Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 40


Aviatika-900 Acrobat/Juka

Jsut created an article on the Aviatika-900 Acrobat, it appears to have been sold to Jurgis Kairys as LY-JKA. According to his article he designed and manufactured his own aerobatic aircraft known as the "Juka" registered LY-JKA. Something not right and it looks like he either renamed or modified the Acrobat. Dont want to link the two type without a reliable sources, appreciate any help, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Air-Britain/Partington Euro registers, notionally 2010 have 'JKA as the Aviatika.TSRL (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Strangely, Jane's 2006 have the Acrobat as uncompleted.TSRL (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
My main source for linking them is the russian website (the design bureau) who show an image of LY-JKA as being a "900". Also says In 2004 Lithuanian aerobatic pilot Jurgis Kairys won Grand prix FAI on aerobatics by plane Acrobat (under name JuKa)! MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Amy Johnson

An IP seems to prefer to call Amy Johnson an aviator rather than the aviatrix, I have reverted twice so would appreciate others keeping an eye on it, unless you think she was better known as an aviator! MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Watched! - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm! Aviatrix is how she was known pre-WWII (ie 80 years ago) but for the last 20-30 years she would be logged as an aviator, most of these gender specific labels having been dropped (see actor/actress, editor/editress, poet/poetess, chairman/chairwoman as well as other, rarer, -ix forms). I'd argue for the current form, but why not use pilot or flyer instead of the rather archaic aviator, neither of which nouns generated feminine forms like pilotess or flyeress. We do not generally insist on contemporary (1930s here) usage. I'm with him/her on this and can see no reason to revert.TSRL (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Good point TSRL, my initial reaction was if anybody was known as a aviatrix it would be Amy Johnson. Perhaps with that in mind the mess in the Aviator article when discussing females probably needs a tidy up. MilborneOne (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
It is true that these terms are disappearing, don't quite understand it, perhaps it's to do with the equal opportunity act and political correctness in the UK at least. 'Aviatrix' looks more correct to me as that is what she was (and widely known as in sources). Pushing modern terms into period articles looks quite strange (engineering units that were not in use at the time now appear regularly in articles, replacing those taken directly from sources). I would also prefer to see a contemporary black and white image of an older aircraft type rather than a modern colour digital one in the infobox, it sets the 'scene' of an article subject i.e. the reader thinks 'Hmmm, black and white, this must be old stuff'. Don't know what WP's stance is on this, perhaps it's in the MOS somewhere? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree that calling her an "aviator" while very "PC" these days, is a form of historical revisionism, as she was always known as an aviatrix in her heyday, and in fact was the personification of that term. I think that while modern female pilots should be called "aviators", that history (and Wikipedia) should reflect the period that they lived in, although perhaps the article can explain that. I should note that the lead to Aviator does briefly explain, saying: "The term aviatrix (aviatrice in French), now archaic, was formerly used for a female aviator.". - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The OED's citation for aviatrix is comparitively recent; they quote an appearance in the Glasgow Herald from 1927. Aviatrice appears in an English source in 1910, and aviatress is used by The Aero in 1911. I'm working on an article on the Bland Mayfly at the moment, incidentally, but since its an article on the aircraft rather than the remarkable Lilian Bland I can duck the issue.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:USAF weapons

We dont normally have nav boxes (or cats) for users but Template:USAF weapons does appear on some US military articles. Suggest that it is removed from aircraft articles, to use a favourite example it could potentially add more than 50 nav boxes to the C-130 article if every user had a "current equipment" user box. MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur with removal from aircraft articles. -BilCat (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree, this is better addressed with cats. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
We dont normally categorise by operator either for similar reasons. MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, check. Reduce the clutter! - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK Thanks guys I have removed it from all the aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

