Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 13

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 ]

Lists: [ AircraftManufacturers | EnginesManufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | WeaponsMissiles ] Timeline

I would like to help

Hi all. I am totally new to wikipedia and slowly getting the hang of things around. I would like to join this project. Can someone help me out as to how I do this? Please leave an answer on my talk page and if possible, please email answer to . Thanks. --Stratoflyer 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Different Way of Cross Referencing Aircraft/Airlines

I think there is a bit of growing need to be able to cross reference airplanes and the airlines that use them/have them ordered. Right now you can go from an airline to an aircraft but not vice versa. I think this need has come up in the 737 article (Example 1,Example 2) Is there something snazzy that can be done with categories on the Airline pages to cross reference back to a category list of "737 Operators"? Its not the most elegant solution, but its a whole lot better than manually gluing it together. It could also be expanded to include pages for "Former 737 Operators" and "737 Orders"... I'm going to also put a notice on the Wikiproject Airline page that this discussion is getting started -- since it really is something that affects both projects.. --Cliffb 05:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, few people object. I've gone over what you propose, and it's the best idea I can think of. Karl Dickman talk 02:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the stuff in Category:Aircraft

In my yet-to-be-finalised category proposal, many of the things in Category:Aircraft will be finding new homes. There are a few oddballs that I would like to move or kill, listed below. I would like this to be considered as a kind of official proposal, so please comment if you can find the time.

Category:Aerospace engineering
Move to Category:Aviation
Category:Films set on an airplane
Move to Category:Aviation
Category:Aircraft images
Kill it. It is intended to provide a repository of freely available images. A much better option is to move freely available images here to the commons.
Category:Modern aircraft
'Modern' is such a loose term, subject to so many qualifications. Kill it.
Category:Radio controlled aircraft
Rename Category:Radio-controlled aircraft.
Category:Supersonic transports
Move to Category:Airliners.

Oh, and let's remove that aweful bloat notice at the top of Category:Aircraft. Ingoolemo talk 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Aerospace engineering
Move to Category:Aviation - What happens to the space engineering part of aerospace?
Category:Films set on an airplane
Move to Category:Aviation - Same argument, why doesn't this belong in movies?
Category:Aircraft images
Kill it. It is intended to provide a repository of freely available images. A much better option is to move freely available images here to the commons. - Agree
Category:Modern aircraft
'Modern' is such a loose term, subject to so many qualifications. Kill it. - Agree
Category:Radio controlled aircraft
Rename Category:Radio-controlled aircraft. - Agree
Category:Supersonic transports
Move to Category:Airliners. - Agree
--Cliffb 05:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Films set on an airplane
Move to Category:Aviation -- "Movies" seems to be a better fit; it's not "Aviation" but rather films about aviation & aircraft.
Category:Supersonic transports
Move to Category:Airliners -- It seems odd to me that Airliners would be a separate Category from Aircraft.
Actually, Airliners is itself a subcategory of aircraft. Ingoolemo talk 00:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
--Askari Mark | Talk 03:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter

Need Help on Boeing 747 LCFYousaf465

What are you looking for help on? ericg

I dont know why we have this article. This is not a Boeing airplane. This is not a new variant or model. These are used planes converted in Taiwan to ship parts. Only 3 will be made. No airline will ever own or operate them. However, I will update the article and expand it. --Bangabalunga 19:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


Being a newb, I’ve been reading a variety of aircraft articles to get a feel for content and style, and I’ve noticed a tendency for sections to be added – explicitly or not – about “Problems” … which seem to be a magnet for POV debates. “Problems” is rather a vague and overly broad word and a poor choice for a section title when there are two basic kinds of “problems” being addressed, only one of which I feel is really pertinent to address at length.

That pertinent category would include those “Technical Challenges and Issues” which are endemic to development of very complicated modern weapon systems. Requirements changes or funding restrictions can stretch schedules and increase costs; testing can reveal things that need to fixed, delaying service entry; a key technology might not mature as rapidly as expected; an important vendor may discontinue a needed product or service; millions of lines of software code may prove troublesome to debug; etc. These all exist to some extent in every weapon system development program, and my recommendation is that perhaps only those which are most noteworthy to a particular program should be mentioned – and that in the development history section.

The other kind of issue deals with criticisms over “intangibles” such as whether or not they fit a particular “design philosophy” (e.g., the “Lightweight Fighter Mafia”), the appropriateness of that design philosophy (like whether or not “maneuverability” is the paramount performance criteria), or the degree to which it satisfied the objectives of its political advocates (cf. the McNamara POV debate in the F-14 article discussion). My recommendation is that these receive no more than a passing reference in an article about a given aircraft, but seed that reference with a link to another article where it is more fully and appropriately dealt with. (Examples: Fighter mafia, Robert McNamara, Iron triangle, Aerial warfare.) --Askari Mark | Talk 03:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's polite to add entries to the back, not top of the talk page. The "+" button on top allows you to add a new section at the end. I agree, and have been dealing with an editor that feels it necessary to delve into his personal POV on these issues on every page that is tangentially related, resulting in the duplication of disputed material over several pages. --Mmx1 03:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
As you said, nearly all relevant information on problems should be moved to the 'Development' section, or possibly the 'Operational history' section where applicable. And of course, to limit articles to their topics.
Part of the problem is that even though this is a huge WikiProject, we also have an enormous number of articles we have to take care of, and God knows it's hard to stay on top of it all. Ingoolemo talk 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Airreg}} template

