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 | August–October | October–December ] — 2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ]
2011  | Jan–April | May–Sept | Sept-Nov | Nov- ]

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
Peer review 
Alaska Airlines • De Havilland Mosquito •Air France Flight 447 • Flight Information Service Officer • Instrument Approach • C.W.A Scott
A-Class review(Criteria/FAQ) 
Hughes Airwest Flight 706 • Cochin International Airport • List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War



This box:

Contents


[edit] Focus article for January: AgustaWestland AW101

Happy new year to the editors and readers of WP: Aviation. I have selected the next article I shall be putting work into overhauling for this month, the AgustaWestland AW101: I think the Development and Design sections could be covered in much greater detail for example. Books and articles are materials currently absent, but I shall endeavour to contribute to; if anybody else has an interest in joining my efforts, I would welcome your help. Thank you for your efforts on the Panavia Tornado article last month, I think it is a very significant step-up in quality and detail from the previous incarnations; hopefully this mini-project will go just as well. Kyteto (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good article for improvement. I'm on board. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The reconstruction has been proceeding quite well. There are some tags asking for citation that I'm having trouble dealing with, but 60 or so new references have been added in under a week, which is extremely good progress. I doubt there is much left to do; but what is left, I always would enjoy company on the resolution of. Kyteto (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The article has been referenced so no cite needed tags remain. Does anybody see any major issues/things about the helicopter not covered in the article? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I've got a book detailing the aircraft's development history; you need anything, just ping me. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The point of the request was to find what is missing. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: this article was promoted to GA recently. Thanks to Kyteto and others for their efforts! -Fnlayson (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 1944 Camisette Air Crash

This is an article on a wartime Dakota crash in France with a loss of 23, sad but hardly unusual in wartime and I cant see anything unusual in what are hundreds of similar operational accidents. I have already removed a long list of victims and survivors, any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It fails WP:AIRCRASH and the refs cited in the article don't add up to much, including one blogspot one! I suspect this was started as a WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 Camisette Air Crash. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] rename request

A request has been put forward to rename Fixed-wing aircraft @
Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft#Clarification_of_article_scope.2Frequested_move

Input is appreciated. NiD.29 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was closed as no consensus, but the person who asked for comments ignored the result and pressed ahead with moving fixed-wing aircraft material to Aeroplane. I reverted him and then GliderMaven reverted him. Let's see where this goes. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Sikorsky H-5

Sikorsky H-5 was just moved to Sikorsky R-5 (the pre-1948 designation) because H-5 was the British designation! I have reverted the move and asked that they start a move discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Supersonic fuel efficiency

For information Template:Supersonic fuel efficiency has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 22. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Aerospecs missing template

Who is placing all these tags. A lot of them are superfluous, are they being placed by a bot which needs spanking for being overzealous?Petebutt (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Should be in the edit history? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of them are because the specifications are unsourced.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Similar aircraft - lists

