Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

WikiProject Aircraft talk — archives

pre-2004  [ General | Strategy | Table History | Aircraft lists | Table Standards | Other Tables | Footer | Airbox | Series ]
2004  [ Mar–Aug | Aug ] — 2005  [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006  [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov–Dec ]
2007  [ Jan–May | Jun–Oct | Nov–Dec ] — 2008  [ Jan | Feb–Apr | Apr–July | July–Sept | Sept–Dec ] — 2009  [ Jan–July | Aug–Oct | Oct–Dec ]
2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ] — 2011  [ Jan–April | May–Aug | Sept-Dec ] — 2012  | Jan-July | July-Dec ]
2013  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2014  | Jan-

Lists: [ Aircraft | Manufacturers | Engines | Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons | Missiles | Timeline ]

WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the aircraft project.
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review




List of large aircraft and Template:Giant aircraft nominated for deletion[edit]

Tupolev Tu-116[edit]

User:Le Grand Bleu has created a new article on the Tu-116 at Tupolev-116 rather than just work on the original Tupolev Tu-116 article, they have some desire to be recorded as the article author. Rather than a complicated history merge I have used a copied from/to template to retain attribution for the new content and not loose the history of the page as I copied it into the original article over a redirect. This has not been helped by being reverted in the middle of the process can I ask others to keep an eye on the articles please, thanks.MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You stole my work and moved the contents to another page under your name. What do you expect me to think about it? Not to mention you started an edit war without any explanation. I'm reverting your changes until you care to explain what the heck you're doing. Also, I have to say this notice itself is quite offensive. You did not discuss your actions with me, did not reach any consensus or even provided a prior explanation, yet you posted a warning in a defamatory tone usually reserved to alert users of a vandal or some other evil-willed user. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
On my watchlist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tu-116 is clearly the correct designation like other Tupolev aircraft. See {{Tupolev aircraft}}. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Le Grand Bleu has been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and personal attacks on others (and been suspected of sock-puppetry).
Clearly there is a lack of understanding on how wikipedia works, starting with the fact that no-one owns a page - once it is written, it is free for anyone to do as they wish, including completely rewrite, or copy elsewhere (though this should be attributed to the original page). It cannot be stolen as it does not belong to anyone, and no-one can lay claim to being the "author" as all pages are subject to editing by anyone at any time. If Le Grand Bleu wishes to create a page perhaps rather than deleting an existing page and creating a new one at a random location, a perusal of aircraft types that are still without pages would be a better use of time - there are a great many aircraft for which no page exists yet - there is no need to vandalize an existing article for personal gratification. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles/1 is just the first page of a very long listing of pages that still need to be written - and there are a fair number of significant types lurking in there, begging to be done.NiD.29 (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

RT aerostats systems[edit]

A new article has recently been created for RT aerostats systems. This company appears to be a subsidiary of Aeronautics Defense Systems. The new article lacks references and other good things - should it be improved or simply merged in with the parent article? Comments please at Talk:RT aerostats systems. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass nomination of aircraft manufacturer nav boxes for deletion[edit]

Ukrainian Air Force[edit]

Keep removing list of aircraft losses in Ukrainian Air Force but it keeps being added by an IP, including a Boeing 777 - as far as I am aware not operated by the Ukrainian Air Force! any help or comment appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted it once, should I warn him for vandalism? The B777 sure is referencing to MH17 which I would find vandalism. However the rest he is adding isn't vandalism but I agree it should not be on there. (slow comments from me for the rest because of news on MH17) Redalert2fan (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Canard Rotor/Wing[edit]

I have started an informal merge/delete discussion at Talk:Canard Rotor/Wing — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

P-51VLR[edit]

I have proposed deletion of P-51VLR but as it only has five watchers I have noted it here if anybody has any comment, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Seconded! - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree, this doesn't smell right. The only reference seems to make no mention of the project, and I find it very hard to beleive that what sounds like a very considerable modification would not have been documented. There must be dozens of books about the P51, if this variant existed it surely would be documented... and in any case, if it's not documented, it surely cannot be written about in Wikipedia.TheLongTone (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree. VLR missions were flown by standard P-51D's. If there really was a VLR variant, it would be better to create a new article with the correct title and a genuine reference. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
No mention of it in a fairly comprehensive Mustang book I have. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Freedom Aviation Phoenix[edit]

