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

Template:Green aviation[edit]

An editor just created this navbox. I am not sure what to do with it. For instance it has two aircraft, of the hundreds of electric aircraft that could be in the box. Should it be fixed or just deleted as too vague a subject for a nav box? - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add more aircraft, devise a standard for which aircraft should be listed, or even remove the aircraft section entirely, go ahead. You haven't identified any problems with the rest of the sections that would begin to justify deleting the whole template. —swpbT 12:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Given the large number of aircraft listed at Electric aircraft I don't think we can list some, all (far too many) or even a few. So I think the aircraft have to go from the box. My main concern overall is the vagueness of the template. What is the criteria for inclusion in the nav box? Should it include any aircraft that is more fuel-efficient than its predecessors? Or only electric aircraft or none? Fundamentally it is what is "Green Aviation"? Then there is the issue of what purpose this nav box serves? - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I presume with such a wide remit we can include the numerous aircraft that have done biofuel trials like the Virgin Boeing 747 and I am sure KLM have used an Embraer, we can also add all the gliders that are very environmentally friendly. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hang gliders and paragliders are all "green aircraft", too provided that you don't drive to the launch point in a gasoline-powered car. - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw it yesterday, and it's definitely too broad a topic for a navbox. While undoubtedly created in good faith, I don't see that it really needs to be kept. Send to deletion. - BilCat (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
A nice idea but WP:TOOSOON. It needs to await a world which can sustain an article on green aviation and associated subsidiary articles on green aircraft, green airports, green legislation, etc. etc. Meanwhile, the deletion hammer seems the kindest approach. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Commons already has a (useless?) category for Green aircraft - I'd love to see that deleted :-) PeterWD (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree that 'Green aviation' sounds too vague and loosely defined to warrant a navbox. The box itself pipes 'Green aviation' to link Environmental impact of aviation, which is not exactly the same thing. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that this discussion has come to a conclusion with the consensus that this template serves no purpose. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Green aviation[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:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_11#Template:Green_aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The template has now been deleted and clean-up completed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Focus article for overhaul: Fiat G.91[edit]

Hi WP:Aircraft. I've wanted to perform one of my overhauls on the Fiat G.91 article for some time now. There's effectively no coverage of Germany's operations of the type, which something I'm keen to fix and already have a specific book lined up to make a start on such a subsection. Ditto for the non-existent Design section, the same book should help create a suitable fledging section for this, but I could use help. There are also major shortfalls in citations, particularly the Operators and Variants sections. Any attention that can be spared shall be appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Pod plane[edit]

I just ran across this newly-created article, and don't really know what to think of it. Any thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Someone has been watching too much Thunderbirds? In all seriousness, it probably belongs as part of another article. Now if I could just figure out what that article is... This Fieseler Fi 333 is related so as it's in Category:Modular aircraft perhaps a new article is needed for topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Light fighter[edit]

