Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 447: Line 447:


You are invited to comment on a suggested move at [[Talk:SS-class blimp#Suggested move, but what to?]]. This also applies to the UK [[NS-class blimp]] article. — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 18:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on a suggested move at [[Talk:SS-class blimp#Suggested move, but what to?]]. This also applies to the UK [[NS-class blimp]] article. — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 18:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

== LR-87 rocket engine ==

I need help at [[Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles]]. TIA [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 01:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:34, 15 March 2014

Shortcuts
WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a question or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects:
Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section
 
Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(105 more...)

Proposed deletions

  • 02 Jul 2024 – Parks College Airline (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Enplaned (t · c): This airline did not exist, although related concepts that already have articles did. Oliver Parks was an aviation entrepreneur. He founded Parks Air College as early as 1927, which was a pilot training college. Parks Air College did run a toy airlin ...
  • 02 Jul 2024 – Catalina Air Lines (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Enplaned (t · c): This is an airline that does not seem to have existed, or perhaps it refers to a mashup of some airlines that did exist but were separate. It says the airline was founded as Catalina Air Transport in 1940. While there was an airline of that name in 1 ...
  • 30 Jun 2024 – Octopus Flying Club (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Suntooooth (t · c) was deleted

Redirects for discussion

(1 more...)

Files for discussion

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(6 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



This box:
Aviation
WikiProject
General information
Departments
Project organization
Templates
Sub-projects

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Red Arrows userbox

I don't know if somebody already made one for the Red Arrows but I did, to get this on your talkpage just add {{User:Nathan121212/userboxes/Redarrows}}

This user is a fan of the Red Arrows.


Tell me if you want one for another team. P.S. I'm quite new at this so tell me if it can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan121212 (talk • contribs)

PSA Airlines

I've just semi-protected the PSA Airlines article for two weeks due to edit warring by IPs over the "Criticisms" section. I've left the section in as it is referenced, but have no strong feelings either way as to its retention or deletion. Suggest this is discussed at the talk page. Fresh eyes and opinions welcome. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this issue is still going on and could really use some additional input on the talk page at Talk:PSA Airlines to help come to a conclusion on this. - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-working geotags?

Check out RAF Westhampnett. It has coords in it, but they don't seem to appear anywhere on screen. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me. Possibly something browser-specific? Either that, or something strange involving a transcluded template which has been fixed between your comment and mine. Does this happen on any other pages? bobrayner (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They show up for me within the military structure infobox. User:Maury Markowitz are they showing up yet? Gavbadger (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No joy. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place, where do you guys see it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First instance should be on the right hand side of the page at the top level with "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
Second instance should be within the top infobox under where it says "Royal Air Force station". Gavbadger (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Weird! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at RAF Brize Norton and see if the coordinates show up there in the same places previously mentioned. Gavbadger (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see the co-ordinates on the RAF Westhampnett article, but the ones on Brize Norton show up fine. Curious.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That explains it then, the infobox on the Brize and the Westhampnett are the same, however the infobox on the Westhampnett article is the old version because the infobox was updated on Wednesday, the infobox needs to be updated to the new version, I have done the current RAF bases in the UK (except the U.S. occupied ones), the Royal Navy and British Army bases. The former RAF bases are next but it will take some time to them all. I will update the Westhampnett infobox soon and will get back to you. Gavbadger (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The co-ordinates on the RAF Westhampnett article has just disappeared to me as well just, but don't worry the coordinates are still in the coding. 20:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
(ec)I wonder if this has to do with using latitude = 50.859 and longitude = -0.759 and not {{coord}} or the dms for these? BTW it does not show up for me with Firefox. Another observation? How is an airport a structure? An airport is a facility that contains many structures. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RAF Westhampnett has now been updated to the new style, the rest of the former Royal Air Force stations will be updated in due time and the infobox is now called Military installation and includes airport information. Gavbadger (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Edited again. Gavbadger (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That fixed the display for me. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation in World War II

Hi,

I have rescued Aviation in World War II from a redirect to Air warfare of World War II and turned it into a separate article with quite different focus. My aim is to make it a sensible spin-off article from the History of aviation rather than a war historian's plaything. Any help in tidying would be welcome. Adverse reactions? Ah, well, this is Wikipedia.... — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fastjet

The fastjet article looks to me like it contains almost exclusively promotional material. It has just been updated with the details of current routes flown. Can somebody familiar with airline articles pop over and see if it needs a cleanup? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of safety offices internationally