Article Freedom Aviation Phoenix has been proposed for deletion as it has only has now unavailable company website as a reference, anybody have anything on it? MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

cant get more than this: http://www.ovguide.com/freedom-aviation-phoenix-9202a8c04000641f80000000073284a5 http://www.airport-data.com/manuf/Freedom_Aviation.html Redalert2fan (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
note the first link says exactly the same as the first part of the wiki page, Redalert2fan (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

List of personal air vehicles[edit]

List of personal air vehicles, "formerly Comparison of personal air vehicles" - I've had a bit of a stab today at improving it, but I'm thinking "is it worth it?" The article attempts to compare various civilian and military attempts at something that can fly and drive. Some of the parameters, such as emissions, are probably not available. Thoughts, please. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the embryonic list for the PAV Challenge should be merged into the main one: any such list is better placed at Personal air vehicle#PAV Challenge. Some entries such as the Facetmobile are not PAVs at all. And there are projects in there that are really not notable or frankly credible enough to deserve the pathetic articles created for them. The whole PAV zone looks to be a terrible fanboy mess, I think we would need to wade in in force. At the moment I am too busy elsewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Most of the articles linked to are redlinked, and those that aren't are pretty much stubs, and lack even the standard infoboxes. I deleted a bunch of the more obviously inappropriate entries but for many of them there simply isn't enough information - definitely some eyes, and references needed. The parent Personal air vehicle needs some help too.NiD.29 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Very silly edit war[edit]

There appears to be a multi-page edit war between two ip editors, one 217.123.87.39 (talk · contribs) and one on a rabge of ips (currently 208.54.40.188 (talk · contribs)) about whether various aircraft are fitted with the M61 or the M61A Vulcan cannon.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Very silly false accusations and likely assuming bad faith[edit]

One revert per aircraft is not an edit war especially when it is restoring a nomenclature that has been long settled. It is most likely the editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.123.87.39 is new and meant no harm. I welcomed him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:217.123.87.39&oldid=618598981 After being bit hard he may not choose to resume editing here. I warned Nigel to quit assuming bad faith which he promptly deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nigel_Ish&oldid=618591037#Edit_warring_accusations.3F.3F.3F Researching Nigel's talk and user page it appears he can be quite contentious (it did not take me long to figure that out). The IP only did a revert on one article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II&action=history which is also hardly edit warring which was reverted by two different users myself being one. He was also corrected by Fnlayson 3X here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter&action=history The new? editor could have been a vandal but based on previous edits that is unikely and it is most likely he genuinely thought he was doing good editing. A few regulars seem to go off on every little thing without using good judgement and maybe they need to a break from what could be construed as harassment. 208.54.40.188 (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Another note of the obvious[edit]

The supposed "edit war" took place 24 hours after the first editor changed M61 to M61A1 in many aircraft. The two editors never interacted. I reverted the appropriate aircraft and left the edits that were changed to M61A2 as that is the proper nomenclature. The original editor has never has returned since his original edits. Clearly not an edit war unless one was trolling to stir up trouble or feel important. Please do some homework before templating as it can be considered harassment when not appropriate. 208.54.40.188 (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

