Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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- ]

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

Canadian International Air Show‎[edit]

This article could use some more eyes on it for the next while. The article has been vandalized every year for the past five years during the airshow, which was this past weekend, but it is always quickly reverted. It has been going on so long that the press has now noted it and I have included a para on just that, with the refs. The latest step is that the vandals are now trying to include their exact vandalism wording in the article as "cited in the refs" in the article. Obviously this will lead to more vandalism to get that quoted as well, in a bootstrap fashion, plus the vandals are actually now in a WP:COI, since they are the subject of the article or at least one part of it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

On my watchlist.TSRL (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Variants order[edit]

Hello, in the Boeing 777x article I put the order of the variants -9 first then -8, as in the preliminary acaps, which is the only Boeing documentation, because the basis variant is the -9, the -8 is a shrink -and outsold 5 to 1. User:Fnlayson reverted that explaining "variant subsections are usually in numerical order", which I agree. But it made me think about what is the most informative order, not only in this article but more widely in airliners. I think a numerical order, as an alphabetic one, is only good when there is no other meaningful order.
For airliners, a chronological order makes sense : the basis variant came first, then its derivatives. Numerical order is often the same as the size order, which could be a meaningful order, but it's because stretchs are more frequent than shrinks (as the 737-500 is smaller than the basis -300). In Airbus A320 family the order is chronological, as the A350XWB variants. The A330-300 came before the -200. Numerical order makes more sense in the specifications tables, though. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I was going off memory of the numerous airliner articles I've dealt with. The order of the variant subsections won't matter that much if the text is clearly written with dates listed. I don't think we should be rearranging sections without an important need. Chronological order is generally more important for the Development and Operational history sections, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

List of active indian military aircraft with photos[edit]

Just to note I have marked List of active indian military aircraft with photos for speedy deletion as a duplicate of the one without images! MilborneOne (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Btw, List of military aircraft of the United States still has photos in multiple tables in the second half of the article. I'm not proficient at working with tables, so I can't remove them myself.- BilCat (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I have removed a few in-table images from List of military aircraft of the United States to see what happens. but really, mixing bullet and table lists is horrible and it needs a decision which to run with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Clipper Victor[edit]

Just to note that the article on the Boeing 747 Clipper Victor has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clipper Victor. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Military aviation task force[edit]

I reverted a removal of an aircraft project tag on Talk:List of active Indian military aircraft by User:Petebutt but he has removed it again as he claims that it is part of the aviation project through being tagged for Mil Hist, now as far as I know Mil Hist and the Military aviation task force are related and mainly the same people working on them but not the close that we need to remove the aircraft task force tags. As far as I know they are separate projects with different goals so I cant see why a list of aircraft cant be claimed by this project, I pretty sure other military related article stuff has both projects mentioned - anybody make any sense of this, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Military Aviation task force is under the Military History project; this task force is related to the Aviation project but not connected. There's nothing wrong with having overlapping project banners on a talk page. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft Electronics Association[edit]

A new user has created Aircraft Electronics Association that uses only sources related to the subject. The user has repeatedly removed Notability and primary source tags. Any help in addressing the issues would be appreciated, as I'm 3RR in restoring the tags. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The user has confirmed a conflict of interest here. - BilCat (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I added some more tags, but the article is pure WP:COI WP:SPAM, so I have sent it to WP:CSD. - Ahunt (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
And it has been deleted. Given that it was created by the PR person for the subject of the article, I expect it will be re-created, though. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)