Hi, I noticed an inconsistency for naming articles about aviation safety offices. The German office is officially called "Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung", but its article has the name "German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Investigation", its English translation. For the French article, the article's name is the original local name without translation: "Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile". Is there a naming convention which supports this, or may I rename the article? I would like to, because I did not find it immediately, even though I was already in the correct category. --FlugTurboFan (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is normally the common name in English for these establishments, it is not always the name in the local language. MilborneOne (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia; my reading of WP:NAME and WP:ENGLISH suggests that the German office's article has the correct title, but the French office's article should be moved to use the English name of the office. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's difficult to balance accurate naming with the most common or recognisable naming among English readers. If the correct name comes second in the WP:COMMONNAME race by a small margin - if it's still supported by a significant proportion of sources - then I would still favour it. But if the name in local language is overwhelmed by a translated name in anglophone sources, then we should definitely use the translation. bobrayner (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The common English name of the French organisation is the BEA. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The translated form of the French office is a redirect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar history

For some time I have been working to underpin the History of aviation with a series of more detailed articles, each taking the history a step later. To date we have:

  1. Early flying machines (which I am wondering whether to split into two, broadly pre- and post-1900, but I am in no hurry)
  2. Aviation in World War I
  3. Aviation between the World Wars
  4. Aviation in World War II

But what articles are needed for the postwar period? Would a single article on say "Postwar aviation" cover it, or should it be broken into say "Aviation in the Cold War era" followed by say "Modern aviation" or "Aviation in the digital age"? At present we have a rather suspect stub on the "Jet age", while "Modern aviation" redirects to "Aviation." All comment, opinions, ideas, acid indications of articles I have missed, etc. are all welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the Post-war aviation boom deserves its own history article! - Ahunt (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Modern aviation" seems problematic for me, as the definition of "modern" is always changing. Better to use a term that can define a subject for a fixed point in time; otherwise your article "Modern aviation" would likely have to be continually split off as subjects proceed too far into the past to be considered "modern". As a title, "Aviation in the digital age" seems reasonable, though it feels like an odd shift as the other periods are all being defined by wars. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Modern" (and "current") are things that are quite discouraged in category naming for exactly that reason - they really should be avoided overall. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. It now occurs to me that the "postwar" period is limited in time - people born this millennium do not think of themselves as living in the aftermath of WWII any more than of any other historical war. But, post which war? There are many more recent ones. I found this at the List of time periods, though it is unreferenced and looks like the aftermath of a bunch of PoV editors who all majored on socio-political history before buying themselves smartphones:

I'd suggest that in aviation, the eras are generally characterised by technology and usage - things driven heavily by the two World Wars, hence their appearance in the traditional periods we adopt. Is there anything in the above list that captures an era of aviation technology and usage? Historians evidently end the postwar era in 1962, I don't know why, but it seems a bit too soon for me. The cold war era spans a neat period but much of the tech, especially civil, is not driven by cold war imperatives. Bending the "information age" to the "digital age" seems neat. Keep those comments coming. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting by decades makes sense, with post-war either covering 1945-49 or 1945-59. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If split by decade, it should not use "names" (ie. "The Tens" (2010-2019), since there was aviation in "The Teens" (1910-1919) ) frequent manned aviation already spans three centuries, and infrequent manned aviation occurred occasionally before that period for centuries. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar aviation now created. Please improve with your usual determination. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation in the digital age

I have drafted an article on Aviation in the digital age here, but I am short on modern references so much of it is off the top of my head. I would welcome any sanity-checks, additions and especially references, before it goes live.

Aviation in the digital age now invites your TLC. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When done, this will complete a series of sub-articles on the history of aviation, stretching from antiquity to the present day, and some sort of navigation toy will become useful. But first things first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment

Hello, given that the last entry to this page was over a year ago, should it now be discontinued and removed from the front page of this project? It's somewhat misleading to have a link to an assessment page where no assessments occur for over a year. Or at least the submissions section.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War

The above hasn't been worked on for over a year, can someone in the project please deal with it and tidy up the links? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think it could do with a cull or deletion most of the stuff is not notable and if it was it would be included in the standard List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft. Military aircraft makes a forced landing and crew walk away with no injuries type stuff would be laughed out in any other accident list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so let's remove it from the box on the project page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bill Wakefield

FYI, there's a notice at WT:ASTRONOMY about this draft article on a flight steward. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a flight steward this guy is certainly not notable. I think we can let the astronomy project decide its fate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Ana air show disaster

I just created this article on an a 1938 aviation disaster that killed over 50 people. The aritcle needs a infobox(I never did a air show article so I'm not sure box to use) and the article could use expansion. There is both a Spanish and Portugese wiki article on the crash. These can be used if you can read the articles....William 13:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing multiplanes

You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Multiplane aircraft#Subcategories. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blimps