I came across the {{Airreg}} template, which can provide autolinks to the FAA N-Number (or other national) registries. It also has built-in the option of linking to, which seems to overdo it on advertisements. I left some concerns and suggestions at Template talk:Airreg. Rather than taking unilateral action (the template is used on nearly 100 pages), I would welcome input on the template talk page. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have taken this to WP:TFD. Aside from the issue of linking to, I can't possibly see this as a useful way of referencing Aircraft registration numbers. (even to official sources). I would rather see referencing done the same way other references are with a ref tag, and links at the bottom in the references section. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I am opposing this move at the moment. It is still useful. If you can produce a better template, then I may change my mind. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The template restricts the choice of sources to those where you can incorporate the N-number into the URL. On Template talk:Airreg, I have searched for sources regarding United Airlines Flight 173. On the template talk page, I documented three that I found. For two (NTSB and, you can't incorporate the N-number. These are arguably the more reliable sources, as one is official and the other does a good job of referencing its sources and presents (more) information in a clearer manner (and ad-free) than So, in the case of United Airlines Flight 173, it's better just to use the ref tag and provide the source link in the references section. This way, we are also not mixing references styles (embedded HTML links with the ref tag), as advised not to do by WP:CITE. Anyway, I'd like to take each article on a case-by-case basis, weighing the available sources and choosing the most reliable. This may vary from article to article, and there may be some situations where is the best. But the template shouldn't restrict our choice of sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the FAA registry is not a good source. The N-number has been reissued and is used now by another aircraft. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Propeller information in {{Aircraft specifications}}

Many of our sources describe the propellers of prop-powered aircraft. I would like to add this option to our specs template. Example:

It would be generated by something along the lines of

{{#switch:{{{jet or prop?|}}}
 |prop=* '''Powerplant:''' {{{number of props|}}}× {{{engine (prop)|}}} {{{type of prop|}}}, {{{power main|}}} ({{{power alt|}}}) each{{
  |driving {{{propellers|}}}

Is there support for this, or is it too much bloat? Ingoolemo talk 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't that be "number of engines" x engine then also "number of props" to cater for single engines turning two props/rotors or two engines turning single props?GraemeLeggett 08:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Both of these sound like good ideas. I'd suggest making it test for the number of props first - if there's no number (such as in the majority of situations where the engines each drive one prop), it just lists as Ingoolemo has proposed. If there is a number specified (say, {{{propcount}}} or something), then it will show 3,350 hp (kW) each, driving 2 four-bladed propellers.
The challenge here is to clarify between horsepower and what each engine is driving - hp is each, while if we're totalling the props it could sound like each engine has x horsepower and x props, rather than there are x props and x engines. ericg 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an updated proposal:

{{#switch:{{{jet or prop?|}}}
 |prop=* '''Powerplant:''' {{{number of props|}}}× {{{engine (prop)|}}} {{{type of prop|}}}, {{{power main|}}} ({{{power alt|}}}) each{{
  |* '''Propellers:''' {{{propellers|}}} {{{propeller or rotor?|}}}{{
  #if:{{{number of propellers per engine|}}}
   |, {{{number of propellers per engine|}}} per engine

In my example above, {{{propellers}}} would be equal to "four-bladed Hamilton Standard". The only options for {{{propeller or roter?}}} are "propeller" and "rotor". {{{number of propellers per engine}}} is self-explanatory.

Ingoolemo talk 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Web Rings

Some discussion has occurred over the past several days over how to advertise our project better off-site. One way to do it might be to join some web rings, such as the UK aviation web ring. Comments? Ingoolemo talk 23:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit ambivalent about this -- if there are web rings I think it should drop onto a portal page -- perhaps even a "webring" portal page. I am against linking directly to articles. —Cliffb 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Webrings still exist? ericg 05:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth clarifying: all mention of our webring membership would appear in the Project namespace; none would be placed in the article namespace—that would be a blatant violation of policy and precedent. Ingoolemo talk 23:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

F-14 Tomcat

Our "friend" is back, see his recent activity over there. --Denniss 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the recent block seems to have cooled his edits, if not his tongue; I seem to be attacked in each of his edit comments. However, despite the edit comments, some of his edits have amounted to scaling back his more outlandish comments. (e.g. "easily defeat the A-4" -> "trained to beat the A-4", which I find acceptable). However, some of his sources are just silly (freerepublic posts, concluding that the Navy rewrote its program specifications, based on the labeling of a model), and those citation tags have been replaced. I'll see how this plays out.--Mmx1 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

CP-140 Aurora and CP-140A Arcturus

I'm not that expert on these planes but they look very similar. The Arcturus seems to be a subvariant of the Aurora. Do we need separate articles for them ? Need expert option. --Denniss 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You are correct, the Arcturus is a subvariant of the Aurora. The main difference is that the Aurora has a full ASW and maritime patrol suite, while the Arcturus lacks the ASW equipment. There doesn't need to be separate articles for them, and many reference sources include them under P-3 Orion articles. --Askari Mark | Talk 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Vickers Vildebeest and Vincent

In a similar vein...I put these two aircraft together, because they are pretty much internally identical - however some texts treat them separately - happy to spilt if there is any strong opinion Winstonwolfe 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Center of pressure needs help

Center of pressure has been disputed and stagnant for a long time now. Could someone please give it some love? Thanks, Melchoir 04:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on this and have stubbed center of lift off to a new article. They're absolutely not the same thing, and center of pressure has no place in a discussion of center of gravity regarding aircraft. Lift != pressure. Anyway, a second or third set of eyes on this would be appreciated. ericg 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparison tables

At CAC Boomerang, there was a comparison table comparing its characteristics to other similar fighters. The table, which I removed temporarily, can be found at Talk:CAC Boomerang#Comparison table.

