to describe it. Perhaps a new "Tandem Triplane" article is required, but that would also, presumably, duplicate some of the canard content. I don't want to spark an edit war by just removing the "tandem" content and cross-referencing to the carnard article, so perhaps a discussion here is what is needed. --TraceyR (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the "tandem triplane" term crop up in a couple of reliable places when I did a Google search. There are a few other spots that it could logically live: either Tandem wing or Canard, but to me, it doesn't really seem out-of-place to mention it in the triplane article either. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with a mention + link to the appropriate article, but a whole section on various types and an image of the F-15S/MTD seem out of place! If "tandem wing" suggests two (roughly) equally-loaded pairs of wings (which doesn't seem to apply here) then, by the same logic, a "tandem triplane" ought to be two sets of equally-loaded triplanes! The mind boggles. I do wish that whoever dreams up these expressions would consider their meaning before spreading them! Incidentally, most of the aircraft mentioned in the "tandem triplane" section are in the category "canard aircraft", none are categorised as triplanes. QED? --TraceyR (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A little question for you

Hi at all; on it.wiki I have write the new article Detroit-Parks P-2 (or Parks P-2), the famous (or not?) biplane used from Richard Bach ad cited on his novel Biplane (novel) (oh, my God, a red wikilink :-S ). My data source is only that I have to write at External links section, but if you have new sorces (reeding Jane's) can help me? Sorry for haven't write an en.wiki article but my english (I think) isn't no very good to write it. Thanks for your patience ;-) (PS if your italian as too better my english, the article at it:Detroit-Parks P-2 is at your disposition :-) )--Threecharlie (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to get to this in the next few days (if nobody else beats me to it!) --Rlandmann (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Fact/CN tags

AN IP user has been removing {{fact}} tags from the de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunk page, per this example. AHunt was gracious enough to add in some cites, but this has only encouraged the user to remove another tag! Admin intervention to explain the necessity of tags, and that they are not "Pointless harassment ", would be much appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those who helped out on the article. - BillCJ (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Avionics articles

I've started the Honeywell Aerospace primarily to cover Honeywell tubine engines, but they make many other products as well, espicially avionics systems. We currently have an article on the Enhanced Avionics System (EASy), in which Honeywell is a partner. However, we have no articles on the Honeywell Apex or Honeywell Primus, or its other systems. I know absolutely nothing about such products, so if anyone is able to work on creating these article, I would greatly appreciate it. - BillCJ (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

GAR for SR-71 Blackbird

SR-71 Blackbird has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin help requested

See this diff and here also for some odd interactions I've had with this user just before the first diff occured. I find it hard to believe this is a coincedence, but perhaps it is. Either way, can something be done about his removing Aircontent template sections? I really hope we don't have to revise our layouts agin just to please one user! - BillCJ (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't really just be "one user" - this is going to continue to come up periodically for so long as WP:AIR uses a different format for its end sections to that given in the main MoS. The great advantage to {{aircontent}} is that this can be resolved centrally without having to manually update articles, if need be. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand; where does WP:AIR use a different format for its end sections to that in the MoS? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not directly applicable to this example (which was about re-linking things which were already in the article), but MOS:APPENDIX states that the "Further reading" section, "See also", "References" and so on should all be second-level headers - {{aircontent}} makes "See also" a third-level header, and the F-35 Lightning II article in Bill's link above has both "Notes" and "Bibiography" under third-level headers beneath a "References" L2. Still, this is pretty irrelevant to the current topic (as I misread the subject of the edit conflict). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• That template does not add a level 3 see also label. That's a field for links to go to the top, right under the main see also section label. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I see that now. Yes, probably best ignoring this tangent of the conversation - I got the wrong end of the stick, as indicated above. I'm considering striking my original reply. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft specifications

Standard aircraft specifications should also include runway type and length under zero wind conditions. I would think it significant to know if an aircraft can take off from a dirt strip in 500ft, etc, or if it requires a 3000 foot concrete runway. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of specs that could be added, but there are two considerations: 1. to keep the list of specs relatively brief, as this is an encyclopedia and 2. that some specs are generally available from common sources while others aren't. Take-off and landing distances are often only available from aircraft POHs and not from sales data on company websites. This may make it hard to find and hard to verify for most types. - Ahunt (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Runway length also depends on conditions: an airplane that can take off from a 500-foot paved runway at sea level in the winter might need 1500 feet of dirt runway during a Tibetan summer, but only 400 feet of frozen river in Alaska. --Carnildo (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Template issue

[1] has a screwed up template. Can whoever fixes it write on my talk page what was wrong with it for future reference? klosterdev (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fixed. One of the links was not closed properly. --McSly (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft hull losses / write offs

I've been asked to raise the issue of notability of airliners that are written off here. While I agree that not all aircraft accidents are notable enough to justify an article on Wikipedia per WP:AIRCRASH, my opinion is that if an airliner is written off in an accident then is should be sufficiently notable enough to warrant a mention in the article about the aircraft, airline and airport involved, subject to WP:V and WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The page content guide does say it can be included if The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;, although I would argue that it is still not compulsory to list every hull loss to an aircraft type (the DC-3 hasnt got an accident and incidents section at all!). But I wouldnt argue at article level against the guideline if a non-fatal hull loss has been added to an aircraft article in good faith. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DC-3 accidents and incident would probably make an article on its own. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DC-3 accidents and incidents would probably make a wikipedia on its own!Nigel Ish (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps listing only significant events along with a disclaimer indicating that the entire list would be too large if any attempt at a comprehensive listing was attempted. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Is article not a List?

Question: Does List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators have enough text to not be considered a list article? It has lists in sections near the top and long tables at the bottom. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

...seems to be. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

• Seems to not be a list, correct? I originally worded the section header the opposite. Anybody else? -Fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Engine task force in the banner?

The question came up that the Engines task force isn't in the project banner. Is there enough interest there to create its own parameter, assessment categories and other items. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that require it to be a task force or not? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all, but in a couple of places it needs to be called something. How do people refer to it? The Engine subpage of the Aircraft WikiProject? "This page is supported by the Aircraft engine taskforce/wikiproject/subpage", "Category:Aircraft engine ...... articles" - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If we have a subpage for "how to" on engine articles and a group of project editors that are focused on improving and standardizing those articles, then I think we're at the point of calling it a task force. It may not endure with the same amount of activity, but it is a subject that will always need addressing. Much like Rlandmann's work on building even stub articles for the most obscure aircraft, "If you build it, they will come." --Born2flie (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, does anyone have a suggestion for the icon to use to represent this? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking an image of or a shape that resembled a radial engine, because I feel the radial engine helped to usher in the golden age of aviation. I'm partial to one of the Wasp variants. --Born2flie (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Probable SPA

See this diff, and note website address and username. - BillCJ (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to note the user has been reported and now blocked. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Main page update

I came upon some nice code in another project, and thought I'd use it to make out project page a bit more user-freindly/attractive. Check it out here. What do you think? Better/worse/the same? Is there anything you use regularly in your aircraft editing that you would like to see on the page? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks good. It does seems a bit crowded with the vertical image banner. Could you put that on the left side or do a horizontal strip instead? -Fnlayson (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the visual flair it gives, while dividing the columns. Very different from run-of-the-mill banners. I made it half as wide, is that better? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Much better. That's fine with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Seaplane/Floatplane

An editor has made some changes to the Seaplane article, stating differences between the US and British usages of the term, and of "floatplane". While he has sources for the US definition, he has not added sources for British usage as of yet. I just wanted to run this by here, as I was not aware of differences between the terms, and I'm fairly well read on aviation topics, mostly from British writers. I do miss things at times though. See Talk:Seaplane#Seaplanes/floatplanes/pontoons for forther discussion. - BillCJ (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Engines in the banner

Engine articles now have their own parameter in the project banner. If you want to help, hunt down every engine article and switch them over from |Aircraft=yes to |Engines=yes . - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess |Rotorcraft-task-force=yes should be removed if present as well, right? -Fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Treavor's *bold* edit

Love the new look! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Breaks in captions

The "breaks" in captions are starting to appear again, per this diff, even though the editor knows these are not approved. I haven't reverted this yet, as I know it would restart my "rivalry" with this editor. Alos, he's added dubious info without cites here. I had hoped his return would be better than this. Sigh. - BillCJ (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Was there a problem with breaks in captions? I don't remember seeing this discussed anywhere and am not aware of any specific prohibition on this? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's related to the long discussion(s) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Captions about requiring serial numbers and other info be listed in the caption. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly remember those, but don't recall breaks in captions as being one of the issues? --Rlandmann (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

True. Related, but not really an issue by itself. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't bringing them up by themselves. The point is that Dave is again using his fanboy-style formatting in captions. More below on Milb1's related post.

Piaggio P.180 Avanti

Just to note that our old friend User:Stefanomencarelli is turning Piaggio P.180 Avanti into Italish or is it Englian! including the dreaded aircrafts. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Survivors Again

I am working on a compromise with User:Davegnz on the survivors article (refer my talk page if you are interested), part of the way forward is to revert the A-20 article for the moment. Can other editors just bear with us for a while as you will appreciate that talking is better than constant reverting. We will return to project with some suggestions after some experiments. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See Survivors section above. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:36, March 15, 2009 (UTC)

Change of designation

Stupid question - at what point does an article title change - When the aircraft prototype first flew, when the majority of the aircraft was produced, majority of aircraft retired or what.

P-80 vs F-80 (P-80 was first flew in 1944, majority of aircraft at of before 1947, etc...)

A-26 vs B-26 vs A-26

P-86 vs F-86

PB4Y-2 vs P4Y-2

F4U vs AU-1

And when does the information change in the article Just wondering?? Davegnz (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule, as each aircraft is different. All the factors you metion are usually taken into consideration when choosing the title. As to AU-1, it was only a designation for one model, the F4U-6, and not a change for all of them. The AU-1 was optimized for low-level USMC, and didn't have a high-altitude supercharger. - BillCJ (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Leroy Grumman

A user has proposed moving Leroy Grumman to Roy Grumman. Please weigh in, whatever your opinion. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft order listings

I hope this topic hasn't been covered already, cause if it has, I'm gonna feel stupid... I've noticed a difference between the different category pages in terms of how the aircraft are ordered... for example, the "Category:Japanese fighter aircraft 1940-1949" page has them listed by the manufacturers' designation (ie "Ki-116", "Ki-117", etc), while the "Category:German bomber aircraft 1910-1919" page has no such distinction between the aircraft, simply listing them alphabetically by the first letter in the manufacturer's name... has anyone come to an agreement on how they should ordered in the category pages? Magus732 (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Listing by model number requires the category to be formatted like this [[Category:Japanese fighter aircraft 1940-1949|Ki-102, Kawasaki]]. The part after the | causes it to be ordered by model number first. Or the {{DEFAULTSORT:}} could be used if all that format applies to all the article's categories. I have not seen a WP:Air guideline or convention on this. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I'm asking before I order them that way... Magus732 (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Normally we let the cats just follow the default sort (which is the article title) the only exception I am aware of is in the company aircraft cats like Category:English Electric aircraft when the cat sort feature is used to remove the manufacturers name, so in this example they dont all appear under E, and model numbers are normally filled out like A-1 would be A-001 to make the list run in numerical order (so instead of A-1, A-11, A-2 they are listed as A-1, A-2, A-11). Perhaps as in the example of the Japanese list when they all are part of the same numbering system then they should also be sorted by model name, although I suspect we dont have many like that apart from the German and Japanese cats. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So, there's no rule to that effect? I ask because an administrator, who shall remain nameless to keep it from becoming personal, suggested I open a discusion before I make major changes to another group of articles, and I felt, before I open that can of worms, I test the water, so to speak... see how the community at large feels about consistency in the structure of pages in general... Magus732 (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is good that you ask. But formatting the categories as described has no affect on the articles themselves. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I know that, but if there was a rule about it, I'd want to know, that's all... Magus732 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Centre stick vs side-stick

Am I the only one who thinks we can do better than Centre stick vs side-stick? Not that I know what to call it! It's mostly OR synthesis anyway, so it might be better to merge it with something or delete it. - BillCJ (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an encyclopedia article? Reads more like an essay. --Born2flie (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree and "essay" tagged it. Much of the information in there is speculative or just plain wrong. The problem is that if I go though it and cut out the stuff that is incorrect or unsupported then there won't be much left and AfD becomes the only option. Ideas? - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan! might be easier just to take it to AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge useful content to Side-stick and rename to "Side-stick contols" (or something similar). Or possibly merge to Aircraft flight control systems. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Fnlayson - merge with Side-stick and remove all the unsourced speculation, make Centre stick vs side-stick a redirect to Side-stick. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also Centre stick article, which take related content. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How about combining all of these – including Yoke (aircraft) – into a single article on "Cockpit controls"? Few of these articles are anything but "section"-length anyway, and combining them might make for a more interesting and informative read. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a great suggestion! - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