Somebody has gone to town using the term "blimp" in article titles such as Goodyear Blimp - a good few more are linked to from there. I am British, so I don't know whether this is an accepted official term in the USA or whether this warrants a whole bunch of article moves to more sensible titles. Any enlightenment on offer? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example in this apparently semi-official history, as the narrative gets closer to official Navy operations our "blimps" revert first to "ships" and then to "airships." And in Ege, D.; Balloons and airships, Blandford 1973, page 72, the US K-class are described as "non-rigid airships." It all makes me suspect that "blimp" is not an official designation but just popular slang. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while I'm at it, the K-class blimp article title lacks the manufacturer's name. It should probably be moved to something like Goodyear K-class airship. There are other articles in the same boat (sic). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My (US) Merriam-Webster's dictionary doesn't list "blimp" as a slang term. Common names are standard on Wikipedia, and preferable in most cases to "official names". Since blimp is a common name for a non-rigid airship, I don't see an issue with it being used, especially in US related articles. Since I'm not British, I can't be bothered to look up the term in a British online dictionary to see if it's listed as an Americanism. ;) - BilCat (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UK RS, including Janes', are perfectly happy at using "blimp". It's a technical term with a clear meaning, it's not just a slang like "gasbag". Now there is certainly a predominance of US blimps being described as such, as the US did build most of them (and even Airship Industries is now US-owned), but the ones at question here are themselves US. "Non-rigid airship" is also a term in fairly common UK use (and usually applied to the Skyships, by competent UK RS) but that's a term that is (AFAIK) really quite rare in US practice.
I'm puzzled by the removal of links. If this is a renaming issue, then rename the article under K-class blimp. However there is no reason to remove this link. Nor should the article even be renamed. It was the Navy who defined the name, not Goodyear. Goodyear's name was would have been "Goodyear ZNP-K class", which is a failure of COMMONNAME and also so over-specific that it's only correct for the first ones.
I'm disappointed to see BRD being (yet again) cited as an excuse for edit-warring. It's BRD with one R, not Bold-Reverted-Sneak my change back in Because I'm Right-Discuss. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Where is BRD being used in reference to blimps? - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airship&diff=next&oldid=594838987 "Undid revision 594838987 by Andy Dingley (talk) This is WP:BRD - discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Blimps" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! I was confused, as that location hadn't been mentioned to this point AFAIK. - BilCat (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BilCat, yes, that was me again, it was what prompted this discussion. Somebody tried to add lots of "blimp"-titled article links to the Airship article. I reverted, AndyDingley reverted my revert and I reverted back claiming BRD. FYI the links were all incorrect and came up red, so the edit was a dud anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyDingley, several points:
I have no problem with using less formal terms in the body of the article, my concern is solely about article titles. My understanding of this WikiProject's article naming conventions is that we do not use common names in article titles. For example the Republic F-84F Thunderstreak article does not have "Thud" in its title. By all means keep the common name as a redirect, too.
Ege, to whom I referred above, uses the term 'blimp' in quote marks, just as I have done now, so it is clearly informal as far as he is concerned. Jane's All the world's aircraft 1980-81 does not use the term "blimp" but sticks to "non-rigid airship," so while I am sure they accept "blimp" as a meaningful term they do not use it in formal situations such as entry titles - or even in the entry content for that matter. Or, has Jane's practice changed over the years? It would help if you could provide equal RS for using "blimp" as a formal designator. I do not regard the odd online dictionary's failure to note something this technical as reliable.
The K-series was perhaps a bad illustration for use of the manufacturer's name - in some cases Goodyear made the gasbag but the US Navy made the gondola. But the point remains, it needs to be the US Navy K-series airship - or whoever/whatever is its formal designation.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And here, Wragg, D.; Historical dictionary of aviation, History Press (2008). Wragg has no entry for "Blimp" but under "Airship" he remarks (Page 27), "During the Second World War, the combatants used barrage balloons, or blimps.... Even if powered, a blimp would have been extremely difficult to control because it lacked any rigid structure." But again, this is a British source, sigh. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is a well-respected dictionary, and I was using the 11th edition, print version - it certainly isn't an "odd online dictionary", though it is available in several online forms. As far as using blimp in article titles, I've never heard the Goodyear Blimp called anything but that, but as for specific models such as K-class blimp, I'm not sure how they're refered to in reliable published sources.
The specific Goodyear blimp articles appeera to be named by WPSHIP naming conventions, but are aircraft. Even the US Navy assigns aircraft designations to its WWII-era blimps. (Also note that WP:AIR/NC naming conventions don't strictly follow COMMONNAME, which is only one point in the naming guidelines, but the naming conventions are consistent with the naming guidelines for specific fields.) - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I'd not noticed the earlier changes at Airship (I'd only checked the one immediately before) so I saw your removal as B rather than R.
I'd still support these links though. They aren't redlinks, they weren't even redlinks at the time you removed them (although they do point to a redirect from the plural, not the simpler direct singular link). "Blimp" is an entirely appropriate term here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They were red links at the time I began my edit. Check out the creation of say K-class blimps and you will see that it happened after the links at Airship were created. By the time I resolved an edit conflict with TheLongTone, they had turned blue but I had evidently not noticed. Confused? That's edit conflicts for you! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Blimp" is the appropriate, technical, and common term; arguing that the "K-class blimp" or the "Goodyear blimp" should be titled "Airship" makes no sense at all, I'm afraid. (I'll also note, just for the sake of correctness, that the "Thud" was the F-105, not the F-84F). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, showing my lack of American pedigree here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search] of the Flight archive shows the term in common use, and while some of the examples enclose the word in inverted commas many do not. The OED entry does not describe it as a slang usage. Per WP:COMMON, I'd call it the proper term.TheLongTone (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why the emphasis on COMMNNAME when we have already been reminded that that WP:AIR/NC naming conventions don't strictly follow that? Nobody is denying that the term is commonly used, just that it needs some reliable referencing as a formal product description before it should be used in article titles. Perhaps I should have suggested the term to be "informal" rather than "slang," it does not affect the logic but is perhaps less emotive. And nobody has properly addressed this point, raised in the very first paragraph of this thread: one cannot regard a couple of general dictionaries and a sample of journal articles to be as authoritative as Jane, Ege and Wragg combined. We can't just ride roughshod over Jane's because we feel like it, we need solid evidence to back that up. That's what I am asking for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it's not 'informal', either. "Blimp" is the formal term here. And we can't uphold Jane's as the be-all and end-all, either: there's a reason the naval version is oft referred to as Jane's Frightening Slips. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

