Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft: 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 111: Line 111:


The article on the [[Genfly]] is as full of fanboy trivia and apparent [[WP:OR]] as the deleted F/A-18C mock-up article, if not more so. It has no sources cited to demonstrate notability, but even ignoring the article state I can see no evidence that the Genfly is a more notable topic than the F/A-18C mockup. Nor can I see any reason to treat them differently just because their sources are in different languages. Should the GenFly article be put up for AfD, or should my [[User:Steelpillow/test1|latest draft]] of a better F/A-18C article be put up for approval? — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 03:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
The article on the [[Genfly]] is as full of fanboy trivia and apparent [[WP:OR]] as the deleted F/A-18C mock-up article, if not more so. It has no sources cited to demonstrate notability, but even ignoring the article state I can see no evidence that the Genfly is a more notable topic than the F/A-18C mockup. Nor can I see any reason to treat them differently just because their sources are in different languages. Should the GenFly article be put up for AfD, or should my [[User:Steelpillow/test1|latest draft]] of a better F/A-18C article be put up for approval? — Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 03:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

:Your draft is actually good, neutrally worded and seems to quite meet [[WP:GNG]], so you have me convinced it should be posted. on the other hand the [[Genfly]] has no refs and should be deleted as non-notable. - [[User:Ahunt|Ahunt]] ([[User talk:Ahunt|talk]]) 11:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


== Fokker trimotor ID request ==
== Fokker trimotor ID request ==

Revision as of 11:29, 27 October 2018

Shortcuts

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

pre-2004  [ General | Strategy | Table History | Aircraft lists | Table Standards | Other Tables | Footer | Airbox | Series ]
2004  [ Mar–Aug | Aug ] — 2005  [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006  [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov–Dec ]
2007  [ Jan–May | Jun–Oct | Nov–Dec ] — 2008  [ Jan | Feb–Apr | Apr–July | July–Sept | Sept–Dec ] — 2009  [ Jan–July | Aug–Oct | Oct–Dec ]
2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ] — 2011  [ Jan–April | May–Aug | Sept-Dec ] — 2012  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ]
2013  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2014  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2015  [ Jan-July | Aug-Dec ] — 2016  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2017  [ Jan-Dec ]
2018  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2019  [ Jan-May | June–Dec ] — 2020  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2021-2023  [ Jan-June 21 | June 21-March 23 | March 23-Nov 23 ]

Lists: [ Aircraft | Manufacturers | Engines | Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons | Missiles | Timeline ]
 
Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Articles for deletion

(104 more...)

Proposed deletions

  • 19 Jun 2024 – Aergo Capital (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by InvadingInvader (t · c) was deproded by Dodger67 (t · c) (author) on 24 Jun 2024

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(1 more...)

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(9 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the aircraft project.
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



This box:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Photoshopped Images, Part Deux

Photoshopped images have been discussed before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 43#Photoshopped Images in April 2018. While we didn't outright forbid them, we did express concern about their usage. Since then, such images have continued to be used, the latest here, which I reverted twice. Is this an issue on which we need to seek guidance from the Wikipedia community as a whole? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Light/crop adjustments are OK but compositing multiple images to give a new meaning is too much. In the case of your example:
  • original
    original
  • remix
    remix
I think it's borderline but still keeps the original meaning : the resulting picture could have been taken from a slightly lower angle or a bit later/before with the craft a little bit higher. The resulting image is more simple to understand and better shows the craft. It would be too much if the ground was changed to an other location for example. I often clip distracting backgrounds.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a parallel in the way that reliable sources have always treated photographs. I think that photoshopping should be allowed only where it cleans up an image to make the inherent message clearer. Using it to create a new take on the subject should not be allowed. Borderline examples obviously have to be taken on a case by case basis. Editorial preference should be avoided where objective arguments exist. In the helicopter example above, I would suggest that the ground shot is perfectly acceptable, if a little small, and so cropping would be good, but photoshopping the background is not appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Steelpillow. There's a big difference between tidying up a photo, and modifying it so it shows something quite different. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a copy which I have cropped and tinkered with the colours, gamma, etc. as any regular publisher would do. I regard this as acceptable and not what we mean by photoshopping.
  • cropped and lightly enhanced
    cropped and lightly enhanced
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)
I agree with everyone else here: cropping, fixing contrast is okay to make photos more relevant, but changing backgrounds and such is not acceptable in an encyclopedia. It basically makes the photo a work of fiction. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original photoshopper that the ground scene is ugly and distracting but it could be cropped also:
  • ground and barrels cropped
    ground and barrels cropped
clipping the hill in the background as it was some sky is not too much IMO, it could have been taken in the same spot with the chopper a bit higher to give a clearer view, but minor shopping is enough to get a clean pic. I often clip entirely the background to remove a busy one, like:
  • busy expo background
    busy expo background
  • background clipped
    background clipped
  • people in background
    people in background
  • clipped
    clipped