^ That's even better. Agreed! -Fnlayson (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - I presume we also need a flightdeck controls for the civil aircraft! MilborneOne (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments! I agree with a combined article on Cockpit controls, with a redirect from "Flight deck controls for those who think they are different things! ;) Also, A320 flight control (created 5 days ago) is up for merging to Aircraft flight control systems. I think I'm about ready to start a satirical essay on "Airbus worship", to go along with Concordeism! - BillCJ (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I dont have a problem with a redirect in my real life some of our civil airline customers get very annoyed if you call their flightdeck a cockpit! MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Milborne, it's just one of those things... why they called it a "cockpit" in the early years of flight (and perhaps more interesting, why most people still call it that), I can't say, but that's what they called it... I personally think it depends more on how big it is... a single-seat fighter or tandem-seat fighter/bomber/civil craft/whatever, it's a cockpit... multi-seat, multi-engine aircraft(with a big crew at/near/around/next to the controls), it's a flight deck... that's my stance... although, I think people might get confused if you started calling it that on a carrier-borne aircraft... Magus732 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-English names in infoboxes

I added the original Chinese name "西安新舟60" to Xian MA60's infobox, but it was removed without comment. What's WP:AIRCRAFT policy on this? Jpatokal (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't policy on this, but I think perhaps we should decide on one. I, for one, think that since this is an English Wikipedia, and we already have the interwiki's and native language names in the body intro, it's unnecessary and over-complicated to add foreign language anywhere else. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Trevor. There is a policy against using non-English characters in Titles, and the Infobox is somewhat of an extension of the title. For simplicity's sake, I think it's best to use only Roman characters in the infoboxes. It might not seem fair, as most non-Roman character languages use Roman letters in their infoboxes alot. However, English WP is widely used by readers from many languages. Also, consider the JF-17 Thunder article, where we would have to use both Urdu and Chinese characters, making it even more complicated. (The name of that aritcle is already biased towoards Pakistan, but they have a greater commitment to buy it than does China, so the default has been to its name.) Other examples might be Russian and Hindi, Hebrew and Chinese or Hindi, and so on. Btw, an IP reverted you, so it's no surprise that they didn't leave an edit summary/explanation. Sorry about that, as I know your edit was in good faith. - BillCJ (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Trevor and BillCJ. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Since most Windows PCs don't include language packs for many oriental languages, these will just show up as markers anyway - agree that they shouldn't be in info boxes on en.wikipedia, but perhaps in the text would be okay. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Since most MAC users couldn't care less (LOL)... let's make sure that the infobox does what it is supposed to do, provide brief, accurate and understandable information. I agree that non-English would not apply there. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about Macs but pretty much all Linux users have languages installed, meaning that the above characters appear as intended and not as markers instead, but I agree, it shouldn't be in the info box, regardless.- Ahunt (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with just using the Roman script in the infobox. There's already way too much that has crawled from the article into the infobox. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost all aircraft have an article...

... there are just 168 articles left at Wikipedia:Aircraft encyclopedia topics that need to be created. If everyone would try and create 1 or 2 articles over the next few days, I think we can do them all. Lets make Wikipedia the source of aircraft info, on or off the web. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

... and most of them are now listed on STOL!

An IP editor has been adding a bunch of aircraft with short-field performance to the STOL airticle's list. The list has been trimmed several times inthe past, but is quite long now, even without the new additions. Most of the aircraft the IP is adding have been removed before, as the do not meet the formal NATO definition of STOL, including aircraft such as the BAE 146 and C-17. Is it time to just do away with the list altogether? I really don't see any way to determine notability of the aircraft in the list to make it shorter. - BillCJ (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the aircraft "type" articles, particularly the military ones, have a bit of a problem with an excess of embedded lists. I've wrestled with this somewhat with the fighter aircraft article and even tried to create a list of fighter aircraft to get some of the listcruft off the page, but I've encountered some stiff resistance and it's not that important to me. I'd advocate doing away with the embedded list and creating a stand-alone list that can be categorized (i.e. formally STOL, with explicit STOL design features, anything else). SDY (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

While I would argue the the C-17 does have STOL capabilities, I would have a hard time considering the Cessna 180 and 280 (especially the Caravan which is a true "ground hugger") as an STOl aircraft. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC).

Although Boeing’s marketers have advertised it that way, I have a hard time swallowing the C-17 as a STOL aircraft. Traditionally, the term indicates that the aircraft can land and take off from semi-prepared strips (or at least typical third-world airport runways) with a normal load and without leaving the runway severely damaged. In any case, maybe the requirement for an aircraft being on a STOL list should be a reliable and knowledgeable reference source (independent from the manufacturer) with a list of “STOL aircraft” that includes it. After all, the standing WP rule is that if someone questions it, the person wanting to add it is obliged to provide a reliable source. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We have been over these problems on the article's talk page. The accepted NASA and general definition of STOL is any aircraft that can take-off or land in 1500 feet over a 50 obstacle. That means that an unmodified Cessna 172 is a STOL aircraft and a C-17 isn't. It also means that a hot air balloon is a STOL aircraft as is any airship, helicopter, gyroplane, motorglider, etc, whereas many larger aircraft marketed as STOL are not. The definition has caused all kinds of problems but we cannot source a better one.

In dealing with the list problem, I agree with Bill, let's kill it. It takes tons of effort to keep all the fancruft off it. I would be in favour of just referring readers to Category:STOL instead where all applicable aircraft should be listed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. One point on the definition that should be considered: most aircraft of moderate size and above are not STOL capable, but almost all helicopters, balloons, and autogyros are. - BillCJ (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I would suggest we leave it for other's comments for a day or two and then, lacking any objections, make the cut! - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I left a courtesy note at Talk:STOL‎ to make sure no one gets left out of this decision. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, lacking any objections or further discussion then I will go ahead and make this change. - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Grob Aerospace

Adam, this is directed to you, but placed here to gather wider input. It's in the same line of wrok you've been doing on the Eclipse (?) articles. I just saw this article on Flightglobal regarding the SPn jet possibly nearing production restart. This statement caught my attention: "Germany's H3 Aerospace relaunched the old Grob Aerospace training aircraft business under the name Grob Aircraft while the largest creditor retains the assets to the SPn, which it holds in an unnamed company." EN.WP and DE.WP do not have an article on H3 Aerospace or the new Grob Aircraft. Is this something we need (either or both companies)? The H# website, http://www.h3-aerospace.de/ , requires some type of registration to even be viewed, but http://www.grob-aircraft.eu/ has open pages. Anyone want to tackle this, or at least help out, either with sources or editing? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm that is an interesting development. The article is quite short as it is, so I would suggest that the new company be a section in the existing article for now and when additional info comes along or production actually gets started and the other problems solved then it can be split into a new article. The similarity in the names of the two compnaies will cause confusion either way! - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have updated the Grob Aerospace article from the ref, but as mentioned I haven't split it. Looking closely at the story I think if the new entity does get the SPn program going again then that could be split into a new article for the new company, although that is three years away from certification, even if everything lines up. In the meantime I think the article can stand as is, subject to future developments. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that works for now. If Grob Aircraft is successful, more info should become available, and a split will be viable. If not, then it's just a footnote to the history hereanyway. We'll see how it goes. - BillCJ (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts too! I'll keep an eye on it and any text additions or posting of refs like you did above would be greatly appreciated. Lots of aerospace companies are going through massive changes in the current economic situation and so it is a challenge for Wikipedia to keep up! - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparable/similar aircraft

The comparable aircraft section of the Template:aircontent is a problem on some articles despite guidance which says Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. Particulary on some pakistan/india/china military aircraft it has been a bit of a nationalistic battleground. We have some editors who have a very wide view of what is similar and others who argue aircraft cant be similar because it is six inches longer (I made that up!). On thousands of articles it is not a problem but on the few it is it takes a lot of time reverting and trying to get a consensus. I would suggest we should look at two options, remove the similar article field completely and perhaps beef up the categorisation to play the same role (like Category:1950s fighters), or we try and redefine exactly what we need from the comparable article field and ensure that it adds value to the article. Any other thoughts ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I say remove it and let editors put it into the body of the article text if they think it is justified. - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Serial number links

I've recently stumbled across a few articles which refer to specific aircraft with comments like "A preserved example, [[serial number|AB123]], is at the Flight Museum". Any thoughts on whether or not this is a good idea? I'm leaning towards the link being unhelpful - the context implies it'll link to the particular example - but I'd be interested to see other viewpoints. Shimgray | talk | 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is more usual to link the words registration or serial number not the actual registration/serial number, like registration G-ABCD or serial number 86-0193. Although they are numerous examples like WG760 you are probably right the serial itself should not be linked unless it links to an article on that particular aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The casual reader will expect that link to tell them more about that specific aircraft, not about "what is a serial number". I think those should be unlinked as MB1 indicates above. - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Survivors

Back in November I proposed a change of layout for the Survivors articles (to a table layout) and a number of articles were changed (the rest are still in the pending tray). User:Davegnz has reverted A-20 Havoc survivors back to the earlier fanboy style including all the external links which as has been discussed previously are not allowed. As far as I am aware this has not been discussed since and the table style has still got consensus, any comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have a RFC/whatever out on the survivors issue that Dave has yet to respond to? He has made it clear form his recent edits that he not interested in abiding by consensus on anything that diasgree's with his "style". Time to take things to the next step, whatever that is. (Seriously - I don't know the next step? ArbCom?) - BillCJ (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bill, he hasn't shown any interest in following consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Another user has now decided they dont like the table format and reverted the article back! I have invited him/her to discuss it here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Heretic checking in. I actually like the graphic layout that Dave uses. I know it may not have received official sanction, but it does look "priddy." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

I dont have an objection to not using the tables what I didnt like was the fanboy layout with all the imbedded external links and abbreviations and stuff (like condition codes as used in warbird books and an addiction to variant codes) that would just confuse anybody who wasnt into warbirds. I dont have an objection if somebody could come up with an alternate layout between the fanboy and the table layouts that doesnt include all the specialist stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the use of external links is "not on". WP:EL: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) The reversions and ownership issuers are continuing using IPs, per this diff. Edit summary: "If you can not conform to the rest of the series keep you hands off - Why do you not grow-up and creat you own articles..." - BillCJ (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an admin should do a sockpuppet check to me. - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - looks like he has gone over to the New Jersey State Library to get a new IP address - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise to MilborneOne I am going to once again try and turn a survivor article into a table type article... I do want to point out to everyone the wikipedia rules for tables:

• [Wikipedia:When to use tables] specificially:

Tables are perfect for organizing any information that is best presented in a row-and-column format. This might include:

Mathematical tables

Multiplication tables

Tables of divisors

Lookup tables

Lists of information

Equivalent words in two or more languages

Person, birthdate, occupation

Artist, album, year, and label

Often a list is best left as a list. Some articles include very long lists which might be difficult to edit if they were in table form. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegnz (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 March 2009

Just to make it clear the compromise solution doesnt have to be a table it just need to address some of the presentation and content concerns we have already discussed. So if you dont think tables will work then we can look at other ideas you may have. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