What do y'all think? Is it worthwhile to include that sort of thing at all? If so, where? In each individual article? In a 'comparison tables' article? Ingoolemo talk 01:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO tables could be an interesting (although simplistic) means of comparing aircraft. Separate pages, like "Comparison of WW2 fighters", make more sense than stuffing these tables into the articles. I can foresee extreme fanboyism and potential claims of original research with these though. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • They don't do a thing for me, personally. I don't see a need for them in the basic aircraft articles, but it might be useful in something like the fighter "generations" article as a way to compare "typical" fighters for each and contrast it with those of the preceding and succeeding generations. It might also be useful when discussing the progress of fighter capabilities during WWI & WWII from the respective start of the war to its end. --Askari Mark | Talk 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue is oversimplification. Top speeds and initial climb rates do little to help one understand how two fighters stack against each other, and the important performance figures are largely unavailable. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Even in major text books the information is often presented in a non standardised way - one will have range with reserves, the next range with drop tanks, the next a combat radius with stated load. For aircraft of the era of the Boomerang, much data is dubious as production aircraft in service often failed to achieve the figures of specially prepared early machines. Tables are also often produced by a manufacturer who presents only the most favourable comparisons, (though to be fair, the nicely presented figures for the Boomerang only serve to underline its understandable inadequacies). Despite all that, better to have some comparative information than none at all.Winstonwolfe 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

These tables, whether in an article about a fighter or an airliner, need to be killed. They're comparing only the basics, and preempting any real discussion of the complexities involved. I've pulled the 787-10 vs A350-900XWB table already (talk about vague and uninformative) and will be removing any others I come across. ericg 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, one form of comparison I did find interesting was comparative performance envelope diagrams - a bit academic as these are not readily available. Winstonwolfe. Incidentally I've just joined the project, and promptly completed templates for most of the articles I've had involvement with (usually New Zealand, or British interwar period, most were stub or start, low/medium importance) - I hope nobody minds. 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:Air! Why would anyone object to constructive editing? :) Performance envelope diagrams are indeed very interesting and also, as you correctly noted, exceedingly unavailable. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Operators section

An anonymous user has decided that all of the 'operators' sections in our articles need to have the countries listed, and not just the air forces, so they went through and replaced something like * Royal Canadian Air Force with

* [[Canada]]
** [[Royal Canadian Air Force]]

I can certainly see the need for this if the list includes the Fleet Air Arm, RAF, USAF, USMC, and U.S. Navy. But in most of these cases, only one operator was listed. I think most of us are in agreement that in the latter case, the country need not be listed.

I would also like to note that our page content standards call for a list of all squadrons that use the plane in question. In General, when we have a list of squadrons together, the operators list should be removed.

Comments? Ingoolemo talk 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to rethink the operators section - it should list countries only, and squadrons should be in a separate list article a la List of PBY Catalina operators. ericg 19:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that squadrons should only be listed if there was some notability. Wikipedia is not a dump for information -- if the list of squadrons does not add anything to the article (and it rarely, if ever does), it does not need to be there. If the service was notable, like Dambusters or Tuskegee Airmen, that probably warrants a short paragraph in the text. The countries thing is annoying. So are the little flags. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I would support the idea that the operators should not need the country name unless they are multiple users. Again not sure about listing all the the units that operate the aircraft and agree with Emt147 about notable units perhaps in a textual context not a list MilborneOne 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto Emt147 & MilborneOne. Askari Mark | Talk 17:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree absolutely about the countries and flags (I have had to fix one article I wrote, where some enthusiastic user had decided if the type was used by a Chinese war lord in the 1920s it should have Users: followed by a Communist Chinese flag). Personally I like the list of squadrons though, where this is going to be more than a half a dozen, they can be linked fromt hemain article rather than in it. But I wouldn't delete that altogether - an encyclopedia is a dump for information - and there is value in collecting this sort of thing, which is not readily available elsewhere. Winstonwolfe 02:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is a purpose-based collection of information, not a dump for information. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Imagine if we collected information about each and every company/corporation that operated an aircraft and how unwieldy such articles would become. Because then, we might continue to distinguish them by type of operations and any other number of criteria, simply because someone may find value in the information. (Born2flie 13:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Massive navboxes, again

If you may recall, I proposed moving several massive navboxes to the portal namespace some time ago. There was no opposition, so I took care of it. Well, someone decided that the template needed to be recreated, so he created it again.

As far as I'm concerned, if they want a template, let them have it. But I find that such massive navboxes simply don't fit well into the bottom of an article, especially if more than one is added. So can we come to some kind of consensus that our WP:Air/PC should explicitly state that there are to be no navboxes in the footer?