An editor has been adding some broad lists to Similar aircraft sections, for example List of aircraft of World War II to Foster Wikner Wicko‎. My feeling is that these lists contain so many aircraft, with most not similar and the few that are of course unmarked, that this not useful. The aircraft's participation in the war is better noted in the text and one or two examples of similar aircraft, carefully considered, put in this section. Likewise with national air force use. What do you think?TSRL (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The addition of list links to articles has to be done carefully as there are tons of them! - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure that the article is much use as it is but providing links in every mentioned article is a bit over the top in my opinon. I did notice the link added to one Miles aircraft where one had been impressed in Australia and therefore counts as a second world war aircraft - not sure anybody else would consider it those terms or find the link in the article of any use that can not be provided in the operators/operational sections. Second World War aircraft are well categorised so the confusing article probably could do with a major re-work or deletion, particularly as it could do with more flags! but in the meantime we could probably loose the link in most aircraft types. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah - more flags! LOL - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of the flags are now gone aside from those of the country of origin. BTW that list gets far more hits (~2000 per day) than most of the pages it links to.NiD.29 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The number of hits is a reflection of the title and the expectation from the user, we dont have a measure of the dissapointment level! MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
That is why the page had more hits in the past month than for any other month since it was created AND it exceeded 2500 hits yesterday, the highest number the page has ever had? Your aesthetics don't match those of the majority of the users of the site apparently, nor do they behave as you are anticipating. The lists (and similar and related) are important even if somewhat ambiguous, particularly when the alternative is to wade through a truck-load of badly written, factually suspect prose to get to the one bit that is useful. A list approaching completion (even if it is a bit large) is far more important and useful than the presence (or absence?) of some flags. It is useful for comparisons, for applying a neutral non-POV perspective, for identifying unknown aircraft, and for a host of other reasons. While it may be true that Second World War aircraft are "well categorized" there is no readily available means of reaching that from within the page unless there is a link, and that is the best place for one. While the Miles aircraft may have been a bit extreme, (and I changed them and the Foster Wikner Wicko‎ back), most of the aircraft on the list should have a link to it as it helps provide context that may be missing within the page.NiD.29 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The categories can be accessed by clicking on the...category links. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The categories are hopelessly incomplete as they rely on a link being on each and every relevant page (a huge job not nearly complete enough to be useful), and reorganizing them seems to require a script. Add to that the number of aircraft for which a page has not yet been created - without a list page they will continue to be missed even if they are on the all-encompassing "list of aircraft" whose link makes little sense (but appears on many pages). Until the categories approach a similar degree of completeness the List of aircraft of World War II‎ will be useful. BTW page view stats for Category:Military aircraft of World War II shows a peak of just 25 visits in the past 3 months. Perhaps the format or location of the categories links needs work - assuming it isn't just that there isn't enough material there to attract any interest. Maybe if they were moved into the infobox (or above the references) from well below the article where no-one goes?
While on the topic of lists and "see also"'s and such - shouldn't the basic see also appear first in the list of categories in the template, since it shows up first when displayed? NiD.29 (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I also fail to see the point of adding List of civil aircraft - a huge set - to, say Miles Falcon. The article makes it clear that it is a civil design (both in terms of what it did pre-war and in its catalogue entry) and giving a long list of other similar and quite disimilar aircraft does not seem to add value.TSRL (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The List of Civil aircraft is not really a lot of help as it only list less than 5% of aircraft considered Civil and is mainly modern types all of which are already linked on each article in the far more complete List of Aircraft. I was a bit suprised by the comment about a number of aircraft without articles as the page has only three red links. Dont get me wrong I think the List of aircraft of the Second World War is a vast improvement on how it was previously but I dont think we need to link the list from every article if we have them in categories. Most of the list is fine but I dont think it needs the one-off impressed aircraft, experimental types and prototypes. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Rem'd the civil list - I hadn't looked through it all that much and didn't realize how useless the page currently is. Perhaps that should be split into sections - post-1945 civil and pre-1945 civil based on date of first flight?
The problem with one-offs is that quite a few were actually used in a military capacity - which makes it difficuly to eliminate some and not others without making the list seem more incomplete than it is. Numbers used would be a useful addition in this regard but it will take a lot of digging for many of the types.
BTW on the subject of lists I am wondering if List of Japanese trainer aircraft during World War II should be merged into List of aircraft of Japan during World War II (not sure of how this is done), and on duplicated categories if "Category:Aircraft naming conventions" could be merged into "Category:Military aircraft designation systems"? Thx!NiD.29 (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Kaproni Bulgarski KB-11 Fazan

Just created Kaproni Bulgarski KB-11 Fazan but having problems with a reliable reference for the specs and engine. I have a source that says is was powered by a Alfa Romeo 126 RC 34 radial and other blog type sources that say it had a licence-built Pegasus XXI engine. Was the prototype different (it did have a different wing) ? any help with reliable sources appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

According to an article in Air Enthusiast No 96, the first prototype, the mid winged "Quasimodo" had a Alfa Romeo, as did the high winged 2nd prototype and initial production series of 6 high-winged KB-11-I. The definitive KB-11-II Fazan had PZL-Bristol Pegasus XXI engines from stocks captured by the Germans during the invasion of Poland.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that Nigel and for the update to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH

This article on the propeller manufacturer was recently put up for WP:CSD as non-notable, mostly because the article only cites the company website as a ref. I know there are profiles on the company in Janes and other publications, so I have removed the CSD tag. If anyone has quick access to Janes can they add some refs? - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Flexible winged aircraft

Petebutt (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Petebutt (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Hello,I propose that a new sub-project be opened to cater for flexible winged aircraft.I propose this for several reasons:

  • 1. Flexible winged aircraft are bytheir very nature a class apart from fixed wing aircraft.
  • 2. and probably more important, the Aircraft project will very soon get swamped by a Tsunami of less than notable hang-gliders, paramotors, para-gliders and their ilk unless we give their enthusiasts somewher else to co-ordinate theiractivities.