With a bit of co-operation and discussion between us, Davgnz has changed the A-20 Havoc survivors article into a different non-table format. We have tried to get a balance for the need for detailed information but yet remain readable and encyclopedic. Comments are welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There haven't even been any comments yet and the new "style" is already being implemented on other aritcles, including types. This is not consensus! Wikipedia is not a directory, which is what these types of lists are turning into. Personally, I HATE tables, but this is not much of an improvement. Bullets work best for one entry per bullet, and it's too confusing for other editors to add info (a similar objection I have to complex/long tables). Straight linear text works best for me, as many editors, such as Ken Keisel, like to add a little history on each aircraft. As long as that history is sourced, I think it's a good thing, as it breaks up the dry data. Also, similar multi-bullet "styles" are being implemented in the variants sections of a number of aircraft articles, and they do not work any better. Why do we keep reinventing the wheel? - BillCJ (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this is starting to impact me as well I have to pipe in here. What Davegnz is doing to articles constitutes vandalism, plain and simple. Not only is he implementing his "policy" while editing under an unregistered i.d. (see F-82), he also claims that the idea of having the "Survivors" section as a table is MilborneOne, not his, and has told me so. The "Survivors" section must be kept in a simple text format for several obvious reasons. First, it allows the individual aircraft's "story" to be told in a clear, easy-to-read format. A table is incompatible with a section that is meant to tell a story, or provide a history. Second, the use of a table limits the ability of other editors, particular inexperienced editors, to add their own information to the article, and discourages them from doing so. I just found out that the CAF's F-82 has been dismantled and is being shipped to the NMotUSAF in Dayton because an editor with limited experience on Wikipedia was kind enough to update the survivors section on the F-82 with this breaking news. I contacted the museum in Dayton and have found out that it is all true, so good work to the new editor!! Had the F-82 survivor section been formatted as a table there would have been no way for a new editor to add this information, and I'm sure we wouldn't have it at all. A simple text format for the "Survivors" encourages such additions, giving folks like me the opportunity to research the accuracy of information, and if it's true, have new information that we otherwise wouldn't have had. This is the whole reason for Wikipedia in a nutshell. On the other hand, I can't think of a single good reason in defense of having the "Survivors" section as a table. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I worked with Davegnz on a compromise solution half way between his original fanboy format and a table format that had also been used. Yes the table format was my idea but it was clear from the comments received and some sandboxing (on my talk page) that it did not have a future. The A-20 Survivors article was modified as an example of a bullet format. This was then brought up here (a few lines above) to seek opinions and to gain a consensus or otherwise. At this moment it does not have consensus and we should not really have any format changes while we are still in discussion. At the moment I am happy to go with the eventual consensus the two comments so far indicate that a free text format is best and we dont really need a proscribed format. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The free text format does offer the greatest flexibility, as Ken mentions above. The key thing for me in these articles is to make sure that the entries are properly referenced and that there are no external links in the text, otherwise it all looks like advertising for other websites - so far we seem to have made that last point. - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The bullet point format looks terrible to me, particularly in a general article, appears less readable and loses information. It also seems to be in breach of Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists - # Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again! Davegnz just remade the F-82 survivors section as a table for the third time! I don't think he's even listening to us anymore. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[undent] I thought I'd get an outside view on this, so I put the B-17 survivors list up for a peer review (see Wikipedia:Peer review/B-17 Flying Fortress survivors/archive1. Since we're supposed to be writing for the general public, I think we need to take suggestions from those with a little less invested in it. There are some interesting suggestions already. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of a new formatting for the over-long Contents list

Sorry for the over-long title, but a new tag had been recently introduced by an anon, but after reviewing its effect, I noted that it did have the advantage of compressing the sub-sets of sections into a more manageable size. The tag is {{TOClimit|limit=2}}. I have experimented with the implementation of the format on a number of the articles I "watch" and have made the change partly to see what the reaction would be, and more to see if there would be legitimate concerns arising in the new contents list. BillCJ did immediately notice the change (does that man ever sleep?) and a lively (leisurely is more like it) discussion ensued on his talk page. I see two advantages to the new format: 1. It compresses the contents list without changing it, allowing for a better use of the page. 2. It effectively hides the common "Notes" and "Bibliography" under the more accepted "References" title. (I know this seems to be a specious and obtuse reason but after fighting the fight with so many editors and trying my best at the style forums to discuss interpretation of the terms, there are still editors who insist on using the bastardized "For further Reading" while what they mean is a bibliography.) See the following examples for the changes: Original TOC and Now. I realize that there should be a limit to the use of the limit, and there are better ways to "hide" the bibliography. What say you? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

The best use of the TOClimit is on articles like Panzer II where the subsections have subsections. It keeps the TOC from dominating the article - partcilulary with a short intro. I wouldn't say that its use has made much effect on the appearance of the Concorde article. If anything hiding notes and biblio in the TOC might send an editor hurrying down to the bottom to add a Notes section. (as an aside I'm of the "Notes, Refs, Further Reading" persuasion).GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Unless there are multiple levels of subsections, I don't see what legitimate purpose this limit serves, other than to make the TOC less usable and less informative. And frankly, if you have an axe to grind about the "bastardized" references and notes format that other editors use, then you need to take it up somewhere else. Mangling the TOC isn't the way to do it. M Van Houten (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lighten up, can't you see the tongue-in-cheek. (LOL) FWiW, see: original commentary. Bzuk (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC).

It was used on the P-39 variation section which kept crashing (stack overload) - it works great Davegnz (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) So can we conclude that there is no concensus to implement this format on a wide range of articles? (And yes, BillZ I do sleep, but I never know when it will be! Oh the fun of aq chronic illness!) I thought this was only going to be used on articles with large TOCs. However, it was being used on B-25 Mitchell, where it has 10 main-level headings and only 4 subheadings, which does not make much of a differnce. In fact, BillZs stated reason for wanting to use this was to avoid the Ref subsections aprearing in the TOC, yet these sub-sections use Semi-colon headings, which do not appear in the TOC. There is some support above for it's use on articles with over-long TOCs, and I agree. However, in those cases, we should at least be showing the first sub-heading level in the articless, which needs a TOClimit of "limit=3". - BillCJ (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, level 3 is more like it. List the main sections and their first level of subsections. I don't see what is wrong with just using the show/hide button for the TOC. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gang, I will be more judicious in my use of the format limiter. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

Vote on date autoformatting and linking

The Vote on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bombardier Dash 8 split

I've proposed splitting the Bombardier Dash 8 article along 2 possibilites, with details of the proposal at Talk:Bombardier Dash 8#Split proposals. Further input would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Article alert

I should say, alertS, as the following articles now have been the subject of controversial changes (some astute observers may notice a pattern emerging [LOL]):

• Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain
• Battle of Britain
• Battle of Dunkirk
• List of Battle of Britain pilots
• Billy Fiske
• AVM Richard Saul
• Paddy Finucane
• Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding
• Keith Park
• Battle of Britain (film)
• Edgar James "Cobber" Kain FWiW (and Category:Scottish air marshals|Category:Scottish air marshals?) Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC).

Help with XB-70 article

Could use some help with XB-70 Valkyrie. I've tried to clean up things, rewrite and cite text. A user is being difficult to work with on it. Any help would be appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And I don't mean User:Bzuk there. :) Thanks for the help. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the XF-108 Rapier article, it's also going the same way... Bzuk (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

More articles to create!!!

Since almost all the articles in Wikipedia:Aircraft encyclopedia topics have been created, some of you may be struggling to find something to do. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles now lists almost 5000 articles than need to be created or redirected. Dig in! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking for sources

There's a concept that gets kicked around with Fighter aircraft over "generations" of designs, and it's not a very solid one. I've poked around at a few articles on the subject, but I've been heavily frustrated by a lack of any real sources to work with. So much of it is fanwank, jingoism, or otherwise unreliable sources that I'm half-tempted to AFD the first-gen article I wrote since I have so little confidence in the sourcing. Are there any better sources out there for this kind of information, particularly for the older aircraft? SDY (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This book: (Spick, Mike. Brassey's Modern Fighters.... 2002. ISBN 157488462X) outlines what the 5 generations are as I recall. Probably are other books like that too. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You might find this (google cache linked, since it's not working for me) interesting - it's an earlier discussion of the concept, which uses a six-generation model to go up to the F-14/-15/etc. Shimgray | talk | 19:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As I discussed in my outline of the generations on the talk page of that article, there’s very little in the way of sources for it since it’s an “consensus” definition amongst professionals in the industry, not a formal one. (Worse still, there are a lot of misconceptions over what the term “generation” signifies – it refers to design philosophies and approaches, not technologies, per se – and applies only to jet fighters.) Other more formal approaches (like Dr. Hallion’s and a recent one by Saab) have been proposed, but not accepted (and Spick's is a bit dated). I’ve not been inclined to return to work on the “Fighter aircraft” article (for a variety of reasons), but I still believe the lists of fighters in each category need to become part of a separate list-type article. IMO, it’s the only way there will ever be a relatively stable, readable main article. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

ELs as Advert/Spam

I've been removing a large collection of ELs from the Quadrotor article, per this diff, but the keep being readded. In fact, most of the recent edits on the article have been to add these ELs. I looked at most of them, and they are all for some time of project or product, not information about the topic in general. I would appreciate someone double-checking me on these worth of these links, and perhaps helping keeping out the ones that should be left out. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks good for now, but I now have it watched! - Ahunt (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Battle of Britain pilots

So far a lot of work has gone into the List of Battle of Britain pilots - however, work is needed to bring this up to scratch, particularly as it is based mostly on a website as its primary reference material. I've started adding to it, and I've added some thoughts to the discussion page.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that the title is misleading in that your list includes non-pilot aircrew (and I assume only fighters are being covered). Is it also intended to cover Axis pilots/aircrew? (If not, that suggests another potential change to the title.) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested on the related talk page that List of RAF aircrew in the Battle of Britain would be better. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging

Boeing B-1 and Boeing Model 6. Before I merged them I though I'd double check. Model 6 is the proper name, correct? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't answer that, but "Boeing Model 6" follows usual Boeing company designation format. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good 'nuf. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Flagged protection trial

Is anyone here invovled in the Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Trial? I would love to see some of our articles used in the trial, especially the high-traffic aircrat articles. I hope this eventually passes, as it would be useful in controlling and perhaps discouraging the drive-by IP edits to specs and other data such as [2], and perhaps even the "Comparable aircraft" edit wars, since their changes would not be visible on the main articles. - BillCJ (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft designer template

Template:Verville Air has just been created for an aircraft designer and added to his products. Nothing wrong with the navbox but it is something we dont normally do, any thoughts, do we need any more. MilborneOne (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think designer templates are a good idea, as there are probably far more designers than there were companies. Also, many designers, especially those within companies, even their own, worked with other designers, and the potential for duplication is great, not to mention multiple designer templates on aircraft articles. I would support taking this one to TFD to establish a precedent. - BillCJ (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "designer" is somewhat problematic in that it was not universally used vis-a-vi engineer, lead, etc., but if it is understood then, I really have no problem with it as the designer's body of work can be another source of information. As far as I remember, whenever there was a team of designers on a project, it was understood that the head of design was not going to appear in the infobox. I can see the template being useful for a select group of designers, Geoffrey de Havilland, Edgar Schmued, Jack Northrop, James C. Floyd, Wsiewołod Jakimiuk and Marcel Bloch. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it may well be a valid navbox in certain cases, more so when a designer may have had/worked for a number of different manufacturers and naming conventions do not make the link obvious, (in contrast to an individual like Frederick George Miles whose name aligns with a manufacturer article and the manufacturer navbox suffices).GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am with GraemeLeggett on this one. I think in certain cases a nav box would be justified when the connections are not obvious, but I can't see doing this for all designers. A good example of a designer who wouldn't need this would be Richard VanGrunsven who designs the RV series. The navbox at Template:VansAircraft captures all his designs. - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In a certain number of cases, say Kelly Johnson, this is probably a good idea. But in the end, I think it will cause more problems than it solves. M Van Houten (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for help re: Terminology of Battle of Britain

The designation: "Battle of Britain" is normally capitalized, and it was my understanding that the use of the term thereafter if shortened, as in "the Battle" should also be capitalized. The RAF use this form, is it correct? This stems from an anon that insists that only the full term be capitalized. See:Battle of Britain (film) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC).

My understanding is that the capitization is used only for proper nouns. For instance "409 All-Weather Figher Squadron" would all be capitalized because it is a proper noun. Subsequent mentions of "the squadron" wouldn't be capitalized because that is a common noun. Have a look at this grammar ref. - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bzuk – "Battle" should be capitalised. We are not simply referring to a single action or battle here, but to a forshortened version of the title given to the campaign, and capitalising helps distinguish between the two. Just as we would refer to The Queen opening an event; not just a queen, but a specific person. Even if it is grammatically incorrect (which I don't feel that it is), "Battle" is the form used by the RAF, the Battle of Britain Memorial Trust and the Battle of Britain Historical Society, and that's good enough for me! --Red Sunset 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedians to vote on Creative Commons license adoption"

I would suggest that project members read of this article Wikipedians to vote on Creative Commons license adoption by Ryan Paul, Ars Technica.

Personally, I am a fan of Creative Commons licences and will be voting for this as I think it will advance Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoax?

