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-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



Summary Template[edit]

{{avisummarybytype|combat=319|recon=103|transport=40|training=64|ah=56|uh=190|hc=|glider=}}

Any idea if this template was discussed anywhere it appears in about 11 air force articles, if it is a good idea then we should use it more widely but if it is a bit glaring and to fancy for an encyclopedia then we should remove it. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Too glaring for me, and not really needed. Send to TfD. - BilCat (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
For reference it is found here: Template:Avisummarybytype and an example of use can be found here: Abkhazian Air Force#Aircraft - Ahunt (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The idea seems okay, but it needs some serious work. Basically the aircraft silhouettes are too large and dwarf the numbers which are really the point of the table. - Ahunt (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be interested to see how it fits in with what was agreed for the type lists but I dont think I have seen User:Steelpillow around for a few weeks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't care for the silhouettes and believe they are unnecessary. Samf4u (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't see the point of the silhouettes; what information do they add that the words don't provide?TSRL (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
.....I agree the silhouettes do not add info and probably chosen for perceived but not proven aesthetic. One could be bold and simply remove images from the template... GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I was bold - which must mean the usage above doesn't show the problematic images anymore. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you fixed it! - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
^ Good, problem solved. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, been grabbed by the outside world in no uncertain terms recently. @MilborneOne: This is not really a list of aircraft but a list of stats about aircraft, so I don't think that the current content of WP:AVILIST is very relevant. But Wikipedia's overall guidelines are. The first question must be, do we want this data presented in table form? My vote would be no, in the modern world of multirole aircraft the division into specific roles such as these is nigh-on meaningless. But if this project likes the idea then the next question is, does the current format meet Wikipedia's guidelines? I'd again say no, and for several reasons. A table with a single row of data is just appalling presentation, almost anything else would be better, say a bulleted list. All that conditional coding is utterly pointless and unmaintainable by most aircraft editors. There is too much gratuitous styling which needs to be pulled out. All in all, the simplest solution is outright deletion of the template and of any article sections whose sole reason for existence is to invoke it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments and particularly Steelpillow for popping in from the real world, consensus here is that we should take it to TfD as it serves no purpose, I will do it soon if somebody doesnt do it first. MilborneOne (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft Manufacturer[edit]

Project may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aero Ltd. MilborneOne (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded the article and added refs. The article can now be retained at AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sonaca 200[edit]

Just had a tidy up of Sonaca 200 following a request at WT:AVIATION, it has a lead image of the "prototype" registered OO-SON but it appears to be just a re-badged Sling 2 flown from South Africa to Belgium to act as a pattern aircraft. Anybody have any more on this? MilborneOne (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism measure(s)?[edit]

Not been very active here lately but I do keep an eye on my watchlist. I don't usually fight vandalism but will use rollback when it's obvious. I see subtle vandalism to figures in specification sections, often just one figure being changed (eg. 21 ft 11 in to 21 ft 10 in and similar). It appears to be a test but sometimes causes me to dig the books out and double check, particularly if it involves an article that I created (mistakes are always possible!).

If a specification section has been completed and cited using reliable sources and checked thoroughly there should be very little need to amend figures in the future, any 'corrections' would be unnecessary. I had the idea to add a hidden nowiki note in these sections to state that the figures had been checked (with a date and editor ID) or that this could be added as a parameter in the templates. Checking changed figures in sections with this note would become far easier and reversion would not require any research.

Do others see this problem happening? Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any system to assist apart from the different protection levels which are rarely applied to aircraft articles. Is my idea mad?!!!! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I do see editors, especially IPs, changing specs often, uncited, of course. Usually it turns out to be WP:OR more than vandalism, though. In the case of vandalism, this is covered briefly as something to watch out for at WP:SNEAKY, though. I also have been sent scurrying to the original paper refs or the TCDS to confirm the original spec was right. Usually they are, but sometimes an IP has caught a transcription error. - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't want to IP bash but..., it's possibly the same one doing this. OR is common as is our friends with calculators on engine displacements. It's frustrating as the community seems to allow this stuff to continue without appreciating the detrimental effects on editors, one for Jimbo?
I don't think it's against policy to add hidden notes, we already use them in infoboxes and other places (not that they appear to be heeded!). Could be trialled on a high traffic article to see if it works? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Total belt and braces would be to add the same hidden note after each and every checked parameter, would clutter the coding but deter the meddlers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I know of no policy that would prevent, so please do give it a try. - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems dangerous to rely on hidden notes to keep an article factually correct : a vandal could also change them, and they would appear correct even if false (see WP:REFLOOP). We must facilitate WP:Verifiability, so placing data in hidden notes isn't the best way to ensure that it is correct. To make verification easy, either find online refs (with flightglobal archives it's easy) or take a picture of your print reference and share it, eg [1]. 10 secs With a smartphone. We could also certify in the talk page a rev id to be reviewed by multiple editors, to permit rollback to a correct rev.--Marc Lacoste (talk)
I hadn't considered vandals vandalising anti-vandalism measures! Revision ID might work. Another possibility is some kind of bot marking code, a change is made, the bot reverts it with a message to visit the talk page if the change is genuine and needed, the bot's edit is overridden or kept.
There is the pending changes system which I've never seen used in this project but is actually the way that some other language Wikipedias deal with every edit, the German wiki appears to use flagged revisions for every article even if you have an account. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The universal modification access of wikipedia is its foundation. My preference goes to have an easy verifiability : an IP editor can revert vandalism easily too. Flagged Revisions is neat, though.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Would agree that it is very easy to check specifications cited with a link or PDF, especially when it is from the manufacturer or airworthiness authority like the FAA but older and more obscure aircraft/engine types are generally confined to paper (or possibly the Flightglobal archive) which means a laborious checking process before reversion/rollback. Many websites are using Wikipedia's figures complete with mistakes which is amusing, especially when they are used here as 'reliable sources'. In the meantime I guess we just live with this annoyance. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
take a pic!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
For some general info on such comments, see Help:Comment tags. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Translation needed[edit]

