Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

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

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- ]

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

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



Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Canada Flight 759[edit]

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Canada Flight 759. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC at WT:AIRPORTS[edit]

Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 11:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Notable appearance in media[edit]

In a few aircraft articles I recently removed the link to Aircraft in fiction in notable appearances in media section to see also as it just looked daft having a main link on an empty section. It has been rightly noted by User:Cthomas3 that this is not what WP:AIRMOS says (which has "Aircraft type articles that have entries here should have Notable appearances in media sections that simply refer to this article, in a manner like Sikorsky MH-53#Notable_appearances_in_media."} Am I right does it look daft and we should change the guide or carry on with a notable appearances section, any thoughts, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that the key to this is "notable". Most appearances are fan trivia and should be relegated to the See Also section along the lines of *[[Aircraft in fiction#This aeroplane|Aircraft in fiction]]. Only if sufficient commentary to establish notability of the particular appearance can be cited, should the article carry a section for it. There may then be some duplication of material across the two articles, but that is permissible where the same stuff rounds out two different but related topics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the almost empty "Notable appearances in media" section. The section can stay if it has some content that does not go in the Aircraft in fiction article, such as notable pop culture appearances. But if there is only the main link to Aircraft in fiction article, move that to the See also section instead as you have done. --Finlayson (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I reverted the wholesale movement of the Avro Lancaster notable appearances in media to the aircraft in fiction article. My thinking being that Dambusters film is notable use of them. On reflection it could be trimmed and have more pertinent information. Some appearances of aircraft in films are central, eg B-52 in Dr Strangelove, B-17s in Memphis Belle and warrant being in the article. Some are notable but not that crucial to the aircraft article - the Vulcan in Thunderball? Yet others, such as the Starfighter in the Star Trek episode when they go back in time, definitely don't belong in main aircraft article and probably barely warrant being in the aircraft in fiction one.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The Starfighter appearance in Star Trek has been removed (and re-added, and re-removed) from Aircraft in fiction) already due to both lack of notability and lack of sourcing. I wasn't passing judgment on the fictional appearances that I was moving from the main articles to the fiction page; I tried to find proper sources where I could, but otherwise I assumed that since they were already on the main article that they were notable enough for Aircraft in fiction. I'm happy to follow whatever style we think is appropriate; I thought the empty section was a bit odd, but the MOS as written was very specific about the format.
Graeme, in one edit you also made reference to the word "Notable" in the title of the section, saying that it was redundant (every appearance listed in that section should be inherently notable). I thought I would mention that here as well as a potential suggestion to shorten the title to "Appearances in media". Personally I am okay either way. Casual readers may not be aware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and expect that all appearances should be expected there, but I do see your point. Cthomas3 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Notable" is in the section label to tell or remind users that not every possible appearance belongs in the section. --Finlayson (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
It is probably worth keeping in mind that the reason Aircraft in fiction exists is to make sure that the aircraft type articles don't get filled up with tons of fan listings of every use of the aircraft in film, books video games and such, as was the case at one time. Many popular aircraft had "popular culture" sections that dwarfed the real aircraft's history. If changes are made it should retain this aim of avoiding adding tons of fictional content to the aircraft articles. - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The more I think about this the more I am unsure which way this should go. On the one hand, I agree that an empty section with just a summary link looks a little strange. However, I think that it's also a bit awkward to have the "correct" place for the link to go change based upon whether the section is present: in "See also" if there is no "Notable appearances in media" section, and then "Notable appearances in media" if at some point someone does add some notable media content. It could be moved permanently to "See also", but I really do think it belongs in "Notable appearances" if the section is present. Forced to choose, I think I would keep the status quo, as that makes the MOS clearer and I'm really not that bothered by the nearly empty section. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation in type numbers[edit]

My immediate concern is with Blohm & Voss but this issue must surely apply to other manufacturers. Different sources will write say design Projekt 201 as P 201, P.201 or P–201. Sometimes a source will be inconsistent. While original documents from various sources sometimes differ (after all, who cares when there's a war on), original drawings always used the first of these, as P 201. But most Wikipedia pages currently use the P.201 format. Do we have a guideline on this? If not, then should we have one, to ensure consistency within and across articles? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

is this one of those things were we can say defer to what sources "commonly" use? I'd say if a manufacturer's aircraft articles currently have one format, on the whole, and there's no clear reason that it's wrong, I wouldn't rush to change it. Equally I wouldn't rush to create a fistful of redirects to cover all eventualities. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Aha, found at WP:AVIMOS; "This should be either the manufacturer's designation or the military designation if more common." I'll go with the manufacturer's original drawings that have been published. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft specifications[edit]

template:Aircraft specifications produces humourous results when there's only one engine eg Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano#Specifications (EMB 314 Super Tucano) reads Powerplant: 1 Hartzell 5-blade constant speed, fully feathering, reversible-pitch × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68C turboprop, 1,196 kW (1,600 shp) each (my emphasis).

