Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

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- ]

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




Mass Airbus Helicopters moves[edit]

User:GeorgeGriffiths has unilaterally moved most of the Eurocopter aircraft articles to Airbus Helicopters titles, all without discussion. Note that most of these titles have been moved and reverted at least twice before. Is there still a consensus here that these titles should remain at Eurocopter? Some will have to be moved by an admin due to double moves. Also, perhaps these titles should be move-protected too. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they should be moved back and protected. These are still the WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Note that according to the user's userpage, he's 15, but he is a WPAVIATION member. Perhaps one of our more diplomatic members can talk to him. (That certainly ain't me!) - BilCat (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Previous discussion was in 2014 ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_37#Eurocopter_aircraft_article_renamings ) I don't think situation has changed and they should be moved back to "Eurocopter xxxx" GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed them all to their new, correct name. They're no longer called Eurocopter, as shown in the source I added to all articles. As such, they should stay with the new name I've given them. :) GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Wiki policy says the most common name, not the most technically correct one. So expect them to be returned to their most common names shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, I wasn't aware of that. That doesn't seem very logical to me but there are probably some good reasons for it that I won't argue with. If my edits are a breach of policy then feel free to revert them. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Common name would suggest Eurocopter to be the common name for most of them. For more than twenty years, the Tiger was called the "Eurocopter Tiger", and for less than a year it has been known as the "Airbus Helicopters Tiger" - the balance of time is more than twenty times in favour of the Eurocopter name. The present name doesn't overrule what it has been known as for the overwhelming majority of the time. Kyteto (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Ditto (and more so), the Super Puma flying since 1978, and a Eurocopter since 1992. Though since we are talking names why does it have the "SA 332" bit rather than just Eurocopter Super Puma? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks "Super Puma" was used for more than one model, such as the EC225 Super Puma. But there's probably more to it that I don't get. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Moves reverted - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:US Airways Flight 1549[edit]

We could use some experienced eyes, especially in dealing with aircraft incidents, at Talk:US Airways Flight 1549#Too much unrevealing content about the aircraft. The issue should be self-explanatory. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft additions to WP:AVLIST[edit]

You are invited to comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists/draft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sopwith Works at Ham[edit]

SopwithSerienfertigung.jpg

This image was recently added by User:Kyteto to the Sopwith Camel article, looking at the serials numbers the aircraft at the front are Sopwith Salamanders and the next row appear to be Sopwith Snipes. Any first world war experts can advise if they are actually any Camels in the photo! MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not check the serial numbers of the aircraft; I had found the image in the [Camel Category] over on Wikimedia. If someone does know better, lets have it removed from both the article and the Commons category. Kyteto (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The categorisation as a Camel was down to me - I interpreted just one serial as F8576, but it's actually F6576, a Salamander. Commons file now amended to suit.PeterWD (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the XC-99?[edit]

If you look at Convair XC-99#2000s and onwards, you get about six different answers to this question, in order, ending with "Although this article contains a number of references to information about the XC-99..."! If anyone is familiar with the story here, it would be great if they could trim out the self-contradictory parts - I would do it, but by this point I'm fairly thoroughly confused... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I exterminated the obvious editorializing and left it with the statement to Flight Journal. More could be trimmed to bring it into line. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I hacked the whole thing back, there was so much muddle, repetition and conflicting or unnecessary detail - the plane being moved back to where it already was, stuff like that. I wonder if it will stick. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks both! Reads a lot better now. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

USAF Museum links[edit]

More of an FYI...the National Museum of the US Air Force seems to have changed/updated their links to the factpages of each aircraft in their (large) collection. These pages are sources in dozens of Wikipedia aircraft articles- mostly in the "aircraft on display" sections. I'm combing through my own watchlist to update articles as I have time, but wanted to let others know this task was out there. Cheers!Skyraider1 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

International Luftfahrt Museum[edit]

I would like to create an an article on the International Luftfahrt Museum at Villingen-Schwenningen after a recent visit (my third). I am hesitant as the best source I can find is the local flying club's webpage which has a page detailing a brief history. There is no article on Wiki:de. The museum contains some rare aircraft types that we have articles for but no photographs, I have many to upload to Commons. If you chaps think it would be ok to use this source (and would support the article at any AfD discussion) I will create it. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The museum does get a mention in the town's tourist website which I would assume is reliable (local government). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Orbital airship[edit]

The orbital airship article looks to me like a single commercial company pushing an impossible scam. I have started a discussion on its talk page at Is this for real?. Contributions gratefully received. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

While I agree that the vast majority of sources are either primary, or forums, there may be just barely enough information to say it isn't a hoax or scam. The fact remains that it is theoretical, and as such does not appear to be notable. I'm not sure where it falls per Wikipedia guidelines. The volunteer organization promoting the idea is described by one source as "More than just a group of amateurs, yet not quite a full-fledged company..." I'm not sure that we keep articles on theories, and this one appears pretty fringe. ScrpIronIV 15:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Books[edit]

Wikipedia:Book says you can compile selected articles into a book for either online reading as a pdf or even to buy a printed copy. So I had a play and came up with a draft. It is making me think more about the presentation of articles: I wonder whether we should try to design our articles more with such books in mind. Please share any thoughts in the main discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Wiki Books. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not reply here. (I moved one comment across: thx for beating me to it.)

Flexible wing[edit]

Hi, I have rescued Flexible wing from a redirect and created a new article. More eyes/fingers welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Naming aircraft[edit]

Hi,

A disagreement has brewed up over linking to articles in lists of aircraft. Petebutt (talk · contribs) edited the List of canard aircraft to change links such as [[Gossamer Condor|MacCready Gossamer Condor]] to plain [[Gossamer Condor]]. I suggested on their talk page that it would be better to move the article to MacCready Gossamer Condor in line with WP:AIR/NC but have been rebuffed. Second opinions welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming is pretty clear on this: "The naming of aircraft articles should follow a standard format of manufacturer-designation-name". - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)