Hypersonic Cruiser - has dubious claims ("It can travel 2 times as distance as between earth and sun"), no references, and I found nothing on a Google search except the WP article itself. - BillCJ (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree per WP:DUCK, also note edits by indonesian IPS User:125.160.152.231 and User:125.160.131.154. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated it for WP:PROD. Please do moniter the article until the five days are up! I will be! - Ahunt (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, there's no such commercial entity called Borth Aerospot as far as I can find out, which further suggests a hoax. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The five day PROD period on this article has now expired without protest - I would like to appeal to one of the WikiProject Admins to delete the article, please! - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Super, thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft manufacturer nav boxes

Since General Dynamics does not have a nav box, I was wondering about adding their few aircraft to the {{Convair aircraft}} template. Convair was acquired by GD and operated as a aircraft division for several years. Any problem with this I'm not seeing? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sure we have some very small navboxes for some companies, but I dont see any harm in adding them to a section of the Convair box. If it looks wrong we can always create a separate one later. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Folks might be rather surprised to see General Dynamics Fort Worth (GDFW) division's fighters identified as Convair products. If this proposal is followed, should both names be used in the template title? There are only two applicable aircraft types (ignoring variants): the F-111 and F-16. Is there a "minimum quantity" below which such a template is not recommended? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Already been added. General Dynamics was added to the nav box label. Just does not seem worth building a new nav box for a couple aircraft (4 links counting F-16 variants). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend a separate group in the template for the GD aircraft, as we've done that with some of the other templates that cover more than one incarnation of a company. We could also move it to {{Convair/GD aircraft}}, but I don't think we should spell out the whole GD name. As to a "minimum quantity" for our templates, I don't think we have one, but there may be a WP-wide guideline somewhere about that. - BillCJ (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Dont think we need to actually rename the template just make sure it has General Dynamics in the title bar. MilborneOne (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good (and I do think General Dynamics should be spelled out in the title bar, though it's not needed in the template name). Askari Mark (Talk) 20:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That was the first thing I did and I provided a link above for people to look at it. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jeff, I was responding to BillCJ's suggestion of moving it to {{Convair/GD aircraft}}; I do think 'GD' should be included in the template name just so people know they have the right template. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• I took 'title bar' to be the first line of the nav box. Well anyway... -Fnlayson (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Anybody interested should take a look at the Convair template and provide further comments on details at Template talk:Convair aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyvios

User:Skydog1531 has added copyrighted pics to the CH-148 Cyclone page. He did this in November, as discussed here. Back then, he claimed the photographer gave him the images, but now is again claiming to be the photographer, and has another editor "vouching" that he has seen the negatives. I've added DB tags to the images, and warned the user. Any admin help on this would be appreciated, as they keep being re-added to the article. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If he copied the image from webpage or something, how did it retain its metadata? The date the photo was snapped (15 Nov 2008) fits with the date of the first flight at Sikorsky. Perhaps the uploader has a press pass or is a Sikorsky employee/contractor. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a Sikorsky publicity image http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/11/18/318995/pictures-first-flight-for-canadas-cyclone-maritime-helicopter.html which Skydog1531 acknowedged when he uploaded the image for the second time (the latest is the third attempt) and quoted the author has Terrance Jonhas of Sikorsky Aircraft. If he has Sikorsky permission all he/she needs to do is upload it with the appropriate release from Sikorsky entered into the OTRS system. The other two uploads he/she claimed to be the author so he/she could be the Sikorsky employee but we would still need OTRS release. Although strange that other uploads from the user from australia, new zealand, thailand are all Bell helicopters! MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add the Australian UH-1 and Saudi F-15 that User:Skydog1531 has uploaded are copyright violations I suspect his/her others will be as well. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Update - all images uploaded by this user are copyright violations. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Milb1! To be clear, Rlandmann told Skydog about OTRS in Nov. 08, and the message is still on his talk page. There doesn't seem to be any attempt to abide by copyright rules/laws on his his part. - BillCJ (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Similar problem. A user today has uploaded copyrighted images of the proposed F-15SE Silent Eagle and tagged them as free (GFDL). What's the proper tag for this? I added {{Wrong-license}} to them, but that does appear to be quite right. (File:Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle-topshot.jpg & File:F15se weaponsbay.jpg are two I've found sources for.) Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On the F-15SE images, we could probably use the best image under fair-use for the time being, as free images aren't likely for awhile. Of course, we can only use one image. Btw, ANigg has been indef blocked for uploading copyvio images, including some he used on the AH-1Z and UH-1Y pages. He and several other usernames have uploaded copyvio images, and several more users seem to show up to defend them, iccluding the negatives claims. I'm wondering if we may actually be dealing with only 2 or 3 people here. - BillCJ (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As well as supporting banned user ANigg in image disucussions, both User:Skydog1531 and User:AQMD have both given User:ANigg awards! MilborneOne (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock check time! Now we have User:AQMD "blanking" ANiggs page per this diff. AMQD definitely seems to be someone's sock, probably ANigg's, as almost all his edits are associated with ANigg is some way. Very sad, as Andrew could have been a good editor, and did do some good work

USAF portal overkill?

Is the {{portal|United States Air Force}} portal really needed on every article of any aircraft or missile that ever served in the USAF? This seems like overlinking to me, as every one of those articles has at least 2-3 USAF article links already (Infobox, text, and Operators section). Are there existing general guidelines on the use of portal links on indirect articles that allow this? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the rules are on portal links but it does look a bit of overkill, but can they be as bad as Template:USAF Weapons which allows you to navigate from the C-17 to a rifle! MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the portal is on articles for airbases and aviators (eg Richard Bong) as well! MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Diamond Aircraft Industries‎

I would like to cordially invite WikiProject Aircraft members to participate in a debate on Talk:Diamond Aircraft Industries‎. User:Crwwpd1 has now twice deleted the section about Diamond's reaction to the economic downturn, including lay-offs, even though the section was properly cited, saying in the edit summary: deleted unnecessary references to economic downturn. Just about all other aircraft manufacturer articles include information on this subject. Since the current economic situation is having a huge and lasting impact on the industry indicated that I do not agree that this section should be deleted from this article. I would like to hear from other editors on this subject on the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The rationale for removing a cited passage is? an aversion to bad news? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

Given that this editor has only edited this one article, seems bent on removing anything negative about the company while correcting the exact designations to what the company refers to its products as, I was thinking that it might point to a COI problem. I brought this up on the talk page but haven't received an answer yet. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A-7D production data

A-7D production data has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

List of active United States military aircraft

Can somebody please have a look at List of active United States military aircraft I have a reverted an IP twice for changing the format of the article without discussion. But it really needs some other eyes on it. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page, stating that major changes should be discussed first, and alerting him to this discussion. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur, I have reverted the changes which did not make sense, anyway. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the help, the Indian IP user has also changed the List of aircraft of the Indian Air Force but it is a bit of a mess to sort out! MilborneOne (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

i tried to standarize the table to a similar one if anyone doesn't likes it than i m sorry for that.User:124.125.59.174 ,talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.59.174 (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Seriesbox Aircraft Categories

I have just noticed this template being placed in the Avrocar article. Is this a needed template? See the change made in the following examples: [original version] and [edit to add template to infobox]. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

Good call, not appropriate for an aircraft article it is not what the infobox is designed for, I would suggest remove on sight! although to be fair to the uploader the Avrocar is mentioned on the template as a see also (perhaps the template should be looked at) MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Twin-boom category

User:Wuhwuzdat has been adding Category:Twin boom aircraft to a number of twin boom aircraft. I hid the category in line with others like Jet aircraft, low wing etc. which has been discussed in the past. The user has reverted the change on the ground that Category:Canard aircraft is not hidden. Just looking for support/other comments. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment...of what use to a casual user is a category that they cannot see? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• These categories do not look to the wide spread enough to hide. There is 1 page worth of articles on each category page. Hiding does not seem necessary for them. Ah nevermind, was looking at it backwards. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • perhaps you had it correct the first time, as the unusual uncommon needs to be called out, (unlike the common, every day, like High wing, low wing, jet, powered aircraft with engines, aircraft with landing gear, etc, etc, etc). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No, the main issue is about overloading articles with too many categories. My stricken comment was about the number of articles listed in each of these 2 categories. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• I found this discussion after I hid the category again! There are dozens of aircraft config categories ansd the consensus we arrived at some time ago here was to hide them because they are so numerous as to clutter up the articles. I support still doing that. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not looking to get into a revert war, only to understand the logic here....why does Category:Canard aircraft remain visible, when Category:Twin boom aircraft has been hidden twice, including one instance (without discussion) after a request for discussion on this very matter was placed in the categorys edit history, and on it's talk page? Both category's describe, IMO, equally unusual schools of aircraft design. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Quite right Category:Canard aircraft should be a hidden cat as well - fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • • The following aircraft configuration categories are all visible, and are all subcategories of Category:Aircraft configurations:
      • Category:Asymmetrical aircraft
      • Category:Autogyros
      • Category:Canard aircraft just changed, by someone involved in this discussion. Please don't change the evidence to make your case.
      • Category:Delta-wing aircraft
      • Category:Ekranoplans
      • Category:Flying wing aircraft
      • Category:Gyrodynes
      • Category:Helicopters
      • Category:Lifting body aircraft
      • Category:Prone pilot aircraft
      • Category:Rocket-powered aircraft
      • Category:Rotorcraft
      • Category:Rotor kites
      • Category:Tiltrotors
      • Category:Stealth aircraft
      • Category:Tailless aircraft
      • Category:Tiltjets
      • Category:Tiltwings
      • Category:Triplane aircraft
      • Category:Variable-geometry wing
      • Category:Variable-sweep wing
    • so, out of roughly 25 aircraft configuration categories, roughly 80% were not hidden (contrary to the statement made in this edit). It is noticeable that most of these unhidden categories are for aircraft of unusual uncommonl configuration (BIG exception, Helicopters), like twin boom, or canard. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • A similar situation exists at Category:Aircraft by propulsion, where the 4 most common propulsion categories (jet, prop, single-engine, multi-engine) are hidden, and the remaining 8, more unusual uncommon, categories (electric-, steam-, human-, rocket-, hydrogen-, nuclear-, mixed-, and un- powered) remain visible. Returning the "Canard", and "twin boom" categories to visible status will simply be going with the previously established pattern of understating the obvious, and highlighting the unusual uncommon, aspects of the aircraft in question. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment, If this is the previous discussion on aircraft configuration categories that has been mentioned in the earlier discussion in this thread, re-reading it may be helpful, as the subject categories discussed in it are all off the more mundane variety, with "delta wing, rocket-powered, lifting body etc" being used as a counterpoint in the discussion. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If no one has any further objections, and after a suitable waiting period (24 hrs minimum) for said possible objections, I intend to return Category:Canard aircraft and Category:Twin boom aircraft to visible status, in line with the previously established pattern, as described in my previous postings here. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I think 24 hours is a bit quick - why the hurry? it is not that important to change quickly it is not damaging the encyclopedia and only you have supported them being visible so far. Also note that you have made an arbitrary decision that canard and twin booms are unusual when in fact both are not that unusual. MilborneOne (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Perhaps unusual was not the best word choice, uncommon would be better ("unusual" stricken out in my previous comments replaced by uncommon). I base the decision that these categories are "uncommon" on the fact that Canard and twin boom each currently contain less than 60 members, while the more common (and hidden) aircraft categories (jet, prop, high-wing, low-wing, pusher, single-engine, and multi-engine) contain an average of more than 800 members each, with the least populous one containing more than 370 members. On the "uncommon" (visible) side of the gap, only the previously mentioned helicopter category has more than 100 members. The following table should help display this, when sorted by population, or status:

Category	Population	Status
Category:Electric aircraft	4	Visible
Category:Human-powered aircraft	12	Visible
Category:Hydrogen planes	8	Visible
Category:Jet aircraft	378	Hidden
Category:Mixed-power aircraft	28	Visible
Category:Multiple engine aircraft	714	Hidden
Category:Nuclear aircraft	6	Visible
Category:Propeller aircraft	1905	Hidden
Category:Rocket-powered aircraft	53	Visible
Category:Single engine aircraft	1460	Hidden
Category:Steam aircraft	8	Visible
Category:Asymmetrical aircraft	4	Visible
Category:Autogyros	39	Visible
Category:Biplane aircraft	652	Hidden
Category:Canard aircraft	57	TBD
Category:Delta-wing aircraft	63	Visible
Category:Ekranoplans	6	Visible
Category:Flying wing aircraft	22	Visible
Category:Gyrodynes	7	Visible
Category:Helicopters	243	Visible
Category:High wing aircraft	446	Hidden
Category:Lifting body aircraft	20	Visible
Category:Low wing aircraft	692	Hidden
Category:Prone pilot aircraft	9	Visible
Category:Pusher aircraft	222	Hidden
Category:Rotorcraft	11	Visible
Category:Stealth aircraft	42	Visible
Category:Tailless aircraft	44	Visible
Category:Tiltjets	4	Visible
Category:Tiltrotors	10	Visible
Category:Tiltwings	3	Visible
Category:Triplane aircraft	29	Visible
Category:Twin boom aircraft	53	TBD
Category:Variable-geometry wing	1	Visible

