Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 49

List warrior

Hi, I recently converted some more lists of aircraft to the formats defined at WP:AVILIST. They have all been reverted by an IP editor without any edit comment, see diffs below. Any independent input would be appreciated.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Basically vandalism it seems. - Ahunt (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The main discussion is taking place on the Aviation project talk page, here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Operator List

This Eurocontrol page https://www.eurocontrol.int/rmalive/operatorList.do lists active aircraft by either state or operator. Anybody have an idea what the inclusion criteria is ? or anything about it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Paris Le Bourget Air Show

If someone goes there (I won't this year), there are some pictures to be taken to illustrate new programs, see aviationweek's slideshow: the Airbus A³ Vahana, Airbus Helicopters H160M Guepard, Boeing Passenger Air Vehicle (PAV) and Boeing Cargo Air Vehicle model, Embraer Praetor 600 (the best thing would be to show the external diff with the previous Legacy 500: the ventral fuel tank), Eviation Alice, Turkish Fighter, Hurjet and Gokbey mockups, and maybe the de Havilland Canada booth to show the brand revival, maybe the modified Airbus A321XLR and Mitsubishi SpaceJet.

When taking photos of static subjects in airshow, try to have a simple background to make the clearest picture: for aircraft, try to take a picture from a low or high angle to avoid having people behind, or place a neutral background behind like a hangar or a booth. Try to avoid having some clutter in front of the aircraft by moving your POV. Same thing for models: try to place it over a neutral background: the booth wall or floor. A bit of fill flash can help making the subject lighter than its surroundings, making it pop, and the ceilings are often dark for a good background.

Good luck!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

...and keep in mind the issue with non-functional models being considered "artistic sculpture" and protected by copyright as far as Wiki Commons goes. - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It's still fair use in en.wikipedia. And thinking of that, while being non-functional, airshow models are not "artistic sculptures" but marketing models, and are created for this purpose: seems utilitarian, in opposition with hobby scale models, not covered by the utilitarian exemption.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I agree with you on that, but the patrollers over on Commons disagree. So, yes, models need to be on en.wikipedia as "fair use" where it cam be justified and not on Commons under a free licence. - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
flightglobal and aviationweek have some early pictures. Look at the Eviation Alice taildragger gear! the electric Antonov An-2 :)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
and there is a lego x-wing!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not even going to speculate how the WikiLawyers over on Commons would react to photos of that! - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

FFA P-16

Another month and another variant of the same theme:

and just for good measure:

Seplinedvo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) certainly looks and walks like a sock. Anidaat s end (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-page editor and could be someone else. Mind you, that MilborneOne character has redirected a couple of them to a non-existent section at Swiss Air Force#Air demonstration teams. Maybe that would be a good section to add? These "teams" are more support teams than aircraft/pilot teams, but they are becoming increasingly popular in these days of massively capable aircraft and limited budgets. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
wouldn't deletion of the links as improbable punctuation (hyphen "team"!) be a fitting end? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
So far we have: 'F/A-18 Hornet Display Team', 'F/A-18 Hornet Display-Team', 'F/A-18 Hornet Display-Team (Switzerland)', 'Super Puma Display Team', 'Super Puma Display-Team', 'Super Puma Display-Team (Switzerland)', and 'Super-Puma Display Team'. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
User User:51edb has re-writen a lot of Swiss Air Force in the last few days hence the redirects no longer work! MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I've restored a section heading for the redirects, but the article could use a general going over. Those who enjoy tweaking punctuation and formatting may find some distraction from life's woes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Review request of de Havilland DH.88 Comet

I wondered if I could ask third party editors to review recent activities over on de Havilland DH.88 Comet. I've tried to make some contributions over there recently for the first time in years and had virtually of the edits reverted (somewhat euphemistically described as a 'clean up') on the basis of ' grammar and errors'. I accept that, as a dyslexic person, my grammar isn't always on point, and that I do make mistakes - I am a fallible human at the end of the day. However, some of the blanket reversion doesn't seem to remotely apply to grammar-related concerns, such as simple consistent spacing or placement of text box elements e.g. moving |more users directly underneath |primary users as per the layout of 90% of aircraft articles. There was also an accusation that NASA (back then known as NACA) had been scraping their information from unspecified (other than UK) sources, I'm not sure how founded that is, I had saw it as a WP:Reliable Source and I felt brought a lot of information that wasn't present (or easily checked against the web-available source) in the article before. To strip it out while primarily drawing attention to nationalism (America Vs UK) seems odd - it's the first time that the race of a source has been expressed to be a point of critique on any British aircraft article I've worked on - it feels odd. Such a detailed period source (from 1934), every fact and cite from it, expunged as being 'unnecessary'. It also strikes me as off to be ripping out freely-available sources in favour of physical book only ones, but that's a less important hitch to me. I had a feeling two years ago, the last time I attempted to contribute to the article, that any source I could contribute would be rapidly removed; even when finally coming across what seemed to be a star article from NACA years later, that is exactly what happened. I suspect WP:OWN, thus the opinion of other editors may give a more clear view on what is happening here. Kyteto (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kyteto: If you have particular points you want to bring up, feel free to do so on the article talk page per WP:BRD, coming here is premature. I am the editor who undid many of the changes referred to. There were in fact other flaws: vocabulary and phrasing were made unnecessarily turgid, errors were made in both fact and language, minor factoids of doubtful significance were inserted, the article structure was changed without any regard to the special circumstances of the design, I could probably go on. For what it's worth, of course I do not own the article but I am an experienced Wikipedian and a member of the Comet Racer Project Group mentioned in the article, so I do regard myself as an WP:EXPERT. But I am signing off for the night now, see you on the article talk page tomorrow. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
In reply to a point on content, the NACA report itself acknowledged that it was a straight copy of an article in the UK journal Flight. I have added a reference to the journal, which is also available online and has better-quality illustrations.
Re-reading the ad hominem rant above here this morning, I am disappointed that Kyteto did not see fit to raise their issues directly on either the article's talk page or my own. I can understand the kneejerk disappointment at so much reversion, but BRD is a well-established process and perhaps next time Kyteto can be more ready to follow our community policy by assuming good faith. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kyteto, I don't claim to me a master copy-editor, but Steelpillow raised some valid points, in particular with regard to "turgid phrasing." You seem to like the written word a bit too much. For example: "The resulting design had" becomes "In terms of its basic configuration, the Comet featured" 1; the latter is neither clearer nor more accurate than the former; it's just more verbose (and in fact also disjointed from the preceding paragraph, once you drop the word "resulting"). "Had" becomes "was furnished with" etc. This habit is something I had already noticed in some other articles (e.g. in the SOCATA TBM, where "for better aerodynamics" has become "orientated around delivering improved aerodynamics" 2). In my mind, the priorities when editing are accuracy, clarity and conciseness (in that order). If something is already accurate and clear, then please resist the temptation to add more text just to make it sound prettier. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

