Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 49

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

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Categories nominated for renaming

The following categories have been nominated for renaming: Category:Gnome-Rhône aircraft engines, Category:General Electric aircraft engines, Category:Fiat aircraft engines and Category:Alfa Romeo aircraft engines. The rationale is that they do not contain the full title of their parent articles and 'must' be renamed. Wikipedia:Category names is a guideline, not a policy so there is no mandatory requirement to change anything. I opposed their speedy renaming and now they have moved to CfD. Two of these categories went through the same process in 2012 and were kept by consensus.

Although it seems a minor problem if left unopposed it would be very likely that hundreds of common sense named aviation-related categories will be nominated, causing unnecessary work at the very least. An example would be Category:Dornier aircraft being renamed to Category:Dornier Flugzeugwerke aircraft, many German manufacturer articles use 'Flugzeugwerke' and it is pure common sense and convenience (in my view) not to use it in category names. I'm quite baffled by these nominations and am worried that there will be many, many more in the future. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Snecma aircraft engines has also been nominated to be changed to Category:Safran aircraft engines (which does not align with the company article) and possibly to Category:Safran Aircraft Engines aircraft engines (the most 'correct' form!). This is clearly unworkable and daft, also wouldn't recognise SNECMA/snecma products as intended. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for these spots. Sometimes I despair of the average Wikipedia editor's sanity. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting at the nominations, I found them so baffling and annoying that I've mostly avoided the conversation there. I am concerned that the editors working in that department appear to be able to apply their preferred changes even against opposition which is against my understanding of how the 'speedy' system works (nominate for speedy, opposer removes the speedy tag and it goes to discussion/deletion if tag removal is opposed).

It is clear that there are many thousands of hastily conceived category titles and I have some empathy with what they are trying to achieve but the bottom line is they will never, ever arrive at the goal of perfection. It is also clear that many of the speedy nominations are not speedy at all. Only understanding that the wiki is imperfect, will never be finished and that some editors like to do things their own preferred way despite convention allows me to continue editing after such a long time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well keep posting notifications and we will see what can be done in each case. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Lucky that they were on my watchlist or I would have missed the speedy action, as they are now at CfD they should appear in the article alert system.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to report that the four categories proposed for renaming were closed by a non-admin as kept (no action). The Snecma category lost its speedy tag which was not contested. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Collaborative combat aircraft > Loyal wingman

There is a proposal to rename the Collaborative combat aircraft article to Loyal wingman. An alternative is to fork the article. Thoughts welcome at Talk:Collaborative combat aircraft#Proposed name change. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This has now stalled, with just two editors disagreeing. More contributors would be really helpful, thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Mil Mi-60

I've Proddded Mil Mi-60. Anyone interested in rescuing can remove the Prod, but please add reliable sources for notability as soon as possible. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Units conversion

I'd like to get some public input and hopefully set some guidelines on units to be used on aircraft pages. This has been discussed previously on aircraft specific pages like Talk:Airbus_A350#Units, but that doesn't feel like a broad enough venue for a discussion like this.

@Marc Lacoste has correctly pointed out that "in modern aviation, we use feet for altitude, knots for speed and nm for distance." No argument there.

However, outside of aviation professionals and enthusiasts, few people can visualize what a nautical mile or a knot is. The simple solution to this is to use Wikipedia's conversion templates.

Furthermore, I'd like to propose that we include conversions from nautical miles to both kilometers and statute miles and from knots to both kilometers per hour and statute miles per hour.

This would match the default output of Template:Aircraft specs and Template:Convert:

{{Convert|700|nmi}} → 700 nautical miles (1,300 km; 810 mi)

{{Cvt|700|nmi}} → 700 nmi (1,300 km; 810 mi)

{{Convert|700|kn}} → 700 knots (1,300 km/h; 810 mph)

{{Cvt|700|kn}} → 700 kn (1,300 km/h; 810 mph)

While SI units are used more broadly, most of our US readers and some from other nations probably only know statute miles, so I think including statute miles is necessary.

Therefore, I'd propose that we modify Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Units to read:

Units in specification tables and main article text should follow those used by the original manufacturer, with the exception that altitude should always be listed in feet, speed should always be listed in knots, and distance should always be listed in nautical miles.

Due to the complexity of some unit conversions, it is highly recommended to convert units using the {{Convert}} template. By default, the template will convert knots and nautical miles into both metric and imperial units. Editors should include both conversions. Alternatively, editors may specify both units in the template. Editors should not use the template to intentionally exclude metric or imperial units.

RickyCourtney (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ExcitedEngineer, @Fnlayson, @DeFacto, @Rosbif73, @Steelpillow, and @GregorB who all participated in the earlier conversation at the Airbus A350 page. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

There are practical difficulties here. When you read an aircraft specification in miles or mph, it may refer to nautical or statute miles; for example the British Army used to use statute miles because that's what they knew, while the Royal Navy used nautical miles for the same reason and in Naval speak "mph" means knots. They even labelled their flight instruments accordingly. Often one does not know which the manufacturer was citing, and often nor did the secondary or tertiary source one is referencing! Then again, many readers are not familiar with Imperial or US units and know only metric. So where a manufacturer gives the data in metric, it is unhelpful to mask it in another system and rely on the template to re-convert back correctly. A third issue is that some articles quote a lot of numbers, and converting them all to three sets of units just creates an unreadable number salad. Usually we give the units published by the manufacturer, and convert only between metric and Imperial/US. Yes I think it would be useful to expand that guide section, but only to add that last bit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

There's also the issue of precision and rounding. When a manufacturer quotes a value in two different units but the conversion does not quite match the results of the {{Convert}} template – due to rounding or to not knowing which was the "source" unit – we generally prefer to stick to the original source rather and hence not use the template. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback from both of you. I really do believe that, where possible, we should be offering conversions to from the less understood knots and nautical miles to both metric and imperial units. Many pages currently only offer conversions to metric only. I understand the concerns about creating a "number salad" but I do think for many readers, offering only the metric conversion is an unacceptable solution because it simply provides conversion into another unit system they don;t understand. The default on both Template:Aircraft specs and Template:Convert is to include both and I believe we should stick with that. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to convenience and clarity for the reader, the aviation publishing industry knows a thing or two. They often stick with just metric and/or UK/US, write "mph" for knots, and never ever give all three. Think of it as a global consensus among the readership, never mind industry-standard among professionals. Editorial opinion here is not going to change that, however passionately argued. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 00:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The aviation publishing industry isn't writing for the general public. Wikipedia is. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I have four shelves full of books and one of magazines, all written for the general public by specialist aviation publishers. Sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 01:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but my point is, the general public doesn't typically go out and purchase books and magazines from specialist aviation publishers, aviation enthusiasts like us do.