I propose this from a selfish point of view as I don't like to see hang-gliders cluttering up the Aircraft project,to my mind articles entitled Hang glider, para-motor or Flex-wing etc. etc. should suffice, unless a particular version is exceptionally notable.Anybody any thoughts.Petebutt (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Helicopters are a distinct type as well, but they're covered by WP:AIR. No need to split off "flexible wing" aircraft (a term I have never heard before, btw). - The Bushranger One ping only 05:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
To start it off how about a List of flexible-winged aircraftPetebutt (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's write what I really mean:Can we discourage articles about individual flexible winged aircraft, unless particularly notable. Rotorcraft have their own task-force, why not Flexible-wings.Petebutt (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
A task force already exists for hang gliders etc. at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Air sports task force. Appears inactive but the bones are there. Powered flex-wing microlights carry a registration in the UK and need a pilot's license to fly, the UK CAA at least deems them as aircraft types, their notability would follow the project guideline. Hang gliders > Air sports task force, Powered flex-wings > Aircraft project would appear the way forward for article tagging. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think User:Petebutt is referring to my recent article creation, as I seem to be the only one starting articles on ultralight trikes and hang gliders right now and listing them at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft). I don't have a problem with these articles being part of some sub-project of WikiProject Aircraft, but I do take exception to User:Petebutt's statements above "the Aircraft project will very soon get swamped by a Tsunami of less than notable hang-gliders, paramotors, para-gliders and their ilk unless we give their enthusiasts somewher else to co-ordinate theiractivities", "I don't like to see hang-gliders cluttering up the Aircraft project" and "Can we discourage articles about individual flexible winged aircraft, unless particularly notable". I am assuming you mean "aircraft types" and not "individual (ie single) aircraft" there?
The reason that I have written articles on trikes and have now started into hang glider aircraft types is:
  1. A few years ago here on this very talk page we established a consensus to try to create articles on every aircraft type that has been flown. Some people started on the pioneering types, others on obscure French designs of the 1940s, others on one-off homebuilts. Because I have the refs and because no one else was working in that area, I started in on modern and then antique ultralights. When I had exhausted my refs on those I systematically moved onto trikes and now hang gliders. I still have powered parachutes left to go.
  2. These are all notable from a WP:N point of view, all have reliable third party refs, as I pass up creating articles about any that don't. They meet Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) as well, which is the project's standard for inclusion.
  3. Janes has lots of articles on pretty much every hang glider type, so these easily meet WP:GNG.
  4. If there are any "enthusiasts" of these types on Wikipedia then they haven't been doing any writing. When I wrote my first hang glider type article there were only two other type articles in existence, so we don't seem to be under siege there with the threat of fancruft. As I am the only one creating hang glider articles I should point out that I am not a hang glider "enthusiast", having under one hour of hang glider time in my 5000 hours of flying time. I am writing them up because they are notable aircraft and because we don't yet have articles on them, not because I am a fan of any type or class of aircraft.
  5. Why would we as a project decide that a French homebuilt, of which only one was constructed, is worth an article, but a hang glider design of which thousands have been built and flown is not worth an article? Take my most recent article as a good example: A-I-R Atos, a rigid wing hang glider, with 1250 built and flown and that has won many World Championships. Is there any reason not to have articles on these aircraft?
If you want their talk pages tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Air sports task force I can do that, but other wise I don't see any reason not to write the articles and not to list them at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) for peer review. I would suggest that if anyone doesn't want to work on them or assess them etc, then feel free to pass them by. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with adding these article to the new article list. It would be useful though for all editors if when they add an aircraft they give a brief line as to what sort of aircraft article it is. I personally have little interest in General Aviation but a lot of interest in military prototypes. Hence an entry like "Foofoo Foo - 1960s Austrian glider" would help me decide where I want to apply my editing energies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
That would be easy to do. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
More the merrier I reckon. Graeme, if you have navigation popups enabled (My preferences>Gadgets) just hovering over a link (no clicking) shows the first paragraph of the lead. It also shows the class of an article on the front page and previews editing diffs without clicking on them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
That's rather handy, I'll try that. Already using assessment display. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree - I rather like seeing the ultralights, powered gliders, etc. included; and the "discourage articles" comment did smell rather of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me... - The Bushranger One ping only 18:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I took User:GraemeLeggett's suggestion and just added a brief description to my latest addition at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft). How does that look? - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you are right, looking in hindsight , maybe I did shoot from the hip. I apologise for any offence, but I think a useful discussion did result. Thanks for your input.Petebutt (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘No offense given and no need to apologize. I consider all of us here colleagues in an academic endeavour and that means that we need to challenge each other regularly on what we are doing, debate, stand up for what we believe will build the encyclopedia and generally push each other a bit when needed to make sure we are staying on track and not wandering off into fancruft or other deadends. As such I think that challenges, or "reality checks", like this are always useful discussions to have as it helps outline work to be done and how members feel about it. Certainly no harm done in bringing it up. That is how we collaborate here and one reason why this project is such a strong one! - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] See also edit warring on Sukhoi Su-30MKI