My wording does have mistakes in it, and sometimes when writing a lot of sentences, I don't always hit the mark. I don't usually expect 90% of the content to be just thrown out, rather than tuned or edited further by more capable experts, but I give it a go at crating whole new sections of articles. Some sentences I end up being unhappy with myself, and haven't come up with a better way of expressing that observation or information, or I just haven't noticed a flaw. You shall have no argument from me towards claiming expertise in language considering my difficulties, but I am trying to help generate better articles.
Let's get right into specifics: A mention of the Gypsy Six engine of the Comet being redesigned for a smaller cross section (in terms of height at least) was made but expunged - it seems a pretty hefty bit of design work to not mention at all, and something that would normally be mentioned if other articles are anything to go by. One article that comes to mind is the de Havilland Hornet, which mentions the (arguable) principal virtue of its specialised model of Rolls-Royce Merlin engine that was optimised to shrink its cross-section as much as possible; it was effectively a unique variant of the engine that powered no other aircraft - seems somewhat comparable in circumstance.
I'd also make an argument for the inclusion of the engine-based heating system, something which racing aircraft have often omitted and even the source material seems to make mention of as an unusual item not to have deleted in the name of greater efficiency - at least how I read it, that is. The same goes for the labour-intensive exterior finishing process, how that was intricately done almost obsessively to get every drop of performance on this front - but alas, these observations are subjective.
I notice that in the current revision, the design paragraph starting "The fuselage was built principally from..." has zero citations in it at all. I know the stated reason for removing the four citations I submitted for the seven sentences present in that version was that it was 'unnecessary' - so, the necessary level of citations for a whole paragraph really is meant to be absolutely none?
The same complaint applies to the paragraph commencing "The resulting design had a low, tapered..." This had (and has) a long-standing citation needed tag as well, I actually provided a citation for some of the information. This was remove, apparently due being unnecessary - if it isn't necessary, why has it been tagged as needing citation for years?
There's numerous terms that were wikilinked due to their meaning not exactly being clear to the average person (especially if they're not heavily into aviation. For example, horn mass balances, elevators, leading edge. Does linking these really have no merit or is a some sort of objective error against grammar or some other fishing excursion?
Compare the rejected ''Manually-actuated [[Flap_(aeronautics)#Split_flap|split flap]]s VS Manually operated split [[flap (aeronautics)|flap]]s of current - what basis is there for not linking directly to the specific type of flap involved; surely that's an obvious area of improvement rather than just sending the user off towards the generic?
There are a lot of other observations I can make, but I don't want to prattle on forever. The purpose is more to get people to look at, and consider, some of these additions, where they have otherwise been wholesale reverted without much care.
No doubt, that are mistakes in what I put in, but I believe there was also a considerable amount of value that was dismissed seemingly offhand on a vague basis. I don't buy the line that every one of the added citations was 'unnecessary', in short. Kyteto (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Kyteto: I haven’t studied your edits in detail, nor their reversion, so I can be an impartial observer. I sympathise with you in this predicament. It is clear that some of your changes have been challenged but rather than revert the principal offending changes, other Users have reverted everything you have done. They threw the baby out with the bath water!

In these circumstances I recommend you now proceed in a different manner. Firstly, go to the article page and select a small number of the best, most important changes you want to make – no more than ten, but they must be the best and most easily defended. Go to the Talk page and start a new thread. List each of your proposed changes in its own paragraph. Number the paragraphs. End up by inviting interested Users to discuss, para by para, any of your proposed changes that they want to challenge. I guarantee you will have much greater success.

I will watch proceedings to make sure your proposals are treated fairly. Dolphin (t) 23:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I would caution, don't expect too much from such a process. It is not as if the article was in a bad state before, and taken together the changes made it worse. For example dense citation tagging is only necessary for controversial statements, a vanilla paragraph taken from the main sources with no inline tags is fine. I did keep some obviously beneficial changes. Others have already been restored, with or without variation, by myself and other editors. Others, such as "improved" wikilinks, were typically badly executed and better rethought. But yes, if you have a specific change you would like restored please post "before" and "after" versions of the text - I repeat loudly, ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE NOT HERE - so that other interested editors can see it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I regret to say that Kyteto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is ignoring the advice above and reinstating their edits directly to the article instead of discussing them first. Not sure why the guy came here if he only intends to ignore you all. Would appreciate some more eyes on the editing - and views on the talk page! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see talk page. I thought I was adhering to the recommendations laid out by Dolphin. Kyteto (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Dolphin51 wrote: "Go to the Talk page and start a new thread. List each of your proposed changes in its own paragraph." Reinstating them directly in the article without prior discussion is absolutely not that! It stretches my credibility that you missed this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I was acting on the sentence before the one you're quoting, selecting ten edits (you didn't think the numbers in the edit summaries were random right?), indicating them clearly, and typing up reasoning in an edit window on the talk page as I went. I had planned to get up to the 10 that was proscribed, and submit the corresponding reasoning together - there was no patience to wait for this however. Kyteto (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kyteto: I may have misled you when I wrote “Firstly, go to the article page and select a small number of the best, most important changes you want to make.” I intended that you write them down for your own purpose, perhaps on a piece of paper, then go to the Talk page and start your new thread. You have started your new thread correctly, but I wasn’t suggesting you implement your changes in the article – not yet. The Talk page is the place where we discuss proposed changes.

It looks as though the 7 changes implemented by Kyteto on 4 July have already been erased. I now urge everyone to go to the Talk page and see whether they want to comment on any of Kyteto’s proposed changes.

This thread has now served its purpose. All future posts on this subject should be on the article’s Talk page. This thread can be closed. Dolphin (t) 22:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The misunderstanding was very likely mine, it is not fair for you to feel you have misled me - I am appreciative that the instructions were laid down as it has given the best route forward so far, despite my error. You have my apologies for not immediately fully grasping what was being communicated. Kyteto (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Aircraft manufacturer templates

I just noticed that the aircraft manufacturer templates listing all the types produced by each company don't seem to be consistent in their naming - some are Aircraft produced by N, others N aircraft and at least one Aircraft designed and built by N. I am also wondering if a new cat should be made to list all of the aircraft company templates to keep things like this from drifting too far. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Manufacturer-based aircraft navigational boxes is the only place I cabn think of that shows them all. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I have changed a few over the years to simply 'Foo aircraft' some are very long winded indeed, including displaying the manufacturer's name in full (which is always given in the lead paragraph). Having 'aircraft built by' excludes paper projects, editors might hesitate to include types in a template that says 'built by'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - both replies have been very helpful - I will go with X aircraft in future, and the list will be helpful - NiD.29 (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Translatiom

Someone could translate from German this article about an aviation prize in early 20th century? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

https://translate.google.com/ — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

List of aircraft operated by Alitalia

Just to note I have proposed deletion of List of aircraft operated by Alitalia, I will refrain from comment at this time while I try not to go down the slippery slope. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks a pretty awful article by my standards, but I notice that there is a whole Category:Lists of aircraft by operator. Should the Alitalia list be tagged for improvement rather than put up for deletion? (At the time of posting the deletion template has already been removed). Or, are you effectively testing the consequence that the whole set of pages should go under the banhammer? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
List of aircraft operated by Braathens is a featured list so there is a way of presenting this information without it looking like a spotters site. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I notice it uses "USA" rather than "US". Is that the politically correct approved format these days? I thought we were supposed to use "US". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
It also features those annoying split links where both the manufacturer and the type are both linked Boeing 737, as a stupid idea I though we had removed most of these type of links. So much for being featured. The Alitalia list will need a good clean up at some point as it still looks like an "enthusiasts page" with pretty logos and lists of accidents and the like with very little history. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is or was?

A discussion has been started by the Aviation Wikiproject on is / was and remaining survivors, to confirm our consensus on whether articles on historic types, with non-airworthy survivors in existence, should refer to the type in the present or past tense. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

AeroMobil s.r.o. AeroMobil

The AeroMobil s.r.o. AeroMobil article is about a roadable aircraft, the company and the product have the same name. It appears that a number of different car/aircraft prototypes have been built all slightly different. Is it worth moving this to AeroMobil to talk about the company and its products or wait for an eventual production machine (they are taking deposits <!> for a "4.0" and a 5.0 is on the cards) before doing anything? MilborneOne (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

By contrast the PAL-V article is named after the company but its content is also entirely about the machine under development. Both articles describe various development sub-variants, which definitely belong in the aircraft's topic space and not elsewhere. With these embryonic companies they are notable only through their lead product (including its development variants), so I'd suggest leaving the Aeromobil page alone and moving the PAL-V one to PAL-V Liberty over the current redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable suggestion MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
AeroMobil s.r.o. AeroMobil is the aircraft, AeroMobil s.r.o. is the manufacturer (WP:REDLINK) and AeroMobil is a redirect to AeroMobil s.r.o. AeroMobil, but if an article on the manufacturer is started it should be converted to a disambiguation page. - Ahunt (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Spaceplane article titles

