Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

WikiProject Aircraft was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 13 June 2011.

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

Shortcuts

Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review

Peer review

Albatros C.II

The Albatros C.II article’s text describes a pusher biplane. The picture shows a tractor biplane. The Idflieg no. given in the articles text is C 27/15 however in the book “German Aircraft of the First a World War by Peter Grey and Owen Thetford” (cited in the text) the Idflieg number given for the sole C.II pusher is given as 27/16. Adding to the confusion there were two prototypes from Albatros that shared the C.II designation. It’s not clear to me which aircraft the article is meant to be about. I would request a member of the group with access to sources on WW1 German aircraft reviews the article. As things stand the text and picture combo is a glaring error. --Stivushka (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask the editor who added the pusher text for clarification, there is nothing on the article talk page. Following the article history it looks like the infobox image has been added and removed several times. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the aircraft type covered by the article [1]. The aircraft in the infobox is a homebuilt fuselage with Tiger Moth wings, on the French register as a 'C2', various other images describe it as a C.I. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this also. The problem is that that the Albatros C.II pusher aircraft has the serial number 27/16 and the article specifies 27/15. The serial number was changed in 2019 by an anonymous user who also changed the configuration from Tractor to Pusher.

German WW1 Aircraft are outside my wheelhouse and this one is tricky as historically there was a Albatros pusher prototype built in Germany and a tractor prototype built by Albatros in Austria. Both aircraft were given the C.II designation. It would be best if somebody with a copy of the Albatros C.II specs from a published source checked this over as I suspect the current article may be an amalgamation.Stivushka (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book that will probably have the answers would be by Jack Herris 978-1935881476, £40 used in the UK. The first version of the article by MilborneOne clearly states it was a pusher aircraft and mentioned the tail configuration (needed for pusher types). Other editors have added their unsourced thoughts, changing the configuration. A lot can be learned by browsing the history. The source linked above (which is not an RS for wiki use) says it was built and flown in 1916, that is where the 16 comes from in the serial number, later in the same source 15 is mentioned, probably an error. If a number value has changed by one it is worth checking the history for vandalism as that is one of their subtle tricks though in this case it looks like a genuine edit. A non-free image could be uploaded, having an image of a pusher aircraft in the infobox might deter the tractor fans. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book and the coverage is pretty skimpy of both designs since neither was produced in any quantities. I'll see what I can add.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me we have two design on our hands, both of which are probably notable enough to describe. I'd suggest we split the article into two main sections, each dealing with one of them, with a short lead explaining the ambiguous designation. Once that has shaped up and confirmed coverage of each, we can then consider splitting the article into two separate ones. The last thing we want is two editorial camps warring against each other's edits. I'd also suggest that temporarily, during this process, we break the usual rule and allow each design its own infobox and specification, on the local consensus that these templates are helpful, while choosing between designs is unhelpful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed article based on two sources which are available on archive.org (German Aircraft of the First World War - Peter Grey and Owen Thetford) and actively in publication (German and Austro-Hungarian Aircraft Manufacturers 1908-1918 - Terry Treadwell). Article is now clearly about the pusher aircraft C 27/16 built by Albatros Flugzeugwerke in 1916. Expanded existing paragraph on the Austro-Hungarian C.II (Tractor Type) so the differences are clear to the reader. Paired back the specifications to those in earlier version of the article by MilborneOne (this data is supported by Gey and Thetford). Added correct picture. Added OAW C.II (Already has a page) to the Albatros template page. Added Albatros C.II to the list of pusher aircraft. Linked the OAW C.II to a few more categories so its easier to find--Stivushka (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox aircraft begin}} - or how to add an alternative name?

The documentation says that this is "currently" (Feb 2023) being merged with {{Infobox aircraft}}. @Plastikspork: who closed the merge discussion.

Is anything being done?

My particular, small, problem is that I would like to add the alternative name "Waterbird" to Lakes Water Bird, as this name seems to be commonly used especially by the charity preserving its memory. (I've added a hatnote at Water bird too, which was missing.) I looked at the infobox template (I thought!), saw "|other_names=" and thought it would work, but then realised I was looking at the wrong infobox template, "infobox aircraft", which has this parameter. "Infobox aircraft begin" doesn't seem to offer the same parameter.

I tried just changing the infobox to "aircraft", but it lost the formatting of the box so clearly didn't work.

It might be useful if the merger of the templates could be completed.

I'm not an aircraft enthusiast, just watched a TV programme last night which talked about the Waterbird and then struggled to find Wikipedia's information about it! PamD 08:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This merge is awaiting someone with the knowledge, motivation and time to do it. Could be a long wait. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Other name(s)" parameter is for articles on individual aircraft that went by more than one name (for example, see Precious Metal (aircraft)). I would be opposed to adding such a parameter for aircraft types, as it would likely blur the line between official and unofficial names, designations, and stylizations. It would also just add more clutter to the infobox when the information could easily be covered in the first sentence or paragraph of the lede (as the Lakes Water Bird currently does). - ZLEA _T\^C 08:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flags, and other things

Before I even get to an actual question itself, I freely admit I am completely baffled as to where I should be asking certain questions because so much comes under the heading 'grey area'. As a newish editor (~10 months, ~700 edits) I am still struggling through the labyrinth that is Wikipedia. FWIW, yes - I have read countless guidelines until my head spins. Typically my enquiry starts off related to a specific article, in which case even I have worked out that the Talk page is the place to go. But then I notice the same issue occurs across several articles, maybe dozens, or even hundreds. This is now a wider question of style or policy, and it is at this point I come unstuck.

