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-July | July- ]

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]

Aeronautica Militare Italiana[edit]

I have reverted some additions of Aeronautica Militare Italiana in operators lists after Italian Air Force, we dont normally list the non-english name and use the article name as a guide (which is Italian Air Force) I would not like a precedent to add the non-english names of all the operators in aircraft articles, if the reader is not sure he can follow the link, comment? MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Just adding User:Chesipiero to trigger the notify flag as they have been making most of these additions, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Chesipiero was converting the English linked name to Italian, with no English at all. I left a note that it would be OK to use the Italian name in parentheses/round brackets, as we have a number of aircraft articles that use Luftwaffe after German Air Force/. I've added these myself to a number of articles without any objections, and have added Armée de l'Air to French Air Force also. Remember that some of these article, were at their non-English titles for many years, so keeping the native name was useful in those cases. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Dont really agree with using translated or native names in parentheses in operators list, it will not be long before users will insist of having all the operators showing all possible "national" languages, as this is English wikipedia we should be led by the article title. I dont have a problem with Luftwaffe for second world war lists as that is also the related article but German Air Force for the modern incarnation. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been doing it that way on many articles for several years, as have some other users, and it hasn't led to a flurry of other nations' native titles being added yet. Note that Aeronautica Militare was the article's title until March 2010, and German Air Force was created as a separate article in May 2012. But I'll go with the consensus either way. - BilCat (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Note that Regia Aeronautica is the title for the WW2 Italian air force article. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The subject needs looking at and a consensus forming from input by many editors. German Air Force is wrong to me, intelligent piping could easily distinguish between the two forms of Luftwaffe. This is the English Wikipedia but 'common name' applies. It seems that the more difficult the name of an air force is to pronounce the more likely it will be translated into English. Deciding the crossover point is the tricky part but following major source publication convention would help. A new guideline could be formed to avoid edit wars. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Westland Whirlwind[edit]

Both Whirlwinds (Westland Whirlwind (helicopter) and Westland Whirlwind (fighter) have disambiguated names and the dab page Westland Whirlwind only has the two entries, any reason why one could not be the primary subject with a note from the other? MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's a particular problem with a repositioning. From the looks of the histories, in 2003 the fighter was created first and then moved to "fixed wing" as disambiguator, the helicopter was created around time with "rotary wing" as the disambiguator. Then they moved to the current locations. I think the helicopter is probably the better known. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The fighter article seems to be getting over twice the number of page views that the helicopter does: [1][2]. That suggests to me that the fighter should be the primary. And historically, the helicopter isn't that significant, in that it is a licence-built Sikorsky model, whereas the fighter was a novel design. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The fact that there's no agreement on which is the primary topic is probably a good indication that there is no clear primary topic. I'd keep the DAB page as-is. - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sites like Google Search[3], Google Images[4] and Amazon books[5] appear unequivocal about the greater notability of the fighter. Is there really any significant disagreement? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Jet trainer[edit]

I recently ran across the Jet trainer article. It's about 6 years old, but hasn't had many edits, or any expert attention. It's just a paragraph and a list, so I'm not sure it's needed as an standard article, and might be better off as a list article. Btw, Trainer (aircraft) needs some work also, and there doesn't appear to be any list articles on trainers either. Any suggestions? - BilCat (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it has a lot of potential and deserves more attention. We tend to have lots of detailed, carefully maintained articles on individual aircraft types, whilst overlooking the broader principles. bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Review of Aviatik D.VII Reply[edit]

Hi there. Can someone please review this new article I just made for fact checking, more sources, errors, anything else? Link Aviatik D.VII Thanks legoboy

PS. Sorry for being rather inactive Legoboyvdlp Let's talk! 16:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)