here, here, here.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This pdf-ed article from navy.mil uses the phrase "blimp" as well as airship alongside "airship". It also uses the phrases "K-type", "K-series" "K-class" and "K-ships" to add plenty of variety to the prose. It also gives the instance of a squadron being renamed from "Airship Patrol Squadron 32" to "Blimp Squadron (ZP) 32". GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However I do not think that the articles on the British WW1 non-rigids (eg SSZ-class blimp) should use the term in the title, if at all. Surely these articles should be in British English, & when these craft were built 'blimp' was certainly slang.TheLongTone (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That PDF is revealing, many thanks. Over 100 mentions of "airship", just under 40 of "blimp." It seems to imply that the US Navy started out calling them airships but then, in the middle of a war, decided to call them blimps instead. The "blimp" terminology hinges around something called a BLPHRN which, aside from some random garbage text strings, achieves the rare privilege of a googlewhackblatt on this very pdf - which is to say that this pdf is the only Internet source for BLPHRN. Not very convincing. I also note that the "blimp" losses tabulated are for the various "Fleet Airship Wings," which suggests to me that "Airship" was the formal term and "blimp" the writer's conceit. However there is also the alleged change of squadron name mentioned above. Perhaps that can be validated? The more we dig into this "we want Blimps" PoV, the murkier it seems to be getting. I'm not anti-blimp, just a hardened sceptic. You know, if "blimp" really is the correct technical term in the USA, why is it turning out so darn hard to verify that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the links I added above is a link to the official Goodyear website, fairly authoritative I would have thought.TheLongTone (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean where they write, "Today, Goodyear operates three airships in the United States -- the Spirit of America, based in the City of Carson, California; the Spirit of Goodyear, based in Akron, Ohio; and the Spirit of Innovation, based in Pompano Beach, Florida"here? Or, by way of clarification, "Non-rigid airships, like Goodyear's current blimp fleet, is the only type in general use today."here? I find it hard to draw any authoritative precedent from this for "blimp" as the correct technical term and not a popular informality. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps or not, Crane, Dale: Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms, third edition, page 69. Aviation Supplies & Academics, 1997. ISBN 1-56027-287-2 says: "Blimp. The name given to a cigar-shaped, nonrigid airship. Nonrigid airships were originally called limp airships." My guess is that this started off as an nickname or informal term, but gradually became a more accepted formal term for a non-rigid airship. Transport Canada does not officially recognize the term and the Canadian Aviation Regulations define “airship” means a power-driven, lighter-than-air aircraft", meaning that they classify all airships, rigid and non-rigid, together. The Federal Aviation Administration similarly has no official definition for blimp and the FARs define "Airship means an engine-driven lighter-than-air aircraft that can be steered." - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow - I was judging by the title of the page, in very large letters.TheLongTone (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, at last we get back to the point in hand. My suggestion is that such page titles do not meet Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). I would further suggest that the discussion to date appears to support that view. IMHO we need to decide whether the descriptor should be omitted, or whether to use the proper descriptor. For example should "K-class blimp" be moved to "Goodyear K-class blimp", "Goodyear K-class airship", or "Goodyear K-class"? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since our naming conventions are Manufacturer-Designation-Name, there doesn't seem to be a need to include "blimp" in the title. We don't have Piper PA-28 Cherokee airplane. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Airship naming conventions are very unlike HTA craft, though. With the exception of Zeppelin craft, very few if any start with a manufacturer name, and the numbers generally used are either government-allocated serial numbers or (as in Zeppelins) airframe numbers rather than type numbers.TheLongTone (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems true. Airship naming does seem to be more maritime than HTA. Maybe we should just follow the sources. For example, Ege simply names and describes classes, as "K class airship." The M class is interesting, as both the USA and Italy had M class types so when we cerate the Italian article that would need disambiguating, as "M class airship (Italy)", the US one moving and a disambig page creating. So - should we modify our guidelines accordingly? On closer inspection they do seem unworkable for airships and I'd prefer not to simply ignore them. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For amusement value, there is the American Blimp A-170 as an example of a manufacturer designation. But having looked at the Airships Heritage Trust pages used as references in the British SST-class blimp etc, they do refer to them as airships; the webpage title as given on the article includes "blimp" but the AHT pages don't use that in the page title. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-arbitrary sub-heading