but not adding another background avoid confusing the viewer.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that my opinion matters, but, I don't see the difference between offering a pic with a hill in the background and a pic without it. What's the big deal? --TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 17:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments do matter. The hill is OK but the chopper is not as clear when it is over it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The danger is that if you present an image out of context then it may be taken and used out of context. Any image use occurs in a given context and both the image and that context need to be verifiable. If an image is presented in a fictional setting, then the context for any given usage becomes unverifiable. For example would that helicopter in clear air be flying in a different attitude or with different control settings, has any ancillary item been clipped from that engine photo? Only by knowing, i.e. seeing, the original setting can a reader judge the reliability of the context. The clipped quadcopter with a miniature cityscape stuck to its rear starboard rotor is obviously unacceptable and a line has to be drawn somewhere or these discussions would never end. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left the miniature cityscape because it was difficult to clip with curved windows reflections: if it is removed, the reflections hinting the transparent windows would be gone. On the image page, the original is linked and the viewer can judge if any ancillary is left. What would be your line to draw: allow background clipping or not?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldnt change images other than to improve quality as I think it is misleading the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marc, your clipping problem with the quadcopter is a perfect example of why it is unacceptable - the visitor does not know you had a problem and does not know what other compromises you might have made. I also notice some small parts of the engine in that image that got clipped away. The whole point of an image here is to illustrate and clarify the main text. It is not acceptable to then have to clarify the image context via click-through. I thought I made it clear: cropping yes, clipping no. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your point but I still think clipping backgrounds enhances the viewer comprehension, and being able to look at the source avoids manipulations: the image would be removed if it's manipulating the reality.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I begin to see some logic there. If the source image can be cited in the same way that we cite text, then the reader can verify it in just the same way. But there are two main problems with that. First, if the image is incorrect then the reader cannot easily correct it but can only delete it because it should never have been there. Secondly, the source image would need to be a reliable source in its own right; if we pick one arbitrarily off the Internet or even the Wikimedia Commons then who is to say what PoV-pushing photoshopping has been performed on it, while if it is reliable then it is someone's copyright and so permission would be needed for any derivative work.
We do sometimes allow images of models or drawings (physical or virtual) where no free image of an original exists, as long as the caption says so. And we don't insist on verifiable links for them. Could/should we extend that to photo clipping, or are we being too careless about models and drawings? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your objective POV and sensitive approach. "the reader cannot easily correct it but can only delete it": not only, he can also revert to the source image (or find a better one). "if we pick one arbitrarily off the Internet": we can't use any image not aptly licensed, "or even the Wikimedia Commons" most commons pictures are original work and anybody could upload anything and claim it's anything, see The Treachery of Images! How can I be sure the above chopper is indeed a Kawasaki KH-4? I never saw one, I must trust the uploader. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From and encyclopedic point of view, the less we tinker with a picture the better. We are here primarily to document reliable information, rather than to make a website look pretty. Cropping, enhancing of colours, shades etc can be helpful, but indulging in wholesale alterations, replacement of backgrounds and so on doesn't do the project much good. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a rule stating adding enhanced pictures is OK (crop, light, color balance), while changing backgrounds is too much, but clipping backgrounds while keeping the original image linked for reference is acceptable when the background is distracting from the main subject and when the meaning is kept (no standing aircraft looking inflight like the USAF/Bell Airacobra). We don't need to make a pretty encyclopedia but it doesn't hurt when it's good looking.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with User:Marc Lacoste above, with the exception of allowing clipping backgrounds. I feel that the loss of context is too close to WP:OR. Personally I take a lot of photos for Wikipedia (over 1300 in use today) and when I shoot them I aim to reduce the background being an issue as far as possible. I think it is better to take better photos than seriously alter the ones we have. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Superimposing a partial background somehow "give a new meaning" or "deceives the reader" - I seriously doubt that, (helicopters do fly in the sky). I could understand if the image was photo shopped with Godzilla flying the helicopter upside down, in a volcano. The enhancement is to help the reader visually see the aircraft more clearly. Further I see no merit with WP:OR argument, since the image is being traced from the original photo. Opposing arguments seem to be weak at best and think there is more of a personal preference than anything else - FOX 52 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Ahunt. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ahunt and MilborneOne. - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next step?