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mil's analysis, besides the whole "huffing and puffing" exhibited above makes one wonder why there is so much fuss over a minor issue?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not used to having my work "swept under a rug" within minutes of its creation. I would almost consider this entire incident a WP:BITE, as, while I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, this was my first contribution to the aircraft articles here (with the possible exception of vandalism reversion). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is not enough support for making these categories visible again. I would like to hear from more editors on this. Essentially, as per WP:Consensus to make a change like this over what was decided previously you need to get a strong majority of editors here to support it. I will add that the inconsistencies are a problem and that if configuration categories are to be hidden, then they all should be hidden. I thought we had accomplished this before. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the alleged "previous decision". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting for someone to provide a link to this alleged previous decision to hide the categories. I have searched the archives of this talk page myself, but cannot locate any decision to hide ALL aircraft configuration categories. At this point, unless and until proven otherwise, I doubt such a consensus was reached. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats OK we can get a new consensus (either way), just the project is not in a rush it will get sorted at some point. Why the hurry? nobody is going to run round and change the hidden/not hidden status while this topic is still open. MilborneOne (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I was asking for the previous consensus, because Ahunt has been using it as a major portion of his case to hide the categories. I am not in a hurry, but was trying to point out that the alleged previous consensus may not exist , at least not in the form that has been stated here. As for your statement that "nobody is going to run round and change the hidden/not hidden status while this topic is still open", this edit would seem to contradict your point. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to AGF, Ahunt changed the status before he was aware of this discussion and he like myself remembered previous discussions about the need to hide these categories, we may not be able to find the exact words to support that but the actions were done in good faith. MilborneOne (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have AGF'd Ahunt's edit to the Twin boom category, (despite the fact that there was a preexisting call for discussion on the categories talk page, and in the edit history), but the diff I pointed out above was for an edit to the Canard category, and was accompanied by this comment posted above, which clearly shows the intent and timing behind the edit to the canard category, and the fact that he was aware of this discussion at the time. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I understand but perhaps we should just move on and gain some consensus below. MilborneOne (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

'Outdent,History Agreed, as to ending discussion of the questionable edit. Now as to the previous consensus, the closest thing I could find in my searches was this which discusses the status of Category:Biplane aircraft, Category:High wing aircraft, Category:Low wing aircraft, Category:Propeller aircraft, Category:Jet aircraft, Category:Single engine aircraft, and Category:Multiple engine aircraft, which just happen to be among the categories which were Hidden at the start of this discussion. Used as a counterpoint in this discussion are "delta wing, rocket-powered, lifting body, etc", which would seem, at least to me, to be quite a bit more unusual or uncommon, and which are among the visible members of the configuration categories. This discussion seems to have been followed by another with a corresponding CfD, all of which discuss the more common or "unremarkable" features of the aircraft. The hiding of the categories occurred shortly after the closure of the CfD, apparently without discussion. There was a "straw poll" about this same group of unremarkable feature categories, but no action or consensus seems to have come of it. In all of my searching I still have not located any consensus to hide "ALL" aircraft configuration categories, and the only discussion I have found centers on the common, already hidden categories. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: My personal opinion is that there was good reason for the categories hidden before the start of this discussion to be hidden, and that those specific categories should remain hidden. My present concern is only for the Canard and Twin boom categories, which I feel should be unhidden. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Canard removed as per my comment below Wuhwuzdat (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

there is a difference, to my mind, an important difference between some of the unusual/uncommon configurations and the majority of those that are hidden. The cats with many members are justifiably hidden to avoid oversize and unuseful categories (to the average reader) while still making the cats available to us, the editors. "Jet powered" "single-engined" are to some extent trivial catgories in that for most these characteristics are seen but not noticed unless making a concious effort. ON the other hand, the uncommon are unusual and more likely to interest a reader in seeking out more of the same. By keeping these cats visible we encourage investigation, to my mind cats being easier to browse as a reader and for editors easier to maintain than "lists of..." articles.

To sumamrise my position, I think it is justifiable to have some airfract configurations visible and some hidden - there is no one size fits all on this issue.

I note also that some cats are not just aircraft configuration categories, "Gyrodynes" and "helicopters" are subcats of "rotorcraft" itself a subcat of "aircraft by type". "Twin rotor helicopters" or "single rotor helicopters" would be more fitting aircraft configuration cats to use and they could be hidden. But I digress possibly. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir, you have summarized in a few words almost exactly what I was trying to convey in all my previous statements. Would you (or anyone else??) have any specific opinion as to the "unusual/uncommon" status of the 2 categories at the heart of this debate, Category:Twin boom aircraft and Category:Canard aircraft? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

From GLs comment above I dont really have a problem with twin-booms not being hidden although I think it probably is not unusual just uncommon. Not sure about Canard but my opinion is it is probably better of hidden as it is a bit of mixture of types (Wright Flyer and Typhoon) which users woulnt expect to find in the same category. Again following the comments above we need to sort out some of the rotorcraft cats, not sure users would expect to find Helicopter as a configuration but single rotor, twin-rotor, and axial rotor may be worth a look at. MilborneOne (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Upon reviewing Canard (aeronautics) it would seem that a vast majority of the aircraft in the Canard category are already listed within the article, so I am withdrawing my objection to the hiding of the Canard category. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Two questions: (Yes, I'm trying to restart, or conclude, a discussion I see as being stalled, due to 5 days of no new postings)

• Does anyone have anything else to add to this discussion?
• Has ANY consensus been reached here? ..and if so, what is it? (I am not going to hazard a guess here, as I don't wish to influence anyone's conclusions). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably stalled because people have other things to do (including real life) and in the scheme of things it is not that important. I dont mean to treat the subject lightly the rationale still needs to be clarified at some point. We really ended up at the status quo and the fact you dont have to hide Twin Boom. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that was how I interpreted the situation as well. I will un-hide the twin boom category shortly. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Image Deletion

There is currently a discussion regarding whether images should be deleted from Piper PA-44 Seminole underway at Talk:Piper_PA-44_Seminole#Image_deletion. I would like to invite any project members interested to participate in the debate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Boeing 777

The A-Class review for Boeing 777 has been opened today. All editors are invited to participate. Thanks for any input provided. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

PeepLaukFlyingWing

The above noted new aircraft article has been nominated for AfD as not notable. I have read through our guidlines at Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) and I believe that it does not currently qualify, but may do in the near future, once it has flown. I would invite other members of the project to have a read through the article and comment on the AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, I think your suggestion there is a good one. I am hoping some of the other regulars here will add some thoughts, too. I hate to see any aircraft article just deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to,let everyone know how this resolved, the article has been moved to User:Flyingthing/PeepLaukFlyingWing until it meets Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) as decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PeepLaukFlyingWing. - Ahunt (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Lockheed PV-2 Harpoon No. 37396

I just started a stub for this specific plane, a variant of the Lockheed Ventura, which was recently added to the National Register of Historic Places. I wondered if someone with more aircraft/military knowledge that I might enjoy developing it. Lvklock (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have just folded any extra information into the Ventura article. As the article on the National register states, there are more than a million listed "places", its "an honorary status with some federal financial incentives", and this particular aircraft never saw combat so I'm guessing its history isn't special - so is it really notable enough for its own article? Will it ever be more than a stub?GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt appear to be particularly notable other than the fact it is on the register (not sure how a aircraft could be a historic place!) may be best with just a mention in the aircraft on display section of the parent article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not care if it is notable - just the lack of information (i.e. its history) is missing. even a quick google search gives more information then what is presented on the article. A single liner could be ok for now:

• PV-2-LO c/n 15-1362 37396 (N7265C), Accepted: March 1945, ex-VPB-136 (NAS Whidbey Island), ex-Naval Air Reserves, SOC: December 1957 (NAS Litchfield Park), ex-Master Equiptment Company (N7265C), converted: Fire Ant Sprayer, RALCO, " Hot Stuff ", American Military Heritage Foundation, New Palestine, IN (A)

Could be an interesting article in it gets expanded to include its complete history. Davegnz (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Book hunt

Does anyone have a copy of Yakovlev Aircraft since 1924, by Bill Gunston, published 1997, or access to it? There are currently some discussions/edit wars going on re: the relationship of the Yak-141/-43 and the X-35/F-35, and much of the controversial content is based on Gunston's book. We need someone to verify tha thte sources contain the assertations being made. (I've searched for the book on online sellers, and it is currently out of pring, and my price range!) Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of pring books can be a pain to track down ;)! However I have tracked down a copy of Jane's ATWA 2000-2001 which specifically states that Lockheed in June 1994 had "revealed agreement with Yakovlev of Russia to purchase date on cancelled Yak-141 programme which employed similar propulsion system." Hopefully this should be definitive enough for most editors...Minorhistorian (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! - BillCJ (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill: Try / Click Yakovlev Aircraft / Amazon Books - about $48.33 used

Davegnz (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Role infoboxes?

The Forward air control article has been expanded recently, sometimes in unorthodox directions. THis issues are being dealt with by MILHIST. However, I think the editor may have had some good ideas, and I'd like to discuss one here. Please take a look at this diff, and note the aircraft infoboxes used in several places. While this is certaily non-standard, I actually like the idea of having some type of infobox in such articles, as I found it draws the eye to the differnt sections. I'm not sure exactly what info should be conveyed, but probably something related to the roles and theater of operations. DUe to the modular nature of the current infobox, it should be easy to create a new add-on box. Any thoughts or ideas? - BillCJ (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

At first glance it doesnt actually add much to the article, although the article doesnt flow particularly well and is hard to follow what the article is trying to do. I dont think that some of the information in the infobox is particularly relevant to the subject. A properly captioned image and a link to the aircraft article may be all that is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree with MilborneOne. The infobox tends to overwhelm the section. Just a normal image-and-caption approach seems better. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Army Aircraft C-53-DO-41-20124

U.S. Army Aircraft C-53-DO-41-20124 is another aircraft pretending to be an historic place! had a go at tidying up some of the article, but it probably needs more work as it ignores the aircraft's last fifty odd years of existance! Although I cant find anything really notable about the aircraft other than it survived to be put in a museum. Should it really be just mentioned in the C-47 Skytrain or Douglas DC-3 articles. (As a Skytrooper it doesnt have the big freight door so is more like a military DC-3). Any thoughts ? MilborneOne (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving it to the DC-3 or C-47 would mean stating an Aircraft on display section in either article. I guess there's not a problem as long as any and all display aircraft are not added there later. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What about a straight AfD for the article as just not notable enough.? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Could make a great stub, but, have to agree that this article has nothing regarding this aircraft's history. If it could be expanded with more details could be an interesting article. On interesting note, even the title of the article is wrong - do a google on the a/c s/n and you will find it actually served as a R4D-3 (BuA:05078). I could do a single line entry of:

• C-53-DO c/n 4894 41-20124 (N763A) Accepted: 11 March 1942, Transfered to US Navy as R4D-3 (Bu 05078), ex-UA-1 (NAS Meacham Field), ex-FAW (Headquarters) 5 (NAS Jacksonville), ex-MAW-2 (NAS Cherry Point), SOC: August 1946 (Bush Field), ex-Continental Airlines (NC73727) (1946 - 1949), converted to DC-3A, ex-Southern Airways (NC73726 & N70SA) (1949 - 1966) ex-Republic Airlines (after merger), ex-Flying Service of Rockdale (N763), current markings: " Ozark Air Lines ", Prairie Aviation Museum, Bloomington, IL (A)

Davegnz (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Future aircraft

Could use some help setting some basic criteria at Category:Upcoming aircraft. This goes with the {{Future aircraft}} template mentioned there. Up until a day or two ago the wording said an aircraft that had not entered production plus some unclear wording. It has been changed to something about an aircraft still under development. That could mean different things to different people. So I've tried to simplify the wording. Also, there is a related discussion on this at Talk:Boeing 787#Future aircraft template with some good points mentioned. Thanks for any help. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Where would you like to capture discussion – here or on the template talk page? Feel free to c&p my comments elsewhere, if desired.

My thought is you might want to consider renaming this to {{Developmental aircraft}}. It’s less nebulous in definition, although you’d have to specify that it’s meant to be used for aircraft designs currently in development, but which have not yet entered production (the latter to include pre-production models, though not prototypes). I think that’s what you’re trying to capture here. The key is to provide a head’s up to readers that certain information is subject to rapid change and may not reflect the production article. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is probably the best place to discuss this. I've added links to here on all 3 talk pages, so it can be found. I was fine with going by production of any kind. But any clear cut criteria like for should be fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No more "Vomit Comet"?

