Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AIR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

WikiProject Aircraft talk — archives

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

Lists: [ Aircraft | Manufacturers | Engines | Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons | Missiles | Timeline ]

WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 
 
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the aircraft project.
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review




US military roundels[edit]

I was looking for an article on the various roundels used on US military aircraft, but couldn't find anything at all. There is a text section at Military aircraft insignia#United States, and the historical roundels are shown in a later section of that article, Military aircraft insignia#Former insignia of national air forces. However, we don't seem to have an article like Royal Air Force roundels. (And no, I'm not gonna say that if the RAF has one, the USAF should too!!) However, I think there is enough information available to create and sustain a similar article on US roundels. Military aircraft insignia#United States does have a lengthy text history, but only one source. I do have a book, Angelucci, Enzo; Peter Bowers (1987). The American Fighter: The Definite Guide to American Fighter Aircraft from 1917 to the Present. New York: Orion Books. ISBN 0-51756-588-9.  , that has some details on the history of the US roundels that I can use to cite most of the text. DEVELOPMENT OF USAF INSIGNIA and U.S. Naval Aircraft Marking also have some history and photos.

Does anyone see any objections to creating such an article? It should probably also cover fin flashes, as does the RAF article, and I would probably use that article's format and tables as a pattern, at least initially. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a worthy project to me! - Ahunt (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I started it a while ago in my sandbox at User:NiD.29/US Insignia but couldn't find anything on the introduction of the monotone roundels - feel free to use what I started - note that there is an unresolved issue with the monotone (black/white or grey) roundels I was unable to fix - someone with more experience with the format should be able to fix the problem I am sure. Cheers,NiD.29 (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! That wil save a alot work, especially since I'm table-deficient. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
NiD.29, do you have any preferences for attribution, and do you want me to work in your sandbox? Would you prefer me to just copy the contents and attribute them to your sandbox link, or just work in the sandbox until the article is ready, and then move it to mainspace? Either way is fine with me, though I find it useful to have the detailed edit histories in the article, as it's helpful in proving prior work in cases of unattributed copies on other websites that claim copyrights. - BilCat (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, any ideas for a name for the article? I was thinking of United States military aircraft national insignia. - BilCat (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Good name and feel free to work on it in my sandbox - I can rename it once you feel it is ready for the move.NiD.29 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, that is probably a good choice of names for it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I have moved it into main article space as United States military aircraft national insignia after updating some of the roundels - it still needs references galore though.NiD.29 (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:DC-9[edit]

Template:DC-9 New template has just appeared on DC-9s, does it add any value and if it does will they spread to other types? MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No, templates like that add a lot of article clutter. It should be converted into a simple navbox instead. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Concur that it's better as a navbox footer, though I really don't see the need for it in the first place. Note that the user is fairly new. - BilCat (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Every new element that gets tossed in the pot adds to the complexity of maintenance and requires new sets of rules and standards. For the sake of project maintenance I would recommend against opening the door to this. ScrpIronIV 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I've removed them from the airliner articles, with a note in the edit summary to see this discussion. In some cases, the sidebar was pushing other photos way down the page, and causing squeezing issues with left-aligned photos. A footer is definetely preferable. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It does not need an image if it is placed right under Infobox. It should be fine as a footer or navbox (I'm not sure of the difference). Naming it something like "Template:DC-9 family" would be better, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, navboxes can be placed anywhere n an article. This navbox is designed as a sidebar, while the ones at the bottom of an article are footers. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
As the creator of the template, I have now removed this sidebar from all pages where it is used. I have now tagged this template for speedy deletion G7.Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The template has been deleted. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The consensus here was basically to convert it to a footer navbox to go at the bottom of the page. Would that be satisfactory? - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

737 variants[edit]

The end of the Variants section of the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 article currently states:

For later DC-9 variants and derivatives, see McDonnell Douglas MD-80, McDonnell Douglas MD-90, and Boeing 717.

Whereas on the Boeing 737 article, information about the newer generation variants of the 737 (737-300 to 737-900) is also mentioned, and information is duplicated on two separate articles.

Would it be a good idea to consolidate all information about the variants on their respective articles? That is, the Boeing 737 article would only contain information about the -100 and -200, plus small sections for each of the generations, directing readers to these articles with {{main}} hatnotes. The Boeing 737 Classic article would contain information about the -300, -400 and -500 variants, the Boeing 737 Next Generation article containing information about the -600, -700, -800 and -900 variants, and the Boeing 737 MAX article containing information about the MAX.