There appears to be a campaign of India v Pakistannationalistic edit warring on the related aircraft part of see also for Sukhoi Su-30MKI. Help may be needed to calm things down.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I took it back to your deletion of the list and urged some discussion. In light of the border skirmishes over "comparable aircraft" I really think we may want to once again look at doing away with this all together on a project basis. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, for modern combat aircraft, they seem to be more trouble than they are worth. For less controversial and more obscure types I feel they do add value - perhaps nuke at the first sign of edit-warring?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd support that. I would hate for a real-life border war to have started here on Wikipedia between nutty nationalistic zealots. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with the removal (on this article and general) and we did remove the list at JF-17 Thunder and HAL Tejas a while ago. If the comparable aircraft was to stay we should really qualify the entries somehow (Ace Super Plane - 1950s fighter-bomber of similar size) although most of the comparison is really original research. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The Indo-Paki-China aircraft articles attract the fanboys in droves...as much as it pains me to say it at least on them perhaps it might well be best to do away with "similar aircraft" on them. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • These edits are being made to aircraft roughly similar to the Indo-Paki-China aircraft as well. These edits are getting close to being disruptive, at least to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
An Su-30 fan has been adding it to loads of uncomparable aircraft and a few other unlikely ones. MilborneOne (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This nonsense is now generating some nice personal attacks - perhaps some admin action is needed?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I have collapsed the discussion and left a note on the users talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it is easy to see why nationalism was the disease that resulted on more deaths in the 20th century than any other. We really have to do what we can to keep it out of Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
There seems to have been edit-warring or some sort of questionable edits to the see also fields of most vaguly modern combat aircraft types recently. I don't know whether this just two or three troublesome editors who are causing the problem, or if the problem is more pervasive. If the latter, the similar aircraft field problably has to go, at least from modern combat aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The see also section was created before we had better categorisation and infoboxes (sequence has already been deprecated), I think that we could probably loose the Template:aircontent and just use a simple see also section without any preformed sections. See also:A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. I think the aircontent template has been overtaken by the categories and infoboxes we now have and can go, anything relevant can be added as a simple list or added to the article if it meets the notability/reliable referenced/actually needed test. It is one less non-standard project bit that annoys the quality reviewers. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Just removing the comparable aircraft in the template will take care of the situation. It'd take a bot to remove and replace the template in the many aircraft articles. The navbox idea for comparable aircraft has been mentioned before as an alternative. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That'd just move the edit-warrioring to the navbox, and certain members of the Citation Police would still holler about them at FAs and such. If "comparable" has to go, then it should go completely; "related" and "lists" are still handy to add though. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If that happens I would like to note that there is very rarely a problem with the 'comparable engines' parameter and I would like to see that kept please. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with that - that's pretty clear-cut (cylinder #, cylinder configuration, HP) vs. comparing aircraft! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
As edit warring appeared to be continuing, I've commented out the comparible aircraft section in Eurofighter Typhoon.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The POV-pushers have hit Dassault Rafale as well; at this point I'm in favour of ditching the comparable aircraft section, it is just attracting too much POV-ish/nationalistic editing. Too bad they can't harness their energies into improving the body of the article, rather than flopping favoured names in and out of a list for all time... Kyteto (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No kidding! I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you will find the aim is to get the Bloggs Wonderfighter (6.5 Generation or one number higher than anybody elses) on to every page as it is the pride of Bloggsville and deserves a mention :} MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The similar engines is a different field so it could be left in if the similar aircraft is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
What about making an example of the edit-warrers/wonder-aircraft-linkers ("pour encourage les autres" as the French would have it) rather than we change to accomodate their disruption. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
What do you suggest, leaving some heads on stakes? - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ More like egos punctured on pencils - figuratively speaking. If there is a genuine edit war going on then there are administrators who can remonstrate with the offenders, and perhaps get them to be better contributors or leave the field of battle. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Torwards that, I've created User:The Bushranger/Planewarrior as a potential means of getting the point across. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we have more aircraft category pages to replace "comparable aircraft"? Would this cause things to tip even more strongly to degeneration creep, where ever more marginal designs go up a generation because somebody else's goose was favored? Hcobb (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