Actually, I wasn't seeking a rehash of previous discussions on whether or images with artificial backgrounds - whole or partial - should be allowed. As clear from this discussion, editors differ on how and when such images should be used. Rather, I was asking if we should seek guidance from the Wikipedia community on the use of such images. The above discussion shows that such guidance is probably needed. So, what next? - BilCat (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: Why don't you start by clarifiyling your rational. Your argument is “its artificial background” – Which somehow deceives the reader? Maybe if the helicopter was underwater, but it was placed in the sky where an aircraft flies. That makes no logical sense. Are these examples fake too? [1], [2], [3] - (for the record: adding enhancement clarity to these images is not my first choice, but until a better one comes along I think it helps the reader) FOX 52 (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FOX 52: And that's going to help get a community consensus on the issue how exactly? - BilCat (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple question: how does superimposing a partial sky for another sky "give a new meaning" or "deceives the reader" - FOX 52 (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your questions were answered by others in the previous discussion section, but you have rejected them. Is my repeating those answers going to change your opinion on the matter? - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref how does superimposing a partial sky for another sky "give a new meaning" or "deceives the reader" Well, in the example at the top of this discussion, the probe on the front of the helicopter seems to have been completely removed.
As to an overall rationale - the same as any article content - it should be an accurate depiction. I don't know that it's possible to write a few sentences to give hard rules for when to crop, rebalance colour, or adjust backgrounds in every circumstance - but consensus can likely be reached on a case by case basis when required. (Hohum @) 19:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The site-wide Manual of Style gives some guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Editing_images. Blurring a background to emphasise the subject is allowed, alterations which might "materially mislead" the viewer are not. Does it "materially mislead" the viewer if a machine close to the ground, with its controls set accordingly, is re-presented as high in the sky, or if the background - and possibly some minor edge detail - is removed altogether? Do we need to take each such image on a case-by-case basis? May I suggest that we raise these questions in a new thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that I don't think we can cover every circumstance doesn't mean I think every image usage needs to approved via case by case consensus. I'm all for getting wider input on the subject. (Hohum @) 00:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox aircraft occurrence

A discussion is open with a request to enable users to embed the NRHP infobox template within the aircraft occurence one, Template_talk:Infobox_aircraft_occurrence#Embedding. Comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piasecki H-21

I've added the Congo Democratic Air Force to the operators list, but with only a forum source the image(s) appear authentic, but have not been able to locate any published sources - If any one has one please post it- Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forums aren't reliable sources - and there don't appear to be any photos of the H-21 on the link you posted anyway. Unless anyone actually has a WP:RS that states this, then the DRC air force should be removed from the H-21 article.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-18C Maquette