Remember, there are over a hundred members of this project, so it's not fair to the rest of you if we make policy on five support votes because no one else said anything. Ingoolemo talk 17:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you link to an (egregious) example? Askari Mark | Talk

Here are two examples of such templates:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ingoolemo (talkcontribs) .

Note that in many cases there are multiple templates on one page - for example, both of the above templates would appear on Avro Lancaster. ericg 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I would reccomend limiting to one navbox per page. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I can absolutely see where you're coming from. Having just one of the above templates isn't all that bad, but in cases where multiple templates exist, we may not always be able to justify choosing one template over another. See further some comments that I have below. Ingoolemo talk 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would support their removal from pages for specific aircraft. They might, however, serve a useful purpose in some related topics like "Strategic bombing" or a particular air force page; still, one per page should be more than enough. Alternatively, they might be assigned their own individual page, with a "For information on related topics, see ..." link. Askari Mark | Talk 19:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point I would like to make some further comments about these templates. Firstly, I absolutely believe that they convey useful information, which is one reason why I proposed moving them to the Portal namespace a month ago. My primary beef with them is that they are simply too large and unwieldy to fit nicely into the footer. Ingoolemo talk 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I have two more examples, each much smaller. {{giant aircraft}}

Should these be kept in the footer? Ingoolemo talk 07:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

These are more manageable, and the one on the "B-29 family" is a useful add, IMHO. Askari Mark | Talk 05:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but I think that {{giant aircraft}} would be better suited to a creation of its own article, explaining why all those aircraft are related. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's another. This looks absolutely awful and doesn't help the article at all, at least in my opinion. Does a reader about a prototype jet reall care about the Honda CR-V? ericg 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's overboard. It's only an aircraft article, not a company article. Askari Mark | Talk
And what about {{Lockheed Martin}}? In my opinion there's nothing this template does that a portal or a category doesn't. Ingoolemo talk 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed page content standard for navboxes in footers

Well, we've established some things. Firstly, all respondents to this discussion oppose the inclusion of "large" navboxes in the footer. Examples of said "large" navboxes are {{RAF WWII Strategic Bombing}}, {{British aircraft since WWII}}, and {{Honda}}. Secondly, no respondents—so far—opposed the inclusion of "small" or "manageable" navboxes.

Well, what can we take from this discussion? When I first began it, I hoped that we could come up with some kind of actionable policy. What would this policy be? No navboxes whose width is greater than w, whose height is greater than h, and whose area is greater than A? I doubt I

Part of the distinction I see between the RAF templates and the smaller ones is that they introduce a very specific topic with many different facets, which is one reason why I maintain that they should be portals rather than navigational templates. Consequently, they group together articles that are only tangentially related to each other, such as the Avro Lancaster and Archibald Sinclair. Thus they are more like clutter than useful information. The same is true of the Lockheed and Honda templates.

So if the RAF templates are bad, are smaller ones less bad, or are some actually beneficial? I would agree with Askari Mark that the B-29 family template is a useful addition to a page, or more specifically that it is more useful than a category or a link to a list. The giant aircraft template, on the other hand, is barely more useful than a category.

And now, finally a proposal for a page content standard:

For an navbox to be included in an aircraft article's footer, it must meet one of the following criteria:

  1. The navbox is more useful than any other addition that would serve a similar purpose, such as a category tag or a link to a list.
  2. The navbox links only to articles that are closely related to the aircraft, preferrably only to other, related aircraft.
  3. There may be only one navbox per footer.

Comments? Ingoolemo talk 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I edited your subsection header to give your proposal better "exposure."
I would extend #1 to where the same information is already topically addressed (e.g., as section or sub-section headings or listed elements) within the article. Given it's such a large topic, the Lockheed Martin navbox wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing ... but everything except for the major products is already covered. Frankly, I would go even "tighter" on your proposal and recommend limiting them to use where there is a confusing array of designations and/or nicknames for the same basic aircraft type and its variants. The B-29 and C-47/DC-3 are good examples. (BTW, another possible use might be to replace the oft-deprecated series sequence footer.) Askari Mark | Talk 02:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So what you're proposing is:

  1. Amend #1 to include ", or a link to another article that addresses the same information as the navbox."
  2. Amend #2 to limit the navboxes to aircraft that are closely related but have disparate names.