The Spaceflight project guideline on Spacecraft article titles says that "We prefer not to include the name of the manufacturer or developer in the article title, unless necessary." This is contrary to aircraft guidelines, where we usually require the manufacturer as well as other designators. I just moved HOTOL to British Aerospace HOTOL before I remembered the spacecraft convention. Do we have an understanding with the spaceflight project as to whether a spaceplane is treated as an aircraft or a spacecraft for article naming purposes? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, if a spacecraft is capable of flying like a conventional plane and either takes off or lands like one, then it's a plane capable of spaceflight and should follow WP:NCAIR. With the arrival of commercial spacecraft, I wouldn't be surprised if the Spaceflight project changed their guidelines to include the manufacturer in the title. - ZLEA T\C 13:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter either way round. it was at just 'HOTOL' for years with no problems but if it's at BAe HOTOL for a decade it won't be an issue either. As I recall, when it was a big thing in the news it was just referred to as HOTOL. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Most articles on existing, vertical-take-off, horizontal-landing spaceplanes, and those for unflown design concepts follow the spaceflight naming conventions, like Space Shuttle, Buran (spacecraft), Dream Chaser, and Skylon (spacecraft). The exception to the rule seems to be concepts which were given an X-designation by USAF, like Boeing X-37 and Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar. I would prefer to continue following this precedent and keep the article at HOTOL.--Cincotta1 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, we're already drifting away from the spacecraft convention. For example, the Boeing CST-100 Starliner article. It's hard to say, but I think for a one-off (and/or non-reusable) or limited production vehicle designed for a single customer, leaving off the manufacturer's name makes sense. When it's a production vehicle, including the manufacturer's name makes more sense to me. But in the case of CST-100, there was some discussion. If memory serves, usage by the manufacturer and the cited references was a factor. We should follow the name they use. Fcrary (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Lists of non-carrier aircraft operated from aircraft carriers

You are invited to comment in the merge discussion at Talk:List of carrier-based aircraft#Temporary carrier operations by non-carrier aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

TF-19 Wasp

Hello, I'm not familiar with how to create an article/drone article, if anyone interested in making this article, Thank you! loads of sources are now out there, it is a type of drone with a flamethrower which was trending, as people like me need to know their info, having an article about this will be better for Wikipedia itself. 210.171.80.245 (talk)

Read Help:Your first article. - ZLEA T\C 00:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Didnt see this before I prodded it! - not a drone it is just an attachment you can buy to fit on your own drone, hardly of note. MilborneOne (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This subject appears to be more a weapon than an aircraft. There is a Military history Weaponry task force (click the link). Might be worth asking on their talk page. Also, I'd suggest you take a backup text file of your article, in case its gets summarily deleted while you are waiting for a reply. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

List of tanker aircraft - format

I am proposing to change the current nested-bullet list at List of tanker aircraft to sortable table format. Please make any comments/suggestions at Talk:List of tanker aircraft#List format. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

List categories

Category:Lists of aircraft by role and Category:Lists of aircraft by design configuration are overwhelmed by the same multiple lists of gliders. Glider is not really a role, nor am I convinced that it is a design configuration. I am thinking of two changes:

  1. Create a Category:Lists of glider aircraft to hold the many glider lists.
  2. Create a Category:Lists of aircraft by class to hold those broad classifications which are neither roles nor, arguably, design configurations. These might include the list of jet airliners, list of ultralight helicopters, Category:Lists of glider aircraft, and so on. Some rationale for the use of "Class" can be seen at Template:Avilisthead/doc.

Any comments? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC) [Updated 09:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)]

Seems reasonable, certainly needs gliders moving out. MilborneOne (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense to me! - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Images in the list of tiltrotor aircraft

Should images be included in the list of tiltrotor aircraft? There is a discussion at Talk:List of tiltrotor aircraft#Images. Please post any comments there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


Country of origin

I've just up-loaded an article on the 1970s Oškinis BRO-16 glider. Today, this aircraft would probably be described as Lithuanian, though I'm not sure where it was built. However, Jane's 1990 describes it as from the USSR, which it was at the time, though perhaps LSSR would have been more precise. For the moment I've gone with Jane's, but do we have a policy on this, which must have arisen before?TSRL (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like it needs to list USSR/Soviet Union, since Lithuania was a part of the union at the time. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Generally we go with the nationality at the time it was developed and first flown. If reliable sources have since taken a different view on a particular type, then we should probably revisit it and establish a local consensus for it. When it comes to assigning categories, probably both the nationalities then and now would be appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree, go with what the refs say for nationality at time production started! - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to you all for guidance and support for CofO:USSR. I'll add a Lithuanian cat entry.TSRL (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Photograph Requests

I am currently working an engineering position at a major US airline. As a result I have up close access to numerous (B777-200, B767-300/400, B757-200/300, B737NG-700/800, B717, A350-900, A330-200/300/A330neo-900, A319/20/21, MD88, MD90, A220) aircraft including flight decks, interiors, engines, and flight systems. I also have access to a significant repair facility and the airport (ATL) itself. My question is are there any specific pictures of the above aircraft/aircraft systems or ATL itself that are needed/could enhance articles or could greatly improve on existing article images? I have already uploaded some images myself and continue to take pictures as I see fit, but I want to make sure I don't miss out on anything and use this position to help out with image gathering as much as I can.

I know this isn't Commons, but this has a much greater visibility for input. Feel free to redirect me or repost this somewhere else if you think it would be more beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blervis (talk • contribs) 01:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposition! I often work on illustrating airliners and more material is always welcome! See each page to see if it lack some obvious illustration. A good page would have some whole-airplane pictures (mostly in flight) of the various variants showing external differences, some interior pictures (flight deck, passenger cabin) and some systems pictures (landing gear, high-lift systems, etc.). Go ahead, those interior and systems are much more rare than exterior pictures. In your list, most are pretty well illustrated, but the A330neo lacks interior pictures (flight deck, cabin) and perhaps specific systems (they aren't many. If you manage to show both winglets -ceo and neo- in the same photo it would be great to show the difference, ditto for the engine nacelle but it won't be easy. And how to illustrate the "Airspace Cabin" or the modified camber?). There are no Delta A330neo exterior pics either! Also, the MD-90 lacks a standard flight deck pic. If you have access to Delta's maintenance facilities, some naked turbofan pictures, with no nacelle, are always welcome. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed moved of 737 MAX to 737 Max

Hello, Just leaving a note here that there is another new discussion about moving the page Boeing 737 MAX to Boeing 737 Max at: Talk:Boeing 737 MAX#Requested move 25 May 2019. The previous discussion from a little over a month ago which was closed as no consensus can be found here: Talk:Boeing 737 MAX#Requested move 11 March 2019. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: the result of the move request was: Not moved. Procedural close. For further information I suggest reading the closing admins comment. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Update 2: Another administrator has reopened the discussion. Redalert2fan (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Update 3: Closed again as: "No consensus, with 70% of participants opposing a move". As always I suggest reading the full closing admins comment. Redalert2fan (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we quit that debate now? - Ahunt (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree, we should be done with that issue now. - Samf4u (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I hope so, but I have a suspicion that we'll be discussing this again in 3 months... Redalert2fan (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I expect the next step for the move discussion's OP is a Move Review. They aren't happy with the result, again. - BilCat (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Move review#Boeing 737 MAX. This is a neutral notice to an involved project. - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Appears to be just a repeat of the two previous discussions rather than a review of the process and reasoning used to close the request. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. One faction is arguing that the reasoning was wrong because the other side's case is wrong - and they are going to diss it all over again. Another previously uninvolved editor and I have taken opposite views on the value of this and, fortunately, have amicably agreed to differ. It will run its course. Meanwhile, new voices are always welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The move review was closed as: Endorse. Redalert2fan (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal comment: this does not appear to be over yet, as there seems to be a lobby on the closing persons talk page to reopen the move review. If it does not happen now looking at the persistence of some of the users we'll be seeing another move request the second it is acceptable to open another one per guidelines, but that seems better to me than just keep going at it now. Now that's all perfectly acceptable of course and well worth to review anyone's opinion again, though taking a look at the recent 3 discussion it will probably end the same way... but lets not get WP:CRYSTAL on here right?.. --Redalert2fan (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The close has been reverted. It seems to have been made by a non-admin trying to be helpful. At some point I think we may need to request an admin close. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems that Boeing might ditch the MAX name which is only really a marketing name and use the official names 737-8 and 737-10, the recent IAG press release for example doesnt mention MAX https://www.iairgroup.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/newsroom-listing/2019/iag-signs-letter-of-intent-for-200-boeing-737-8-and-737-10 - perhaps we should start a new move request! MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
What would we move them to? If not MAX (or Max), how will we differentiate the article for the new models from the other 737 series'? - ZLEA T\C 19:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The move review has been quiet for the last couple of weeks. Is it worth asking for a (re-)close? I don't suppose it will settle the matter, but it will at least take the plaintiffs on to the next stage. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Still open. Touching this again to put off the zealous little archive bot. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 03:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Move review still open. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The move review was closed as Endorse closure as no consensus. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Bristol Type 172