List of autogyro models

Does this list serve any purpose given we have Category:Autogyros and also the much more extensive List of aircraft, which includes autogyros? I am willing to spend some time fixing the list up, but I want to see if the project members here think that is worthwhile or whether it should be deleted or redirected instead. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be redirected to List of rotorcraft were the information is presumably duplicated as well. Never really understand why we duplicate all these list, perhaps all we really need is the word "autogyro" or "helicopter" added to the types in the list of aircraft and both the autogyro and rotorcraft could both be deleted. (Gliders have a duplicated list as well!) MilborneOne (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I missed the existence of that one! The List of rotorcraft says that it includes "helicopters, autogyros, rotor kites and convertiplanes" so they definitely overlap 100% there. I tend to agree that List of autogyro models, which is very incomplete, should be redirected to List of rotorcraft. I'll let this run a week and see if there are any other thoughts from other editors. - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd say incorporate them all ino the general list of rotorcraft, since a single list is easier to maintain than a series of overlapping lists.TheLongTone (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well with a week gone by I think we have a consensus here, so I will redirect List of autogyro models to List of rotorcraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A recent crash... 2012 Kazakhstan Antonov An-72 crash notable, given it was a military flight? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make WP:AIRCRASH, does it? - Ahunt (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it does, no. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Images as a source

A new user (User:FOX 52) has been reverted a few times for using images of (mainly helicopters) as a reference in operators lists. The user insists that a for example has editorial oversight and is a reliable source. As far as I am aware the use of images to prove anything is not really done as they do require some original research and interpretation to use as proof and as such have never been acceptable. As FOX 52 doesnt agree with this stance perhaps we should take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for an outside opinion, can anybody remember if we have a reference to using images as sources before we need to do that. I am sure that this is not a project thing but a general stance that has been taken. Any suggestions or opinions welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the image itself used as a source (ie. livery or text painted on an aircraft which is visible in the image), or is it the metadata which goes with the image?
Although there's not really a centralised editor per se, does seem to be quite good at weeding out the dubious stuff and at correcting errors, so I would be happy to use an image (or the image page with associated metadata) as a primary source for something uncontroversial which doesn't require an additional step of editorial judgement. However, as soon as a claim is disputed or a more reliable source says otherwise, it's out. Also, a photo is a snapshot in time - if a photo was taken in 2005 that would support content which mentions an aircraft in 2005, but it might have been sold/scrapped/leased since then &c. bobrayner (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out to MilborneOne using as a source should meet WP:RS guidelines as the information and images have editorial oversight acceptance/rejection policy. The "images" do come with aircraft type, registration number, and operator which are confirmed. As a failsafe I will only use database pictures that can be visually verified (ei; Miami-Dade Fire Dept. - L.A. City Fire Department). Bell 412 helicopters, with their respective fire dept. names inscribed on the fuselage. FOX 52 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
And if you actually plough through the rejection reasons in the link provided, it is clear that they are mainly concerned with picture quality, NOT with their veracity or use as a reference. All information (i.e. captions, metadata etc is user supplied) and appears to be subject to minimal qa checks - and note that photographs of full size mickups are allowable, which would make using photos on as references as very dubious. It should be noted that aircraft & mockups are frequently painted in "fake" colour schemes for airshows, demonstration tours and sales promotions - it does not necessarilary mean indicate that the aircraft type is or will be operated. Photos on do NOT seem to be a reliable source.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Nigel, the problem remains that interpreting photos is WP:OR. If photos are printed in WP:RS articles with descriptive text then the combination are reliable, but not photos on their own. Keep in mind that is run by Demand Media, the same people who run eHow with all its history of issues mentioned there. The company doesn't have a good track record for being careful and accurate. - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