Swiss users seem determined to have an article on this and it has been created again as F/A-18C Maquette, to late for me tonight to check how close it is to the previously deleted article so parking it here if someone else has time to look at it, thanks. (possibly block evasion by User:FFA P-16) MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have debated this one before and the subject is just not notable. All air forces have training aids like this for various uses from tech training to firefighter training. The wording used and the edit history of the editor who started this looks very much like a certain banned user's style. I can't imagine anyone else but him jumping on this article topic, either. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This new article is definitely unacceptable. However I believe that the consensus on the topic needs reversing. I have been working on an alternative draft at User:Steelpillow/test1 which I believe demonstrates adequate notability. First of all, the criticisms of context such as "All air forces have training aids like this for various uses from tech training to firefighter training" (as voiced again above here) has never been backed up by evidence of similarly sophisticated mock-ups: the combination of true-to-life airframe plus a complex interactive fault simulation systems fit gives it the ability to provide highly realistic training scenarios and this is believed by the manufacturer to be wholly unique. My challenge to other editors to disprove that by providing other equally sophisticated examples remains unanswered - sorry, but a burned-out fuselage used for fire training just does not cut it, any more than an onscreen virtual world does. Do any other air forces truly register their training rigs with unique official aircraft tail numbers? I have never seen another. Since the last discussion one more RS has appeared, though I forget which. Although I had no part in the recreation of the fanboi cruft, I do think that the consensus on notability needs revisiting. (BTW, the choice and formatting of the references in the fancruft version looks similar to mine and they are obviously derived from a common ancestor, but the content shows none of my working-over and cruft removal). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Pennant GenFly Mk2s" at RAF Cosford have Royal Air Force Serial numbers ZJ695 etc, pretty sophisticated training aids http://www.pennantplc.co.uk/products/generic-flying-controls-trainer-genfly/ but I am not sure are noteworthy enough for an article so I still done see why the F/A-18C is any different or unique. MilborneOne (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have learned something. However an article for the Genfly was created over five years ago and that does not even look like the real thing. On that basis the F-18 rig is even more deserving of one. Otherwise, the GenFly page should go too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt know we had an article ! - not the best quality and a bit of a ramble - perhaps an overview article on these training aids rather than individual types might be worth considering. MilborneOne (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note I having compared it with the original and I have deleted it under G4 as a close copy of the deleted page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a general overview article on Air Force training aids or similar would be a better home for these things. There could be a summary of what they are used for and then perhaps a para on each actually notable one? - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd need to find several more notable products and then some common threads to structure the article round. Given that such aids traditionally serve different markets - flight, maintenance and ground/emergency handling - I am not sure that would be possible. Separate articles for each market might be viable, but again, where are the other notable examples? There is a good article on the flight simulator and a short article on the aircraft fire trainer (that probably fails WP:GNG), but the Hornet mock-up has so many capabilities that it is hard to classify in this way. The manufacturers claim it to be unique in this respect and I see no sign here of that being seriously challenged. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Genfly is as full of fanboy trivia and apparent WP:OR as the deleted F/A-18C mock-up article, if not more so. It has no sources cited to demonstrate notability, but even ignoring the article state I can see no evidence that the Genfly is a more notable topic than the F/A-18C mockup. Nor can I see any reason to treat them differently just because their sources are in different languages. Should the GenFly article be put up for AfD, or should my latest draft of a better F/A-18C article be put up for approval? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 03:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is actually good, neutrally worded and seems to quite meet WP:GNG, so you have me convinced it should be posted. on the other hand the Genfly has no refs and should be deleted as non-notable. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fokker trimotor ID request

Vliegveld Schiphol met vliegtuig en stationsgebouw, Bestanddeelnr 189-0515.jpg

Can anyone identify this? KLM, 1933 at Schiphol. It looks like one of their great many Fokker F.VII trimotors, but what are those engines? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Fokker F.VIIb-3m trimotor PH-AGR, and that the engines are Gnome-Rhône 5B or 5K Titans, versions of the Bristol Titan. Some F.VIIb-3m aircraft were equipped with Titan engines. Photo of another example, flying for a French airline but still bearing Dutch registration.
There are a couple other photos of PH-AGR taken on the same occasion:
  • Schiphol vanuit de starttoren, Bestanddeelnr 189-0513.jpg
    Schiphol vanuit de starttoren, Bestanddeelnr 189-0513.jpg
  • De aankomst van de Hongaarse zangeres en actrice Gitta Alpar op Schiphol, Bestanddeelnr 189-0510.jpg
    De aankomst van de Hongaarse zangeres en actrice Gitta Alpar op Schiphol, Bestanddeelnr 189-0510.jpg
For some reason, PH-AGR had been miscategorized in Commons as a Fokker F.XII, but I just fixed that. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft&oldid=865971453"