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Type 172. - Ahunt (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2019 King Air 350 crash

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 King Air 350 crash. - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

AWB edit on Aircraft pages

This is a notification to let you know that I am using AWB to convert m² → m2 and ft² → ft2 . This is affecting large numbers of aircraft pages. It is also correcting some other typos and template issues and I will try to fix unbalanced brackets. Hopefully there will be no bungles. The main typos relevant for this project is take off → takeoff, onboard → on board. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your notification. How is <sup>2</sup> is superior to "²"? I have the key on my keyboard, so I take advantage of that. I find the resulting wikitext easier to edit.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
here is my answer Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC) (note that I challenged the guideline in its talk page)
Also, I trust that your bot is aware of the distinctions between the adjective takeoff (as in accelerating for the the takeoff run) vs. the verb to take off (as in do not take off cross-wind today), and the descriptive phrase on board (as in going on board) vs. the adjective onboard or on-board (as in onboard guidance system)? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The awb run is finished now. I do a manual check for each of the fixes. So I should catch the different uses. The "bot" is not very automatic, but has a lot of suggested fixes. If you like "on-board" with hyphen, I suggest that you add it to Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=on-board&action=edit&redlink=1 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I have no preference for "on-board", though both I and my spellchecker have no objection to it either. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for verification of reference in Air International journal

The Sukhoi Superjet 100 article has been submitted for GA review; I'm not surprised by the reviewer's negative comments as, in my view, the article is still a long way from GA quality. That said, one specific comment relates to a reference that needs verification in a paper journal. Would anyone here happen to have a copy of the May 2010 edition of Air International (or feel inclined to splash out £5 + P&P to purchase it [1]) in order to verify the tagged claim in Sukhoi Superjet 100#Flight testing? Rosbif73 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Since when are offline sources prohibited from use as references?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I was going to say we just assume good faith. In the early days only one source covered a whole article. There is WP:REDFLAG for questioned citations, I've only seen it used once in an article I had been editing and had to prove that the text matched the source (which it did).
We now have copious citations in the lead and infobox, not required as long as the facts are cited in the main body text. The effect of editing in this environment is the same as walking through porridge, hard work on the best of days!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Aircraft specs merger bot

A few months ago it was decided that {{Aerospecs}} and {{Aircraft specifications}} were going to be merged with {{Aircraft specs}} at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Template:Aerospecs. There were a lot of concerns about using a bot for this process, but I would like to investigate that possibility further. The main concern seemed to be lower precision due to rounding errors, but I'm not quite sure how this problem would arise. If I understand this correctly the values in the exsisting fields would just need to be moved to the new template without any additional calculations actually having to be performed. The bot would of course have to figure out whether the prime value is metric or imperial but that is definitely do able. If I've just misunderstood something or you have other concerns regarding using a bot please tell me so we can try figuring it out. If it turns out a bot won't work then that's not a problem, we will just have to slowly do this manually over the next few years.

Pinging everyone who participated in the TfD discussion: ZLEA (talk · contribs), Gazoth (talk · contribs), Nigel Ish (talk · contribs), Steelpillow (talk · contribs), Sario528 (talk · contribs), Petebutt (talk · contribs), MilborneOne (talk · contribs), The Bushranger (talk · contribs), Primefac (talk · contribs), Gonnym (talk · contribs) and Zackmann08 (talk · contribs). --Trialpears (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem that I see with using a bot is that {{Aerospecs}} and {{Aircraft specs}} format armament very differently:
Aerospecs
|armament1= |armament2= |armament3= |armament4= |armament5= |armament6=
Aircraft specs
|armament= |guns= |bombs= |rockets= |missiles= |hardpoints= |hardpoint capacity= |hardpoint rockets= |hardpoint missiles= |hardpoint bombs= |hardpoint other=
I don't see that a bot could handle conversions like this. - ZLEA T\C 17:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see that problem with converting {{Aircraft specifications}} to {{Aircraft specs}}, though. - ZLEA T\C 17:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The armaments will be difficult, but there seem to be a lot of templates that don't actually use them so it would still convert a large chunk without supporting it. It would also be easier for human editors converting them to just add the armament types and then let the bot do the rest. --Trialpears (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I've started working on the Aircraft specifications bot but I'm not sure how to handle the following parameters:
| payload main =
| payload alt =
| payload more =
| useful load main =
| useful load alt =
| loaded weight main =
| loaded weight alt =
| number of propellers per engine =
There doesn't seem to be a correesponding parameter in Aircraft specs, but it could just be me being blind or not knowing much about aircraft. Should I add these to the template or is there a reason they're not there? --Trialpears (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
|=Capacity matches to the payload parameters. Capacity was used because it is essentially an open ended text. You could try mapping capacity to "payload more" (which in olden days would have been "payload note" because that's what it does) "Gross weight" is more or less "loaded weight". You would probably be better served finding a way to generate a list of aircraft articles with the problematic parameters with data and a bot-assist for humans to do the work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

An assistant-bot might be a better solution than a fully automated bot. Even a script to pre-format the template for you so all you have to do is input the data would be extremely helpful. I can move numbers and refs from one column to another pretty quickly, and having a bot to take care of the rest would make converting a much faster and easier process. Sario528 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sario528, That is certainly a possibility but I think much of this could be handled by a bot that skips if it encounters any problems. the currently resolves most things correctly and skips if it encounter bad parameters, unexpected text in parameters and if it doesn't find any units. Here are five tests so you can see it for yourself.
  • test1 to test1 Skipped because it contains useful load parameter as discussed above
  • test2 to test2 Very good conversion
  • test3 to test3 Has some unit weirdness but that will be dealt with by adjusting the template
  • test4 to test4 Useful load skip
  • test5 to test5 Deals with a fraction symbol (⅝), but end up displaying a bit too many significant figures because of it. I will probably tell it that 5/8=0.6 in the future to avoid this.
As you can see there are some issues with unnecessary unit conversions but that is not the bot's fault and can be fixed by changes in the template. If no one here objects I will submit a BRFA in the next few days where a larger trial overseen by experienced bot operators will be performed. --Trialpears (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Test 2 changes order of units in speed and range. What determines the ordering in the changeover? Also throwing this open to general discussion - is payload a sub-quantity of "capacity" ?GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
GraemeLeggett The prime unit is decided by looking at the length parameter. If "length main" contain "m" AND "length alt" contain "ft" the prime unit is metric and if they're swapped it's imperial. If the bot doesn't find both feet and meters it will skip. The rest is controlled by the template. In test 2 the unit order is slightly inconsistent for range because the second part is from "range more" which is just plain text where any information can be inserted. Changing unit orders in plain text is too complicated to do automatically, but if it's a major sticking point I could skip these cases, even though this would greatly diminish the number of pages the bot could handle without intervention.
Also I would like to know how to handle useful load. I could see it being put under capacity or as a separate field. --Trialpears (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Looking at "ft" or "m" is - unfortunately - an overly simplistic way of looking at the order in which units are presented in the aircraft templates. Depending on age, usage, and other factors the display ought to be
1) ft before m AND mph before knots and km/h
1) ft before m AND knots before mph and km/h
1) m before ft AND km/h before knots and mph
The details are in the template documentation under |prime units?= and the business about using "imp", "kts", or "met". And see the testcases pages Template:Aircraft specs/testcases There may also be the added niggle of the units in the source and whether its been flipped/converted to put into the template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
GraemeLeggett It now handles knots as the prime unit with this being how test2 in the new version. The problem with units being flipped is more serious, but it will only affect units not given in the first place once the template changes are implemented. In these cases I think slightly lower accuracy is preferable to not having any value at all. --Trialpears (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I've now made a lot of changes to the bot to make it more reliable. The two biggest ones are fixing the template to avoid unnecessary conversions and made the extra text skipping a lot better. I've also put useful load as a bullet under capacity, and I hope this is fine. If it's not it can easily be changed. I now think it's at a point where an edit request for the template and the filing of the BRFA is in order. I've made ten new tests and it has as far as I can see, performed five perfect conversions.
  • test1 Skipped due to unidentified unit in maximum speed. It expects metric and imperial; not "Mach 0.84-0.87".
  • test2 Very difficult case with multiple versions of the same aircraft handled in one template. Skipped due to extra text.
  • test3 Flawless conversion
  • test4 Skipped due to non-standard units (m/min) could potentially make it handle cases like this if they're common enough.
  • test5 Flawless conversion, stripped a "+" in max speed, but this would almost certainly be what a human converting it would do since the field doesn't support + in numbers.
  • test6 Skipped due to indentation problems in the free text armament section.
  • test7 Flawless conversion. Also removed a row with only units and no values.
  • test8 Flawless conversion
  • test9 Skipped due to extra text (Wingspan given both for swept and unswept wings)
  • test10 And another flawless conversion
BRFA and edit request submitted. --Trialpears (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Bot currently in trial, but it's taking a while due to the complexity of the task and me being quite busy IRL. Should finish trial this weekend, but an extended trial will probably be necessary. --Trialpears (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Template issue