To restrict {{Convert}} to a single conversion, we have to override the default programming of the Wikipedia template. The specialized Aircraft specs template also defaults to showing a double conversion. You're saying we shouldn't follow these defaults? If so, shouldn't we be requesting changes to those widely used templates? RickyCourtney (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You are just playing with language; your uninterested "general public" does not read Wikipedia articles on aircraft either, while your "enthusiasts", who buy popular books and magazines on aircraft off the shelves of high-street newsagents, are also the ones who read these articles. The specs templates are something of a special case. In the main text it is best to avoid clutter, in the formal specs section it is better to give all three. I don't think there is a lot more worth saying now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 03:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I support all of RickyCourtney's points, particularly that the Aircraft Spec and generic convert templates default to double conversion, and that Wikipedia is written for a general audience. So far, the resistance to inclusion of miles seems simply to be based on ingrained habit and a bias toward specialist-talk, and not consideration of what is most useful and helpful to general readers. It actually takes a little more effort to exclude mi than to allow the templates to do what they're designed for--to include the spec. I don't suggest an urgent campaign to revise existing articles (though in the fullness of time it's not a bad goal), but I see no compelling reason to revert new edits that endeavor to improve an article's understandability to a broad audience. DonFB (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

All units can be used. Their selection is an editorial decision. There is an obvious consensus to keep NMI+KM. Adding SM would be a compromise between exhaustiveness and legibility. Adding SM can also be a cause of confusion. They could be used in specific cases in the text, when there is a useful comparison with some relevant metric, like ground transport distances. In specs tables, the extra space taken should be avoided. I would argue they should be dropped also from the specs templates. I think the current de facto consensus (no SM in text or in spec tables, SM in spec lists) is an OK compromise between both sides. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm focused on the Specifications section, in which a table was the site of multiple reversions, even though it contains plentiful space for SM and mph conversions in Range and Speed which would satisfy your unfulfilled claim that "All units can be used". You said "SM in spec lists" could be part of "an OK compromise between both sides", but the article shows no evidence of such a "compromise". DonFB (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Marc Lacoste on this All units can be used. Their selection is an editorial decision. Let's not take all the decision making away from the collaborative efforts of the editors. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see excluding SM in text or in spec tables, but keeping SM in spec lists as the result of some compromise. Double conversion is the default action of these templates. However, the convert template provides a relatively easy way to override its default output. The aircraft specs template provides no override. The way I see it, this current state of affairs exists because a group of passionate editors would prefer single conversion only, but they can’t force that output in the specs template. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

"The way I see it, this current state of affairs exists because a group of passionate editors would prefer single conversion only, but they can’t force that output in the specs template" - that sounds like flying close to limits of WP:AGF. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of my comment. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Grumman F3F

The Grumman F3F#Popular culture section is getting repeated additions of a non-notable game appearance by new accounts. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If there is a legitimate reason for an article on an aircraft type to have a 'popular culture' section at all, I can't think of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, but I agree with Andy. Such sections are generally avoided per WP:AIRPOP. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and two of the movies are already in the F3F in the Aircraft in fiction. I'm all for moving the third one there, and let that article deal with the gamecruft. I just didn't want to do it without discussion. BilCat (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Time for the banhammer to come down. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. I also wonder whether these new SPAs should be investigated for socking (cast in order of appearance)?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, the Aerial Visuals Airframe Dossier] web site is extensively cited. This is a crowdsourced site with users able to register an account and edit it themselves. As such it is not a reliable source and should not be cited. Use on Wikipedia appears to infect around 100 or so articles, so does anybody object if I add the site to our list of questionable sources? Or do we have enough examples there already? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

If it's being used by that many articles, it's probably worth adding to the list. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-30MKA

A new article has been created on the Sukhoi Su-30MKA. The text was largely copied from Sukhoi Su-30MKI and it needs a lot of work, but I'm not sure the MKA meets WP:AIR/N's notability guidelines for variants. Any thoughts? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like we have at least 4 Sukhoi Su-30 variant articles now: Sukhoi Su-30MKI,Sukhoi Su-30MKK,Sukhoi Su-30MKM, and Sukhoi Su-30MKA. It'd be difficult to justify getting rid of one but not the others. An alternative might be to create a List of Sukhoi Su-30 variants article, and merge them all into that. BilCat (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against a variants article. In fact, several members of the Su-27 family might benefit from a separate variants article. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

New article Aviate, Navigate, Communicate

A discussion is underway at Talk:Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, as to whether this is a suitable encyclopedic subject or whether it is more a flight training "how to" item. Input on this discussion would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Editors can note the talk page consensus was to merge and redirect this to Airmanship and this has been carried out. - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

List format for the Stealth aircraft article

There is a disagreement about the best format for the list of stealth aircraft in this article. Contributions would be welcome to the discussion at Talk:Stealth aircraft#List format. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on the Merger of Infobox Aircraft Engine into Infobox Aircraft

Dear editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to draw your attention to an important ongoing discussion regarding the potential merger of {{Infobox aircraft engine}} into {{Infobox aircraft}}. While a previous merger discussion resulted in the merger of this Infobox, there have been concerns raised about merging an Infobox related to engines with a Infobox about aircraft.

I would like to invite all interested and willing editors to participate in the ongoing discussion and lend their expertise to help us reach a conclusion that ultimately results in the successful completion of the merger. Your valuable contributions are greatly appreciated. Prarambh20 (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Another subject of Petebutts work to be fixed

On Supermarine Seafire he changed the specs from LF Mk III to F Mk III in June 2019 using some suspect data like max speed at 36k which is highly doubtful. Might be just a typo and just 3.6 was meant. I dont have sources to verify this data. Denniss (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The specifications (mainly) matched what is given in the Reliable Source cited (i.e. Andrews & Morgan) in particularly that is what is says for the speed - I've trimmed it back to what A&M says and removed the non-RS's from the specs.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That source may need some double-checking with other known good sources. All I have is a 6/44 Seafire I-III pilot notes which has F. Mark III with Merlin 55 (non-M) and only the LF./FR. Mark III with Merlin 32/55M. Supermarine_Spitfire_variants:_specifications,_performance_and_armament

has more reasonable performance figures for the Seafire LF. Mk III with Merlin 55M, standard 55 is said to have full power at slightly below 10k ft so I can't see how a F.III have that max speed at 36k. surely not with a 55M. Denniss (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on units conversion on aircraft pages

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to use both kilometers and statute miles when converting units from nautical miles. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

When converting units from nautical miles, should we convert to both kilometers and statute miles? Currently many pages show kilometers alone. --RickyCourtney (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Support as nom. This is the default output of this project's Template:Aircraft specs and Template:Convert: {{Convert|700|nmi}} → 700 nautical miles (1,300 km; 810 mi) -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Isn't calling people outside the aviation project akin to Wikipedia:Canvassing? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No. The RfC is one Wikipedia's accepted and recommended processes for dispute resolution. I have not notified any specific editors of this discussion in an effort to not influence the outcome of this discussion. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The RFC process isn't the point, but calling editors outside the aviation project is.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: Wikipedia is probably the only encyclopedia in existence where crowdsourced consensus gets to override subject matter expertise. We suffer the same curse as social media. Having said that, there is no expert consensus on how this matter should be handled; you can find different sources taking different approaches, and that is reflected among our own experts here. So whatever our editorial crowd agree will not be "wrong", just annoying to the likes of you and I. C'est la vie. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