The Vomit Comet article has been moved to Reduced gravity aircraft on the basis of 3 comments from 2006/7, with no more recent discussion. Any thoughts on this? I would think "Vomit Comet" qualifies as under the Common names guidelines, as I didn't have a clue what the new title on my watchlist was about until I saw where it was moved from. Perhaps the old title can be restored as a DAB or SIA page. Thoughts in general? - BillCJ (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also, pehaps an article on the NASA Reduced Gravity Research Program would be useful for the specifics of the NASA program, allowing the current article (whatever its title) to focus on the concept in general. - BillCJ (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe NASA’s official name for the Vomit Comet was at one time something like the “Zero-G Research Aircraft” or “Reduced Gravity Research Aircraft”, but the popularity of the VC nickname has left it so long forgotten that NASA felt it necessary to give it the less unseemly but purely bureaucratic “Weightless Wonder” moniker. I see the Reduced gravity aircraft article is using the term generically since it includes more than NASA’s aircraft. Accordingly, the Vomit Comet article should not have been moved; to the best of my knowledge, the nickname has usually only been applied to NASA’s aircraft and should have remained a separate article. (I could be wrong.) IMO, the “Reduced gravity aircraft” article should probably be renamed “Reduced-gravity simulator aircraft”. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FlightAware

User:RadioFan has been adding links to FlightAware.com which I have removed as non-encyclopedic. A link to a live flight tracking website is not encyclopedic, adds not value to the article, external links section is not a web directory. The user has questioned my removal and why they are not encyclopedic. Comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A link to active usage of a particular model (or family) seems very appropriate to me. Readers would be able to see live, real-time usage of the aircraft. This is directly relevant to operator and delivery sections in the articles. What are some other opinions?--RadioFan (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples:

* Live Flight Tracker for Boeing 737 aircraft

* Live Flight Tracker for Boeing 777 aircraft

Had a quick look. Its limited to the USA only so can't give a global picture. I'd say it adds nothing to info on operators and usage. A website giving global data on numbers of flights by a type might be useful but I say flightaware.com is of not of general use to any article on a specific aircraft model (or family). It might be of passing interest for something like an very specific aircraft variant model in use such as say the NASA T-38 I found by using the site.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Domestic and international flights to and from USA and Canadian airports are included.--RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This belongs on an aircraft type fan site, it is not encyclopedic. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft

I cleaned this up a bit, but am not sure what to say about Template:Lists of aircraft. Feel free to take a look. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a good effort - it looks better. Still it isn't a very useful nav box and is not used on many articles. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs more than List of bomber aircraft under military aircraft types. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hot air balloon GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Hot air balloon for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Registrations

Interested in views of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations on the related talk page. If anybody thinks it is relevant then perhaps it could be linked from the page content guidelines. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of MiG 42 Foxglove

An editor has nominated MiG 42 Foxglove, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiG 42 Foxglove and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. - BillCJ (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Disposition: Article was converted to a redirect to Ninjas and Superspies, the game from which it came. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst looking at your talk page I found the above and couldn'y for the life of me see where ninjas and superspies ties in with the MiG 1-44 so i have undone the re-direct back to Project 1-44Petebutt (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the link for the main source for the article: [3]. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, here's the parent page to that one: Ninjas & Super Spies Vehicles -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft designer template

We had a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_23#Aircraft_designer_template particularly about Template:Verville aircraft which has links about the designer not just the aircraft. Although we didnt really come to a consensus on it. The same editor, who has made extensive edits to Verville articles to emphasis the designer (including moves to make sure that the name is included in aircraft titles), has now created Category:Alfred Verville. Which among many articles has been added to United States Army Air Service !!, any comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Verville was very active in the early stages of the USAAS, so it may be appropriate if a little narrow in subjectPetebutt (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Avro renaming

User:Petebutt has moved/renamed most of the Avro aircraft from Avro Foo to Avro 123 Foo which goes against the current consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming. I have reverted a small amount of them but they are lots of them! I have asked Petebutt to stop and discuss. We probably now have a right mess of redirects and double redirects to look at. Comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not after an edit war, so if you feel that i have not followed the naming coventions ( Manufacturer, type no, name) then revert away. The whole point of Wikipedia is that it should evolve, even if that means leaving re-directs in your wake.Petebutt (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The naming convention actually says Manufacturer and name: Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Fury. Where there is no name, or the name is not in general use, use manufacturer and number: e.g., Avro 504, BAC One-Eleven. so I would say that most of the Avro articles were OK, which is probably why nobody else has changed them! Just felt that such a large scale change needs to be discussed. A lot of work to change all the other articles (probably four figures) that meet that bit of the guideline. Or are you proposing that Avro is an exception? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the aforementioned editor has been industrious, with some very unusual title moves. Perhaps a review of the changes as warranted, individual case, by individual case. One of the aspects of the changes that aroused my attention is that there is a specific differentiation needed to identify Avro (UK) from its spawns such as Avro Canada. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Canada is not specifically mentioned in guideline! should it? I always understood the older Canadian aircraft followed the British common name guideline. MilborneOne (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that the country is being identified as much as the commonly used company name. Its actual title was originally A.V. Roe Canada Ltd. which identified the entire holdings of the subsidiary but as the company became more associated with aircraft and engine manufacture, the divisions were known as Avro Aircraft Ltd. (aircraft), more commonly known as Avro Canada and Avro Orenda Ltd. (engines), later more commonly known as Orenda Engines. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

The same naming convention applies to de Havilland Canada as it was a separate and later wholly Canadian owned company that had no connection after the 1960s with its original parent de Havilland (UK) company. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Avro is a special case because they continued to use the type numbers even after aircraft were named. The other point is the so-called popular name idead is complete drivel. An encyclopaedia is for informing people of "facts" nor popular culture. It is particularly galling to see "Harrier Jump Jet" as the title of a majnor article on one of the most innovative aircraft ever built. Enough of that, i havwe said my piece.Petebutt (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Avro type designations were mainly a company naming convention, for example, you would rarely see Avro 696 Shackleton as compared to Avro Shackleton. FWiW, the debate over naming conventions is a useful one, but unilateral, wholesale changes are not as welcome. Bzuk (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Certainly the company model numbers should be redirects to the article, but I don't see any sound reasons here presented for changing the current WikiProject naming conventions. The key thing is to have the article name the most likely reader search parameter and less likely ones to be redirects. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth the Harrier Jump Jet article is an overview article. The aircraft versions are covered and properly named at Hawker Siddeley Harrier, BAE Sea Harrier, AV-8B Harrier II & BAE Harrier II. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but that is still not the issue, it is in the use of a name, see BAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier family. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

• Moves should be discussed or at least mentioned on article talk page first. Too much trouble it seems.. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a suggestion here that the "exact", complete name should be used to "inform" the reader. Sure the article should do this and include the Manufacturer, his number and the name; but surely the title is there to help the reader find the article, so she or he may be informed. That, it seems to me is the main case for simple, maybe popular but not inaccurate titles. "Avro Lancaster" is incomplete but not incorrect. I often do not use my middle name.TSRL (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I agree with Milb1 and TRSL that the previous titles were sufficient. What brought me herewas Bzuk move (twice!) of Harrier Jump Jet to BAe/McDonnell-Douglas Harrier, inspit of Fnlayson's protestations. I've reverted it per BRBRD. Also, Bzuk has moved several Canadian aircraft from their military designations to one that include the manufacturer. US (and by extention) Canadian military aricraft are listed under "military desgnation official name. I reverted the US one VZ-9) since the guidelines are clear on this. For the Candaian military aircraft, I'm not sure it's so clear, but I'd still favor the desig/name format for these. The current VZ-9 AV Avrocar designation is incorrect, since US designations do not include the manufacturer code in infomal listings. I will be proposing correcting this title. - BillCJ (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh geez, I've roused the denizen of this forum. Okay, Didn't see the issue on the Jump Jet? family change as F did not contest it? maybe he did, but in the back-and-forth this morning, I missed/overlooked/slopped over the issue. The whole contretemps had come about with the campaign of another editor to change titles, wit a number of editors besides myself trying to make some headway in changes that seemed fairly widespread, the Jump Jet and Avro Canada products were simply lumped into the changes. As to the Canajan way, it sorta follows the British style rather than US and there is a particular problem in the Avro and de Havilland Canada subsidiaries in writing their names out in a formal way is to differentiate between the one-time parent Avro (UK) and de Havilland (UK) companies. As to the Avrocar, it was a wonderful amalgam of US-financing, US-style military designation but actually had a "default" to the Canadian origins in placing "AV" into the designation, a sop to its Canadian origins. All the manuals actually referred to the Avro (Canada was understood) VZ-9 AV Avrocar (banish the thought as this information is OR). I am willing to go through the formal process of requesting changes in titles and follow consensus decisions, come what may. FWiW, I still think "Jump Jet" was a figment of a PR person's imagination! Bzuk (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

OK BZuk, no problem on the multiple moves - I understand thisng can get quite confusing for older people ;) (And I'll be 40 in about 6 months!) The Jump Jet and Avrocar issues are being discussed on their talk pages. I'm going to raise a separate discussion on Canadian military aircraft naming below, since a consensus is needed on that issue. - BillCJ (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Jump Jet" should be nothing more than a DAB myself. It's a moniker. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been another spate of re-naming, this time of Blackburn aircraft - I have started a discussion to Move Blackburn B.2 back to Blackburn B-2 at Talk:Blackburn_B.2#Requested move, which appears to be the way its referred to in all the sources I have got.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I always found that European designations used the "." in preference to the "-" (ie Liberator GR.V not Liberator GR-V) Spitfire PR.IX) etc... Davegnz (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case it refers to Manufacturers (e.g. Blackburn's) own designation system.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lockheed designations

Just been brought to my notice that some of the Lockheed articles are wrongly named. In that they use a designation like Lockheed L-10 Electra when the L- is just a shorthand and it should be either Lockheed Model 10 Electra or Lockheed 10 Electra. The related navbox also lists wrongly the basic model numbers with the L prefix. (the L-1011 Tristar is not part of the disputed sequence). Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"L-" is part of the common name, so I don't see a problem there. Lockheed itself has used the "L-", unlike the Boeing "B-" prefix that is commone in European publications. Technically, it should be either Company designation, or Company/name, but there were two Lockheed Electras, so the name only would need DABbing, which would be the model! - BillCJ (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange - if you look at any inflight safety card (found in your seat pocket) you will find that Boeing does use the B designation on the cards (B-737, B-727, B-747 etc...) same with the technical manuals, etc...Davegnz (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right it sometimes is displayed as B7X7 B-7X7 as an abbeviation, but what is wrong is to use that as part of the full name like Boeing B7X7. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For Civil Aircraft the type certificates would be a good basis. As an example for the Electra the 'L' is not present. For the 737, the 'B' is not present either. However, other aircraft do use the letter identifer in their designation, such as the DC-10 and PA-18. Here is the FAA's reference library.--Trashbag (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian military designations

Per the WP:AIR Naming conventions, aircraft with US military designation as their primary name follow the Designation/Name format, while most others follow the Company/Name, Company/Designation for mat, or use both in rare situations. For older Canadian aircraft, the the general format for non-US mil designatios is followed. However, since 1968, the Canadian (Armed) Forces has assigned designations simmialr in style and function to those used by the US, and most of the articles on these aircraft have followed the US format; in fact, most CF pages on the aircraft refer to them only by their designations (and names when available/assigned). This format was used prior to my arrival on WP, and I have continued to follow it for aritcles I have created or expanded, inclusing CH-124 Sea King, CH-146 Griffon, CH-148 Cyclone,and so one. The designations for the CF-100 and CF-105 have also been used under this format; technically they were not part of the system, though they were perhaps the inspiration for it with the "CF" prefix.

With the recent hub-bub regarding designations, several canadian military aircraft articles were moved to include the company names. I have not made any reverts in these cases because there are no clear guidelines on the issue. I don't think any one format will make anyone happy, so any desiciosn decisions made will likely compromise on using two or more formats for aircraft from different eras.

To make matters more confusing, there is debate on whether or not the CF use a "-" (dash) in their designations (CF104, not CF-104). While I have seen reports which claim the CF designations are not to use dashes, all information on the CF websites, and in print from reputable publishers, continue to use the dash, and thus that is the pattern that has been followed on WP, per Verifiability.