Is Template:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II really needed? should all of that information not already be on the page in question - in one of several sections already set aside for those links? In addition, it is categorized in Manufacturer-based aircraft navigational boxes - which is not appropriate. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Dont think it is needed, I cant see anything special about the F-35 that cant bee handled with a see also or links in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I started the template in 2011 to tie together a bunch of related articles around the subject of the F-35. It has grown a lot from the original size nav box as more editors have added new articles, but I think that shows that it is useful and should be retained. The links may actually be in some of the articles (but not all of them in all articles), but this puts them all together on one place, which serves readers well. - Ahunt (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
What a lot of oddball articles it links to:
  1. All those procurement pages. Do other planes have their procurement treated as sufficiently notable/significant for this kind of low-level blow-by-blow treatment? If not, maybe a few AfDs are in order. For example there is no article for say Lockheed F-104 Starfighter procurement or McDonnell F-4 Phantom II procurement despite their similar or even greater overseas sales records.
  2. All those loosely related topics like manufacturer, losing competitors, engine types or avionics equipment. Other aircraft nav templates such as Template:Supermarine Spitfire do not list such things. Should this one?
Strip away the inappropriate links, and is there enough left to justify a template at all? Or, is this going to end up the prototype for yet more endless page-bottom navboxes? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
No they don't have procurement articles, but they do each have a raft of other related articles:
To be honest, never in the history of aviation have we had an aircraft procurement and production as complex, fraught with politics or anywhere near as as expensive as the F-35. It is in a league of its own in that regard. Unlike the F-4 or F-104, we have also been able to build the F-35 articles as the story unfolded, since it has mostly been since Wikipedia started. Check the article page views, the F-35 series of articles get read more than just about any other aircraft article we have ever written. If you think the F-35 procurement articles aren't notable, I would invite you to read them. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
If it is to be justified, where should it be categorized? It certainly is not as a manufacturer as it is currently. - NiD.29 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I am sure we can find a better cat for it. There seems to be many similar ones in Category:Related aircraft navigational boxes. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

More Templates

I am trying to beat the aircraft manufacturer templates into some consistency but that seems to be generating a backlash, and someone is reverting half my edits with the hyperbolic claim that I am breaking them, when nothing has been broken and I merely made improvements to match what most of the templates are. I am posting this here as it seems to be more aircraft project related than aviation project but we can cross post if need be.

  1. Some header titles have a lengthy blurb before the name, and others have one after it. Some say aircraft designed by, others built by - and others combinations of the two - or with nothing at all. Most use the common form of the name - but some want to use the much longer legal name (doubtful Mirage aircraft would ever be confused for Dassault-Breguet). How many companies are named "Avia"? Yet they didn't have full names. All different countries too. Foreign companies vary between the full name untranslated, to just an acronym - or both. It gets messy when the organization was renamed multiple times - and even worse, some pages have 2-3 sections of text each with its own link to the same page, which is then duplicated again in the group headings, while others don't even have one link for the company name, possibly because it would redlink. (company common name) + aircraft seems clearest and easiest to make consistent, although sailplanes, balloons, autogyros, etc if they only ever designed/produced that one type of aircraft, work in lieu of aircraft.
  2. I would like to reduce the cruft below the listings. It usually isn't needed.
  3. Group titles only when more than one group exists since that information is elsewhere. Adding "Homebuilts" or "sailplanes" when that is all the company has built is just clutter and doesn't justify a revert with a snarky comment about fixing anything. Nothing was broken to fix.
  4. Collapsed vs expanded - most of these should be with other templates but some are not (yet) - but expanding it out loses the whole point of these boxes, and one may as well simply include the aircraft listed in the see more section. They are supposed to be hidden for a reason. Also, relying on a default set elsewhere that only works when it is with other boxes means it won't always display correctly.
  5. I wonder if the nationality can be included - a flag on the right of the title bar for instance? (remember Avia)
  6. Some of the templates, usually for homebuilts, have a list of individuals - all redlinked. I doubt many of these will ever warrant an entire page. Delete or keep?

- NiD.29 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahunt is an experienced editor and I'd recommend that you engage better. I'd suggest you respect WP:BRD and open/join discussions on the individual template talk pages. That will help clarify the individual issues as they crop up, before diving into wholesale reworking. You might also like to ask them on their talk page what you have apparently been "breaking", I am confident you will get a civil and informative response. [Update] I have also applied WP:BRD to a couple of disputed templates and opened discussions there — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC) [updated 08:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)]
I do agree with you about generally making titles shorter and cutting down on cruft. No doubt there will be a few case-by-case exceptions, there usually are. We do not normally add nationalities to these templates and I do not see any point, as the information is given at the top of every page where the template is used. It's just more cruft and flags are the cruftiest way to do it, see MOS:FLAGS. If we do need to add a nationality for say disambig purposes then flag eyecandy is still not appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
On duplicated or possibly ambiguous names such as "Avia" or "Mirage", what about a hatnote just below the title area, along the lines of "For the [description] company, see Xxx..."? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Quite true - out of the hundreds of nav boxes you have recently changed, I have reverted or edited only a very small number and explained why clearly in my edit summaries. In many cases you have immediately reverted, rather than complying with WP:BRD. If you would start a discussion on the appropriate talk pages I am sure we can sort the few contentious ones out. - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
It didn't make sense to have the discussion on one remote template, hence why I brought it here. Snarky undos with inappropriate claims not appreciated either though. :) Flag idea dropped btw. BTW How does {{small|{{other uses|Dassault Mirage}}}} look? - NiD.29 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, as I discussed on that particular nav box's talk page, I think it looks quite bad, actually. The small number of boxes I took issue with your edits on are better discussed on the talk pages for the nav boxes, because each issue is different and specific. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Article name query

A UK based team across multiple institutions, but led by designer Andrew Rae, Professor of Engineering at the University of the Highlands and Islands, Scotland, has flown a UAV called the Phoenix.[2]. First flight took place in Portsmouth, England. Although there are sufficient press reports to make it notable, none say who built it or where, or who owns it. What should we call it until we know better? The "Rae Phoenix"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The project website seems to indicate they are called "Project Phoenix" so the temptation is call it the Phoenix Phoenix UAV or maybe Project Phoenix UAV. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Another possibility would be to call it the UHI Phoenix UAV or simply UHI Phoenix, as the University of the Highlands and Islands is evidently the sponsor of the project. CThomas3 (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ultraflight Lazair

We could use some more eyes on this article. We have a new COI editor, the aircraft's designer, who is trying to add his own unsourced personal reminisces to the article, claiming most of the cited refs are wrong. I have tagged the additions and asked him to stop and instead make suggestions on Talk:Ultraflight Lazair, but after a long discussion there he seems determined to rewrite the article the way he wants it. More input would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Trent 1000 Engine over Rome

Last August, a Trent 1000 had a failure over Rome. An editor wants to put the incident in the article, I find it anecdotal. As we are only 2 editors debating, we can't reach a consensus. Can some other editor intervene? Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Input needed for unit conversions

There's a discussion on how many unit conversions is appropriate for a flight distance in the A350 article.