Just checking that I read you right. Ingoolemo talk 03:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What about using this template: {{Dynamic navigation box with image}} like in the British Airways article. The box only takes one line when in the hidden position (which seems to be the default) but can expand when clicked on. Just a thought. --Sylvain Mielot 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I admit that some of my argument against navboxes is that they are a clunky addition to the footer, and although I concede that the dynamic navbox helps ease those concerns, I still believe that many of the navbox additions are redundant. The dynamic navbox will not make such content less redundant. Ingoolemo talk 04:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Revised proposal for a page content standard:
"The use of navigation boxes in aircraft articles, particularly in footers, should be kept to an absolute minimum. For a navbox to be included in an article, it must meet one of the following criteria:
  1. The navbox links to aircraft-related pages that are closely related but have disparate names. (See the B-29 article{{B-29 family}} for an example.) If no other pages are linked to from the navbox, consider using a table instead.
  2. The navbox only offers links to articles on subjects that are directly related to that particular aircraft, or to pages on other very closely related aircraft. Otherwise, consider placing links under "See also" instead.
  1. The navbox should not be used where a "See also" link to a category or list will suffice.
  2. The navbox should not contain subsections which simply reiterate or summarize information presented elsewhere in the article.
  3. Navboxes should only appear in the footer or — in those rare cases where it may be more appropriate — at the end of the "Related content" section.
  4. There should not be more than one navbox per footer (besides the standard Aircraft footer); for consistency in appearance, the standard Aircraft footer should come last (or after "See also", depending on how that particular article is structured).
As a general rule, if the subject of the navbox is not essentially related to the particular article, it should not be included. For instance, a navbox on Lockheed Martin may be appropriate for such a large conglomerate, but it should not be appended to every article related to the company, its officers, and products.
Please also refer to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for more information and guidance."
Comments? (BTW, with regard to the existing Lockheed Martin navbox, the 'Statistics' subsection duplicates that in the company template at the top of the article, and probably should be deprecated.) Askari Mark | Talk 19:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I support this proposal completely, though I did make a slight change the reference to B-29 family. Anyone else? Ingoolemo talk 03:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - Contemplating - I have seen some of those fairly lengthy templates. I want to be careful not to offend the creating editor, because somebody put some work into designing them, but sometimes I think it goes a bit overboard. Just to make sure I am on the same page, a nav box for other aircraft from the same manufacturers , such as {{Lockheed}} would still be appropriate, but the template on every detail of corpororate lockheed does not need to be on every page of a Lockheeed aircraft? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    That depends on the content of an equivalent. As List of Lockheed aircraft is merely a numerical list, that particular template fulfills a purpose that could not be satisfied by a simple link to the list, or by the addition of a category under our current category scheme. If, however, the list were to subdivide the aircraft by type, then the template would be redundant with the list, and would be ineligible for inclusion under these proposed guidelines. Karl Dickman talk 00:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    If that is the case, then I think it should be modified. I think it is important to remeber that in the long run, what we are doing this for is people who dont know a whole lot about airplanes, not aircraft gurus. If i was a highschool or a college kid, perhaps writing a paper on Lockheed, and I had litle wikipedia experience, I may not find my way around to certain areas, perhaps the list of other aircraft by lockheed. That is personally why i started creating the nav templates at the bottom of the page because, a while ago when i started getting interested in flying i started looking at Cessna aircraft. I found the 172 (the type I am training in), but had some difficulties find any of the other aircraft to get a good background on it. I wil look at the guidelines a little more, but as of now, i am leaning towards oppose until we can find a way to include manufactuer models. I may not even be opposed to narrowing the nav templates down by removing the type sections, so that it was just a listing of all aircraft by the manufacturer, however I need to mull it over a little more. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • After a little bit more contemplating, I believe that the criteria "The navbox is more useful than any other addition that would serve a similar purpose, such as a category tag or a link to a list." may either need to be expanded or, clarified. While a category, such as Category:Cessna, would be an appropriate navigation mode to find other cessna aircraft (or any of the other manufactuer specific categories), it would only seem appropriate to other, experienced or even semi experienced wikipedians. THis is going along with my above argument that the point of these articles is to give information to people who do not know a whole lot about aircraft, or maybye just curious people browsing. While categories and lists are appropriate matters, ease of navigation is farily important (at least to me, and through the design of much of wikipedia, it appears to be an important concern). So, I think that the criteria "The navbox is more useful than any other addition that would serve a similar purpose, such as a category tag or a link to a list," could be interpreted to mean, that in my opinion, nav boxes of aircraft by a manufactuer are more useful than categories or lists to undexperienced users. I am open for feedback on this line of thought? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're arguing that inclusion of navboxes should be not just be limited to boxes whose content is different/better than lists and categories; you'd also like to include those whose content is the same as a list or a category, on the grounds that the boxes are more useful in and of themselves than any link could be? Karl Dickman talk 00:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am arguing but, i am not against limitations on these nav boxes. I think that the content should be within reason. I.E. a narrow enough grouping that is capable of succesffully being captured in a few lines of a nav box. Now, i understand that within reason is often a subjective concept. I think a list of other aircraft by the company is useful and unobtrusive, i think a nav box of say, for example, all aircraft ever would be insane and serve no purpose. I know that this is an individual project but nav boxes for similar or rleated content is a common practice in many other wiki projects. On another note, i would not be against having a set template required for all nav boxes included on wp:aircraft articles. As most of them do already, I think that the {{Navigation}} template should be standard on all project pages. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I think your comments are valid, and provided no one objects, I will update the proposal to reflect your concerns. Karl Dickman talk 02:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mystery aircraft

Recently I went to a local airshow and took pictures of a bunch of airplanes. I've been able to identify most of them, but there are a few, mostly World War II-era, that I haven't.

