Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.104.46.71 (talk) at 19:42, 5 December 2017 (→‎Shearwater Aircraft: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Articles for deletion

(8 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(1 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

Suggestions for Improving Aviation Museum Articles

Recently, I have been working on de-stub-ifying a number of aviation museum articles. However, I am at a loss for content.

The only areas (read: sections) to cover that I have come up with are history and collection/aircraft on display. I have also been adding museum infoboxes, but aside from that I am out of ideas. Even the history section itself is usually pretty sparse.

I will note that information such as museum hours and admission price are unencyclopedic.

Does anyone have any ideas for topics regarding an aviation museum that I could add? —Noha307 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, in general I cannot see anything else notable about aircraft museums. A few get embroiled in notable issues, for example the US Smithsonian Institute's National Air and Space Museum has twice been caught up in controversies (one perhaps still ongoing) over claims to the first powered flight. A few others may have architectural merit or tall tales about wartime or whatever. But really, one cannot expect an expansive article on a run-of-the-mill museum. And that is fine, it is how Wikipedia works. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just created a stub article for the Bronson Cutting crash

I've made a stub article for the 1935 airliner crash which killed U.S. Senator Bronson Cutting, but it badly needs expanding and I don't have the time to devote to it; I'd appreciate any help. Although this crash is already notable simply as an significant airliner crash of its era, its true impact lies in the political battle and regulatory transformation that followed it. I've discussed this to some extent in a posting to the accident task force talk page, and I discuss potential useful sources in the article's own talk page. Just thought I'd give a heads-up here.

Because of the crash's political and regulatory consequences, I'm also wondering if participants in other WikiProjects might be interested.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November contest open to all


Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest

Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|November 2017 WiR Contest]]

Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red|WikiProject Women in Red]]

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Air Show 2017

I will be attending the Dubai Air Show next week. Please leave me a message below if you'd like photos of any of the aircraft on display. The current aircraft list is here: http://www.dubaiairshow.aero/aircraft-list regards Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Hannifin edit requests

Hi! I work for a communications firm that represents Parker Hannifin, and I've shared a few edit requests for that article, including providing a new "Aerospace" section. If you have a moment, please take a look. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting that here, I'll take a look. - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