I do have some ideas on a proposal, but I'd like to see if there is any other input before making them specifically. I am sure this has the potential to be quite contentious, so care defintely needs to be taken here, and the realization that the selecet format will be a probably be a compromise by necessity. - BillCJ (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No real strong views either way but I would have thought that they should be company/name (Federal Anson) unless allocated a CF designation (CH-124 Sea King). MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Question? Should not the Article for the CF-104 be place under the article for the Lockheed F-104 - same with the CF-18 under Northrop F-18 etc and not be a stand alone...Davegnz (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, as both articles contain content unique to the Canadian versions, which would of necessity have to be shortened if merged into the main articles. They were split off in the first place to avoid overwhelming the other content. Now it might be best to merge stubs on Canadian military aircraft, but I can't think of any right off, and I don't have time to check them all right now. - BillCJ (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A-37 Dragonfly

An IP keeps adding large blocks of unreferenced text, mainly combat operations. Fed up with Puma et al he/she has now moved on to the A-37 Dragonfly. Appreciate somebody with US knowledge have a look at A-37 as it appears to have loads of unreferenced material even before the IP editor had started. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like it was all a copyright vio text dump from A Tribute to The A-37. - Ahunt (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

F-16 like aircraft

Wikipedia contains a treasure trove of articles on a large collection of F-16 like aircraft, but it is hard for a reader who wants an overview of the topic to get a picture of what separates these aircraft from each other. 82.139.86.4 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be possible to create an overview article like Bell Huey. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Differences are covered in F-16 Fighting Falcon variants, mainly in the Derivative fighters section already. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not totally clear to me what the anon is asking for. Assistance in categorizing images? If just trying to learn more about aircraft of similar type as the F-16, the Fighter aircraft article might be of some assistance. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Boeing 777, second request

The A-Class review for Boeing 777 was started last month. Please help as there's been no input provided. All editors are encouraged to participate. Thanks in advance. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:1990_People's_Republic_of_China_airliner_collision#Requested_move

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:1990_People's_Republic_of_China_airliner_collision#Requested_move. Thank you. Aervanath (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Copyvio problems

Last night, a fairly new user created the Mikoyan MiG-29K article, which I agree was needed. However, the bulk of the initial text is from this site, which is copyrighted. What is the best way to handle this, beyond notifying the user? Should we just remove the copyrighted text (it is poorly written for an encyclopedia, but mixed in with other statements too, most uncited), or should we delete the article and start over? (I can keep the good portions, such as infobox, specs, and photos, in a sandbox, just in case.) Any advice, especially from an admin? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I find these situations a toss-up. Sometimes I re-write the whole damn thing para by para and cite the website for each para, other times I just remove the copyright vio text wholesale and leave whatever is left standing, if anything. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just not sure what's appropriate here. - BilCat (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed some of the sections that are direct copies, they may be more. Just need to remove anything else copied and salvage the rest. I suspect some of the image uploaded today to commons are a but iffy as well! MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-20/Ka-25

User:Petebutt has unilaterally decided to merge the Kamov Ka-20 page into the Kamov Ka-25 article. My comments suggestions are posted on the Talk:Kamov Ka-20, but to this point have been ignored. Also, he has remove the pics from the Ka-25 article, twice, with no explanation either time. Odd. Could use some more input her, and I'm seriously considering reverting the merge per WP:BRD, or proposing a Split. - BilCat (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Short Take-Off and Landing criteria

The NATO definition used in the STOL article requires 1,500 ft or 450 m distance for takeoff and landing. Does an aircraft have to meet that at all takeoff weights (including MTOW) to be considered a STOL aircraft or not? This came up for the C-130 Hercules on its talk page. I appreciate any help with this. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition cited in that article and the many others cited at Talk:STOL do not mention weights at all, but I believe that, like all performance figures for aircraft, that it is implied that the 1500 foot distance to clear a 50 foot obstacle would be at max gross take-off or landing weight. Otherwise the definition would quickly become pretty meaningless. For instance an empty Herc with JATO bottles for takeoff and landing with the props already in beta might make the mark, but so what, it isn't operationally useful. - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What about Truck launched F-105? would that count as a STOL aircraft??Davegnz (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Combat Losses

New article has been created Harrier Jump Jet family losses, lists a lot of information we would consider non notable! including combat losses. Mentioned it at the accident task force but I thought this trend may be of interest. MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I presume nobody is bothered about going down that slippery slope, just going to look up 10,000 Spitfire losses!! MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I did have a look through it. I didn't think is was all that bad, really, at least it is a separate article and not part of one of the main ones. - Ahunt (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just think it sets a bad precedent to add every accident no matter what in an article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

At least the Harrier design apparently made an unblemished first 22 years (started flying in 1960) of service. Wouldn't ann article on the subject be more of a "list of...." title?GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets not add the title " List of " to everything it gets tiring and repetitive and does nothing to state the obvious of the contents of the article. If we want to go that slippery slope, when could easily change many of the standard titles excess verbosity - Like Curtis P-40 airplane history, etc...Davegnz (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to do an article on Wright Flyer Crashes, but I guess it is not notible Davegnz (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

CCCP/SSSR

A user has been changing soviet registration from CCCP-12345 to SSSR-12345 because evidently СССР, which is cyrillic and transliterated as SSSR, and not CCCP. The normal presentation of soviet registrations is to use CCCP as that is what is painted on the actual aircraft. Do we have a view on this. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My rationale was that if the registrations would be, say, it katakana, they would of course be transcribed. I see the fact that СССР is homoglyph to CCCP as less important than the reference to the SSSR/Soviet Union. And I'm not sure about the "normal" practice here. I couldn't find anything relevant at the ICAO web site. But '"aircraft_registration" sssr' wins a google duel against '"aircraft_registration" cccp' about 3:1, for what that is worth.--ospalh (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that ICAO official allocated CCCP- to the soviet union I just need to find a reference! MilborneOne (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just out of random I picked an Il-62 86471 at random, CCCP-86471 gives 440 results and SSSR-86471 comes back as not found. MilborneOne (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"official[ly] allocated CCCP": if that's true, you're right and I'll start rolling back my changes.--ospalh (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Both these refs:

• Green, William: Observers Aircraft, page 10. Frederick Warne Publishing, 1956.
• Foster, Timothy RV, The Aviator's Catalog pg 244. Van Nostrand Reihholt, 1981 ISBN 0-442-22465-6

report that The Soviet Union was officially allocated "CCCP" as their ICAO civil aircraft national registration mark. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's printed. Does it explicitly state that those are the latin letters CCCP, not the cyrillic СССР? I'd guess that the latin CCCP was reserved to avoid conflict with СССР (cyrillic), which may or may not be what was allocated.--ospalh (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know only latin letters are used on aircraft registrations worldwide. If you look at Egypt Air for instance the registrations are in Roman lettering, not Arabic. The same was true in the Soviet Union days, as you can see in this Aeroflot Ilyushin Il-18V photo - the registration is clearly in Roman lettering "CCCP-75781". - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell from looking at photos if that is СССР or CCCP, and the difference between the two is what this is about. I'd just like to see a reference that all aircraft registrations were in latin characters. Unfortunately, I have only circumstantial evidence to the contrary, the IVAO (not ICAO) says it's cyrillic (select Europe and Russian Federation). So does this second random web site. And as the Soviet Union didn't join ICAO until 1970, they could basically do whatever they wanted before that. I just can't belief that their national pride allowed them to paint some latin characters on their planes instead of the name of their country—the cyrillic СССР.--ospalh (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

<> I suspect whatever we say you will be convinced that CCCP is cyrillic, but whatever it is changing CCCP to SSSR in aircraft registrations is clearly wrong. When we say SSSR-86471 it will have to be changed to SSSR-86471 painted as CCCP-86471 as not to confuse the reader as every image of soviet aircraft show CCCP-86471 type markings. Not sure that the two extenal links you provided are not particulaly reliable. Soviet Union joining ICAO is not particularly relevant to registrations as aircraft registations are looked after by ICAO (member or not) with authority from the 1944 Chicago Convention. MilborneOne (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There certainly are photos about with aircraft (both pre- and post- WW2) with registrations CCCP-Л and CCCP-И- which definately appears Cyrillic, with the Romanised URSS- also being used pre-war, although now, the Russian registration seens to have switched to the unmistakably Roman RA.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

CCCP is indeed Cyrillic. The ICAO assigned them to the USSR at its request and since they’re at least (mis)readable as Latin letters. Treating them as Latin letters made reporting simple at a time when hardly anybody outside of Cyrillic-using countries didn’t know how to transliterate Cyrillic into Latin. I can’t begin to remember how often Soviet designations were misrepresented in the West by failure to transliterate – even sometimes by intelligence analysts, whom one would suppose would know better. Specialists and dedicated planespotters tend to be far more conversant with the problem and often transliterate them, even in a case such as this when it’s actually inaccurate to do so. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think writing something like "... registration SSSR-86471 (Russian: СССР-86471)..." (wiki code SSSR-86471 ({{langx|ru|СССР-86471}}) in the article text wouldn't be too long. Perhaps just the first time a registration is mentioned (and in the first image caption, in an infobox).--ospalh (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That "CCCP" is an abbreviation is fact, but that the actual registration code is "SSSR" has not been proven here. Until such info is provided from reliable sources, it is OR to state such. All sources to this point point to "CCCP" actually being the code, in Latin letters. - BilCat (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this image. Looks like SSSR-L5412 (Russian: СССР-Л5412). [edit.] Found another image.--ospalh (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

John Stroud, in Soviet Transport Aircraft since 1945 (Putnam, 1968, ISBN 0 370 00126 5) transcribes Soviet registrations as SSSR.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Russian authors publishing in English write about CCCP- type registration, not SSSR- one. For example Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant in their Tupolev Tu-4 Soviet Superfortress book by Midland Publishing in 2002 (Red Series #7) lists two Tu-4s of Soviet Polar Aviation as CCCP-92648 and CCCP H-1139. I think they know the best how to deal with Cyrylic so in my opinion registration here should be written as CCCP-, not SSSR-. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Navbox titles?

To save cross posting I have posed a question here about manufacturer navbox titles if you have any thoughts. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Piper models

This article was just started by User:NorthnBound. I have questioned whether this serves any purpose since the nav template Template:Piper is far more complete and, of course, appears on every Piper aircraft model page. I would like to invite other editors on the aircraft project to add their comments on this issue at Talk:List of Piper models. - Ahunt (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

May not do any harm if it looks like List of de Havilland aircraft (that is just not a list but some summary information) although I think the title should be changed to List of Piper aircraft as models sound like a list of plastic kits or something to do with the catwalk models!!. MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't pursued this further - just thought it was worth asking the question. I have added some nav boxes and images. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit 'belt and braces' when we have navboxes and categories. Many of the navboxes have been created and expanded from old list articles but it now seems a bit pointless to create new 'list of' articles when the navboxes are far more useful.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was rather my thought, but since no one jumped on the article I fixed it up and expanded it - added some photos to at least dress it up a bit. To make it different from the nav box I added the aircraft names, so at least it will be a useful reference tool for readers. - Ahunt (talk)

Perhaps we need to write some project specific guidance on 'list of' articles if there is not any already. With the widespread use of comprehensive and user friendly navboxes I venture that there is no longer a need for a lot of existing 'list' articles unless they are extremely long and, dare I say it, old list articles be AfD'd where it can be proven that its corresponding navbox is more accurate and comprehensive? Would save new editors writing out lists. I don't see many new editors creating new navboxes, I would guess that the coding looks difficult at first glance and a list is much easier to create. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just updated the "List" with more details rather than just a straight list of links, see what you think. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That does make it more useful than the original list, but it still needs work! - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft comparisons

What is the group's thoughts about the use of comparison charts between aircraft? I have come up against an impasse in the Kawasaki Ki-61 article where a table has been added. The article recently received a large edit/text submission that was reverted by another editor, while a suggestion was made to create a sub- or "daughter" article. That had already been done once before, See: K1 61 Hien Comparison but the sub-article just didn't stand on its own as it had (my supposition here) too little in the way of verifiable and authoritative sources? or was non-notable? I am also going to this forum before a raging edit war takes place, as the talk page is being superseded by edits directly onto the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the discussion about comparison of aircraft was once a topic, can others refresh my memory as to the direction of the group? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

I took it out because it was all WP:OR and added little to the article. Most of the rest of that series of edits was incomprehensible from a language perspective, too. I see that my deletion of this has since been reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The question I still would like to consider is whether comparisons between aircraft other than the standard, one aircraft is faster than another, are really valid. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

I dont think they are really needed they just become a vehicle for POV pushing (mines begger than yours if I pick a random comparison factor) bit like comparable aircraft not really needed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There may be occaisions - eg three aircraft in competition for one (government) contract or aircraft used against each other in similar situations - but it would need to be well sourced and the comparison would probably hang on a few key parameters rather than a full list of height/width/length/pilot's inside leg measurement. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the comparison data chart was removed from the Ki-61 Hien article chiefly due to WP:UNDUE and WP:OR concerns; there was also legitimate concern that the "findings" were very much OR. There was reluctance to lose the material, which led to an attempt to make it a separate article separate article, but it did not survive an AfD.