Thanks for any help identifying them. --Carnildo 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1 and 2 are the Yakovlev Yak-18 (or whatever its Chinese Nanchang equivalent was called, CJ-5 or CJ-6); 3 and 4 are the Navion (aka North American L-17); 5 is a Cessna O-2 Skymaster; 6 is an A-1 Skyraider. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the commons images stuck through above. using EMT147's info and N-number registry information. No tail number visible on the other two, so I'm not sure I want to update those since I can't tell Russian from Chinese. For future reference you could use the Canadian aircraft registry and the FAA N-number registry. Dual Freq 04:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm good at taking pictures of things, but not so good at identifying what they are, which is why I haven't uploaded more images. I'll get the images cleaned up, renamed, and put in the appropriate articles. --Carnildo 06:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comair Flight 5191

This isn't strictly aircraft-related (in the sense of relating to a specific make and model article) but I think I'm probably safe in assuming that most participants over here are aviation enthusiasts. There's currently an RfC filed to get some outside input on Comair Flight 5191, specifically whether or not certain facts reported by the media (but as yet unrelated to the crash) should be included in the article. Thanks for any help my fellow aviators can provide, and sorry for the semi-spam. I'll go improve an article or two as penance. :) --chris.lawson 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unh-uh! I ain't getting involved in that mess. :) (Born2flie 03:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

E-3 Sentry and E-767

Should the E-767 be listed as a section on the E-3 page (since the E-767 is is a modified 767 with E-3 equipment), or does it deserve its own page?

Musashi1600 06:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are significant differences between them that you haven't mentioned/I don't know about, the E-767 should be part of the E-3 article. Comments, anyone else? Ingoolemo talk 07:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with MilborneOne. The E-767 needs its own article. Ingoolemo talk 03:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the specifications on Boeing's website, the E-767 has the same dimensions as the 767-200 (with the exception of a taller tail), and uses similar engines, although I don't know of any significant internal differences.

Musashi1600 07:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed some of the bits about the E-767 on the E-3 page on 6 September because the E-3 article is about a variant of the Boeing 707 aircraft - The E-767 is a variant of the Boeing 767 and should be on that page or even an article of its own. There is still a note on the E-3 page about the mission package being fitted to the E-767 under future developments. MilborneOne 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with this move until a proper E-767 article is created. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to put this discussion into perspective- the only thing that has been deleted is the title Units using the E-767 the text was not deleted just moved under Future Direction. MilborneOne 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Odd little back and forth

I'm having a little trouble conveying the importance of the Piper Cub over at the talk page. If someone has links to 'famous aircraft' polls or anything, please chime in (but don't make it an attack! that sometimes happens). ericg 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can get some useful ideas from Successful aircraft types.Francisco de Almeida 21:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

AWACS, command and control, electronic warfare

I finally got back to my proposed update of the categorisation scheme, and it's almost ready to be opened for discussion. One thing I want to ask:

It seems to me that AWACS, command and control, and electronic warfare are closely related categories with "only hazy or semantic distinctions" (to use the words of our current WP:Air/C). I would like to rewrite the categorisation to lump them all together into a single category.

Firstly, are there any objections to my proposal, or alternatives (such as merging AWACS and command and control?).

Secondly, what is a good category that encompasses all three missions? I can't think of a name that describes all of them. Ingoolemo talk 03:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I say merge them, but into what I'm not sure. "Support aircraft", "Military support aircraft" or something? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Technically, "AWACS aircraft" is a particular platform resulting from a particular command and control program and, as such, should be a part of the "Command and control aircraft category" — a better name for which might be "Airborne early warning and control aircraft" (AEW&C). I was unaware of WP:Air/C — I'm still a newb — but I can provide further in-depth insight into how those of us who work professionally in the area of military aircraft market projections combine these markets. Would it be better for me to do so there or here? --Askari Mark | Talk 04:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
In general, don't post anything on the subpages, because your postings there are almost never acted upon. So, if I understand your question, you should apply your expertise "here", rather than "there".
By the way, are you aware that your signature is not linking to User:Askari Mark but to User:Name? You can fix that in your preferences. Ingoolemo talk 05:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't know it - thanks for letting me know! It was correct in the beginning, so I don't know how it changed ... and I obviously never look at it. Askari Mark | Talk

Military aircraft categorization

One of my professional duties is long-range forecasting of military aircraft markets and national force structure requirements. As I promised Ingoolemo, here is the categorization groupings typically used in the military aircraft industry. Here's more than you ever wanted to know. ;-)

There are four fundamental roles for military aircraft: combat, combat support (or "special mission"), air mobility, and trainer. The mission categorizations under these roles are:

Combat aircraft: bombers, fighter/attack (or fighters and attack separately), and light ground attack (LGA/COIN).

Combat Support aircraft: strategic reconnaissance (including bomber variants), tactical reconnaissance (usually fighter/attack variants), forward air control (FAC), airborne command posts (ACP), airborne early warning and control (AEW&C, including AWACS), electronic warfare (or "electronic combat"), electronic support measures (ESM), maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), search and rescue (SAR, including combat SAR [CSAR]), and weather reconnaissance. MPA and ASW are usually combined as MP/ASW (or just "maritime patrol"). EW (jammers, etc.) and ESM (ELINT, etc.) are often combined as "EW".

Air Mobility aircraft: strategic transports, tactical transports, strategic tankers, tactical tankers, utility transports (a.k.a. "communications" or "liaison"), VIP transports, medevac aircraft, and (crewed) airships. Some treat tankers as "Combat Support" aircraft, in which case this role is usually referred to as "Airlift" or "Transport" aircraft.