If a photograph shows Aircrate Y in the livery of Airline X, then saying it's an Aircrate Y of Airline X isn't interpretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that it is. I have seen photos of an F-16 in Canadian Forces markings from the late 1970s, but that doesn't mean that that the CF operated the F-16. In fact they didn't and the paint job was a marketing attempt by General Dynamics that didn't bare fruit, as the CF bought the F-18 instead. Looking at a photo and getting useful information requires WP:OR and it is too easy to be wrong about things like operators. - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
As an example - who operates this aircraft?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
A civilian. WP:COMMONSENSE. Rather a disengious question there; I'm honestly dissapointed. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Number one their rejection policy does cover aircraft information about ⅔ the way down. Second you can't say this is WP:OR because it's not interpreting an image, but utilizing the text that comes with it. Ahunt maybe you have seen a F-16 in Canadian Forces markings, but not on And you want to use this as an example? Very specifically it is not titled USAF, but left untitled as it should be. In the remarks section it says "The "Top Gun" Iskra is used for giving kids rides on the ground," so no false information was given, but that is a PZL TS-11 Iskra, as stated in its info box. When it come to aircraft mockups that are painted in "fake" color schemes for air shows, demonstration tours..etc. will be untitled, and usually will have comments stating their use in "Remarks" section. Bottom line is WP:RS doesn't not cover photos as a reliable/non-reliable source tool. Having said that I'm willing to concede, and avoid using images on operator sourcing, if you gentlemen are willing to concede that if a proper source is not available, then may be used in its place? Ball is in your court? This is pure WP:UCS - Cheers and Happy New Year FOX 52 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say that as per WP:V if a proper source is not available then the information shouldn't be in the article until a WP:RS is found. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a general observation: I have come across plenty of instances where the info with an photo is clearly wrong, including the comments and even to misidentifying the type of aircraft. I sent an email to them once pointing this out with respect to the high incidence of misidentifying Fairchild Merlins/Metros. The reply basically was "yeah we know it's a problem and we hope to fix it one day". Has it been fixed? Who knows? YSSYguy (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
If you could put a link on some of those discrepancies that would be great. I have yet to come across any misidentified aircraft. FOX 52 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be some disagreement over what is the working definition of editorial oversight in relation to verifiable/professional-level material. Good practice in editorial oversight would be to review all content proposed for publishing prior to release, and to refuse to release/publish information that can't be verified as correct. On the other hand, to roam back to already-published content and fix flaws when they're pointed out by members of the readering public, would not be considered good practice by many people. Editorial oversight, in the context of content verification, isn't implying that patching up spotted problems in already-published user-made content is enough to satisfy the requirement; its stating that there should be a concerted effort by the reviewing editorship of that site not to release content until it has been check/verified, and non-confirmed information denied publication/release. Speaking as someone who used to do this for a living in younger years, allowing users to throw up content and tweaking out what flaws you can spot after the fact is not a methodical approach to editorship; and it is not the level of quality I would expect from a veriable source for factual work. The site is very nice, very useful for enthusasts; but that doesn't make it of a suitable level for academic citing/verification, the editing practice is not up to scratch - we can't tell what images have been reviewed, and which have not, which means potentially any image's details is wrong. 'Plausably right' doesn't cut it when editors are intended to be working on the basis of factual information. Kyteto (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's speculative, as person who has submitted a photo or two (to the site), I can tell you ALL content is checked before accept/reject status is given. No source is a 100%, I've seen retraction statements from The New York Times, to recycled aircraft operators list from Aviation Week & Space Technology. to reiterate The Bushranger's point a photograph showing Aircraft Y in the livery of Airline X, then saying it's an Aircraft Y of Airline X isn't interpretation. FOX 52 (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
A quick few minute check on found a few issues:

A few Issues? Not so fast.

  • 1. Agusta A-109E Power "QinetiQ". The confusion there is that QinetiQ/ETPS lease the aircraft from the various air forces that use their services, but they ultimately still belong the primary owners. (RAF, Swedish AF..etc) hence the air force roundels. Here are a few more examples Castle-Air, Sweden Air Force, and a RAF Gazelle
  • 2. BOAC didn't operate the De Havilland DH-106 Comet 1 ? Not according to our very own Wikipedia British Overseas Airways Corporation
  • 3. A US Navy, PZL-Mielec TS-11 Iskra pictured yes, but descriptive metadata NO (left untitled, as it should be). My stance since the beginning was the use of the data is primary, and the image just adds confirmation. FOX 52 (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, you're borrowing trouble a bit there. The picture of the Comet would be used as "a Comet in BOAC markings" - which is exactly what it is. The "trap photo" of the Iskra is honestly dissapoining - I'd have expected better of a couple of well-regarded editors here than to use that as an example hoping for a "gotcha!" moment. As for the A109, it shows it in UK military markings - which is correct. (Whether or not The Origanisation With The Utterly Stupid "Hip" Name should be using military markings is another matter...) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
WRT commonsense, and using the Iskra as an example, saying from the photo that this aircraft is operated by a civilian does require interpretation, which in turn is backed up by knowledge not evident in the photo, e.g. that the type was never operated by the service whose markings it bears. That's how commonsense works. Seems to me that what we are trying to do here is to codify common sense for those editors who lack it.
I'd suggest that the image alone is insufficient: when we use an image as source material, we do need its (verifiable) context in order to avoid misinterpreting it. If this context is not wholly obvious (as with the Iskra) then it needs explaining and/or referencing, e.g. "A TS-11 Iskra in fake US Navy markings [1]" (or whatever). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I did say I only spent a few minutes looking for images, hence the TS-11! but just to comment about the A109 labeled as Royal Air Force, having a roundel does not equal RAF (which is the stance that appear to take) QinteQ has organisationaly nothing to do with the RAF it is in effect a military contractor. The aircraft are given military serials by the MoD (not RAF) because the work they do would not be allowed with a civvy aircraft. A further example of this error is a Hawker Hunter F58 serial ZZ191 labeled as UK Air Force which it clearly is not, it is a civil-owned and operated under COMA (Civil Owned Military Aircraft) regulations. It is also works under contract for the Royal Navy so has zero RAF connection, it is not even a former RAF-aircraft as it came from the Swiss Air Force. If airlinersnet is reliable it could be used as clear evidence that the RAF operate Hunter F58s, which as you see is wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
According to the company website (which is inscribed on the Hawker hunter's spine) that runs the program, they do work with the MoD RAF,and other AF's. The the aircraft are even based at RAF Scampton, so I don't know. Appears to another QinetiQ/ETPS case who owns it? Who lease it? I guess Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) applied the Swedish roundelcause it looks cool? Bottom line with this site as any other that is used, it should require little discretion and to restate Steelpillow (Talk) thought, some WP:COMMONSENSE FOX 52 (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
They may work with the MoD, but that doesn't mean that the aircraft is a part of the RAF, or even government owned. The hunter team aircraft are civil owned and operated. Having British military military markings or registrations does not mean that an aircraft is part of the British Military. Another example of seeing not necessarily equaling believing is the use of temporary markings for delivery. F-16 deliveries to Morocco certainly were made under temporary US markings.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with The Bushranger. Those image links provided by MilborneOne looks like a strawman argument. And it appears that MilborneOne intentionally find bad examples to illustrate a point. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Well as its clear that some editors here (i.e OhanaUnited and The Bushranger) are perfectly happy to accuse anybody who disagrees with them of intentionally disrupting the discussion, and attacking them, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Clearly my opinions or contributions are not welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
A bit dissapointed on the attack on my motives, particularly by an experienced user. Some users have championed as a reliable source so a number of examples have been found which proves that is not 100% reliable. This is a discussion on that reliability of the site so how is one to challenge the assertion without finding examples. As clearly any facts that are brought up (some by other very experienced editors) to show this unreliability will be ignored as they dont agree with the truth. I will get my coat and leave you to it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear: Im not attacking anybody, and I'm not accusing anybody of intentionally disrupting a discussion. Nor was I "disagreeing" - merely pointing out that WP:COMMONSENSE applied, especially with that one particularly blatant example that was poorly used as an example. I apologise for any distress caused by my comments. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Same, I was notified by Fox 52 of this discussion days ago. I was sitting around and watch, hoping for the discussion to resolve itself. But when someone starts introducing information to proof his point, I had to step in and comment. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that the regular editors here have had a pretty decent discussion, so hopefully we can close this little episode and stay friends. Returning to the OP, have we aired the issue enough? Or, if we still feel a need to formalise a guideline or something, then would it be a matter of interpreting existing guidelines for aircraft photos, or of actually clarifying the existing guides via the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or similar? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify the use of images as a source at the reliable sources/noticeboard. Our interest is aircraft operators and other aircraft related facts but I believe that a wiki-wide consensus must be around somewhere on the general use of images as a sources. A question to a wider audience would do not harm. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that no image can be used as a source, this comes from the guidance of experienced reviewers at FAC nominations that I have been involved with. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Steelpillow, calling me a dickhead is certainly incivil. You are hereby warned that such behaviour will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
For my response to this, see my post to WP:AN/I on Bureaucrat OhanaUnited - are they right, am I wrong?. If any of you also feel that this an inappropriate place to air such a grievance, I hope you will be able to pass that thought on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