When preaching on the merits of assuming good faith, it's a good idea to do so yourself. Comments such as "unless one trolling to stir up trouble or feel important" really aren't necessary, and your point could be made without making such assumptions and remarks. I have no idea how long you've been editing on WP, as you're using dynamic IPs, but the editors you're lecturing are both fairly good ones with long histories. Everyone makes mistakes, and long hours of dealing with inane edits can wear on a person. So maybe they do need some time off, but unless you have a good personal history with the person, it might not be taken well when delivered in the manner in which you chose to do it. - BilCat (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It was in reference to his reply labeling me a troll for challenging his irrational "edit warring" template. It is much easier to assume good faith when they do not respond with accusations of trolling when asked to remove the template after demonstrating why it was improper. As you stated "it might not be taken well when delivered in the manner in which" he chose to do so. I am here because he templated two editors improperly and made further false accussations here. I am well aware of his editing behavior and have been for years as you are also. It is obvious I am no Newb and have knowledge of proper use of templates. Nigels best course of action would of been acknowledging his improper template and removal of such. An apology would of been real nice but I did not ask for that. Labeling an editor who points out a deficiency as a troll only ended up having that accussation tossed back at him as it was he who created and poured fuel on the issue. And I agree we all make mistakes and when one realizes such the best course is to correct it. Also one gets tired of seeing the abusive nature of some editors especially the special despise some show towards IP's. 208.54.40.188 (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I for one get tired of the abusive nature of some IP users who hide behind dynamic IPs to harrass good editors. I also get tired of people who enable such abuse by biting the oldies while lecturing about not biting newbies. While I can't speak for Fnlayson,the only reason I bother to drop warnings to IP usrrs is because admins are reluctant to block troublesome IPs without such warnings. In most cases the IP users never even see the warnings due to the nature of dynamic IPs. This makes attempting to even communicate with an IP user futile, and one of the several major disservices WP does to IP users by allowing unregistered editing. These disservices are far more abusive to them than reverting their crappy edits or warning the user pages will ever be. Allowing unregistered editing is what makes IP users second-class Wikipedians, more so for long-term users who voluntarily choose to edit while unregistered. - BilCat (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It is far harder to gauge intent when there is no record of previous edits that demonstrate good faith, so IP edits are more likely to be checked, and thus more likely to be reverted or tagged. If 208.54.40.188 doesn't like that, then maybe he needs to stop using an IP and take responsibility for his edits. The anonymity an IP provides is used by a majority of vandals to escape from the consequences of their edits, be it an edit war, a contentious edit, or while they snipe at the people actually doing useful work. If you want to be taken seriously, stop using an IP and choose a username.NiD.29 (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page refactoring[edit]

Having read the guideline on this I believe I am within my rights to collapse the mass nomination of templates (I think we are all very aware now of this matter) in an attempt to make the page more clear. An uninvolved administrator has been closing the deletion nominations as either 'no consensus' or 'keep' so far. When all nominations have been dealt with one way or the other I will manually archive these sections so that we can get back to discussing aircraft related subjects. Please feel free to revert or execute a better idea! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean all the manufacturer TFD notices on this talk page, right? That's totally fine with me, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, they still appear in the TOC but the amount of text on the page has been drastically reduced. I rarely get 'heated' here nowadays but this stuff cluttering up the talk page drives me nuts, it deflects from dealing with genuine problems in aircraft articles. I should thank another editor for adding all these notices, one template that I created was not on my watchlist ('schoolboy error'!) and I am thankful for that but the time has come IMHO to move on to the intricacies of exactly which variant of M61 Vulcan was carried by which aircraft, fascinates me! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Glad that was helpful, even if it was a bunch of work, at least it lead to a useful discussion. Sure, I have no objection if you collapse those on the page here. I think they have served their purpose. - Ahunt (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Have manually archived this page, clearing the mass nomination template deletion notices, all (except one that we were too slow to catch) were either closed as 'keep' or 'no consensus' (to delete). Have we got this page archiving set up correctly, archive 37 is covering Jan 2014 to now? Anyway, I hope we can resume normal ops! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the right archive page. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Airbus Helicopter[edit]

Any thoughts on moving all of the Eurocopter articles for the current aircraft to Airbus Helicopter pages? The Airbus Helicopter website has apparently made the branding switch. --Born2flie (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The consensus at the time of the name change in January was that it was premature to change the articles' names at that time, as Airbus Helicopters was not yet the common name for most of the models. We usually take company name changes on a case by case basis. The F-16 article is still listed at General Dynamics, even though it's been owned by Lockheed and Lockheed Martin for 21 years now. Btw, good to see you still editing, B2F. - BilCat (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)