This discussion has gone 16 days without any reliable reference supporting "Blimp" where it is not part of the manufacturer's name. Time to get to work. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, we had a long discussion. WP:COMMONNAME states that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Note that this is not the name that gets the most airing by everyone else. The problem with "blimp", which emerged in the above discussion, has been that the more reliable the sources become, the less the term is used and the more they talk of "non-rigid airships". The term "blimp" also refers to Barrage balloons of broadly similar design and construction - making it in fact more ambiguous than "non-rigid airship". The term "zeppelin" is similarly unsupported for article titles, outside of the eponymous manufacturer - another ambiguity best avoided. Airships come rigid, semi-rigid and non-rigid - and every RS is crystal clear about that. We cannot throw COMMONNAME overboard, so the only alternative is for you guys to come up with sufficient RS to overturn the above discussion. You might like to check that discussion first in case your favorite source has popped up already. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bollocks, you're talking crap and you're talking it on your own. Sometimes consensus is so clear because no-one else is bothering to refute the bad idea point by point, it's just too obviously bad to bother. Most of us have better things to be doing.
Also, "Hey, it's 16 days since anyone bothered to tell me how wrong I was, you must all now be agreeing with me" and then starting these moves two minutes later is no excuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I've reverted the move as non-consensual. Obviously it's premature, and more discussion, and possibly an RFC, is needed here. - BilCat (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So - perhaps one of you would do me the kindness, instead of throwing emotive phrases and rude words around, to provide an evidence-based argument for where I am going wrong? Heated emotions alone do not justify an article title. If my arguments are so bad, they should be easy to disprove with contrary evidence. Where is your evidence from reliable sources? (To take just one example, La France was a non-rigid dirigible flown in 1885, for which I have four RS to hand. Every one of them describes it as an "airship". Britannica online calls it an airship too:[1]. Even our fellow Wikipedians who created the La France (airship) article baulked at calling it a blimp - one assumes they relied on the available RS.) All of my sources relegate "blimp" to the body text, if they use it at all, never to the descriptive title. Where are these ubiquitous RS which title such craft "blimps"? (@BilCat, thanks for doing that while I was asleep last night - you are right about the lack of consensus!) 10:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@Steel - Not sure what the "while I was asleep last night" comment is about. WP is 24/7 and international - I really don't think anyone can schedule their edits around the unknown sleep patterns of a single user in an unspecified time zone! Anyway, as to moving the article Blimp itself, it's probably better to hold a formal move discussion on that page's talk page, which will list it in WP:RM. That way we get broader input than just from WP:AIR project regulars. - BilCat (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BillCat, just that the issue about the generic article is different from the issue about individual craft and I was thinking I had been too hasty with that particular one but it was my bedtime by then. You beat me to it, is all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy - The only move that showed up on my watchlist was Blimp itself. I didn't check Steel's contributions to see what eles he moved. - BilCat (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Special:Contributions/Steelpillow — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fussed about the American airships, but I feel strongly that 'blimp' should not be used in the article title for the British aircraft: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Strong national ties to a topic. Any official description of these craft refers to them as 'airships'. Also, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality, which to me suggests that 'airship' is a better term overall. The inclusion of 'airship' or whatever in the title isn't to distinguish (for example) the SSC non-rigid airship from the SSC rigid airship: its there to distinguish the airship from anything else that uses the initials, generally necessary since great number of airship designs (for example the US Navy types and the WW1 british types]] are properly designated by such possibly ambiguous letter/number combinations.TheLongTone (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with that, for the reasons you've stated. I have reverted K-class blimp, as per your rationale it a US topic. - BilCat (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we're to rename blimps as airships, then it should at the very least be "non-rigid airship". The technical distinction is crucial.
Consistency of terms has some virtue and I'd thus personally prefer blimp to be used widespread. It should certainly be used for US vessels. UK is less obvious, but airship has the wrong overlap, blimp is clearer and although non-rigid airship is the "official" term and probably does have COMMONNAME to support it, it's not common enough to be understood as well today. For the UK vessels, do we best go with commonness or consistency? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The distiction between non rigids & rigids may be crucial but it does not have to be made in the article title. The article lead is the place for that.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyDingley. FYI, the situation with regard UK usage is wholly obvious and thoroughly verifiable. The term "airship" is used for titles, with the qualifiers "non-rigid", etc. used where appropriate in the text. We have never had problems with ambiguity there, so I don't know why you should. If consistency is deemed necessary, there is no other option. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