😂 --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No duplication. It depends on the significance and usage of the aircraft concerned. For example during the interwar period, if it was designed for the Royal Navy then statute miles have no relevance, however if it was built for the Royal Air Force then nautical miles have little or no relevance. We should stick to the units used during the type's operational lifetime and not distract our readers with misleading factoids just because we can. On the other hand, some types had variants operated by both services, and spec sheets need to be treated with great caution, as "miles" (unqualified) for an overtly Naval variant would have indicated Nautical miles. Similarly with knots as nautical "mph". For example the airspeed indicator of the RAF variant would be graduated in statute mph but that of the Naval variant would be graduated in knots, and the documentation would reflect that. Not all sources are aware of such niceties, and some deliberately convert in retrospect. In editing the relevant article, there may be times when giving both kinds of mile/mph as well as km/kph is appropriate, but even here anything related to a sub-variant should leave out any irrelevant unit. Thus, for nm and knots, the default should be to omit statute units, with the option to add them if need be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - This is an editorial decision to be made by editors depending on the context. Having 3 conversions can be unwieldy. For commercial aircraft, the industry practice is to show distances in nmi, with a km conversion. smi are avoided to prevent confusion. Cheers, --Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Support - As a generalist, non-specialist publication, Wikipedia should be be accessible to readers with less than perfect technical knowledge. This is the way the convert templates work, so in most situations we should leave them as-is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilCat (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Support per BilCat. Nautical miles and knots are simply meaningless to about 99.9% of our readers. This discussion is akin to asking if we should provide both metres and feet when converting from cubits (the only difference being that cubits no longer have any specialized use, that I know of). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Support per BilCat. Wikipedia articles are written for the general reader (or should be), and many will not be familiar with nautical miles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Support - As BilCat said, the average reader probably is not familiar with nautical miles. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Support for the specific question of converting from nmi. However, this begs the question of what we should do when converting from a source in km. The default output of the convert template is to give statute miles only, yet nautical miles remain widespread in the industry and will be expected by some readers (a small but significant minority) more familiar with the field... Rosbif73 (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't imagine not converting km to nmi.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I can. Most casual readers are familiar with the local distance unit speed units - km or (statute) miles and km/h mph - converting into those units from nmi/knots makes a lot of sense for them to have something to compare their experiences to. And in some contexts in articles converting from those units to nmi/knots may be appropriate (eg where a comparison is made) but not all. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Who are these numbers really for? I would suggest that the only readers who care a damn about them will be the more informed ones expecting them to relate to industry norms. Everybody else would be just as happy with smiley emoticons depicting poo, sleep and Superman. Seriously, how many of those who voted for loadsa numbers genuinely know nothing of nm or kt yet still want to visualise speeds with exact values? For example a physics article giving energy levels in eV will not duplicate them all in the more familiar calories. In Astronomy we don't say "oh, readers can't visualise lightyears or parsecs so we'll duplicate everything in km." Why are aeroplanes so different? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

What an utterly absurd argument. Non-aviation-expert people travel in aircraft all the time. Why the heck shouldn't the performance of aircraft be described in commonly-understood units in an encyclopaedia aimed at the general public? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your support, but can't we be a bit more civil about this? - ZLEA _T\^C 15:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - I feel the two most relevant distance measures should be listed in the aircraft specs to not provide excess unit data, but I am OK with listing all three (km, mi, nmi) for consistency. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Support - This is a convenience factor to aid in understanding for the average reader, and different readers will have different needs. Including both km mi would not be onerous or overly cluttering. Fieari (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trevor Jacob plane crash

This is a new article, but seems to just be a WP:CONTENTFORK, though, duplicating Trevor Jacob. I have started a discussion at Talk:Trevor Jacob plane crash on redirecting it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Editors can note this went to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Jacob plane crash and was merged into Trevor Jacob and then redirected. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of United Airlines Flight 1722

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/United Airlines Flight 1722. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

AFD consensus was to delete. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox refactor proposal - An alternative approach

Hi folks -- before proceeding with the Infobox merge, I suggest we take a step back to take a look at the kinds of information that these Infoboxes contain. I'm suggesting a more nuanced, two-step approach and would love your comments and suggestions please. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Herding cats

Some new categories are popping up, such as Category:Five-engined jet aircraft, Category:Nine-engined jet aircraft, and Category:Fourteen-engined jet aircraft. I'm not sure on the usefulness of these particular categories, but then I rarely find categories to be useful at all. BilCat (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a single category for aircraft with more than four engines might be useful? The is little point in categories with only a single member. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:SMALLCAT does say "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". I'd say lumping jets with more than eg six jet engines together fulfils both avoiding cats with only a couple of members and continuing the sub-categorising scheme.GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

These clearly fail WP:SMALLCAT. Yes we are getting more and more types with these funny numbers, but the days of the multi-jet are past. We are also getting slightly more general categories, such as Category:Nine-engined aircraft, which includes the jets as a sub-category, along with just one additional listing. With the steady rise of electric-powered multi-rotor VTOL and/or distributed propulsion types, some of these do have potential for growth. But, since we also have an overall Category:Multi-engine aircraft to hold the outliers, I'd suggest that even here we do not keep categories unless and until they have a significant and growing presence in aviation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Supermarine Type 391

There is a deletion discussion about this obscure proposal at Talk:Supermarine Seafang#Type 391: split off or delete?. It is currently described in a short section at Supermarine Seafang#Type 391. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Formatting the list of electric aircraft

There are some discussions at Talk:List of electric aircraft. More voices appreciated, as we have a budding edit warrior ignoring WP:BRD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Autonomous air taxis

What role should we classify autonomous air taxies in? There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#Autonomous_air_taxis. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sonex Electric Sport Aircraft

The Sonex Electric Sport Aircraft (ESA) was a minor project that went nowhere. The thing never flew. Should this article be put up for deletion, and/or merging back into the Sonex Aircraft parent article? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep - We do normally keep articles on failed projects from established manufacturers and this one does meet WP:GNG as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