Please see Talk:Airbus A350 XWB#Units. Thanks for any input. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Logos

Someone has been adding logos to the infoboxes of several aircraft, for example the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A320neo family. Personally I think this looks tacky and not very informative and I am leaning towards deleting them. What do others think? ElshadK (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they add much, but I'm OK with them as long as they are free images and not fair use (copyrighted) images. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I dont particularly like them, in a lot of cases aircraft had more than one "marketing logo" so doesnt really add anything to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that unless the marketing logo has achieved some level of notability on its own, I wouldn't include it. Just because one happens to exist doesn't mean it merits inclusion in the article. CThomas3 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that aircraft marketing logos would be okay further down in the "history" section, with an explanation in the caption as to its use, introduction, etc, but they don't really belong in the info box. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
That would seem reasonable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how the images are on Commons, Boeing logos can only be used with express permission. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, corporate noise! That Dreamliner logo is quite correctly classified on commons: "This image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. " - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree they add nothing to the infoboxes. Verifiably significant logos can go where their individual significance gets explained. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now removed them from the infoboxes. If editors wish to add them later in the article with an explanation feel free. ElshadK (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. If anybody starts restoring them, do come back here so we can help sort them out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

FFA P-16

Just to note this months attempt to create an SAC 23 article - FFA Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23 has been redirected as before to Learjet 23. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Also FFA SAAC-23 Execujet not sure how many permutations of the same name are left. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
User:MilborneOne At least one - FFA-SAAC-23, up for merge, as before. I had a speedy delete on it but that got binned.--Petebutt (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted per WP:DUCK and blocked the creator for block evasion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Just deleted identical SAAC 23 article that appeared from Article for Creation, I cant really see how it was created as a draft as the history only shows a move from draft? MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Biplane article

You are invited to contribute to a discussion at Talk:Biplane#Worth including? on some content added by another user. I removed it but they summarily restored it, the usual thing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Brown-Young BY-1

Brown-Young BY-1 is up for deletion but it looks like it was built and possibly flown, if anybody has anything to improve the article it would help. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Viking Aircraft Inc.

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viking Aircraft Inc.. Please note the nomination also includes two aircraft type articles: St Andrews Viking and Viking Aircraft Viking II. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of first flights by aircraft type

Just for information I have proposed Timeline of first flights by aircraft type for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that's a very incomplete article and better covered by the Category:Aviation by year subcategories as you have tagged it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention pretty indiscriminate, as it would eventually have to be expanded to include every aircraft ever built. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Removed prod so now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of first flights by aircraft type. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

FlightGlobal PDF archives

Flight Global has given its website a revamp. It seems like, in the proces, they have removed their PDF archives. I have tried the wayback machine, but alas. I found it to be an incredibly valuable resource for wiki. What this means for us now, is that a lot of ref links have died, and that researching older planes and av engines has become harder. Does anyone know of another way to get to these documents? And is it worthwhile for us to ask Flight Global to reinstate access to their archives? ExcitedEngineer (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

My first thought is to check out archive.org--not the Wayback Machine, but their archive of print documents. Still, this is quite upsetting, and I hope this decision can be reversed somehow. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I found this--maybe there's hope they've kept it after all, even if the old links will need to be fixed. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
i.e. "The Flight magazine archive is currently under maintenance and will be back online soon." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The FlightGlobal business changed hands a few months ago [3], as Reed Business Information sold it to the German DVV Media Group (the Flight International article needs updating, btw). We can only hope the new owner hasn't decided to ditch the archives. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Didn’t see the notice, I found out by trying to access the old URLs. Good to know they intend to put it up again. Let’s hope they don’t paywall it, or break all the existing links. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. For those using RSS, the url changed to [4] apparently.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to work; their news page currently indicates two RSS URLs [5] and [6] but only the latter has any content. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Caproni Ca.5 (1917) "popular media" section

Wondering if the inclusion of a game that has an example of this aircraft (among others) in it is appropriate - or does it need to have a more central role? Also not sure whether it really is on the Russian AF as claimed as a Sikorsky came up on Google. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Twin-boom aircraft

There is a difference of opinion on how the Twin-boom aircraft article should develop. I have started a discussion at Talk:Twin-boom aircraft#Not cruft. Briefly, here is a diff showing how one editor has cut back the already-minimal main content - and that much left only after I restored what they would let me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

What was there was unsourced, badly written, contained factual errors, was unnecessarily broken with multiple headings, and used terrible examples. After boiling it down to bullet points it has been replaced by a much more substantial (but still unsourced) text with more balanced and recognizable examples. Cruft it was - and it is still more of a list than a conventional article as most of the page is the list. ps - When did you look at it last? Perhaps a reprise is in order? - NiD.29 (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Compare the FULL set of changes [7], not the mid-change set SteelPillow chose - and aside from finding better images, improving captions (and trimming cruft from them), I added all the missing data to hundreds of empty fields, split the table so the UAVs are separate (there is no data for a number of fields for most of them) and added a whole bunch of missing types - as well as rewriting the main paragraph, and removed the nonsense about the booms having to be beside each other (at least two types, and possibly more have vertically superimposed booms). - NiD.29 (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Please can editors make their comments on the article talk page? One bull-headed rant-for-rant exchange is already one too many. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What you persist in re-adding duplicates (badly) the paragraphs I added. - NiD.29 (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft vs. UAVs

At Twin-boom aircraft the lists of "aircraft" and UAVs have been separated. But UAVs are still aircraft and readers may not know whether a given type is manned or not, or may want to pick out a characteristic which affects both classes. Is this separation a growing thing with aircraft lists, or something new that we need to establish a consensus over? Should lists of manned types be re-titled accordingly? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I split it off as a temporary measure as most are glorified RC models or have no information as to numbers, first flights, current status or specific clear cut roles (leaving massive holes in the table) while I cleaned up the rest of the list's contents. Feel free to merge it back in again. - NiD.29 (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Madness?!

From the recently revised Junkers Ju 488, apparently it had a climb rate of 8.1833 metres per second or precisely 1,610.89 ft/min in old money. The article doesn't actually say that it flew but we know to the inch (millimeter) how fast it climbed. There must be a problem with our templates if it is producing figures to four decimal places and there is an editorial problem in not realising that these numbers are pure nonsense and totally unencyclopedic.

Do we need to display three alternative units for performance figures? Is that in line with MOSNUM?

It's not a one off error, it's a worrying trend. Sorry for the rant but I struggle mightily to clean up these problems. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm the data entered says climb rate ms 8.1833, so it was entered like that, not some sort of rounding error! Plus the performance is "estimated"??? Does anyone have access to the paper refs cited to see what they actually say? - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Before the revision it was 551 m/min (1,810 ft/min). Itself problematic because as pilots we know that vertical speed indicators can not read to single metres or 10s of feet even if you tap them furiously or they have vibrators fitted (deluxe models). The performance figures of this aeroplane don't bother me, rather the lack of common sense being applied across a large number of aircraft articles. A passing wiki reader with a newly gained pilot's license might say, 'Wow, how did they measure that number so accurately'? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It's only the 21st century, you can't expect that sort of critical thinking now! - Ahunt (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I just edited the thing for sanity. Neither Green nor Sharp is that kind of numerologist, but I have the Sharp ref so will check for any numbers he may have. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
We need to look critically across the project for problems like this, it makes us look like we have no idea about displaying easily absorbed information for readers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps originally the rate was in m/min (the 3s at the end are a hint)? 8.1833 m/s is 491 m/min, (slightly) less wildly overprecise. Kay's Junkers book give an estimated initial rate of 550 m/min, i.e. 9.1666666...m/min (!).TSRL (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC) Some overlap here with an earlier comment.TSRL (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Hats off to Steelpillow for fixing this. I'm sure you already know how to avoid this when using Template:Convert and the sigfig parameter, but I see that was not the problem here. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. Update: Sharp has a little data and it does not agree well with the article as it stands, for example his estimated cruise speed is lower but his range is higher. But it is very incomplete and no rate of climb is given. Clearly there is some fact-checking to be done.Sharp invariably draws his data from contemporary sources so is more believable than say Nowarra or Green, though sometimes of course his sources were superseded by later documents. He also has some useful development history but I am afraid I am a bit busy right now. I can thoroughly recommend his series of Luftwaffe: Secret [thingies] of the Third Reich series of bookazines, most of which are available second hand.
As for madness on Wikipedia, I mean come on, how long have you been here? Nobody expects articles to stay perfect even if they ever get there: anyone can edit here and anyone flippin' does! All we can do is constantly pour oil on what troubled waters we come across and hope it lasts. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Convert was not used, at least that has decimal place limit options. To be blunt it is one editor editing at high speed in a sloppy fashion. Where citation styles were changed against WP:CITEVAR with no explanation (never any edit summary left) we now have a mixture of citation styles that are very difficult to correct. If you completed Tomb Raider 1 in less than four months you could probably decipher these edits. I only rant because I care and don't want to be associated with poor editing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I heartily reject your insinuation that I have been hasty and sloppy. I contend that I have been the opposite. Without the reference given, you can only use what is presented. If m/min are what is available then they need converting, as the template uses m/s. If you have a problem with that then it is the template and not me. I could have applied a rounding but then you would complain that I was making figures up. Please be consistent in your criticism.!--Petebutt (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Apart from Nimbus' crusade has anybody else got any feedback? I have done over a thousand already and a little feed back would be nice!--Petebutt (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