In my view, it is difficult to justify including such comparisons in single aircraft articles because they take up far too much space. A better idea – and one that might better survive AfD’s – would be a separate article on performance comparisons of comparable WWII fighters. It would take a lot of work to build such an article, but sources are available. It would likely be a popular article … but and therefore would attract a lot of fanboyism. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Not in favour of comparison tables or articles. Who reads them? If the 'comparable aircraft/engines' in the 'see also' section are chosen carefully i.e. being very closely comparable, then the reader can click on the links and make their own mind up. It's not hard to open two WP windows and read the 'specs' (for instance) of both types, I do it all the time. We have no aircraft engine comparison table or articles that I know of (apart from possibly some variant comparisons in its own article) but I'm sure that it won't be long until we see them appearing.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Limitations of Stealth Aircraft

Are there verifiable sources for the section entitled - "Limitations", in the article Stealth aircraft? Specifically, the limitations, which are briefly discussed are: Instability of design, Dogfighting ability, Electromagnetic emissions, Vulnerable modes of flight, Reduced payload, Cost of maintenance, Sensitive skin, and, Cost of operations. I can easily see that these are limitations, but are there any sources to which I can refer? Ti-30X (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you have asked that question on the article talk page. Being an article specific question, that is probably the best place to ask it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Thanks Ahunt. Good suggestion. Ti-30X (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Flight control modes (electronic)

This is a new article just started by User:Pdeitiker. I think the topic is worthwhile, but the language is probably a bit complex for an encyclopedia article. I wanted to invite other editors to have a look at it. - Ahunt (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks ok, if a bit 'heavy' to read, needs a good copyedit throughout. Does not currently include fighter aircraft modes.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, severe copy-edit needed! - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Appears to mix up Boeing and Airbus methods which are not exactly the same, it may have been better to create different Boeing and Airbus article. Whatever still needs a lot of work to make sense to the general reader. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic is probably already covered in other relevant articles and in less detail. Not sure this one is needed as written. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked Fly-by-wire (which is not an article yet) for duplication but I couldn't see much. A friend is an Airbus first officer and he described the control modes and laws to me at length while he was under conversion training on type so I would say it is a genuine subject and possibly as notable as an interplane strut! Will help with the copy editing soon. Would be possible to merge this with Fly-by-wire to form a new article of some length. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually merging it with the fly-by-wire section makes a lot of sense! - Ahunt (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs some thought to do it properly and merge tags, talk page proposal entries etc. I'm no expert on FBW apart from the Tornado systems (and that is rusty now) but then again you don't need to be an expert on a subject to suggest a change (but it helps!) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that hard to do - tag both articles, have a short discussion, merge the subjects. I agree that you don't need to be a subject matter expert, in fact the text should be understandable to a novice reader, otherwise it isn't a very good encyclopedia article, is it? - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Preecisely! It will have to be a task for (another) rainy day though, I'm fairly into the engine articles still. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-"disclaimer" Cabal

The Anti-"disclaimer" Cabal has written new guidelines for the Future templates, and is removing them from articles, based on a narrow interpretation of WP's "no disclaimers" guidelines. The new guidleines pretty much eliminate any use of the templates whatsoever by reasonable editors. While I am for guidelines, I believe they need to be intuitive - that is, to follow the general usage, rather than to try to forbid common usage by legislation. However, I'm just reinstating the tags - I won't engage in discussions with people who've obviously aready made up their minds that they don't want the templates used at all, but cannot get them eliminated through TFDs. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I gather you mean like the "Future Aircraft" template? These can easily be dealt with in the text of the article, by just mentioning that configuation, production planning, etc is still under development where applicable. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Roundels and accidents

Started to add a large number of RAF losses missing from List of Harrier Jump Jet family losses. As part of the update I removed all the naff little roundels (or stars and stripe) that were next to each entry. Dont really add anything to the page and just make it look cluttered and non-encylopedic. As we will no doubt have more of these aircraft type accident and incident articles just looking for support as the article creater likes them and spends a lot of time adding them. I know the List of C-130 Hercules crashes also use them and that looks really awful. Also need to standardise the naming as well perhaps Type accidents and incidents as they are children of the main aircraft article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both points. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

added them to List of Coalition aircraft losses in Afghanistan, also. I'm working on a new design see here User:TheFEARgod/Apache crashes.The larger roundel in a table looks better maybe --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that in aircraft type accident articles that it would be better to group accidents by operator, rather than cluttering everything up with tons of roundels. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A sortable table would probably be best, allowing the user to choose the order. The roundels look terrible, giving an extremely cluttered look to the page, and not being a particularly good way of conveying the user of the aircraft - they are even worse than flags in that respect(less people will know what the roundels stand for and many roundels are similar/identical).Nigel Ish (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, roundels are anonymous to 99% of readers. I've made edit in 1980s section, please look at it. Maybe it's the best way to separate accidents in countries using Harrier with keeping lists in chronological order? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That actually looks pretty good, coherent without being overbearing. - Ahunt (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe USAF would be more precise than USA operated--TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• That would mess up using the nation's flag. Not needed in that case as only the US Marine Corps has operated Harriers for the US. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK, all years are separated. Does anyone plan to add Spanish and Indian Harriers to that list? Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looks OK, Spain and India will be added if a reliable source is found. It may be better in the future to split the article into the different Harrier types as they each have their own parent article, Sea Harrier, Harrier II etc. How would this flag method cope with List of C-130 Hercules crashes? MilborneOne (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've found few info about Indian crashes with Harrier crashed phrase in Google. Works quite well linking to several Indian press sources. As for List of C-130 Hercules crashes article - IMHO this will not work that way. I think that crashes of C-130 should be listed by country in chronological order and only US C-130s should be listed in blocks 1960s, 1970s etc. Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On the Hercs - I agree that would be the best way to tackle it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Article is more readable and has almost 14kB junkie roundels less. Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nice job looks a lot better and less cluttered. MilborneOne (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. Now I agree for removing roundels.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Humans are visual creatures - having a picture of the insignia next to each entry is much better then stating over and over and over USAF or RAF, etc... When I was teaching it was found that if you give someone a picture then were more able to quickly identify what was being taught then if someone was presented with a written / text document. I think having the pictograms makes much more of an impact then ad nauseum text Davegnz (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

RAF Designations

When does the RAF officially use its designations with the aircraft name - often see Liberator GR. V (GR for ASW aircraft), Spitfire PR. IV (PR for Photo reconn), Lancaster B. II (for bomber). Is it correct to use F (for fighter) (i.e. Spitfire F. II). Which is correct - Spitfire II or Spitfire F. II Davegnz (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1943 official Air Publication 1565E (technical manual) for the Spitfire V covers the 'Spitfire F.VA., F.VB., F.VC., LF.VA., LF.VB., and LF.VC' (written exactly as title page). In the text this is shortened to 'Spitfire VA, Spitfire VB, Spitfire LFVA' etc. I guess the other types would be the same. Hope that helps. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there one standard used on wikiProject Aircraft? Davegnz (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The RAF standards changed during the war so Spitfire II is correct never Spitfire F.II, if the aircaft changed role then that was added so Spitfire IX is correct for the standard model and so is Spitfire PR.IX for the role-changed variant. Later the role designators were used on all aircraft even for the standard models, not sure at what date. MilborneOne (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Beechcraft Model 40

Beechcraft Model 40 up for deletion, if anybody has any sources of info on this one off prototype to save it from deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it should probably be merged to Beechcraft Bonanza - there just isn't likely to be enough content to warrant a separate page, though a pic, and esp. specs, could make the difference. - BilCat (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposed. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD: List of airliners by seat capacity

Just nominated List of airliners by seat capacity for deletion, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

REB-36D Peacemaker II NAWCC

REB-36D Peacemaker II NAWCC has just been created. Probably deserves no more than a single paragraph in Fictional military aircraft. We'll probably need an AFD to stop the author from recreating it, as he's been quite persistent in adding links to the Convair B-36 page! - BilCat (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of the EB-52 in - I think - the novel "The Old Dog"... Mark Sublette (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have given it a prod as non-notable unreferenced, but if they are that much of a fan it will probably be de-prodded. MilborneOne (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just rename the article somethine on the lines of REB-36D Peacemaker II NAWCC (Fictional Aircraft) or Name of Book (REB-36D Peacemaker II NAWCC), or aircraft from the book " ". Just like the article "Aircraft of Catch 22" etc... (btw Catch-22 is a Fictional Book). Actually, I change it and see wherew it goes. Davegnz (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

there its been moved to REB-36D Peacemaker II NAWCC fictional aircraft in "Metamorphosis: Story of the 137SOW" (Novel) Davegnz (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Eek! NO. Reverted. That's far tooooooooooooooooooooooooooo long to be workable as a title, but hopefully the article won't exist for much longer either. - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarly I've just spotted Flighthawk which appears to be a fictional aircraft from Flight of the Old Dog.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fiction tagged them both. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I WP:PRODed it as well - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the title should be informative as well as useful ........Davegnz (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Past/present tense

We have been having some discussion on the use of grammatical tense in engine articles which may well apply to aircraft articles, we came up with some guidance. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Roundals and such

I think I found a place for the Roundals discussed above in Roundals & crashes - let me know what you think.

note: Center section from Mosquito B.XVI PF498; assigned: No 139 Sqd (codes: XDD)(RAF Coningsby) Davegnz (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

the roundel is below centreline on my browser.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Will this confuse screen readers? Shimgray | talk | 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's below centerline for me, too. I'm using Windows XP Mozilla Firefox. Perhaps the image needs some whitespace below the roundel. As far as screenreaders go, the above aircraft code would sound like "Ex Dee Are-Aye-Eff Roundel Dee." The roundel has alt text which makes it read "RAF Roundel." Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont think you need the roundel it is just decoration, not sure the example text is what is needed in wikipedia either. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I like that colour is being added, plus it makes a nice change from writing the codes as (HT-T or HT*T) - sure its decoration but it looks nice in the text...other examples (btw the text added was removed (I copied from another page and this has been fixed)):

• Mosquito FB.VI TA122. Accepted: March 1945, assigned: 10 March 1945 - 44MU (RAF Edzell), assigned: 20 March 1945 - No 49 ARF, assigned: 3 April 1945 - No 605 Sqd (County of Warwick) (codes: UP O) (Pilot: Wing Commander Angus Horne) (RAF Coxyde & RAF Volkel), assigned: No 2 Gp (HQ), assigned: 13 January 1949 - 605 Wing / No 4 Sqd (RAF Wahn) (codes: UP G), soc: 30 June 1950, sold: June 1951 - Delft University, Holland (wings removed 1958), stored: RNLAF Museum (AFB Gilze-Rijen), donated: November 1975 De Havilland Aircraft Museum. (R)

Current location: De Havilland Aircraft Museum (markings: UP G)

note: being rebuilt using wings from Mosquito TR.33 TS449 or TW233

• Mosquito NF.30 RK952 (c/n: 984597). accepted: May 25, 1945, assigned: No 218 MU (RAF Colerne) - radar and electronics fitted, assigned: 11 July 1945 No 10 MU (RAF Hullavington), sold: Belgian AF (MB24), assigned: 1953, 10 Sqn NFS (ND N), SOC: 17 October 1956 (Lot No 13) (Beauvechain Air Field), transferred: 17 March 1957 Royal Army Museum.

currently on display at Brussels Air Museum (markings ND N seriel: MB24)

Davegnz (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Still being used for decoration but it suits the fan boy style which is why we shouldnt write articles like the above, but we have had this discussion before. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fan Boy!!!! - this sounds Racist to me Davegnz (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not racist - same as Wikipedia:Fancruft - Ahunt (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No can do - this fails WP:ICONDECORATION - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK it is not decoration - its informative and shows what the current markings look like Davegnz (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

isn't the practice to refer to RAF aircraft of the time as "H for Harry" etc, so the Mossie TA122 would be decribed currently as having "the insignia of G-for-George of 605 Squadron"?GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Would get confusing to non-Aviation types - tying to describe what marking "look like" (ie if photographed) not one would talk about the codes Davegnz (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also note the roundel was not used on all aircraft types and differed during different periods so and image is not very informative, just a bit of non-encyclopedic decoration. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not just "decoration" - it fails pretty much all of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). You would have to have a very strong justification to ignore the MOS over this. I am not seeing that case being made here. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Ahunt narrowly interpets what he is reading to suit his own purpose ... I suggest that instead of looking at a icon (where it does fail), roundels are also the flag / ensign of the individual nation ... as such:

(from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags, as they were used at the time being written about, including naval ensigns (i.e. Roundels) ... — our readers are not expected to be military historians. An example might be an in-depth exploration of a famous battle involving numerous forces with known flags; such flags might be used in summary tables to make it clearer which force was being referred to for a particular detail.

there you go - Roundels / flags can be used in tables to make it clearer when discussing a subject in question Davegnz (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is amusing that you accuse me of interpreting things in my own way - the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons), which you quote above, do not mention roundels at all. A flag or naval ensign is not the same as a roundel. Regardless I think this debate has run its course and, even ignoring the MOS, there is obviously no consensus to include roundels. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)