New article needs help

Stumbled across A W Hawksley Ltd just now as it was formatted as an external link in Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle. Currently up for speedy deletion as not notable. I would guess the company/subsidiary is notable but don't have any sources. I would be happy to 'wikify' the article if solid paper sources were added and the prod removed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It's already gone. Best to challenge a PROD immediately, if you have doubts. If we find good sources, we'd have to get it resurrected from the appropriate cache, but I believe that option times out in fairly short order. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I opened the article's talk page and noted that assistance had been requested here, poor show that the deleting admin ignored it. I couldn't contest it without sources. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The company looks to be more notable for its aluminium prefab houses. See for example Prefabs_in_the_United_Kingdom#Hawksley. A quick web search finds plenty of mentions, but nothing substantial enough to confidently meet WP:GNG - there might well be something more substantial in the linked article's sources. You might want to poke the deleting admin and see if they will reinstate it in say Draft space, give us a chance to at least recover what was there before. Sorry I can't spend longer on this. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a Piper PA-34 Seneca

A new editor recently pointed out that a Commons file named as a three view of a Piper PA-34 Seneca, is in fact not a Piper PA-34 Seneca at all, for some very valid reasons he goes into there. As a result, I have removed the image from the Piper PA-34 Seneca article. I am fairly sure it is actually a misnamed drawing of a Cessna 402C, as per the photo at the right. I can rename it over on Commons (I have super powers there) but first I wanted to get some input from editors here on whether they think it is indeed a Cessna 402C or something else entirely. Your opinions are solicited here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The drawing does indeed appear to be of a Cessna 402, even down to details such as the control surface hinges. I support the move. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the image from the German article as well. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur that it looks like a Cessna 402. One must have been derived from the other. (See the Beechcraft Denali article's recent history for an explanation.) BilCat (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, lacking any other input I will go ahead and move it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

If I was shown the 3-view line drawing we see here, and was asked “What aircraft type is it?” I would reply instantly, saying “400 series Cessna. No question about it!” Dolphin (t) 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That was my response, too. My first guess was 421 and second was 402 and there it was, all the field marks matched. It is good to have others here who agree, though, gave me the confidence to move it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Sriwijaya Air Flight 182 infobox summary

Hey there. I'm looking to maybe find more diverse opinions on a discussion I and others have on Talk:Sriwijaya Air Flight 182 ""Summary" in infobox" section. Pinging Saschaporsche, Ahunt, Carguychris, and Maungapohatu as participants of the thread.

The problem concerns the "Summary" section of the infobox of Sriwijaya Air Flight 182; the summary is "Autothrottle failure". However, some argued that this is oversimplifying the accident as there are other aspects in play, most notably the lack of pilot training in handling the situation they faced. Thus, it was suggested that it be included, alongside the fact that it lost control. I made a lengthy argument in favor of this and suggested "Loss of control due to autothrottle failure and lack of pilot training", citing several good aviaton accident articles with similar summaries. Saschaporsche shortened their suggestion to "Loss of control due to autothrottle failure", which I now prefer seeing articles like Aeroflot Flight 593.

Those against lengthening argued that it is cherrypicking the final report ("Accident causes are often several and complex: they should be left for the article body"), which is detrimental for the article's neutrality. Ahunt argued that the main problem is with the autothrottle, but that "there were complex and longstanding maintenance issues, a suspected erroneous spoiler sensor, damaged spoiler linkage or improperly rigged sensor, inadequate pilot training leading to a sub-standard flight crew reaction and subsequent handling and finally a widespread culture issue at the airline, including a failure of the Quality, Safety and Security Department." To just pick one of these complexities is wrong, because they all have equal significance.

Fearing that our argument will just loop with no ends, I've decided to ask you guys here if a consensus can be better achieved here. Thanks, Gerald WL 04:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting as background to any discussion here that the documentation for the infobox in question Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence says for the summary: Brief summary of the occurrence. State the fate of the aircraft, if not obvious from the title (e.g. crashed, disappeared etc) and any relevant circumstances. Accident causes are often several and complex: they should be left for the article body. Cherry-picking some of them for the summary (e.g. pilot error) is likely to breach neutrality. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Keeping that in mind, the current summary—autothrottle failure—is not a summary of the fate of the aircraft but is in fact a "cherry-picked" cause. A legitimate and simple summary that does not address causation at all would be crashed following loss of control. Carguychris (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that autothrottle belongs in the "relevant circumstances" part, then "Loss of control" concerning the fate. Gerald WL 03:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Deprecating Template:Aircraft infobox

There is a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_aircraft_begin#Merger_and_deprecation, to which anybody who uses these infobox templates is invited to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

AfD for the List of large aircraft

There is a deletion discussion for the List of large aircraft at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of large aircraft (2nd nomination). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Create new aircraft flown for the first time in X page

Hello, I’ve added the category ‘Aircraft first flown in 1890’ to the Ader_Éole page, but I’m at lost to properly create the category page and link it to all other related categories. Jokairr (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The Éole did not fly. Ader's claims about the later Avion series are known to have been false, so we can't believe his word on the Eole either - and we have nobody else's to confirm anything more than a short, unsustained hop in ground effect. I have reverted your category addition. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast answer. Since there are valid sources stating it did fly, (for example included in the french version of the page), shouldn’t at least be stated it is disputed according to wikipedia neutrality policy? I would have thought of including in its category with an explanation stating its disputed status. But I’m not a seasoned editor Jokairr (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no dispute among reliable sources; none state that it actually flew. The French Wikipedia is no more reliable a source than we are. Genuine historians note the claims and contemporary controversy as fraudulent, give the backstory on how the Avion fraud was exposed by the French military, and there it stops. We follow their lead, per WP:PROPORTION giving it the minor place in history that they do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

An-225 article tense?

An IP user has been changing wording to past tense in Antonov An-225 Mriya today. This seems to be overly focused on the one fully completed An-225 [to me at least] that was later destroyed in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Aircraft articles are usually supposed to be about the type unless a specific and noteworthy example is covered. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no complete airframe, that now lies in the past. Looking through a random sample of articles, we do tend to describe such types in the past tense. Even where a type remains current, much of the design remains in the past tense and only remarks referring to their current status are in the present. Most of the IP edits appear to be conforming to this. I am not sure I agree with this approach in general, so if you know of counter-examples, maybe we could widen this discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The Mriya is a slightly odd case as there do seem to be plans to complete another example (whether they are credible or not is a different matter). We say "is" if the project is still ongoing and nothing has flown (such as Aeralis Advanced Jet Trainer), or if a prototype has flown and crashed but the project continues (the Ilyushin Il-112 for example) so the appropriate question is whether the Mriya is still a credible ongoing project.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

When is a project not a project? We can certainly say that there are plans or proposals to finish building it, or to cut'n'shut one flyable plane from the two. But as you point out, a project is something ongoing, a process. I am not sure we could call it that unless RS can show that Anotonov are actively working on such ideas, and not just announcing plans to. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I realize there is no other An-225 completed. I asked because the article covers both the completed An-225 and the aircraft type. But that's a minor point. So nevermind. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I addressed how we treat types in my previous remark. Nevermind

. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Category discussion about Russian/Soviet aircraft involving a template

Please check this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That was relisted and closed per nom here (1920s, see below it for similar 1990s nomination).