More sourcing issues (

I have also noticed [] and in particular its [database] being used as a reference. As states itself that " Database is a collaborative project to find helicopter related information where anyone can add or edit an entry" - this does not appear to meet the requirements of wp:rs and so in my opion should not be used as a reference.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly an enthusiast self-published source, can be useful for getting leads but not usable as a reliable citable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
From wp:rs: "self-published media ... are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated." Says it all, really. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The aircraft registration numbers do have relevance, which is incorporate in the site listing of the aircraftFOX 52 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The point is not whether registration numbers have relevance, but whether the database is suitable for use as a reference. As a user editable resource it seems to be directly prohibited by Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like WP:SPS to me. If the registration is critical then you need to find a better source for it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations provides guidance as well. - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Its generally being used to source lists of operators (at least in the articles I've seen it being used).Nigel Ish (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

At the very least they should be considered a useful site for getting leads and/or a secondary source FOX 52 (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

They can certainly work as that, but, as a wiki-type site itself, it can't be cited. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Antonov An-72 and An-74

A relatively new user recently created the Antonov An-74 article. It needs some work, but at this point the Antonov An-72 page also covers the An-74 variants. As the both articles are fairly short, do we really need two separate articles on such closely related aircraft? - BilCat (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am on the fence - it certainly is long enough and has the refs for a separate article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it can stand alone, but the An-72 article would suffer without the An-74 info,and need more work itself. For example, the specs on the An-72 page are for the An-74, and the Operators' list doesn't specify the type for most entries. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm undecided as well. The AN-74 article certainly stands on its own, but I'm less sure about the AN-72: if you cut the AN-74 material from it there is little more than a stub left. I'd be inclined to give it a while to see if it grows enough independent content to stand on its own as well. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd say merge the articles -- there's heaps of overlap from a first glance. Somebody had better provide references, or I'll remove everything unsourced within a few months. I'm treating the info as suspicious and fictional at the moment. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
What exactly do you see as suspicious? - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Er...what Bill said. What, exactly, makes you consider it "fictional"? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
There needs to be refs for me to consider statements as verifiable and non-fictional. If there aren't any refs, I treat such claims differently, ergo, fictional, even though they may in fact be true. It's the responsibility of those who added the info to supply the sources as well. To others, my way of doing things may be strict, but that's just me. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not Wikipedia policy. WP:V requires that verifiable references exist, not that they be in the article. A lack of references is a bad thing (and violates WP:RS, I believe) and can be cause for challenged information to be removed, but it doesn't make the content fictional. Saying "the sky is blue" without a ref doesn't mean it's a fictional statement... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Mhm, well for most tagged statements, I wouldn't have any idea where they were sourced from (particularly historical events that aren't covered widely on the web), and whether they're OR or not. Part of me thinks that Wikipedians are not doing enough to discourage people from not citing sources (but then again I feel we don't normally reward people anyway). People should at least leave a URL or something, but they mostly don't, leaving content creationists like me in the dark. I normally have to start articles afresh because of this. Like other people with an aggressive attitude towards their tasks, I'm normally not well received, but at least you know my thinking. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep both. Refs for the An-74 look to be unreliable (photos from a well known airliner website). A link to the Antonov website is given and that should be used as it is comprehensive and written in good English. Move any An-74 info from the An-72 article to avoid excessive overlap. My understanding with Antonov is if they give an aircraft a new number then it is not a variant and has its own type certificate. Would be useful to highlight the improvements/differences from the An-72 without going down the 'comparison table' road. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── FOr now, the consensus is leaning toward keeping both articles and seeing where they are in a few months. I'll remove the An-74 info from the An-72 page, and doo some clean up omn the An-74 page. I have some sources that I can use to try to cite some info in both articles, and I'll try to work on them over the next few weeks, if I am able. Anyone who has access to sources can feel free to help out. Thanks to all. - BilCat (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've done the initial work, and added a couple of An-72 pics to that article to replace the An-74 ones. The operators section on both articles needs updating and sourcing, especially since the An-72 page includes both types. However, this is beyond my area of wiki-competence. - BilCat (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