The light fighter article has been expanded (a lot) recently, but - in my opinion - it lacks in the area of the Soviet (Russian)/Eastern bloc approach to the subject. Also now I think on it, the period between the wars - Poland, Czechoslovakia, French (all of whom surprise me when breakout of my UK-centric view and read about the aircraft designs they produced) and other European nations. Are there any editors with knowledge, resources, etc who are in a position to contribute to the article, or look over what is already there? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this article really neutral? It seems to be a densely-worded argument for why the light fighter (defined rather broadly) is superior to all other types of combat aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there's a degree of repetition of that point (that in the current circumstances a light fighter is largely more effective than the latest all-singing-all-dancing fighter) which gives that impression. Without the repetition I think it would come across as a more balanced (as in weight of text applied rather then strict NPOV terms) article.
Nick-D: I temporarily undid your deletion of the text box on Me 109 surprise factor. That box is not meaning to imply the Me 109 as superior to the P-51. The P-51 gets its full due in the article. The point is that as the smallest area fighter in the war (250 square feet planform) it does play to the element of surprise by which about 80% of kills are achieved, and that using surprise even a superior fighter like the P-51 can be often defeated. It also allows conveniently noting history's highest scoring ace flew the Me 109 and was a huge believer in the use of surprise. Another of Hartmann's quotes was "90% of the pilots I shot down never knew I was in the same sky as them".
A major point of the article is about how the light fighter appears to be the best use of budget, as in achieving most kills per unit of budget. All references I can find addressing this issue and using real data come down on the light fighter side (if you have references with hard data saying otherwise, please bring them). As an example, the United States spent over $10 billion from 1955 to 1982 on beyond visual range technology (radars and missiles). In that era it took big twin engine fighters like the F-4, F-14, and F-15 to carry the big radar and the heavy missiles. The net combat results was 73 radar missile kills total and only 4 BVR, out of a total of 528 air to air kills. That's $137 million per radar missile kill (most of which could have been obtained with much cheaper heat-seekers), against mostly obsolete MiGs with an average value probably less than $1 million each (a new MiG-21 was $0.5M to $2million depending on when, and a lot of these were old MiG-17s and MiG-19s that could be bought for ~$0.1M each). You could buy 200 F-5A's or 60 excellent new F-5Es for that same budget you used to buy one old MiG kill--and each F-5E is a better fighter than those MiGs. Or, if you count the BVR cost as only the BVR kills, that's $2.5Billion per kill. You could have bought a whole Air Force of 1000+ F-5E's for the amount spent to shoot down that one old MiG beyond 5 mile range. That seems to be the straight truth of it. PhaseAcer (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, so you freely admin that the article is a POV pushing project then. You appear to totally misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. I've just reverted your changes to the article on this basis, and I'd encourage other editors to join the discussion of the content. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The content is dominated (due to E-M theory and OODA loop) by the work of the fighter mafia. By bringing in content that relates to that body the light fighter article ends up with a heavy reliance on sources focussed on Boyd, Sprey etc and the arguments that they made at the time they were most active. Given that it was partly political, there is possibility that we are looking at history written by the winners (or those who portray them as the winners) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The reasons for making the changes to the Light Fighter article are as follows: 1. Light fighters, like all fighters, are weapons systems. Their effectiveness as weapons systems is therefore a key issue, in fact the main issue. 2. To review and present their effectiveness, impeccable scientific data based on combat results and extensive trials was presented. 3. The hard data presented was backed by sourcing the work of the finest experts in the field. These included air strategists, fighter aircraft designers, military analysts, reports from the graduate training of serving officers who had access to the detailed military record, and high scoring aces.

It should not be summarily erased on the false charge that it is simply a "point of view" that is being pushed. The apparent factual truth based totally on data is being presented. If any editors have other HARD DATA that in any way contradicts this data, that should be presented as well. That will take care of any concerns that a POV is being favored. I don't think you will find much such data, since the record seems to show the heavy fighter is an inferior strategic idea based on factual results. I have read over 2000 pages of pertinent books, professional military reports, declassified high level military briefings, and scientific papers looking for such data, and I have not been able to find it. But, if any that is worthy of being shown can be found, then it should be presented. I'm totally open to the heavy fighter getting its fair due in comparison to the light fighter.

Nick-D, I have thus temporarily undone your erasing all the new data. If you have any data that contradicts what is in the article, I request you bring that instead of summarily erasing over 100 hours of editing work that is backed by hundreds of hours of review of the professional literature. I further request you leave it in place long enough for this work to receive a fair review. If any data is found to be flawed or contradicted, it can always be removed later. But, if simply deleted then it cannot receive a fair review.

Other editors, I request you download and review the Pierre Sprey report on fighter effectiveness. It is probably the best thing in print on the subject as a whole, and it really helps in understanding both the historical and scientific basis of fighter effectiveness. You can get it at PhaseAcer (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