Please also see the precursor nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_15#Category:Soviet_and_Russian_military_aircraft.

I have left redirects at the old 1920s & 1990s sub-category names, and inserted {{resolve category redirect}} into {{Airnt}}, {{Airntd}} and {{Milairnd}}. These mostly work as desired, although Category:1990s Russian military reconnaissance aircraft gets a double hit in the decade table (because in that case "Soviet and Russian" redirects to Russian rather than to Soviet).

I think is it advisable to continue the splitting/renaming process with all "Soviet and Russian" military aircraft sub-cats, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_13#Soviet_and_Russian_military_aircraft_(3).

I have not investigated whether the orignal rationale applies likewise to Category:Soviet and Russian civil aircraft & its subcats. If not, I think that rules out simplifying the templates or deleting the redirects. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

List of military transport aircraft

We have an edit warrior at List of military transport aircraft. More eyes would be welcome, in case they continue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

MiG-15 or MiG-17 or MiG-19?

Dear all, after a falsely attributed photo was discovered at Talk:Somaliland War of Independence I have discovered on pprune.org a description of Operation Vigour, a series of relief flights by the Lyneham Wing into Somalia in 1992.

Would some of our Soviet aircraft experts look through the photos on the thread ([1]) and close photo at [2]) and tell me whether they think this is a MiG-15, a -17 or a MiG-19? (of Somali Air Force)

Many thanks to all, kind regards, Happy New Year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Buckshot06 Both photos are almost definitely of MiG-19s. The first photo is not very clear, but the MiG-19's distinctive tail can be made out. Take a look at the main images of the MiG-15 and MiG-17 articles, which show that both aircraft have a cruciform tail and lack a dorsal fillet, giving the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer an straight appearance. Compare that with the MiG-19's conventional tail and further-swept vertical stabilizer with a dorsal fillet, giving the leading edge a cranked appearance. The second photo clearly shows the MiG-19's single large wing fence, whereas the MiG-15 had two small fences and the MiG-17 had three. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers ZLEA!! Thanks!! Now Somali Air Force#Dissolution says that the MiG-19s in question were actually Shenyang J-6s. I assume that there are no substantial technical differences between a Shenyang J-6 and a MiG-19.. correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how the MiG-19 and J-6 can be visually differentiated, but the tail and wing fences appear identical. Interestingly, I recently learned that the MiG-15bis and J-2 (both built by Mikoyan-Gurevich) have some poorly-documented differences. The most obvious difference that I experienced first-hand when sitting in the cockpit of this aircraft is that the seat was raised as Chinese pilots were on average shorter than Russian pilots. Apparently there is also a minor difference in the tail assembly, but the museum staff was unable to point it out as the museum's aircraft is only a fuselage. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers ZLEA!! Many thanks!! If I can slip into the lingo, happy landings.. and watch your six :) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

737 Max details in Boeing corp article

There's a discussion between a user and I at Talk:Boeing#Discovery of door plug... (debris on ground) about whether accident details belong in Boeing article. More input is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here. Not your lucky day - it is in fact a door plug (see cites in said discussion). A plug door is shaped to press more firmly into the frame; had this been one, it could not have blown out. Both get fitted to planes, so it's a real trainspOtter's call; took me a good few minutes to get there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

My post was about debris on the ground. This does not belong in the corporate article (see Discovery of door plug, mobile phones... section). That info belongs in an accident article instead. The text about bolts on the ground is relevant since that is related to the plug type. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, uh, riiight. Silly me. Now responded. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DFS 40

The article DFS 40 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wholly unreferenced since created 19.93 years ago, including the infobox fan-art.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find any sources for it in my university's library. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It features in Alexander Lippisch's book, pages 43-44. I saw the prod as well, the German wiki article lists about six sources. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a brief mention in Jeff Ethell's Komet - which I've added to the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Added a couple of other sources. There is another passing mention in Bill Rose Flying Wings and Tailless Aircraft. It can be a problem finding cites for these propeller or glider Lippisch research planes, as most sources focus on the rockets/jets. His German-language books are your best bet: I just dipped into one of them, will try to take a longer look at some point. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Spacecraft article naming - help request

Although spacecraft aren't aircraft, I'm soliciting assistance from project members at Talk:Nova-C#Proposal:_rename_to_"Intuitive_Machines_Nova-C" since many here have considerable experience with proper naming conventions and procedures. (It's been awhile since I've moved an article....) Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 23:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Turkish enthusiasm

There has been a rash of Turkish fan/nationalist editing in the last couple of days, especially at Fifth-generation fighter. Nothing wrong with that as such, but they are frequently breaching Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eyes welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

And now edit warring at Fifth-generation fighter. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

German aircraft nomenclature

A user (User:Troy von Tempest) is mass editing articles on German 1930s–40s aircraft to eliminate the space between model number and variant letter - claiming "German aircraft nomenclature dictated no space in between aircraft model number and variants" - e.g. [3]. They reinstate their preferred verion when reverted and raised a Teahouse discussion (Wikipedia:Teahouse#Henschel_Hs_129_and_others) to defend their edits. That discussion didn't come to a conclusion (which is unsurprising as the Teahouse isn't the place for that sort of discussion), but other editors did point out what appeared to be official RLM documents - i.e. aircraft manuals etc - which used the opposite way of presenting the designation. I'm starting a discussion here to try to obtain some sort of consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

As stated in Teahouse discussion many books (user is referring to multiple books having no spaces) simplit omit the spaces because authors/editors don't know or don't care. Or simply for layout reasons. Primary sources like Luftwaffe manuals always show these spaces. --Denniss (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Aircraft registrations are having italics removed by the same user, it has been my understanding for many years that aircraft registrations are classed as an aircraft's unique name and are treated the same as ships and aircraft names, MOS:NAMESANDTITLES supports this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

On the model-variant format, people in wartime generally had better things to worry about than spaces within designations. Many contemporary documents show a general disregard for consistency, with different offices or even typists each doing their own thing. It is common enough for modern works, e.g. William Green in Warplanes of the Third Reich, to omit spaces, while others such as Dan Sharp in his Secret Projects series include them. Both are common enough. For a general encyclopedia which follows mainstream practice, it is thus a subjective editorial issue.

On the registrations typography, it is unusual for published works to italicise them. Names yes, registrations no. I never do, here or anywhere else. If Wikipedia has a consensus to do so then perhaps it should be challenged.