The Question; what is the policy on FLAGS within aviation articles?

There is one answer under WP:MOS, another variation per WP:AVISTYLE, a third option at WP:AIRMOS, yet another at MOS:MIL, somewhat different advice if it is within an WP:INFOBOX, and still more variations. But then, after all that, I find hundreds of articles going against what I thought I had read, which suggests it is 'policy' rather than a single editor making what I consider a mistake. Obviously it's time for me to take a step back.

It is at that point I fall into the second pit of despair, because I cannot be certain if this is the place to even ask the question.

The Question refined; what is the policy on FLAGS within Infoboxes, when applied to military (aviation) units?

At the risk of being labelled racist, I perceive a difference in viewpoint towards flags depending on nationality. It is rare to walk down a street in Britain and see the national flag outside several properties. It is rare to enter a British school and see a flag in every classroom. Searching for a good example, I found No.1 Squadron RAAF, rated WP:FA, with an Infobox as clean as a whistle; no flags, no pretty ribbons. This is not the case when it comes to many RAF and USAF units. But if I start tearing down national flags, I could end up starting World War III.

So, is this a question about Aviation, Military History, national identity, or what? And is this one for the Teahouse? I would search the archives for previous discussions, but which archives, and how do even I phrase the question?

Caveat(s); I haven't read every US military article on Wikipedia, I haven't visited every school classroom in America, I haven't compared Infoboxes from every nationality. And of course I could just be mistaken. WendlingCrusader (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can safely say that the only place that flags are acceptable in aircraft type articles is the 'Operators' sections. Military units and battle/wars etc come under WP:MILHIST and their style guidelines, if I don't know their guidelines (which I don't!) then I avoid making questionable changes in those types of articles. There are 22,000 articles tagged with the aircraft project, keeps me busy! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important for aircraft articles to have a consistent style and appearance whether the aircraft is military or civil, so aviation style guidelines should override military history style guidelines. Per WP:AIRMOS: "Flags should not be used in the infobox to indicate national origin." Per @Nimbus227: the only place that flags are acceptable in aircraft type articles is the 'Operators' sections. This seems to be the WP:AV consensus and most aircraft articles reflect this. I seem to recall previous WP:AV talk page discussions about sprinkling flags in "Operational history" sections of aircraft articles and breakdowns of victims' nationalities in aircrash articles, and the consensus has always been to not use flags. Keep in mind that if an aircraft has a notable role in a particular military campaign, there is probably a Wikipedia article about that campaign, so the "Operational history" section does not need to be (and shouldn't be) exhaustive. Carguychris (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FLAG is the overriding guideline, project guidelines will be variations of it without busting it. The overuse of flags is known as 'Flagspam'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) See MOS:FLAG, particularly MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Flags should never be used in prose except in special cases where the symbol is part of the text. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nimbus227 / @Carguychris

It is probably my fault for waffling excessively, but to re-iterate, this is not about aircraft directly; it is regarding squadrons, wings, and other military-aviation units. It's also not about their role in any conflict between this flag and that flag. Instead it comes down to what appears within the Infobox e.g.

112th Fighter Squadron, Ohio ANG, USAF, comes under United States, but owes it's allegiance to Ohio
No. 617 Squadron RAF is associated with United Kingdom and the Royal Air Force

@Fnlayson - yes, when it's written out like that, it looks even worse. But that is the prose version of the Infobox for these units.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPAIR primarily focuses on aircraft and aircraft related equipment such as engines. For better guidance on military unit infoboxes, you can ask at WT:MILHIST. And don't worry about having asked here first. You needed a place to start, and we're glad you asked here. We try to be helpful no matter the question, even if it's just to point you elsewhere. BilCat (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat Thankyou for a most helpful (and pleasant) response. I have re-examined the guidelines and (following your advice) now posed the following question over at WT:MILHIST.

I would like some confirmation of the policy on FLAGS within Infoboxes, when applied to military units.

WP:MILMOS#FLAGS states;

In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited.

Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative?

Template {{infobox military unit}} adds;

country – optional – If the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign state, the name of that state.
allegiance – optional – Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state; can usually be omitted otherwise. In the case of National Guard or Naval Militia units, the State of origin should be indicated.

Searching for a good example, I found No. 1 Squadron RAAF, rated WP:FA, with an Infobox as clean as a whistle; no flags, no pretty ribbons, just plain text. This is not the case when it comes to many RAF and USAF units.

For those who might be interested, further discussion is now at WT:MILHIST

WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pilot intake jet fighter has been nominated for discussion

Category:Pilot intake jet fighter has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at WT:AV but more relevant to this branch of the project. A contested speedy deletion, apparently related to this earlier deletion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fighter aircraft generation in lede

Based on some edit comments (eg. Special:Diff/1100020148, Special:Diff/1220743608) there seems to have been a WP:AIR consensus from some years ago to omit generations from fighter article ledes. Can anyone point me to the (archived?) discussion(s) where the consensus was made? Thanks. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 18:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 32 hits for 'generation' if entered in the archive search at the top of this page, not all related to numbered generations but would be a good start. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian WW2 aircraft manufacturers...

So while getting back into things checking various categories and such, I came across the Nagler-Rolz NR 54, a truly bizzare early helicopter. What caught my eye, though, was the fact the aircraft is universally described as "Austrian", categorised as a "1940s Austrian helicopter", and so on. The thing is...well, at the time it was built and flown, there was no Austria, as it was after the Anschluss and before the end of WW2, or even the Moscow Declarations. So I'm wondering if this should be left as "Austrian", or changed to "German" to reflect the geopolitical reality of the time it was manufactured and flown? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]