Hey, how are we? last year I attempted to merge the articles Sukhoi Su-30MKM into Sukhoi Su-30MKI because of the reasons found here. I'm adamant these two aircraft are too similar to have their own articles; in fact, the MKM is derived from the MKI, just like how the F-15I/K/S have been derived from the F-15E. Basically, the differences between the two aircraft are the avionics, and the fact that the MKI is constructed under license by HAL.

The previous merge attempt did not have any consensus, but I think the opposes consisted of speculation, and have been rebutted with no responses; two opposes were withdrawn. I want to know what some of you think. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge - most of the text is duplicated details covered by the MKI article. Would probably better suited as a variant of the Sukhoi Su-30MKM FOX 52 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft of the President of the United States redux

Back in September there was some renaming, merging, and merge proposing of related articles into Aircraft of the President of the United States This activity was discussed here, and archived into Archive 34 -- without any resolution being arrived at.

For what it is worth, whoever left the {{mergeto|Aircraft of the President of the United States}} tags did not leave corresponding {{mergefrom}} tags. I thought that meant the proposal had failed, and I removed what I thought was an orphaned {{mergeto}} tag.

I agree with MilborneOne that renaming Army One to Aircraft of the President of the United States was confusing, because it obfuscates the revision history -- we have a legal obligation to our contributors to provide a record of their contributions.

I agree with YSSYguy that Vehicles of the President of the United States#Aircraft already provided enough context for links to Air Force One, Army One, Coast Guard One, Marine One, Navy One and Executive One. I agree with Binkersternet that the six call-signs were all more suitably covered in standalone articles.

Among the reasons why I a merge is ill-advised, that weren't mentioned in the original discussion is that merging erodes the value of our watchlists. It would be perfectly reasonable for someone who is only interested in updates about one of the call-signs -- say Marine One -- to only put that article name on their watchlist. But when multiple standalone articles are merged merely because they are on related topics, those who use watchlist have their fine-focussed watchlist blunted unnecessarily. They will get a hit on their watchlist for edits that have to do with the call-sign they are interested in -- and all the others. That really sucks.

I suggest that since no real substantive changes have been made to Aircraft of the President of the United States since the merges restoring the redirected articles to their prior state should be simple. I suggest once Aircraft of the President of the United States has been moved back to Army One the redirect left behind should be changed to Vehicles of the President of the United States.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft of the President of the United States will need an admin to move it back to Army One. I've reverted the text already, and restored the Navy and CG articles. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Green tickY moved back MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
User:Purplebackpack89 has requested that the Army One article be merged into the Vehicles of the President of the United States article, although no discussion has been raised. The same user has now nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army One, request also includes Navy One and Coast Guard One. MilborneOne (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear! Seems determined to enforce his way, and as such the AFDs appear to be in bad faith. - BilCat (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
What's in bad faith is insisting poorly sourced permastubs be kept. There are less than 10KB of content between the three articles I've deleted; really less than 1KB of usable content when you delete all that unencyclopedic fluff (like the part about Mondale and a hockey game). Also, if you're going to complain about my nominations, you should notify me pbp 01:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I was waiting for you to inform me of the AFD first. :) - BilCat (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The Aircraft of the President of the United States article has been renamed to the more general name: Transportation of the President of the United States, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Uncited RCAF info

A user has been adding large amounts of uncited info on individual RCAF aircraft to the Grumman HU-16 Albatross and Consolidated PBY Catalina pages. I could use some help trying to keep the info short and sourced. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC) BilCat (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I founds these [[1]] [[2]] but, they dont seem to cover much of the new text. FOX 52 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an article on this? - Qaher 313