An alternate reading of Sprey's paper is that it is constructed to deliver, and reinforce Spray's views on the matter; to prove he was right at the time of F16 development. Spray is not without critics. This is why it's always better to have a wide range of references? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Sprey's view is in favor of the light fighter as the superior weapons system when all factors are considered. But, he is one of the strongest professionals on the subject, and he provides a ton of data to support his point of view. That data comes from detailed files that he had access to as a senior advisor to the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense. It is the best of insider information, and more hard data than any other single source. However, I verified its content against other sources as well as possible (there are none I know of that are as detailed and scientific as Sprey). I have only found one possible and relatively minor error in his assertions, which was Sprey implied that the F-86 had a superior record against the MiG-21 in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1972, but he did not give actual numbers. Other sources only indicate one or two MiG-21's lost to F-86's in that conflict, with the bulk of Indian losses to F-86s being MiG-17s and Hawker Hunters. As these smaller MiG-21 losses are not really enough to count as a statistically significant trend, I removed the sentence that the F-86 had a superior combat record when directly going against the MiG-21.
I am only aware of one hopefully high quality source that might give more data favoring the heavy fighter. That is the book "Military Reform: The High Tech Debate in Tactical Air Forces". It is reported by Stevenson as being relatively balanced, and coming down on the "quality" side. I don't know if that means "quality" as in a sophisticated light fighter like the F-16 as opposed to a really cheap light fighter like the F-5, or heavy fighter vs. light fighter in general. I have a copy on order and was planning on reporting any genuine high quality data as soon as it arrives and I can read it. PhaseAcer (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

While I currently do not have an opinion on this issue, the list of notes seems quite long and some of them seem to be things that are a reference. Furthermore the reflist is under Citations while References only contain books, is this done the right way? Redalert2fan (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

List of aircraft re-org[edit]

Hi guys :)

Looks like a page re-org to the main List of aircraft a few months ago led to very major fragmentation. I don't have a strong opinion either way (it's been too long since I've been involved), but one of the container articles is now up for deletion: List of aircraft (0-A). We should probably have a think about how best to structure that list... Rlandmann (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi RL! Good to see you around again! - BilCat (talk)
Ditto on the hello. I see that as a result of re-organization we know have situation like List_of_aircraft_(Cg) and List_of_aircraft_(Cp) which now list 1 manufacturer and 8 and 1 aircraft in each respectively. Which seems an over-reaction to the list of aircraft (C) as of the 19th July
Thanks Bill, Graeme! FWIW, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with a page as long as C was. But if the page needed breaking down, it wasn't into individual pages for all letters that might follow "C". Did you guys discuss this at all when it was happening? Reverting it all would be a PITA now, but certainly do-able... --Rlandmann (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I was aware some changes were happening to the C's when they appeared on my watchlist recently. I assumed I'd missed a conversation about making changes - it was only when I saw your note that I went back and spotted just how small some of the new (sub) lists were. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
[added] So far the re-org has only got as far as C. So if required it would be fairly easy to roll back the changes. None of the new sublists has (the ones I looked at anyway) got a talkpage nor (obviously) a WP:Aviation imprint upon that talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
[PPS] The List of aircraft has only links to the letters, and all the Further reading and all the external links for 'all the sublists. Which since in the case of some external links, it's not obvious which Letter (let alone aircraft) they apply to, is confusing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I noted this when the particular editor did it all. There was no discussion at the time that I saw. I would be happy it it was all re-merged as it is a mess. - Ahunt (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, so here's what I propose: let's re-assemble the lists into their pre-fragmented scopes (0-A, B, C), assess them for size, and then (if necessary) figure out better subdivisions. I'm willing to do the heavy lifting of the re-merges unless anyone else is particularly eager! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I can understand that consistency is an aim, but deleting such articles is purely disruptive. If we re-assess and determine a better silo scheme, fine. In the meantime, the deletion would be counter-productive. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Creating stubs is not constructive either. It's more a question of a revert to an earlier point in time, and reassessing the position. BRD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a shame that this project wasn't consulted better or more involved in this decision. Obviously deleting now would be overly disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A bit of background: Something had to be done as the individual letter pages were/are getting too big to be sensibly editted by browsers. I have found that anything over 100 Mb causes real problems. I shall carry on splitting large List of aircraft pages. There is no reason why small page clusters can't be joined later!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Further to the above List of aircraft (L) exceeds 100Mb so is a candidate for splitting as it is becoming difficult to edit!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Please do continue to split pages as they become too large (WP:TOOBIG suggests 100kb as "almost certainly" needs splitting, but note that its focus is really on prose articles, not lists like this). But please don't pre-emptively split letters into 26 separate lists for each second-letter combination. A split down the middle into two 50kb lists will work just fine. If you're not confident about how to do this; please just ask for help -- there's no shortage of folks here who are able and willing to lend a hand. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Page information for List of aircraft (L) gives size as about 100Kb. (info). And opening it for editing doesn't seem to be a problem for me, it's also sectioned which makes editing entries easier. It might benefit from a TOC though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I had just opened it to edit and it displayed the same symptoms, i.e. VERY sluggish to do ANY editting.--Petebutt (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
If editing a 100kb article is causing your computer to become very sluggish, there's something very unusual about your particular setup. That's to say: it's highly unlikely that many other folks are having this problem, and we shouldn't be making choices about article structure to service the needs of just one editor. In any case, there isn't normally any need to edit the whole page at a time: every section has its own "edit" link, which opens just a tiny fraction of the page that you can work on in isolation. That won't tax even the oldest/slowest hardware or internet connection. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
So, I just split L into two chunks of roughly even size; La-Lh and Li-Lz. Took 15 minutes including fixing the navigation template and footer. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I've started re-merging "0-A". Each re-merge takes about 2 minutes (and I haven't had to deal with any complicated page histories yet). So about an hour to undo one of these multiple splits. It's easy to say "There is no reason why small page clusters can't be joined later!!" when somebody else is doing the actual work. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Salvage of letter "A" complete. The situation was, if anything, more nonsensical than it appeared at first. Two articles (Ao and Ax) were literally devoid of any content at all other than navigation templates (I guess like the 0-A article that triggered the AfD). I just speedied them as G6. Out of the whole mess to make the "A" list easier to edit, remarkably little had actually been done. There wasn't a single subpage with more than a couple of minor edits to it; nothing significant enough to make a page history worth saving. Anyway, I reorganized the 165kb "A" into three lists of about 55k (0-Ah, Ai-Am, An-Az) which should keep things manageable for the forseeable future. When the AfD closes, "0-A" should move to "0-Ah", but it causes problems to do this while the AfD is still in progress, so I've left it for now. Now we just have B, C, M, S, and T to do! --Rlandmann (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That's letter "B" fixed. 170kb into three subpages. This time, I speedied 13 content-free lists. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Overlapping lists[edit]