I noticed there are many aviation articles only on the Russian Wikipedia that don't exist on the English Wikipedia or redirect to the class of aircraft. If anyone wants to help me with translating, here's the list:

Thanks :) --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Overhaul of Avro Lancaster[edit]

Hello WP:Aircraft. After four years or so on my to-do list, I have finally set about the overhaul of the famous wartime bomber, the Avro Lancaster. This is a gigantic task, both due to the size of the article involved but the sheer importance and amount of history to cover. There are many tags in places where citation is still needed, particularly in the Design and Variants section; are you able to help? Kyteto (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Operators[edit]

In the Saab JAS 39 Gripen article, there are a list of operators by country. Many articles have this. For the Gripen, Sweden isnear the bottom as it starts with S.

What do others think of placing the biggest user first? Or the biggest 2-3 users first then alphabetical?

Vanguard10 (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is the best format in the Operators section, as some lists can get quite long, and with alpha order it is easier to find a specific country alphabetically. The Users list in the infobox is generally the 4 largest users, and the originating nation is usually first. - BilCat (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Alphabetical can be useful but it's also the least informative order. With only a few operators but with long details for each, a short recap in introduction could be useful, eg.

There are 158 Gripen in Air Force service : Sweden operates 74 Es and 24 Ds and ordered 60 Es (and 10 pending), South Africa 17 Cs and 9 Ds, Czech Republic 12 Cs and 2 Ds, Hungary 11 Cs and 1 D, Thailand 8 Cs, and Brazil ordered 28 Es and 8 Fs (and 72 pending).[1]

I'm being bold and added that.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "World air forces". Flight Global. 2016. 

2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash[edit]

We are having a discussion at Talk:2017 Essendon Airport Beechcraft King Air crash about how much detail from the initial investigation report to include in this article. Input from more editors would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Going off the tangent for a moment... the other day an almost identical accident occurred in Portugal (twin turboprop crashed on built-up area shortly after take off [2]) with four fatalities plus one on the ground, yet nobody seems to mind here, unlike the Essendon crash. It's this lack of consistency that bothers me a bit; I don't think either crash should warrant a standalone article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, they are both light aircraft accidents, just like car accidents they happen everyday, as you noted here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Lilium Jet[edit]

The Lilium Aviation jet has just been added to List of electric aircraft based on a video of the first flight released by the company (see http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/20/15369850/lilium-jet-flying-car-first-flight-vtol-aviation-munich) Although pictures are shown of the two-seat prototype all the flying images appear to be a scale model with no external markings (I would have expected to to carry a registration if legally flown). Has anybody any independent evidence other than the video that the prototype has actually flown? MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Verge article is a bit confusing. It says it is an electric aircraft and then says it is powered by jet engines. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The list has been amended to indicate that when The Verge says "jet engines" they mean ducted fans. Not quite WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of some cited sources[edit]

There is a short and arbitrary-looking list of Blohm & Voss aircraft projects at Blohm + Voss#Design projects. I am coming here because I would like some more general views on the reliability of the cited sources. Existing articles linked to from the list manage between them to cite the following sources:

Books:

  • Jean-Denis Lepage; Aircraft of the Luftwaffe, 1935-1945: An Illustrated Guide.
  • Myhra, David (1998); Secret Aircraft Designs of the Third Reich, Atglen, Schiffer.
  • Nowarra, Heinz (1983); Die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945, Bonn, Bernard and Graefe.

Websites:

  • Luft '46.
  • A I Bruce; "Blohm & Voss operated Hamburger Flugzeugbau aircraft company", Wehrmacht-history.com.
  • www.airvectors.net/avhe162.html
  • Ulrich Albrecht: Artefakte des Fanatismus; Technik und nationalsozialistische Ideologie in der Endphase des Dritten Reiches (German)
  • Rickard, J (16 September 2010). "Blohm und Voss Bv 237". historyofwar.org.
  • Nowarra, Heinz J. "Blohm und Voss Bv 237". panzertrupen.org.
  • www.histaviation.com
  • Tanks45.tripod.com

I would assume that Myrha and Nowarra are reliable sources, but what about the rest? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nowarra certainly is reliable, as he is a well known and published historian. Tanks45.tripod.com would have been WP:SPS, but doesn't even exist anymore. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Now purged of tripod.com. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Antonov An-325 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antonov An-325 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonov An-325 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - BilCat (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)