Auntie Beeb has an article about a new Iranian aircraft called the Qaher F313. I don't see an article about it here. Am I just missing it? (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There is now a new, stubby article at Qaher-313. There also was a much more stubby one at Qaher F-313, which I've replaced with a redirect to the former. — daranzt ] 20:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Flight International has an article on the Qaher 313 here, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I smell a lot of copyvio image deletions...and a lot of dead Iranian test pilots on the "if it looks wrong, it flies wrong" principle. (And is it just me or does it bear more of a resemblence to the F-19 than anything else?) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that the whole thing is likely a hoax on the Iranians' part. Analysis of the photos by somebody knowledgable: "No cockpit locking, enlargement of instrument panel shows the ASI is set to a max speed of 270 knts - taken from a turboprop, the inside of the cockpit shows the inside of the external skin - too thin for any sort of flying, the "pilot" had his knees above the cockpit rim, and when standing must have had his feet in the lower skin, the air intakes shown are aerodynamically impossible, but some pics show where they really are disguised. And what size engine could they fit into it? The flying shots are grainy and dark - of an RC model. The aircraft shown has very poor external skin finish - its an underscale mockup of something - in someone's imagination." - The Bushranger One ping only 10:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Flight photos

The use of Flight photos has been raised several times over the past two years or so and some editors have uploaded such images to WP:Commons, using an informal letter from Flight's editor expressing general approval, as copyright clearance. Do we have approval from the WP copyright watchers on this, making any digitised Flight image usable? It would be an enormously valuable resource. If so, is there an agreed copy of his letter that we should use?TSRL (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't find the archived discussion (it was around June 2010) but I do remember it well. The conversation stalled and it never progressed. The editor of Flight at that time was Michael Targett, obviously a forward thinking chap. His plan was to release everything over 10 years old as public domain. The few images on Commons are not correctly licensed in my view. Perhaps someone with a computer and e-mail facility could contact Flight again and ask nicely. I have not had a problem using non-free images from Flight with the correct rationale and usage. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Fairchild 45 0255x.jpg is one of the Flight images on Commons, as an example. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


We seem to have at least one editor on this article determined to remove all criticism of this recently announced Iranian fighter project so some extra eyes on the article would be useful. This is especially critical since much of the aviation press is labeling the aircraft a mock-up or a hoax. - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've issued a 3rr warning. - BilCat (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I posted some explanation to the ip's talk page. Hope it makes sense. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Earlier a user added a {{fiction}} tag to the article. I thought that was unfitting and changed it to a {{POV}} tag. If someone can find a better more fitting template, please change it. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I think what the IP tagging was meant to convey was that the article isn't clear whether this is a real or fictional aircraft. I don't think we have a tag for that. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's it. Basically, the specs/data covered by the primary sources there is questionable/disputed. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh I agree that if this is a hoax that it is very notable. No question of keeping the article, just whether it should be an NPOV article or a nationalist propaganda piece, hence the need for more project eyes on it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Alas, it does indeed seem the China-India-Pakistan fanboy wars have had a new challenger appear! - The Bushranger One ping only 12:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It does appear so, although there is the question of whether this one is a mere "fanboy" or an "official representative" in what is probably a state disinformation campaign. - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Now things are getting really nasty. - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Project members can note that due to repeated anti-semetic vandalism the article has now been semi-protected. - Ahunt (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
BR: Thanks for deleting those! - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Kirkpatrick alert