This is related to the item above. We seem to have at least three lists which seriously overlap:

The List of civil aircraft is very, very incomplete. The List of aircraft is quite complete and includes a list of manufacturers, as each entry has the manufacturer listed and linked. Is there any reason why the latter two should not be just merged and redirect to List of aircraft? Are there other lists that should be? - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The list of aircraft is more fully a list of aircraft by manufacturer. It is unquestionably the most sensible ordering for an umbrella list of aircraft.
I think the list of aircraft manufacturers is useful. It is much easier to browse for interesting manufacturers than the entire list of aircraft is. I would like to see it include the notable design houses and wannabee manufacturers who don't have any actual machines to their name (such as Sänger), maybe with a move to a suitably revised article name, but that is a different issue.
I can see no value in the list of civil aircraft: too many civil types have been adapted for or dragooned into military service, and military types ditto in civilian use, for it to be usefully distinct from the main list of aircraft. Now is the best time there will ever be to stop wasting effort on it. I'd suggest it go up for AfD (I'm very busy or I'd do it myself).
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Steelpillow about the desirability of a quickly browsable list of manufacturers. I also agree that in its current state, the list of civil aircraft is problematic, in a similar way to the List of aircraft by date and usage category currently on AfD. Rather than drag it through that process, I'd be happy to see the civil list redirect there (if it survives AfD). But the opportunity here is to make the civil list meaningful by coming up with some useful criteria for inclusion. Any suggestions? --Rlandmann (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Any opinions on List of gliders? Some, but not all of these aircraft also appear in List of aircraft, as they should.TSRL (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
That is another one, total overlap, it should be merged into List of aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The trouble with the main list of aircraft is that it does not distinguish between gliders, rocket planes, rotorcraft, airships, etc. etc. To highlight different areas of interest, a list needs to be a sortable table in a single article. Things like the list of gliders and list of rotorcraft sit uneasily between the two. If they were changed to a single-article tabular form along the lines of the otherwise contested List of aircraft by date and usage category, would that be better or worse than what we have now? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
How about merge the lists and use categories to distinguish between roles? That is really what categories were designed for. - Ahunt (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the best way. My instinct is to keep it simple: if you don't known what the role of your target aircraft is, the splitting by role would require a search. Ideally, perhaps, a sortable table which presented a particular group (or all of it) on a button-press would be better, but at the moment no suitable templates seem to exist. And Ahunt's approach would save a lot of work! TSRL (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Cross check[edit]