Sorry to be a bit of a wet blanket. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Steelpillow, what I can say is regarding modern works, most of my books use the model-variant format that seems to upset Denniss so much. I just ask why there is no consistency on Wikipedia regarding that. If Denniss really feels this strongly about it, which apparently he/she does, why doesn't he/she go and edit out all the errors on all the other pages, instead of just the ones I edit? How do he/she explain that often, within the same article, often within a line or two, both formats are in place? Why does Denniss not do something about those? He/she only seems motivated to do something when I'm concerned Troy von Tempest (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding italics for radio codes, if you are of the opinion that they should always have italics, why don't you go and edit the hundreds of examples in Wikipedia that do not have italics. I suggest that the majority of articles do not use italics, so where is the consistency here? Troy von Tempest (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Denniss has reversed all my edits in the Dornier Do 217 article, yet has left many examples in the article that are, according to him/her, incorrect. Why is it ok for an editor to claim I'm mistaken, reverse all my edits, yet "overlook" the many examples of "incorrect" nomenclature that still exist within this article? How can he/she allow this to be? Where is the consistency here? Within the same article! Why didn't he/she correct these other "mistakes" months or years ago? Or when he/she reversed my edits? In all good faith, how is it possible for him/her to not care what other contributors have done in this and other article, for years, yet pounce immediately I do it? Surely it's all or nothing? Otherwise it appears to me that he/she is only bothering to impose his/her opinion when I am the subject. Everyone else gets a free pass Troy von Tempest (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The wider behaviour of another editor is not relevant to article talk pages. Suffice to say that you should always WP:assume good faith; the WP:BRD (Be Bold - Revert - Discuss) advice offers ways through the issue, and the user's talk page is a good place to make polite contact. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency within articles and comparison with other articles is a result of editors 'doing their own thing'. We have policies and guidelines but it's human nature not to follow them. I could spend a working week (40 manhours) ensuring all German WWII aircraft articles have spaces in their designations only to be followed by another editor proclaiming that the spaces are 100% incorrect and removing them. This cycle is similar to painting the Forth Bridge.

There are approximately 21,000 aircraft type articles, not even a team of editors working together can align them all. The only hope is that there is an unwritten rule that long established conventions are respected by editors for the sake of article and project stability. It seems clear that these aircraft articles had spaces in the designations and were stable, to determine how many were using spaces and how many were not would involve a long winded survey by many editors, very possibly coming to the conclusion that the majority were using spaces (i.e. what was suspected anyway). The existence of the official flight manuals is being ignored, imagine a reader posting on this or an article's talk page to ask why an article disagrees with an official source, in many cases where this happens I refer them to the editor who added the disagreement. Consensus is the guideline being ignored here.

Not so long ago all the Breguet article titles were changed to Bréguet by one editor on the strength of one vintage postcard. It's odd that none of the French articles including the founder don't follow this format. Of the 18 different language articles listed in the company article Wikidata entry only the English Wikipedia uses the diacritic format.

'Most of my books' is not compelling evidence to change an established convention but is better than one postcard I suppose. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is essential for an Encyclopedia to use the correct official form of designation and I feel the flight manuals referred to earlier are proof positive that there should be a space between the model number and variant. I suspect many books omitting it is due to American bias as their aircraft are always in the form P-51A etc. I do not think it would be a large task utilising AWB to ensure all mentions in articles of German aircraft conform to the correct format. A few years back I ran AWB to ensure that there was a space between the manufacturer and model number and to correct Me to Bf when appropriate plus wrong capitalisation HS, BF etc. Happy to work on this if consensus is achieved that it should be done Lyndaship (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

DC-10 Twin article

A new article, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Twin was created on Jan. 30, 2024. I checked my copy of the Douglas Jetliners book and it does not mention the DC-10 Twin anywhere. So I had to remove that source and tag the text. If you have other sources try to help where you can. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

From the article, it looks like a design study that was dropped without being built - similar to the 3 engine 747 by Boeing that also never flew. Perhaps include it in the history/development section of the main DC-10 article. Not really noteworthy enough for its own article. Stepho talk 04:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good plan. I have no real preference here. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely merge across. It wasn't even a single study, just something that fell out of a few proposals down the line. So it should be merged across in bits, wherever appropriate, and not even as a coherent section. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I just merged the Twin article a few minutes ago. This article was a stub with the same coverage as the section in the main McDonnell Douglas DC-10 article. Thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox in jet fighter generation articles

There is a discussion at Talk:Fifth-generation_fighter#Infobox_type about including Template:Infobox aircraft type in generic articles on the various jet fighter generations. All comments much appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

More input still needed to resolve the issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of David Irving as a source

I've started a discussion on the use of David Irving's The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe in the Dornier Do 19 and Junkers Ju 89 articles at WP:RSN - here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Aero Vodochody aircraft names

Hi all, I noticed what I believe to be an issue with the naming of this particular Czech manufacturers planes:

Category:Aero Vodochody aircraft

Example:

English Wiki: Aero A.29

Czech Wiki: Aero A-29

Note the difference: A.29 vs A-29

Numerous aircraft for this manufacturer on the English Wiki seem to have a dot instead of a dash in their name.

The Main article for the manufacturer uses this dash in the naming, in addition to more modern aircraft.

I believe this to simply be either typos or an issue with mass translation from the Czech Wiki. Also, this archived history page from the company itself uses the dash instead of the dot in reference to it's older planes (note particularly the reference to the A-10 which is referenced here on English Wiki as A.10)

If no one is opposed I'd like to fix this across all the pages I can find, in addition to hopefully finding more sources to add to the individual pages.

Just wanted to get opinions and/or blessings to undertake this, and to make it known that I'm not a vandal or anything if I start making tons of title changes to these pages. LiterallyDavidBowie (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking in some contemporary coverage in Flight, in the interwar period, the full stop version seems to be used. eg "Aero.23 commercial biplane" ^[1] though post WWII, in same publication the hyphen style is used, as in Aero L-29 Delfín. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this whole issue is related to how these things were referred to historically, maybe it was more common during the time period to use the dots for naming of things like this. I am seeing that in this image of an A-12 (A.12? A12?) that the dot notation is used on the side of the plane.

I guess that begs the question as to whether the article titles should reflect the naming of the time (as they potentially do now), or more modern naming schemes (which the manufacturer seems to employ when referring to these older aircraft).

It also begs the question whether it matters at all, but this is what has caught my attention for the time being so eh. LiterallyDavidBowie (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Here in the contemporary Czechoslovak magazine Letectví - "Aero A42", but "A-42" here and here the magazine uses "AP-42" and "A.P.42" on the same page - and that's all in the same issue. So usage does not seem to be consistent.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, obviously dot vs dash doesn't make a huge difference either way, and from what I've just seen in day to day life people tend to omit dashes frequently from product names like this as well. I just figured it might be worth standardizing, especially since some of the Wiki articles make use of both just like the magazine does. Aero A.10 uses A.10 in the text, but the image is referred to as A-10. I could see how someone might get confused (as I did) as to whether A.10 and A-10 are two different things. LiterallyDavidBowie (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this could simply be solved by notes on each article saying something to the effect of "(also referred to as A-10)" and leaving it at that, potentially less disruptive LiterallyDavidBowie (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Consistency within an article makes obvious sense. Consistency across a manufacturer also makes sense. Wider enforcement, not so much. See my previous post below, which really belongs above these latest comments. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Often the format is decided by the publication's editorial policy rather than one being more or less correct than another. I seem to recall that someone on the English Wikipedia pushed a "policy" to standardise on the dot separator. But I am not aware of any real consensus to do so, and it makes a mockery of say de Havilland types, where DH 100 or D.H.100 are at least as common in RS as DH.100. I do think it looks messy if we are inconsistent for a given manufacturer. Personally I try to use the historical form adopted by them in their product literature, but without gratuitous periods - i.e. as DH 100. I would have no problem with using the hyphen for all Aero types. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

^ issue of 5 July 1928

Images on list of aircraft, etc.