Is there a parameter I've missed, or can we modify the template to simply omit the each when there's only one engine? Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings! It appears that there is a {{number of jets}} parameter that controls at least the "each". If it is set to 1, the word does not appear. CThomas3 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Andrewa, you added extra material to the number of props field, which confused the template. That should be a simple number. You should add a propellers parameter with the extra propeller info. (Yes, this is confusing; I didn't make the template. And it doesn't help that there's a separate Aircraft specs template with rather different behavior.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry, I meant {{number of props}} as well (I was using my very small phone for the last message). Thanks Colin Douglas Howell for the correction and looking into it further. Pinging Andrewa also because I forgot to before. :) CThomas3 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Colin Douglas Howell states above you added extra material to the number of props field, which confused the template. That should be a simple number. You should add a propellers parameter with the extra propeller info... Problem number one with this is I didn't add anything to the article, I just read it and noted that what it said makes Wikipedia look rather silly.
Problem number two is that WikiProject members are probably more competent than I to fix it. I just had a go following the instructions as I thought, but it made it worse so I didn't save it. I'll try again, it should be fixed. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that was my mistake. I didn't even bother checking the history, I just naively assumed from your comment that you had edited the article and gotten strange results. I've fixed it now, as best the template will allow. (Personally, I'd prefer it if the field labeled "Propellers:" would instead be labeled as "Propeller:" if there was only a single prop.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Template fork[edit]

As pointed out above we have two templates with similar purpose, Template:Aircraft specs and Template:Aircraft specifications. Both have the odd bug in. Presumably, one was forked from the other over an editorial disagreement as to how they should behave. Does anybody know what the original issue was and does it still exist? Do we still have that disagreement, or would it be sensible to deprecate one of them, fix the other and move articles progressively across to the one that the project has decided to actively maintain? The deprecated template can then be made a redirect to the active one, to make sure they don't drift apart again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there are three templates, and the history is long and complicated. Template:Aircraft specifications is the oldest, dating back to late 2005, and still has around 2,800 uses. There was some early disagreement over the style, which led major project contributor Rlandmann to create a new Template:Aerospecs in early 2007; this still has around 2,300 uses. Some early discussion of this then-new template can be found here. In mid-2009, further dissatisfaction with the existing templates led Trevor MacInnis to create a third template, Template:Aircraft specs, which now has around 5,400 uses; it's clearly the most popular, but it doesn't enjoy an overwhelming advantage. Early discussion of this third template can be found here and here. I think the hope was to combine the best features of the two earlier templates and convert everything to the new one, but obviously that hasn't happened. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :In so far as I recall they are not forks per se but not quite parallel evolution either. Template:Aircraft specs (circa 5000 transclusions) evolved from a earlier template (Template:Aerospecs - which still has circa 2000 transclusions) in order to encompass specific parameters for gliders, airships, swing wing aircraft and so forth. It also picked up code from Template:Aircraft specifications (circa 2000 transclusions) - the armament section and props chiefly.

The issues that put the templates at odds were over automatic calculation of alternate units versus manual input and what happens when you need to attach a ref tag within the field, the application of the template to mixed powerplant (including rotorcraft) aircraft and usage with airships. (I think)
There was some argy-bargy with enthusiasts converting aircraft articles using one template to the other but that died out (on pages I was watching). If an article exists using Template:Aerospecs it migrates easier to Template:Aircraft specs
I would suggest a third way - draw on the best elements of each template to create the definitive template first and then all three similar templates can be converted. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll also add that since the templates were formed there have been conversions to the new way of coding which means they are even more difficult to understand the inner workings. Getting lost in the number of opening and closing curly brackets for instance. Code expertise will be needed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Having taken a look at them, it is obvious that reducing to one template is the best way ahead, but that they all have room for improvement. I am not sure that writing a brand new one from scratch would be wise, it would be better to make improvements to the latest one, Template:Aircraft specs. It might even be possible to make the migration from the other templates easier, by adding extra input options for some fields. Is there a guideline we could discuss updating, to deprecate the other two templates and ask editors to migrate to this one? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest writing a brand new one from scratch but whichever template you based the "new" one on would start at a new name rather than altering the chosen one in situ. I would back seeing if you could take alternate parameter names to minimize the renaming of parameters. Then after seeing that a few awkward test cases (Fairey Rotodyne is a favourite of mine) passed muster, I would move to deprecate all the existing templates in favour of the new one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see altering the chosen one in situ as a problem. This template is effectively a piece of software, and software gets upgraded like that all the time. One just needs to agree the changes first, develop them in a sandbox and validate them thoroughly before rolling them across to the live template. Otherwise, we will end up with four templates in use and more muddle than ever. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)