If figures appear to be nonsense or overly precise then I would leave them out completely, better to have a few specs that make sense than a lot that don't. All I am asking is that you stand back and look hard at the numbers entered, similar to painting a fence and standing back to see if patches have been missed. You are prone to adding excessive detail (I guess you don't think it is excessive) and it needs to be commented on. In the engine articles you have added DERD specifications (unlinked, no one knows what it is) and oil viscosity ratings and turbine inlet temperatures etc. It all comes under WP:RAWDATA, which I've partially copied below because I doubt that you visit any of these guideline links.
  1. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article.
Consider your work in List of aircraft engines, there are hundreds of redlinks to engine types and variants that will never be written, either because there are no sources on them or they are simply not notable. Compare with the much smaller engine task force of missing articles which is by no means a complete list but appears sensible.
That is because they are lists of engines and NOT lists of articles!!--Petebutt (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
A few corrections to a handful of articles is hardly a crusade, do you believe it is better to leave mistakes and oddities uncorrected? Just be aware that your editing style is quite different to others, is there any chance that you could start to use edit summaries for example? If any editor's editing is odd it is going to raise eyebrows, if my editing was odd and I was told so I would take that on board and do my best to heed any advice. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Show preview is clearly not being used, I've left it uncorrected. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, well, even if you hit "publish changes" instead of "show preview" by mistake, why would you just leave it like that? I can't think anyone would not check their own work after saving ... - Ahunt (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Hundreds (or thousands or tens of thousands) of engine redlinks still provide useful information in that they show just how many obscure engines have been built and which cannot really be expressed well in any other way. While many of those may never have articles, an absence of current references right now does not preclude references existing in the future, and pages being written as a result. Notability should follow the aviation project notability guide, in that its actual existence is generally sufficient to grant it notability. In some cases references do exist, however it often takes time to compile them when most only provide a partial picture. Every page we write from scratch was once a redlink that no-one had bothered to write until then. Who knows - perhaps someone will join us who is really into obscure engines and has books most of us have never seen. Red links are also an incentive for someone to write the article - but if no-one makes that particular redlink, it might never get written. Missing articles pages by definition lag behind the true list of missing articles, and tend to be those of greatest significance. We really should copy those links from the list to the task force page. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Your point is well supported by WP:REDLINK (ironically itself a blue link). - Ahunt (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

eyes needed on Fokker Dr.I

An edit warrior is insisting on adding every serial number known to the page. I have reached my limit on undo's. Thanks - NiD.29 (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

As the revision history clearly shows, the serial numbers have been listed for many years. It is you who recently decided to delete them all. Your assertion to the contrary is patently false. You have also misrepresented to me the project guidelines on use of serial numbers. I have explained to you on the talk page why the serial numbers meet those exact guidelines. M Van Houten (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The serial of an aircraft that was displayed 70 years ago does not fall under the "aircraft under display" which is for currently displayed aircraft. The serial of the V.5 aircraft does not fall under any of the categories. The serials of every possible random aircraft are vandalism. - NiD.29 (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Iron Bird

The term Iron Bird has been used on the Cessna Denali article and clarification was requested, I changed it to ground testing rig. Should we have an article or does anyone know if we discus Iron Birds anywhere, and if we do need an article has anybody reliable references, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The term doesn't seem to be used in any other article, so probably not worth an actual article. The term is really an aviation shorthand for "ground test mock-up" and in real life is often just a steel frame to mount aircraft systems on for prototype configuration and testing, so probably not notable for a stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
There appears to be nothing relevant in Category:Aircraft simulators or Category:Modeling and simulation. However "Iron Bird" seems well used in the industry these days, see for example this search result. There are probably enough useful references among all that to pull together a viable article. But unless and until that is done, the term would need explanation for each mention, so is best avoided. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
See also WP:JARGON. - Ahunt (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability of light aircraft accidents

Testing the waters to see how much support there is to elevate Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents from essay to policy a guideline. Specifically the section concerning accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft. The lively debate currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Gabriola Island crash and other non notable air accidents recently written have brought me here. - Samf4u (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

👍 Like - Ahunt (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Certainly a good idea, we seem to get the same "its in the news" so it must be notable and "International coverage" when all they do it repeat the reuters/wire service bulletin to fill some space. Nearly all the thousands of light aircraft and military accidents appear in the press at some point, nearly all never get mentioned again. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Definitely worth pursuing. I do note, however, that WP:AIRCRASH sets out criteria for including details of an accident or incident in an airline, airport or aircraft type article, and explicitly states that these criteria should not be applied to standalone articles about individual incidents or accidents. That aspect is clearly going to need to be revisited before considering promotion to guideline or policy status. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
👍 Like --Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
👍 Like A perrenial problem for the established editors is curbing the enthusiasm of some who want EVERYTHING to go in wikipedia. Elevation of the essay referred to as WP:AIRCRASH would give them a much clearer set of guidelines for aviation accidents. What we need is a mechanism for this! Assuming we get a concensus.--Petebutt (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I seem to remember this was a guideline once but was demoted because we (the project) did something wrong in the process, just need to take care and find out how it should be done! MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Right, on January 5, 2011 it was demoted per a discussion on Ahunts talk page. This discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 82#WikiProject Guidelines vs. Guidelines was noted. - Samf4u (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosbif73 Makes a very good point. WP:AIRCRASH is not about notability and weather or not an air accident should have a stand alone article. It is about adding content to existing articles.

Under the See also section is this draft Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents/Factors. Two editors have put a lot of work into this and it's what I believe we should push to become a guideline. It looks good enough to me to go to a proposals now. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Proposals. - Samf4u (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I was one of those editors, it turns out, but it has been untouched since 2014. It's been a long while since I was involved in discussions of air crashes at AfD so it needs looking over by people who have been to see if anything has changed in the last 5 years. Particularly is there any language that needs to be stronger? Are there factors that haven't been considered? Particularly it seems to imply a greater inclusivity for what accidents or incidents should be mentioned on airport/airline articles than WP:AIRCRASH being discussed above - having two guidelines contradict each other is a bad idea. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Good point. I'll work on dovetailing those aspects in my user space. - Samf4u (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The issue with Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents/Factors is how intensely vague it is. Policies need to be very clear and give bight lines for what is unacceptable and what isn't. That isn't even useful guidance information. Needs a total rewrite to be useful. - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I should add that we changed WP:AIRCRASH to be about including accidents in aircraft type articles and not about stand-alone articles some time ago just to be clearer and to not conflict with WP:GNG and similar, but we could develop a similar document on stand alone air accidents. As recent AfDs have shown, it is really needed. We have an ongoing issue with non-aviation editors thinking anything that involves an airplane needs a stand alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Reading the intro and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents#Factors affecting the notability of aviation accidents and incidents the discussion linked from the talk page it seems it was explicitly intended to avoid giving bright lines, but rather provide guidance on what things do and don't make an accident more notable than the average - it's intended to be a structured aid to assessing the notability of events. Someone could refer to it in an AfD along the lines of "the AIRCRASH guide says that the most significant event at an airport is normally mentioned on that article, so a merge and redirect is better than deletion." or "This is a hull loss accident that seriously injured $notable_person and resulted in $airline being banned from EU airspace, and the guideline suggests that these are all things that make an accident more notable than average, so I recommend keeping.". From memory this is because previous attempts at guidelines had failed for being overly prescriptive. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Pronouns on airship articles

I've just been working on the article LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin. I note that it refers to the airship as "it" throughout, and always has done, which seems to make sense. I've also recently participated in a discussion at WT:MOS towards modernising WP:SHE4SHIPS to take account of the decreasing tendency in sources to refer to ships as "she" and mandate "it" on Wikipedia to reflect real-world usage.