Lists of aircraft used to have images of each aircraft in the list. [4] Back in 2015, 4 people voted to get rid of them and 1 said to keep them. I want to have a discussion with more people noticing and participating. Does having images of things not aid in understanding them? List of famous buildings usually have a picture of the buildings such as List_of_Ancient_Greek_temples#List. Same with list of famous people. I don't see why any list about anything wouldn't have pictures. List of sport utility vehicles and many other lists of civilian vehicles have images in their lists. Should they have them but not lists for military vehicles? Dream Focus 00:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Pls don't add hundreds of photos to one article....let's ensure that articles are accessible for all readers not just those with the latest technology and best bandwidth. Pls review MOS:ACCIM #5.Moxy🍁 00:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

In modern times, how many English speaking people using the English language Wikipedia, don't have fast enough bandwidth to load this? Has anyone done a test anywhere? Should some list articles have images and not others? Those with slow bandwidth could easily set it in their browser to not automatically load up images. Dream Focus 00:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The needs of the many seem to outweigh the needs of the few when it comes to accessibility here. It's a known software concern MediaWiki:Limit number of images in a page. Not sure how making articles non accessible to some readers is helpful in any manner. ...... That said..... many many pages have image overload of this nature that people have agreed to.Moxy🍁 00:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We really ought to have clear, project wide standards about how many images are too many in a list article, as opposed to local consensus placing a restriction in one topic area. I lack the technical expertise to make a recommendation but I simply want to know. Is 100 images in a list article OK? Is 1000 images too many? Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

1000 is a hard technical upper limit. The MediaWiki link Moxy provided says 100 should be the upper limit, although I'm unfamiliar with how that number was determined. CMD (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The advice to limit pages to no more than 100 images dates to 2018. We've changed default skins since then. Is that advice still current? Schierbecker (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jon (WMF) will know if there is anything skin-specific about the number of images, but I suspect that the number of readers on mobile (two-thirds of all page views) will be far more relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any value in a project-wide consenus on numbers. That's not an aviation issue, it's a wiki-wide issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"In modern times, how many English speaking people using the English language Wikipedia, don't have fast enough bandwidth to load this?" - me. I live in the United Kingdom. The local broadband provider manages a massive 4Mb/s. While cities and large towns are well served, many rural areas still have ADSL at about 1-2 Mb/s and no 4G signal. Wikipedia should try and be inclusive. MarcGarver (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the conversation has shifted over to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Should_list_articles_have_images, instead of them coming here to join in. Dream Focus 09:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
That discussion is moving heavily in favour of whatever works best for the list. Speaking as one of the unspeakably demonic gang of four, I am pretty much with Moxy on this: images clutter up the screen, the bandwidth, and the renderings presented via assistive tech. They should only be added in quantity if there is good reason to override that. For example a local consensus was established to add them to the list of X-planes, and I believe that WikiProject Airlines and the like have their own local habits. The problem we faced was endless fancruft which did nothing for readability or comprehension; the default of requiring local consensus was designed to help put a brake on it. I do not see sufficient enthusiasm for images here, to change that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
IMO, the current discussion is being blown out of proportion compared to what was discussed nine years ago. The original discussion did not oppose the inclusion of images in list-type articles. Instead, it was discussing about inclusion of images within tables listing aircraft used by different air forces, whether in articles dedicated to specific air forces or in lists of aircraft belonging to those air forces. Ultimately, that conversation led to the conclusion that images should not be included in those tables. The reasons for not including images during that discussion, such as:

Many aircraft lack appropriate images or have images for the wrong air force, resulting in blanks or incorrect photos. This is exemplified here, where the list article pertains to US military aircraft, yet features images of aircraft not employed by the US military.
Images vary in size, disrupting the formatting of tables.
The primary purpose of the table is to provide information, not serve as a gallery. Platforms like Wikimedia are better suited for galleries.
Images consume significant space, potentially making even short lists difficult to manage.
Images within tables may appear too small to view properly on smaller screens like cell phones.
Interested individuals can already access images through links to each aircraft's respective page.

I think those reasons remain relevant today. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

1. If something is wrong, then fix it by normal editing. If you can't find a picture for one aircraft, that's not reason to remove images for all of them.

2. You can set them to load up the same standard size.

3. Seeing what they look like gives more information to most people than just looking at stat numbers.

4. If you internet is slow, turn off the automatic loading of images. Anyone can look up how to do that in a search engine, or just look around their settings in their browser.

5. How many people view articles like this on their cell phones? Once again, just change a setting so you don't load up images.

6. They can also access all the stats for them, what's your point?

Also this conversation should be in one place. I thought those at the Village Pump would come here, but instead they are focusing the conversation over there, so might as well keep it there. Any reason for having or not having them in a list article for military vehicles, is the same for civilian vehicles, buildings, people, etc. So that would be the best place to discuss it. Dream Focus 03:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

1. That issue serves as just one illustration based on the example article you provided. Many aircraft lack appropriate images or have images for the wrong air force, resulting in blanks or incorrect photos.

3. Wikipedia is not an image repository.

4,5,6. One of WP:Guideline is WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and those points are intended to address accessibility.

I also have put my comment on Village pump. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

List of Piper Aircraft

I was thinking of splitting the list of Piper Aircraft from the Piper Aircraft article so that it is identical to Beechcraft and Cessna, which have separate articles for their aircraft. (All three lists are roughly the same size, so even without the the "Big 3" comparison it seems they should be treated the same way.) However, I realized maybe it was better to instead merge the Beechcraft and Cessna lists back into their respective articles. What do you guys think? The one benefit I have found for separate articles is that it allows the aircraft/products section in the main article to focus on only the aircraft the company is currently producing. However, I don't know whether this is a distinction worth preserving. –Noha307 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see much of a benefit to merging the lists to their respective articles. Especially in the case of Beechcraft, where the list of aircraft models is longer than the company's article itself, it would, in my opinion, result in a disproportionally large chunk of the article being a list of the company's aircraft rather than the company's history. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of VanGrunsven RV-2

Folks here might like to weigh in on this AfD. If it does go, I'll be sad: I certainly learned something about a Van's design that I didn't know about before! Maybe someone here with more knowledge of this designer could dig out another source or two? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Avia#Requested move 4 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Avia#Requested move 4 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Twin canopy aircraft?