Trainer aircraft: advanced jet trainers (AJT), intermediate jet trainers, primary trainers, basic trainers, flight-screening trainers, and gliders. There are also multi-engine conversion (or "crew") trainers, navigation trainers, EW trainers, and target tugs; most of these are transports — usually, but not always, converted late in their lives to training duties — although elderly fighters or bombers are sometimes employed for EW training and target towing work.

There are also "Test & Support" aircraft — a motley assortment of usually late-in-life aircraft of all sorts used for trials, calibration, telemetry, drone recovery, chase planes, avionics testbeds, or "hacks" for a variety of test purposes. Some are also used as ground maintenance trainers, loadmaster trainers, etc.; these are usually non-flyable and often exist only as partial airframes. For Wikipedia’s aircraft categorization purposes, these can be ignored except for technology demonstrators (e.g., X-planes) — although these would seem to be taken care of by the "Experimental aircraft" Category.

Where things become "unglued" is when you try to factor in the basic platform types: fixed-wing (including "swing-wing"), rotary wing (helicopters and autogyros), or tilt-rotor. Furthermore, the fact that the operation of any of these can (theoretically) be manned or unmanned, there is now a third way to slice everything. I personally track them as a further "role". "Unmanned" can include UAVs, UCAVs, drones, targets, aerostats, and uncrewed airships. Some include crewed lighter-than-air (LTA) airships as transports; others lump all airships together as "Unmanned". Likewise, some treat aerostats as "Combat Support".

For the purposes of Wikipedia, the "roles" lump too much together, while the "missions" make for a far too unwieldy mess. I would recommend that the "Military aircraft" Category have the following subcategories:

  • Bomber aircraft
  • Fighter/Attack aircraft
  • Reconnaissance aircraft
  • Maritime Patrol/ASW aircraft
  • Airborne Early Warning & Control aircraft
  • Electronic Warfare & Surveillance aircraft (or "& Support" [i.e., ESM])
  • Military Transport & Tanker aircraft
  • Military Trainer aircraft
  • Military Helicopters (optionally)
  • Military Unmanned Air Vehicles (optionally)
  • Military Airships & Aerostats (optionally)

I would drop cruise missiles as an "Aircraft" category and assign it under "Rockets and missiles" instead. Transport and Utility aircraft could be broken out as separate categories, but I don't see much use of the latter term and the average Joe wouldn't know the difference. Most tanker and rescue aircraft are actually modified variants of transports, not designed as such from the start; still, Tanker aircraft could be broken out if desired (and folks are writing separate articles for them).

Of course helos and UAVs can have many of the same missions, so you might want to separate out fixed-wing, tiltrotor, rotorcraft, and UAVs ... but of course, UAVs also come as fixed-wing, tiltrotor, and rotorcraft.... Askari Mark | Talk 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this. I'll take the time to rethink my proposal when my homework lets up a bit. Ingoolemo talk 03:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm partial to creating general categories that would work well for most every country.
  • Manned
    • Fixed-wing
      • Mission
        • Modified Mission
    • Helicopter
      • Mission
  • Unmanned
    • Fixed-Wing
      • Mission
    • Rotorcraft
      • Mission
Of course, this illustration is biased by my experience with the current U.S. designation system. (Born2flie 04:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm glad you find it helpful. I've corrected a few oversights and added an Airship category option, so you might want to rescan it. Since I originally posted it, I've been wrestling more with the issue while working on the List of military aircraft of Japan, which is also what led me to post my "National aircraft lists" query below. As a contrary example, I find the List of military aircraft of the United States too fragmented and confusing to use and rather limited in the information provided and unattractively presented.

My feeling after working on the Japanese list is akin to Born2flie's. I would make each aircraft "era" a level 1 header section, then level 2 header subsections for platform categories (e.g., "Manned fixed-wing"), and next a table along the lines of the one currently in Japan. The first title line, however, would be the mission (broken out as in my recommended summarized list above, not the detailed listing), followed by operating service (e.g., air force), then the column headers as in Japan's. The "In Service" dates would be from IOC (not first flight or first delivery) until the last example was retired (not from when they were withdrawn from primary combat roles to secondary uses). What think you? Askari Mark | Talk 00:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

White Night One Article

This article is talking about probable events in 2005 (e.g. may happen in the future in the year 2005). We're in September of '06. Can you get some people into that article? Colonel Marksman 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Which article exactly? I searched for White Night One and came up empty. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
White Knight One (Born2flie 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

National aircraft lists

I've been adding some data to the List of military aircraft of Japan and I am curious as to whether there has ever been any discussion of a standard format, content, listing order (alphabetical by manufacturer/by IOC/or whatever)? These lists are a mess and no two appear to take the same approach. The Japanese list, for instance, starts with "1945 to date" and then goes to all older aircraft; the German list starts from the beginning. Any thoughts? Askari Mark | Talk 00:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Would be interested in views on this - I (half) did the List of aircraft of the RNZAF and RNZN and would be first to admit it looks messy.Winstonwolfe 03:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, as Mark says above, the list of U.S. military aircraft is aweful. A much better system, for American aircraft at least, is to list aircraft according to the respective service's designation systems, as at my yet-unfinished User:Karl Dickman/Projects/Aircraft/LMAUS. Ingoolemo talk 04:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

  • Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
  • Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 11:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Units key

Currently many of the aircraft pages contain the Template:Aircraft specifications, producing message "For an explanation of the units and abbreviations in this list, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Units key".