plane or copter? No, it's a V-22

Apparently the V-22 can do 3 Gs: http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a10d964ef-b53b-474d-8f06-ec0a3f7f0914

But we don't list this under specs, because we're treating it as if it were a helicopter. Hcobb (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What are you even talking about? And whatever it is, wouldn't it be better addressed on the V-22 page? - BilCat (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem has nothing to do with it being a helicopter or fixed wing, but rather because no data field exists to specify that the way say span or rotor diameter is - however there is a |more performance= field that the information can be added to quite easily. NiD.29 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could discuss this in prose, rather than trying to shoehorn a description of each subject into an arbitrary table, whether or not the table fits..? First priority, in the V-22 article, should be to describe the V-22. Fitting V-22 tech specs into standardised fields that wikipedians created for other aircraft should be much further down the list of priorities. bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Air Force and Air Defence

Serbian Air Force and Air Defence seems to have a rash of edits by brand new accounts. Should I revert? Hcobb (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance it looks like disputes over unsourced numbers - need sources! Nationalist boosters inflating military strength on Wikipedia is nothing new, but good sources are the best way to fight it! - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those numbers, as they stand, can't be trusted. Ditto with recent edits to Serbian Army and Serbian Armed Forces etc. Anything that can't be trusted should be removed. bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikoyan-Gurevich

Back in 2005 it was decided to move MiG to Mikoyan on the grounds that it is "the name that the bureau has had for decades". The thing is that, according to the official website, the Mikoyan bureau, is one of the four components of MiG corporation and all the aircraft, according to the same website, are manufactured by MiG corporation, not Mikoyan bureau itself. The corporate logo itself features only the MiG abbreviation, not Mikoyan. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), the aircraft's name should be the official name given by the manufacturer. Besides, to this moment, the letter "G" has not been dropped from the aircraft names, all of them use MiG (i.e. Mikoyan–Gurevich), not just M.

In the Category:Mikoyan aircraft many articles begin with Mikoyan-Gurevich, while some begin with just Mikoyan. In the latter case Mikoyan MiG-... doesn't fully explain the abbreviation "MiG" and doesn't give the due credit to Mikhail Gurevich. When it comes to other aircraft manufacturers with two names, they are retained (Category:Anderson Greenwood aircraft, Category:Beck-Mahoney aircraft, Category:Dayton-Wright aircraft, etc.) As such I propose to:

[Update] Support in part Looks a very good idea to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By way of explanation: the company name changed around 1971 and again in 2006. WP:AIR/NC requires that older aircraft be named according to the name of the bureau at the time. Sources I have handy do this too, though there is inevitable confusion over versions produced under the new brand which are just updates of types originated under the earlier brand. This may go a long way towards explaining the mixture of titles commented on by Brandmeister, they should certainly not all be normalised to the same name.
WP:COMMONNAME requires that for the current joint stock company we use the name commonly adopted by the more recent reliable sources. A quick Google suggests that since the financial merger of 2006 this should be "MiG". The term "Russian Aircraft Corporation" appears to be just a generic descriptive status (see for example this reference to the Yakovlev Russian Aircraft Corporation). The Bushranger suggests below that Mikoyan is in use, but is that really the current company name or just legacy designs from the 1971-2006 era, and as outdated as Mikoyan-Gurevich for those pre-1971 designs?
Lacking stronger evidence to the contrary, I would say we should move the company article and categories as suggested, but not the aircraft articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Never should have been moved in the first place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME in sources for the current company is Mikoyan. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A tricky one. Interwiki links seem to lean towards Mikoyan. They seem to be using 'MiG' as a tradename and aircraft designator even though both designers are long gone (like Rolls-Royce). The English versions of Russian aircraft and engine company websites (which all appear to have the same webmaster!) are obviously written by English-speaking Russians, the translations don't show a clear picture to me. Might be worth having a look at the Flight or Jane's company directories to see what they make of it. I don't think Russian Aircraft Corporation will catch on as a common name either (which is what it should be if we follow their website). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. --Antelope Hunter (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody confirm from a current RS, as suggested by Nimbus, that Mikoyan really is the current company name and not just used for legacy designs from the 1971-2006 era? Otherwise, "Per WP:COMMONNAME" appears to be a comment in support of the move. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and just to be clear, we would not put the "RAC" in page titles any more than we put say the "plc" in BAE Systems plc page titles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northwest Airlines Flight 188. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 188. It probably needs to go to Deletion Review first. - BilCat (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Especially considering the AFC's original source is listed as being Wikibin: http://wikibin.org/articles/northwest-airlines-flight-188.html ! - BilCat (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A note pointing out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 188 really should be entered on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northwest Airlines Flight 188!! - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at doing that, but I'm not familiar with how to do it in an AfC, so I noted it here instead. Hopefully someone knows the correct way. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have done that and started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Airlines Flight 188 seeking opinions on what to do with the AfC or if a deletion review is needed. The AfC is notable imo. Ochiwar (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way it is written now it does seem to make WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as there were persistent procedural changes as a result of the incident. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Newry Road