More categories would just be overcategorization. And frankly the whole "Generation" thing should be ignored on Wikipedia, IMHO - it was, essentially, created by the manufacturers to say "we have the latest, greatest widgetwhizbang9001" and was "applied retroactively" by them in a (sadly seemingly successful) attempt to legitimize it. Compare aircraft to what is comparable, not "Jet Fighter: The Next Generation". - The Bushranger One ping only 01:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
If we must have comparisons, can we do them inline and wellreffed? Source X says that fighter Y has faster spinup than fighter Z and that this will give it an advantage in knifefighting. Hcobb (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
And here we go again... Except it's not always about X turning faster than Y, it's simply a list of "these are aircraft similar in size and type that are used contemporarily in similar ways" - at least, that's what it's supposed to be. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Why do we decide? If somebody notable has made the comparison then fine, quote that. Otherwise it's just some wikier doing OR. Hcobb (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the project's style guide explictly says: Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. (Also we had this exact debate about, oh, two months ago with no consensus for any significant change...). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I like User:The Bushranger's proposed template User:The Bushranger/Planewarrior! I also agree, as I have previously argued, that the fighter generation numbering is nothing more than manufacturer marketing noise. "Our fighter is fifth generation" is basically in the same class as Cessna's "land-o-matic" landing gear and "Omni-vision" windows. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Might want to check the spelling of Wikipedia in that template! In my experience slapping templated warnings on IPs just makes them see the red mist and they double their disruptive efforts. The project has to out-fox them. Tighten the comparable aircraft guideline (number of engines, precise role, configuration (swing wing, delta), era within two years of first flight perhaps), and add a shortcut to the section for use in edit summaries. There is some new wording in the WP:SEEALSO guideline: The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. I think this justifies comparable aircraft entries but we do need to keep it under control where editors are not abiding by the spirit. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
And the nonsense continues - [1] - with the ip editor happily re-adding his/her POV to the comparible aircraft field and adding a nice rant to Jimbo's talk page, launching a "complain" about a "wiki used Milborne One" and accusing us all of being Indian racists.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Also apparently the Su-30MKI will fit on an An-225 but a JF-17 won't...! - The Bushranger One ping only 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template for deletion

It might interest the project that {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1785}} (!!!) has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have removed the one entry which doesnt have a related article, just links to a list article if the TfD wasnt running! MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Avis C.4

Does anyone have a citable source for info on this aircraft. All I have are some unattributed info and three photos on flickr.Petebutt (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Try [2] or [3] with google translation. There are some references at the bottom FlugKerl (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What a mess - it is strange to have a redirect from Avis C.4 to an unrelated aircraft, also strange to then have some spec stuff for one (or two in this instance) in a completely unrelated article. Suggest the redirect is changed and the specs removed (we dont normally do comparisons). MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the specs from IMAM Ro.63 we need to do something with the redirect! MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
AVIS C.4 has now been created from redirect any help appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft&oldid=476145860"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export