It may be useful, however there are a few problems with it. First of all, it is somewhat self-referencing, pointing to WP:AIR subpage. That is generally considered undesirable, since Wikipedia mirrors might skip Wikipedia namespace contents. I don't see reasons to keep this out of the main namespace. Maybe it would be better to move it to the main namespace, calling something like "Aircraft units", or was it already discussed?

Second, the page itself doesn't really give an explanation, and not even conversion coefficients. I think it could be improved, at least by giving definitions to some units and explaining their meaning for an aircraft. I could do some of that. Any objections/suggestions? --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, go for it. I'd suggest a move to something like aviation-related units. ericg 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections. Ingoolemo talk 03:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject: Aviation History??

No project page. Is this a reality or a suggestion? And how is this not under the purview of WP:Air's stated purpose? (Born2flie 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

X-38 discussion

There's been a discussion going on over at Talk:X-38 Crew Return Vehicle that I'd like to invite other project folks to take a look at and weigh in on. It started with a merge of two articles, then a debate what the article should be named. A recent input from an editor called into question the wisdom of the merge. Problem is, there just hasn't been really enough people reviewing the situation to come up with a good consensus, which is what's really needed. We could use the wisdom of the project to help with the discussion! Thanks! Akradecki 18:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Specs Incomplete

Just wondering how much of the specifications template the rest of the editors feel should be filled out before the {{aero-specs}} template is removed. I think there should be some sort of quantifiable idea that certain numbers are more critical than others, and when the critical information is filled out, then the template should be removed. (Born2flie 13:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

It's a bit difficult to say since the specs cover all aircraft. Some factors, like "Not to exceed speed" are less relevant today than they were in the early decades of aviation and can be challenging to find data for in any case. As a practical consideration, I'd suggest an upper bound of around 75-80% of the data entries should be a good indication that a solid effort has been made to date to satisfy the data requirements. Askari Mark | Talk 18:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to point out, never exceed speed is always relevant. Every pilot's operating handbook and airspeed indicator out there has a value for VNE, and faster jets have limiting Mach numbers. What does exist is an increasing level of confusion in publications and existing resources between maximum cruise and never exceed speeds. ericg 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but it's a lot farther away from stall speed than it used to be, and modern flight controls tend to be coded to prevent you from reaching VNE. Furthermore, the operating handbook isn't readily available for a great many aircraft (and are classified for not a few military aircraft). For an encyclopedia, it seems to me to be a "nice-to-have" but not an essential metric ... unless you're going to fly the aircraft from what you learn on Wikipedia. ;) Askari Mark | Talk 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark, that kind of goes to my point. How many of the specifications are necessary or required for an encyclopedia and how many aren't? What purpose will the majority of encyclopedia readers gain from all of the specifications? (Born2flie 10:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

I would say that the general Wikipedia user would expect to see the same types of information as would be found in popular books on aircraft, such as those by Bill Gunston. That would include all of what's currently "mandated" except for VNE (and, of course, Power/mass and Thrust/weight are an either/or). Others sometimes lacking include various of the given weight and speed categories ... but several range categories are commonly seen (and it is quite unclear which is - or are - preferred here). Askari Mark | Talk 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Air Force One Featured article review

Hi everyone. Air Force One is up for featured article review as it lacks inline citations. It can be found here. If anyone is able to provide sources for it or any other improvements, please do so. Marskell 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


My significant edits to Boeing 747SP (including removing specifications for 3 other 747 models and citing sources for the 747SP data) were recently reverted by an anonymous editor who believes I made it worse. Please review and add your input. ericg 05:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My feedback is on the talk page. Akradecki 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

F-35 Lightning II

F-35 Lightning II is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

several airliner specifications sections

An increasing number of airliners (Boeing 747SP, for example) have cropped up with specifications in a table format that cover multiple variants, often differing only in engine and weight figures. Additionally, they're missing quite a bit of the content present in the standard template. The project guideline is to only list specifications for one most popular variant of an aircraft, rather than all of them, describing the others in the text.

What action should be taken on this? Any change away from the table seems to prompt a rapid revert. ericg 07:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Il-2 Stormovik

I've just created this Article, could I please have some help with it? Thanks, Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . 3 23:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution! However, there is already an article on that airplane, Ilyushin Il-2. Please see what new material you have that can be added to the original article. Best wishes, Askari Mark | Talk 23:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating a user box

Is anybody interested in creating an official user box for all WikiProject Aircraft participants? (Wikimachine 03:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

FWIW, in the unofficial subproject for UAVs, we've got one we've been using, created by Salad Days. An example of it is at MQ-1 Predator. Akradecki 03:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That's an infobox. He's talking about a userbox. ericg 04:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Doh! Guess I spent too much time out on the flightline today.... Akradecki 05:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been around here for a while, and I just noticed this, but if anyone is still interested, I did make a Userbox (or userboxes rather) a while back. See:
NonFreeImageRemoved.svg This user is a member of WikiProject Aircraft.
Avion silhouette.png This user is a member of WikiProject Aircraft.
Avion silhouette.png This user is a member of WikiProject Aircraft.
Aero-stub img.png This user is a member of
WikiProject Aircraft.

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)