Does anyone think this is an aviation accident or incident and should be categorized as such plus be included on the year template for when it happened?...William 22:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking if individual aircraft being shot down during a battle are notable? That article covers a lot. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not asking whether it was notable. Should it be categorized as an accident because the aircraft were damaged?...William 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, aviation accidents and incidents are different from shootdowns or other losses during combat. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some other 1978 British Army Gazelle downing and 1990 British Army Gazelle shootdown to name two. They are in the yearly accident categories and accident templates. Do they belong there?...William 23:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WilliamJE: - the two examples you cite do belong in the categories and templates as the cover accidents and incidents. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the original question, iff the aircraft's registration is identified in the article, then yes. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Naval Aviation Squadrons

I've recently created 100+ articles about these squadrons, using the Dictionary of American Naval Aviation Squadrons, (DANAS), which is the authoritative work in the field. There's a list of those articles HERE. DANAS is available online, but it is broken up into chapters and sections of chapters, making it difficult to know what all is in it. I'm thinking of posting an article with a title like "List of U.S. Navy Patrol Squadrons", which would list all the Patrol Squadrons in DANAS, provide easy links to the chapter and section that apply to each chapter, and would provide links to the relatively few squadrons that have their own Wikipedia articles. A draft of what I'm thinking about can be found HERE. I know that such an article would be useful to anyone interested in these squadrons, but I'd like some feedback on the idea of having it. For example, is it kosher to have the links to the chapter sections in the body of the article? Any and all feedback from people involved in this project would be greatly welcomed. You can provide it here or on my talk page. Thanks in advance for your help. Lou Sander (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have permission from the copyright holder, any such uploading will be a copyright violation, and we can't have any links from wikipedia to pages or sites that violate copyright for legal reasons (regardless of whether they have posted the information - you would still need permission to host a copy, and that information needs to be readily available). We also don't normally provide links in the text to external pages except in unusual circumstances - you can however embed the links in references that can be included, provided they have information that supports the statement it follows. External site links that are too general for references are normally included in the external links section however even there explicit rules govern what is addmissable - if the online version of DANAS is authorized, a link there would be appropriate. NiD.29 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DANAS is a U.S.government publication, and in the public domain. Lou Sander (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If one looks at articles about US Air Force formations they are often just copy-and-paste regurgitations of their relevant web pages from the USAF History agency. It's easy to spot them, they're the articles that don't use proper sentences in their text. From what I have seen, you have tried to do better than that in terms of the prose; kudos to you. I think the "List of..." is a good idea, but not in the current format - the DANAS chapters should just be refs instead of embedded in the text, and if VP-2400 is listed on pages 275 to 285 of Chapter 10, then the ref is DANAS Chapter 10, pp. 275-285, with a bibliography linking to the various chapter web pages. Every Squadron should be wikilinked, whether it's blue or red - it will inspire others to get creating - and the Chapters already being available in the "List of..." article will make it easier to get started. Just an observation: pre-existing USN squadron articles are named "VP-xx", "VA-xx" etc., without the (US Navy) qualifier in the title. I think we should have consistent naming across WP one way or the other. I also think that, instead of having "First VP-xx", "Second VP-xx" and so on, these should have disambiguation pages. For example, VP-6 should IMHO become a dab page to VP-6 (1924-1926), VPB-11 and VP-6 (1948-1993) (the current VP-6 article moved to this) or whatever namimg convention we arrive at using. YSSYguy (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is more discussion on this in the Military History Project, HERE. There is a LOT involved in choosing good names for these articles. Those with "(U.S. Navy)" were named that way because other existing article names conflicted with the preferred name for them. See THIS for my best effort to date in handling the information surrounding all this stuff. Lou Sander (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair 'nuff; I don't watch MILHIST, perhaps I should start. I will add my two cents' there about a standard for naming, and have struck out my comments on the subject here. YSSYguy (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment here on the use of DANAS. While it might be authoritative on the squadrons, it could be considered too close to the article subject to be a truly Reliable Source. Equally some of the content is probably not notable for inclusion. A fault that lies with DANFS too, though I find the prose style of DANAS to be far superior to that of DANFS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree about RS for both of these. Since both are secondary works published by their organizations compiled from official documents, I fail to see how they're not the best of RS. That said I will agree that both need to be used with a bit of caution as they often include irrelevant material that isn't notable in itself and they may have POV problems. That last is especially true of DANFS, but that's an entirely different issue than RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History navboxes