de Havilland

I've just noticed that there is a lack of consistency in the naming of de Havilland aircraft. For example, there is De Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth De Havilland Flamingo and De Havilland DH.88. I think there should be a single format & I'd favor the first form.TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have posted a link to this discussion on the de Havilland talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of consistency is due to WP:COMMONNAME which is a policy as opposed to a guideline. Some de Havilland types are commonly known by their type number and name, some by just their name and some by just their type number. I'd much rather see this system than some kind of false system introduced just for the sake of consistency (even though I like to see standardisation where possible). There was a big push with Avro aircraft a few years ago to include the type number in the article number (e.g. Avro 643 Cadet), most articles have been moved back since to just manufacturer and name. 'I'm going flying in an Avro 643 Cadet' doesn't roll off the tongue and it probably didn't back in the 1930s! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, in this case, I'd have the page-at-title (as opposed to redirects, which are cheap and should be plentiful!) exclude the DH number for aircraft with names in this case, for instance. However in this case, there's a fly in the ointment: De Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth includes the DH number because it is not the De Havilland Tiger Moth you're thinking of, but a case of a resused name needing the number to disambiguate! A quick scan of the de Havilland navbox, in fact, indicates that we are currently, in fact, quite consistent - in the vast majority of cases, types with names don't use the DH number, while those without names - for obvious reasons - do, and the DH.71 has one because of the above ambiguity, while the DH.88 has one because there's another De Havilland Comet... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Looking at the DH aircraft category there doesn't seem to be many types that have an awkward title. There is the problem of disambiguation which is why we have de Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth and de Havilland Tiger Moth. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about only using the type number where there is a need to disambiguate? Redirects to the common uses and hatnotes to the alternative articles. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can go along with that. The de Havilland DH.88 is more often but unofficially referred to as the "Comet racer" and for consistency with the WP:COMMONNAME policy the article really should be moved to something with "Comet" in the title, such as de Havilland DH.88 Comet (currently a redirect). This would also be consistent with the Tiger Moth example. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to fully explain myself earlier as I was on my Kindle Fire. Been having issues with the laptop which are hopefully now resolved.
So it's de Havilland DH.82 Tiger Moth and de Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth. De Havilland Tiger Moth redirecting to the DH.82 article, both having hatnotes pointing at the other. And de Havilland DH.88 Comet and de Havilland DH.106 Comet. De Havilland Comet redirecting to the DH.106 article, both having hatnotes pointing at the other. Maybe a de Havilland Comet Racer redirect could be created too? Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that all looks good to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to the suggestion of Mjroots2 further up (per indents), some types never received names so numbers are essential. But then, there is the argument that to include the type number for say the de Havilland Mosquito would be an apparent violation of WP:COMMON and I have reliable books which don't use type numbers where they don't have to, to back that up. On the other hand I also have reliable books which always include the type number, so the specific interpretation of common name policy is open to challenge - common among which readership? Names should surely be included where they exist, the only meaningful debate can be whether numbers should be excluded from some article titles. The main practical problem with that is in agreeing which names are sufficiently common and unique to trump the number and which are not. Given that redirects can fix any user expectation issues, my personal view is that we should hold on to the idea of being an encyclopedia and give the common name that readers of an encyclopedia might expect. And if I picked up an Encyclopedia of De Havilland Aircraft I would definitely hope to find the type numbers included in the titles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The adopted consensus - admittely, primarily developed around consistency issues with U.S. military designations - is to use "manufacturer, designation, name" page title format for aircraft articles. Then again, there's also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NATURAL to consider (along with WP:COMMONSENSE), and, as mentioned, redirects are cheap and useful things. To sum up my rambling, I'd lean, in the crunch, towards including the DH-number across the board here, even though it feels odd including it for the (jet) Comet! - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinct difference between US and British type naming, I would oppose any article moves to introduce a false naming system (have already opposed this above). I agree with how US types are currently named and also how the majority of British types are named. It is the readers that determine what the common name of an article is, some research into the number of page views of articles and their redirected alternate names might remove editor's personal preference from the process. I can move pages but I rarely do so as I believe in stability, the recent move of the DH.88 had been stable for 13 years, I didn't see the consensus to move it. Please keep in mind that page moves cause havoc with navbox redirects unless they are manually edited, it's mentioned at Wikipedia:Moving a page under the rarely heeded 'post-move cleanup' section. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that in the past sometimes I've had navbox redirect edits reverted on the grounds of WP:NOTBROKEN (and had to point out that in navboxes, redirects do break how they display on the page) doesn't help. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just point them to the page move instructions and carry on. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The DH.88 patently needed doing, per the above disambig discussion. As far as I am concerned, 13-year-old cruft needs fixing 365 times more urgently than 13-day-old-cruft. Do let me know if I broke any navboxes during my customary post-move cleanup. My apologies for disturbing your stability, but that's WP:BOLD for you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bombs away...

While linking stuff at an AfD, it came to my attention that bomb rack is a redirect to bomb bay, which seems a little bit off to me. While bomb racks are often (always?) found inside bomb bays, they're not synonomous, as bomb racks are also (more often, especially these days) attached to pylons. It would seem to me that this might be low-hanging fruit for somebody to write about. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're covered at Hardpoint, the redirect could point to the specific section on racks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent image removals

Today, there was mass removal of aircraft images from List of United States bomber aircraft. I have started a discussion about this on that article's talk page here. Thanks - theWOLFchild 22:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Aviation

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shearwater Aircraft

Shearwater Aircraft appears to be a defunct aircraft manufacturing company which never made any aeroplanes. [shearwateraircraft.com its web site] is up for sale. Should this article be proposed for deletion? 83.104.46.71 (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation&oldid=813886058"