Another new category, Category:Twin canopy aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What evidence is there that this is a defining characteristic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have the same concern and I was already contemplating CfD'ing it. There are numerous past CfD's about various other non-defining aircraft characteristics and how this can lead to absurd category bloat (e.g., Category:Aircraft with red stripes). Carguychris (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a defining feature. We might as well have Category:Aircraft with Phillips screws if we're going to keep this. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It would inevitably have subjective edge cases too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I can think of one. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of that one too. And then there are oddballs like two-seat Spitfire conversions, or the prone Meteor, where even if the category applies, it is only to individual aircraft. And is a glazed nose a pilot sits in a canopy? Depending on your answer, a He 111Z either has two canopies, or none at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was debating that too A-37Dragonfly (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm abivalent but lean towards "no" as a not particularly useful or unambiguous characteristic. Aside: our "characteristic" categories are probably due for an overhaul for consistency! —-Rlandmann (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not in favour of having number of canopies as the basis for categorisation.Dolphin (t) 01:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It'd be a little better changing it to "Category:Multiple canopy aircraft" or some other general wording. However, the number involved should still be limited. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

We had Category:Nose-mounted intake jet fighter in March. Sorry I didn't write anything after the first post in this thread, it would have been a negative rant! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely a candidate for CfD. No significance at all. We have far too many such pointless Cats as it is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14, the Sea Vixen has one canopy and a sheet of mostly flat perspex over the 'coal hole'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I see the issues with my category, I don't object I guess A-37Dragonfly (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Anglo-American P-51 again

I regret to inform everyone that Talk:North American P-51 Mustang#FAQ about national origin has been continued by an IP. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

{{Infobox aircraft begin}} - or how to add an alternative name?

The documentation says that this is "currently" (Feb 2023) being merged with {{Infobox aircraft}}. @Plastikspork: who closed the merge discussion.

Is anything being done?

My particular, small, problem is that I would like to add the alternative name "Waterbird" to Lakes Water Bird, as this name seems to be commonly used especially by the charity preserving its memory. (I've added a hatnote at Water bird too, which was missing.) I looked at the infobox template (I thought!), saw "|other_names=" and thought it would work, but then realised I was looking at the wrong infobox template, "infobox aircraft", which has this parameter. "Infobox aircraft begin" doesn't seem to offer the same parameter.

I tried just changing the infobox to "aircraft", but it lost the formatting of the box so clearly didn't work.

It might be useful if the merger of the templates could be completed.

I'm not an aircraft enthusiast, just watched a TV programme last night which talked about the Waterbird and then struggled to find Wikipedia's information about it! PamD 08:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This merge is awaiting someone with the knowledge, motivation and time to do it. Could be a long wait. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The "Other name(s)" parameter is for articles on individual aircraft that went by more than one name (for example, see Precious Metal (aircraft)). I would be opposed to adding such a parameter for aircraft types, as it would likely blur the line between official and unofficial names, designations, and stylizations. It would also just add more clutter to the infobox when the information could easily be covered in the first sentence or paragraph of the lede (as the Lakes Water Bird currently does). - ZLEA _T\^C 08:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Albatros C.II

The Albatros C.II article’s text describes a pusher biplane. The picture shows a tractor biplane. The Idflieg no. given in the articles text is C 27/15 however in the book “German Aircraft of the First a World War by Peter Grey and Owen Thetford” (cited in the text) the Idflieg number given for the sole C.II pusher is given as 27/16. Adding to the confusion there were two prototypes from Albatros that shared the C.II designation. It’s not clear to me which aircraft the article is meant to be about. I would request a member of the group with access to sources on WW1 German aircraft reviews the article. As things stand the text and picture combo is a glaring error. --Stivushka (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You could ask the editor who added the pusher text for clarification, there is nothing on the article talk page. Following the article history it looks like the infobox image has been added and removed several times. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be the aircraft type covered by the article [5]. The aircraft in the infobox is a homebuilt fuselage with Tiger Moth wings, on the French register as a 'C2', various other images describe it as a C.I. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought this also. The problem is that that the Albatros C.II pusher aircraft has the serial number 27/16 and the article specifies 27/15. The serial number was changed in 2019 by an anonymous user who also changed the configuration from Tractor to Pusher.

German WW1 Aircraft are outside my wheelhouse and this one is tricky as historically there was a Albatros pusher prototype built in Germany and a tractor prototype built by Albatros in Austria. Both aircraft were given the C.II designation. It would be best if somebody with a copy of the Albatros C.II specs from a published source checked this over as I suspect the current article may be an amalgamation.Stivushka (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The book that will probably have the answers would be by Jack Herris 978-1935881476, £40 used in the UK. The first version of the article by MilborneOne clearly states it was a pusher aircraft and mentioned the tail configuration (needed for pusher types). Other editors have added their unsourced thoughts, changing the configuration. A lot can be learned by browsing the history. The source linked above (which is not an RS for wiki use) says it was built and flown in 1916, that is where the 16 comes from in the serial number, later in the same source 15 is mentioned, probably an error. If a number value has changed by one it is worth checking the history for vandalism as that is one of their subtle tricks though in this case it looks like a genuine edit. A non-free image could be uploaded, having an image of a pusher aircraft in the infobox might deter the tractor fans. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have the book and the coverage is pretty skimpy of both designs since neither was produced in any quantities. I'll see what I can add.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me we have two design on our hands, both of which are probably notable enough to describe. I'd suggest we split the article into two main sections, each dealing with one of them, with a short lead explaining the ambiguous designation. Once that has shaped up and confirmed coverage of each, we can then consider splitting the article into two separate ones. The last thing we want is two editorial camps warring against each other's edits. I'd also suggest that temporarily, during this process, we break the usual rule and allow each design its own infobox and specification, on the local consensus that these templates are helpful, while choosing between designs is unhelpful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed article based on two sources which are available on archive.org (German Aircraft of the First World War - Peter Grey and Owen Thetford) and actively in publication (German and Austro-Hungarian Aircraft Manufacturers 1908-1918 - Terry Treadwell). Article is now clearly about the pusher aircraft C 27/16 built by Albatros Flugzeugwerke in 1916. Expanded existing paragraph on the Austro-Hungarian C.II (Tractor Type) so the differences are clear to the reader. Paired back the specifications to those in earlier version of the article by MilborneOne (this data is supported by Gey and Thetford). Added correct picture. Added OAW C.II (Already has a page) to the Albatros template page. Added Albatros C.II to the list of pusher aircraft. Linked the OAW C.II to a few more categories so its easier to find--Stivushka (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

[1] ssue of 5 July 1928

[1]