History of aviation
Chronological
Specialist topics
Related topics



Here are a couple of ideas for an aviation history navbox. The lists may not be complete but they should be self-explanatory. Good, bad, ugly, or what? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely prefer the bottom box to the side box. As long as it does not get expanded out of sight (see this one for an example of that) and is only used on aviation history articles, then it looks good to me. - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ahunt. A couple of general thoughts on the general history series of articles:
  • The period 1909-1914 is in limbo at the moment: I don't think it merits a separate article, but would be most usefully included in the WW1 article
Currently included in the Early flying machines article, for example in Early flying machines#Military use. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History of helicopters would be a great idea for an article! - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a History of rotorcraft would be better, failing that use the more standard phrasing "History of the helicopter". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that would include autogyros. I'll start slinging something together, it will be pleasant to get away from Zeppelins & suchlike.TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the bottom box is much better; I'm pretty sure I remember seeing somewhere that the side boxes are increasingly frowned upon these days too... - The Bushranger One ping only 11:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We certainly are getting away from side boxes on Wikipedia. We should stick to end boxes if only for mobile users, if nothing else. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • While side boxes seem pretty useless for mobile use, end boxes don't do that much good for mobile either right now. At least on Safari under iOS 6.x, bottom navboxes aren't shown at all on the mobile site. You have to switch to the desktop site to see them. (I'm not arguing against end boxes, just passing on a gripe.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines aircraft missing

An aircraft from Malaysia Airlines has gone missing: http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/dark-site.html - http://www.webcitation.org/6NuT37dZp - MH370, Kuala Lumpur to Beijing

Getting and coordinating info in Mandarin Chinese and Malay would be very helpful! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried asking at WP:CHINA, WP:MALAYSIA, and WP:VIET? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, but it's a great idea. Article now at Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian seems to reporting on it fairly well (live blogging) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/08/malaysian-airlines-plane-live XFEM Skier (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting that. I have contacted all three projects. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English to Chinese translations related to aviation technical terms

Would someone familiar with aviation terminology in Chinese double-check the English to Chinese translations here: en:User_talk:Kxx#File:Mah370path_labelled.png ? This is so a picture can be translated into Chinese for the Chinese Wikipedia Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map locations incorrect for UTA Flight 772?

In UTA Flight 772 I noticed somebody put in the article that on the map, the waypoint locations are correct but the "map location right incorrect". Would someone mind looking at this? The Final Report is here WhisperToMe (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of large aircraft

I see from article the talk page that this article has been repeatedly commented on as arbitrary, and lacking any criteria for inclusion - as well as being almost entirely unsourced. I'm reluctant to AfD it, but frankly without meaningful criteria for inclusion, and sources for each aircraft indicating that the criteria are met, it seems to have little encyclopaedic merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the list does seem to be lacking inclusion criteria and references. Unless someone wants to spend time working on it, an Afd could succeed if the mood of the gang seems so inclined. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this list is just pointless and non-encyclopedic on its own. IMHO there might be scope for an article on large aircraft, explaining things like the structural, aerodynamic and performance issues such as volume-to-area ratio and roll rate, giving a bit of history, and including a list based on this one. Worth moving over the current redirect and re-purposing? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep so it needs sources that use "large", or some reasonably synonym, including "heavy". What's the new problem here? Most list articles suffer from some variant of the same issue. We need 1) a defining condition for membership and 2) an adequate source for each member. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have a lot of problems with poorly-scoped and often overlapping lists, which seem to offer opportunities for easy edit-count increases far exceeding any reader benefit. This problem is not specific to aviation. bobrayner (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fog

It seems to me that Category:Aviation accidents and incidents caused by fog needs to be renamed to "Category:Aviation accidents and incidents involving fog". Many of the accidents listed were not caused by fog, but fog was a contibutory factor. The other subcategories of Category:Accidents involving fog are styled "involving", not "caused by". Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your logic should be changed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree....William 19:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started a CFD to rename the categories. It can be found here[2]....William 19:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SS- and NS-class airships

You are invited to comment on a suggested move at Talk:SS-class blimp#Suggested move, but what to?. This also applies to the UK NS-class blimp article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LR-87 rocket engine

I need help at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles. TIA Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=599662976"