Note that information in the Accidents and incidents, Aircraft on display and Specifications sections of the Boeing 737 article mainly consists of specifications of the main 737. My proposal would reduce the hassle of updating two articles at the same time. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Boeing 737 article covers all the 737 variants. The accidents section does summarize all the variants, but only lists the -100 and -200 accident entries to prevent repeat of the entries for the later variants. The specifications do cover all the variants in a summary manner. It would be better start a separate article on the original variants than rescope the main 737 article, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
An IP has tried to create Boeing 737 Original, but it's been reverted twice already. It's probably best to discuss a split on the 737 talk page first. I don't see the need for another 737 article at this point. - BilCat (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should explain: these sections should be removed from the Boeing 737 article, because they are redundant to the same sections in the Boeing 737 Classic and Boeing 737 Next Generation articles:

  • 737-300
  • 737-400
  • 737-500
  • 737-600
  • 737-700
  • 737-800
  • 737-900
  • Boeing Business Jet

-sovereign°sentinel 06:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Boeing 737 is the main article and can repeat some info covered in other articles per WP:Summary style. So removing all repeated info as you suggest is not appropriate. Boeing Business Jet covers 737, 747, 777 and other business jet versions. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • With that said, the 737 Classic and NG variant sections did not really follow Summary style. So I cut of the details. Boeing 737 should be in better shape in the respect now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Piper J-3 Cub[edit]

Needs some eyes, possible edit war brewing over one user wanting to overpopulate the page with images of British "Flitfires". I commented on that persons userpage already, as have others.NiD.29 (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The section is completely over the top, and needs to be trimmed right back to avoid WP:UNDUE issues. Also, many of the photos that are being edit warred over are of dubious copyright status. I have nominated two for deletion on Commons. Nigel Ish (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've trimmed the section back and removed the excess photos. Of course, now the Flitfire article needs serious work.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
And the editor has reverted the changes to the article - claiming I am "not longer an active user"! and that they have initiated a "talk" somewhere although it is unclear where.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Nid.29, that's not quite right. What I stated was that Nigel Ish, who was heavily editing my work, was no longer be an active user, as he claimed on his user page. I was confused by the contradiction of Nigel Ish's words versus his actions. However, that point is now moot to me.

Anyway, I got on here tonight because I have changed my mind about being a member of the WikiProject Aircraft. Please let me know how to un-join this group. It's much too Gestapo-ish for me. Thank you.

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There are rules, as there are in all communities, which are necessary to facilitate collaboration, and yes it does take time to understand them all. It isn't Gestapo-ish in the slightest. I think everyone runs afoul of some of them from time to time, myself included, but all rules are created and maintained by consensus - and not by popularity or by fiat but by strength of argument. If there is a divergence of opinion, we discuss both the reasons for the current rules, and consider changing those rules, if adequate reasonable arguments are put forward that support those changes. Some rules have been put in place to ensure the usefulness of the pages (having a lot of images has been shown to impair accessibility and readibility), some to ensure all positions are treated with due weight so some minority argument cannot be confused as a common argument (balance - if there are several positions they all need to be included), and the words that are chosen need to be neutral so as to not seem to be taking a position. Also, as a part of this, excessive details on one specific use are discouraged unless there is something to counteract it - a 1000 words on the flitfire might be appropriate if the whole article already has 25,000 words but not if the article only has 2000 words. The key is balance. FWIW there is no need to unsubscribe from anything but you can un-watch any pages you have made changes to, including this one, and can turn email notifications off in the settings. I hope eventually you'll change your mind about leaving. As for whether someone is an active user - it isn't relevant as editors are allowed to take breaks any time they feel like it, however if you had looked at his list of edits, you would have seen he was very much active.NiD.29 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility of lists[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Accessibility of lists for discssion of an accessibility concern. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass Airbus Helicopters moves[edit]

User:GeorgeGriffiths has unilaterally moved most of the Eurocopter aircraft articles to Airbus Helicopters titles, all without discussion. Note that most of these titles have been moved and reverted at least twice before. Is there still a consensus here that these titles should remain at Eurocopter? Some will have to be moved by an admin due to double moves. Also, perhaps these titles should be move-protected too. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they should be moved back and protected. These are still the WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Note that according to the user's userpage, he's 15, but he is a WPAVIATION member. Perhaps one of our more diplomatic members can talk to him. (That certainly ain't me!) - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Previous discussion was in 2014 ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_37#Eurocopter_aircraft_article_renamings ) I don't think situation has changed and they should be moved back to "Eurocopter xxxx" GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed them all to their new, correct name. They're no longer called Eurocopter, as shown in the source I added to all articles. As such, they should stay with the new name I've given them. :) GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Wiki policy says the most common name, not the most technically correct one. So expect them to be returned to their most common names shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, I wasn't aware of that. That doesn't seem very logical to me but there are probably some good reasons for it that I won't argue with. If my edits are a breach of policy then feel free to revert them. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Common name would suggest Eurocopter to be the common name for most of them. For more than twenty years, the Tiger was called the "Eurocopter Tiger", and for less than a year it has been known as the "Airbus Helicopters Tiger" - the balance of time is more than twenty times in favour of the Eurocopter name. The present name doesn't overrule what it has been known as for the overwhelming majority of the time. Kyteto (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Ditto (and more so), the Super Puma flying since 1978, and a Eurocopter since 1992. Though since we are talking names why does it have the "SA 332" bit rather than just Eurocopter Super Puma? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks "Super Puma" was used for more than one model, such as the EC225 Super Puma. But there's probably more to it that I don't get. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cub Crafters[edit]

This article has recently been suffering from spamming of irrelevant and promotional information by IPs. Some extra eyes or semi-protection for a while would be appreciated! - Ahunt (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)