However, I've also noticed that many (the majority?) of our airship articles currently use "she". Now, an airship is not a ship, in spite of having "ship" in its name, but an obsolete type of flying machine. Neither is a jellyfish a type of fish, nor a koala bear a bear, nor a sea cow a cow. You get the idea. I would argue that airships were therefore never covered by WP:SHE4SHIPS. So what's going on? Let's assume that I know that the majority of 1930s-1970s sources on airships (though not all) use "she", and that many pilots and aviation writers have often called their aircraft "she", as mill operators once called their mills "she". I certainly don't want to relitigate that MoS discussion here, just to ponder how a guideline introduced by a group of editors writing about sea ships seems to have spread onto these airship articles and how easy it would be to reverse it.

Incidentally I'd also welcome a review of the LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin article. Would it now be considered as better than B-class? --The Huhsz (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

How do the best reliable sources refer to airships? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned, most of the sources, though not all, are old (>40 yrs), and most, but not all, use "she". Although I would normally agree with going with what the sources use, it doesn't really help us in this case, as the point is that we don't use "she" for other classes of aircraft. It seems likely for example that Charles Lindbergh would have called Spirit of St. Louis "she", and I bet older sources will use this too, but our Wikipedia article uses "it", as an aircraft is not a ship (even though it's common in American English to refer to an airplane as a "ship"!) Do you see the problem? --The Huhsz (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I understand 'she' referring to aircraft/cars etc. I think the BBC still use it. Sticking with neutrality is safe but unromantic. I never worked out how Germans call a baby das (it) when the sex is known, even odder is das Mädchen (young girl). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Cars, yes, and spaceships as well. But we don't do that. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It baffles me that anyone wants to spend time and effort caring whether particular types of vehicles should have a rule about whether they are referred to to as he, she or it. Literally, almost anything else is more important or relevant. (Hohum @) 21:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Interesting to have your opinion that you don't have an opinion. I know some people feel that way about spelling and grammar too. We're all different. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I thought my opinion was made clear. This is a waste of time and effort. So is debating which end of a boiled egg to break open, or which way to hang toilet rolls, both of which are also endlessly debated for no good reason. (Hohum @) 21:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
You've definitely clearly stated, twice now, that you have no opinion on the matter I was asking for opinions on. Thank you again. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
*plonk* (Hohum @) 22:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Goodness! USENET - those were the days. But the world's moved on. Thank goodness. Nice of you to take so much of your valuable time to share your opinion with us. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
That MoS discussion is clearly headed for "No consensus for change". Airships are fundamentally no different from ships so I see no value in resurrecting that argument either. Around here most things are "he", even cows, but that's inbred rural communities for you :) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Airships are fundamentally no different from ships Other than flying in the air, rather than floating on water, you mean? As far as you know, has this ever come up before? Because in the absence of any settled consensus that airships are covered by WP:SHE4SHIPS, I don't think we should continue the practice. As Nimbus says, it's easy to find sources that refer to cars, motor-cycles, aircraft and spacecraft as "she" but Wikipedia's normal practice (AFAIK) is to consistently call them "it". Cows, I'm not so sure about. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
It is deprecated usage, but that doesn't mean no-one uses it. We don't refer to female aviators as aviatrixes anymore either, and using female pronouns in English for inanimate objects is dying out, as is using gender specific names for those doing certain jobs - ignoring the older generations, who are never the ones making changes, and who are always resistant to change. Indeed, I would put money on it being rewritten, but that could take many years before happening, during which this argument will recur periodically. The only question will be when the majority are ready to accept the change. If the page is being overhauled, and the editor feels like changing it, then they should do so, but if that is the only planned change, I'd suggest leaving it as it is until such time as a more extensive edit is made - and given the state of many Zeppelin pages, most of them need substantial reworking anyway. Lots of red links on the nav box as well. ps - cows are female - we do however use the term generically, (and incorrectly) to refer to cattle of either sex, probably because aside from a solitary bull and a few male calves, most members of a typical herd are female. - NiD.29 (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's really helpful, User:NiD.29. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought that we had already established a consensus that the beastly things were neuter? I recall going through the R101 article replacing any she with an it, and if I come across an airship article using 'she' I spay it.TheLongTone (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Well indeed. I don't suppose you can recall where and when this discussion was had? It's not that important as I think I get the gist now, but I wondered if there was a local consensus to use "she". If there is not, they can happily go back to being "it". They're not ships and so are not and were never covered by WP:SHEIS4SHIPS. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. I think that the use of 'she' is simply old-fashioned; a modern book on the subject (John Swinfields Airship, 2013 uses 'it' whereas Robin Higham's account of the British rigid program (1961) uses she.TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, here is the BBC using "she" in a page with the code dated 2010 and here is the RAF Museum using "she" again in a page with a copyright notice at the bottom dated 2018. Both turned up in the top half-dozen of this Google search on airship "she flew" (and yes, before any bright evangelist starts, the "she" does refer to an airship in each instance). There appear to be an awful lot more such hits, not to mention all the places where "she" is used but not the phrase "she flew" (such as this BBC article from 2019). If there ever was a consensus on Wikipedia for "it", that may well have been confined to a particular article or set of articles, at any rate it does not appear to have made it into our Project guidelines that I can see. Meanwhile, leaving an article with the usage it was created in, on the basis of "no consensus for change", is our default habit, which strikes me as an excellent way forward. So if anyone still wants to make an issue of it, let's have less cherry-picking or vague suggestions and more fact-finding and balanced analysis. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Having recently reviewed sources for the Graf Zeppelin, I am well aware that some sources use "she" to describe airships. I think I agree with TheLongTone that modern sources are more likely to use "it", and I also think the "she"s are overall a minority. My feeling is though, that unless there is a well-established consensus akin to WP:SHEIS4SHIPS but relating to airships (or indeed any other aircraft, which sources also sometimes refer to as "she"), or else a well-established consensus that this guideline applies to airships, the default position would be to call an inanimate object "it", as a matter of simple English grammar. Has there ever been such a discussion, as far as you know? --The Huhsz (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I think leaving well enough alone is the best policy here. Editors writing new articles can establish the pronoun of their choice that other editors will have to respect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted, but I think on an issue like this, absent a clear existing consensus, normal rules of English grammar would apply, and obviously I don't concur that the current situation (the airship articles in general are very poor and use an apparently random mixture of pronouns) is "well enough". --The Huhsz (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
So I gathered from your earlier comments. The normal rules of English grammar don't apply to lots of usages on Wiki, like the article title capitalization rules for proper names, so I'm not much fussed about inconsistency across the topic. Pronoun usage needs to be consistent within a single article and, in case of dispute, should reflect the usage established by the editor who first used the pronoun to avoid edit wars. Just like you do for a dispute about WP:CITEVAR or pronouns in ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Title capitalisation is a special case. In most cases we follow standard English usage rather than using the language of the sources; if not our articles on reggae stars would use words like overstand and I and I. If you believe otherwise and can direct me to a previous discussion/policy/MoS section that reflects this, I'd be grateful for a link. --The Huhsz (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

See Indicated by consistent capitalization in sources in Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 57 for a recent discussion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but that's about capitalization of titles, not pronouns for airships. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66 is right and the inference is obvious. In the absence of this fabled consensus or any hard statistics to support the contention that "it" is somehow more modern or more standard than "she", advocates of political correctness are wasting their time here. For example, exactly what is so antiquated or nonstandard about the evidenced usage by the UK's national broadcasting organisation in the current year? I am sorry, but an opinionated editor going "oh, well, I think..." is just a waste of good electrons. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Great to have your opinion. Is it safe to say that this has never been discussed and therefore airships can be describes as "it", as cars, airplanes and motorcycles are, even though some sources still cling onto the "she" usage? I guess if it had been, somebody would have linked to it by now. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
The Huhsz To clarify: we have not established a consensus for changing things. While you may happily use "it" in articles which do not already use "she", where one does already use "she" you will need to conform to the language style of the article. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
No, that doesn't help, as this is not how it works. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_45&oldid=1137395987"