Could someone please point me to article content that discusses this? The Cross check disambiguation page and maybe some hatnotes are in order too. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What aircraft context are you thinking of here? To "Cross-check" is an everyday phrase in English, meaning to compare one source with another to confirm the facts. A dictionary is more appropriate than an encyclopedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You know when you are on a plane, you hear that broadcast "cross-checking". I am sure people search it at Wikipedia. It directs to a hockey page. That needs a hat to the dab page. The dab page needs an entry to the paragraph at the right airplane article. From what I see on the net, the term means arming and disarming doors or something. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The phrase is usually "disarm doors and cross check" or some variation thereof; as Steelpillow says, "cross check" is nothing special. If there is any discussion, then its natural home would be evacuation slide, but I am not sure there even should be any mention of it - as far as I know there are no articles covering "there is a mouthpiece for further inflation, and a light and a whistle for attracting attention" or "cabin crew be seated for takeoff" or double chime a few minutes before turning off the "fasten seat belts" sign or "there is a lavatory at the front reserved for business class passengers" or "cabin crew prepare for landing" or "what's that noise under the floor of the plane before it takes off" or.... YSSYguy (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi YSSYguy. Well, "mention of it" and having an article are two different things. Actually, this still leaves me not knowing what it is. If this is searched for at Wikipedia, it probably should be covered, even with a sentence or two. I've never heard "disarm doors and cross check" but maybe I wasn't paying attention. If they say that, then they are two different things. So, what is it? I've also posted at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Cross check for input. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
What it means is that the emergency escape slides, which inflate automatically if the cabin doors are opened with the slides armed to deploy, are disarmed; and the cabin crew then cross-check each other to make sure the disarming has been done properly. There is also the command "arm doors and cross check" when the aircraft starts to move at the beginning of a flight, but thinking about the flights I have been on I think that for some airlines the procedure is that the 'plane moving is the prompt, rather than any actual verbal command. It's just one of the many procedures cabin crews go through, like locking the lavatories' doors; checking the galley drawers are locked; checking the refreshment trollies are locked in their hutches; checking that everyone's seat belts are fastened; in the good ol' days checking that everyone had their electronic shit turned off....The arming and disarming is covered in the evacuation slide article, the verbal command, as far as I can see, is not mentioned. I don't know if you would ever actually find a reliable source for the verbal prompt, it will probably be mentioned in an aviation discussion forum somewhere or perhaps on Yahoo Answers and the like, but I could just copy-and-paste what I have typed here at such a place, which is no good as far as sourcing goes. About all I can think of is that maybe it will be mentioned in a glossary of aviation terminology. YSSYguy (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
That clears things up a lot. It is odd that we don't have an in-flight check article. I see Preflight Planning Dispatch Checklist, which is a bit of a mess.
So, I like what you wrote. Why not stick it into an article and we can add it to the dab page and maybe hat that hockey article. Thank you so much for the informative reply. It is appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way, Pre-flight, Pre-flight checklist, and Preflight checklist all redirect to Preflight Planning Dispatch Checklist. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that those should not redirect to whence they are now, I heartily agree, but I have only just seen your reply and have no idea if there are more suitable targets (there are two separate concepts, "pre-flight" being an inspection of the aircraft and the other two being different names for the same in-cockpit procedure). As for putting what I have typed above into an article, all of it is original research. YSSYguy (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well the first one was easy; I changed the entry on the dab page Pre-flight to lead to the article Walk-around. YSSYguy (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I like what you've done. I'll look more. As for orignal research, if you know what it is for sure, it should be fine. Wikipedia is about verifiability. The content can go in, and if challenged, then we dig like mad for a source. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing lead at Preflight Planning Dispatch Checklist[edit]

Preflight Planning Dispatch Checklist has no lead at all. A simple one-sentence defition would be a good start. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks a bit like a "How-to" and therefore falls under WP:NOTHOWTO. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)