Our old banned friend is having a major uptick in activity lately and posted this in response to a last warning to knock it off and take the WP:STANDARDOFFER. So more eyes out for his socks would be a good idea... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the difficulty in blocking his known IP addresses? I don't quite understand the 'G5' removal of some some of his edits, he was correct with the Nimrod at Cosford so I reverted the removal but added a source for the whole aircraft list which should have been added a long time ago. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I reverted his edits per WP:DENY; that was one that could have gone either way. As for IP blocking, rangeblocks have been tried before but prove ineffective - I think a suciffient rangeblock to "fire for effect" would have too much collateral damage. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
G5 relates to article creation not single edits as I understand it and the Cosford entry wasn't vandalism. His sock category is impressive though! Can the ARBCOM members not find a proper blocking solution? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
True, but WP:DENY does apply to all content made by a blocked/banned editor - deny recognition, revert and let somebody else make the valid edit when possible. I can see both sides of that argument though. As for the Arbies, I don't think Ryan's case has been by them - it's not an LTA case yet, although given his promise to continue socking as long as we have any content he created (indicating he has a WP:OWN problem too), it likely should at some point... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Not suggesting an ARBCOM case as it would be a waste of time, just thought that perhaps one of these elected 'switched on cookies' might have a technical solution that has so far not been considered. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

And another old friend

Sopwith 1½ Strutter and categories

A new user keeps adding French categories to the Sopwith 1½ Strutter with the explanation that they were also licensed-built in France. Normal practice is that the Country type year-year only applies to the initial use and original manufacturer and we dont add categories for all the licence production, (or if in fact changes of use), I believe this was championed way back by User:Rlandmann who has not been around for a while. I do notice that this is not clearly detailed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories. Looking for support to make this clearer on the category page, any comments? MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you go up the category tree from Category:French bomber aircraft 1910–1919 you get to a category for aircraft manufactured by France. Maybe those categories should be changed to "designed by" or just "of" categories (like the categories below Category:Automobiles by country). Category:Weapons by country might be a better example as it also has a detailed explanation of its inclusion criteria. DexDor (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
So far as I have noted over the years, the application of the categories has always been country of origin of the design. (you got some oddities such as Rolls-Royce Mustang Mk.X but in general aircraft don't sit in more than one "country "category). Template:aircraft by nationality which links together these manfufactured by categories has the title "Aircraft by nationality of original manufacturer". You have my support to make this practice clear in the documentation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Weapons by country...thanks for finding that. Cleaning up Thirty Cat Pileups like the bottom of AIM-120 AMRAAM just got a lot easier. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
There's now a proposal to rename these categories to make things clearer. DexDor (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

T-33 renaming

A renaming discussion has begun for Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star. Discussion is at Talk:Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star#Requested move. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment - flying car concepts

A request for comment has been posted at Talk:Flying car (aircraft)#Request for comment and input from members of this project is solicited. The question at hand is what criteria should be established to list a concept flying car in the article? — Brianhe (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence (1)

Hello. Apologies if this not a good place to post the following. (If not, please advise.)

I've been browsing articles on aircraft accidents recently and found I'd came to the same conclusion about the Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence they use as this post on the template's talk page. Unfortunately, the follow-up to the post ends in a downbeat way, so I'm wondering whether it's worth trying to resuscitate..? CsDix (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, were the IP’s edits valuable? With the new preview-template-in-a-page MediaWiki feature it is not difficult to estimate even without sandboxes. Special:Contributions/ clearly shows that he attempted to use the new |cause= parameter, but after 1½ years this likely was obliterated by reverters-protectors. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I've commented on the principle on the template talk page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks – I've just added some thoughts there too. CsDix (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for February - Eurocopter Tiger (or Tigre?)

Hello there editors of WP:Aircraft, Following on from the very productive work over on the Dassault Rafale article, I've decided to pick up an article I've felt to be fairly undeveloped for some time now, the Eurocopter Tiger (as its named in English/German!). Considering Eurocopter is reportedly the largest helicopter manufacturer in the world, their coverage here on Wiki seems a little thin compared to more famous names like Sikorski, Bell, and Westland; so the best way to tackle that issue is head on, all the others have a handful of well-furnished articles and a couple of GA-quality articles to their name; why not Eurocopter? The Design section looks particularly sketchy, so in ten days, when I have more free time, I'm going to really start digging into this article, and hopefully generate some of that needed improvement. If any editors have the free time and interest to do so, I would encourage them to join in, as we all have our own specialties and methods of content development. Thanks in advance! Kyteto (talkcontribs) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been able to make some progress with the Tiger article from my planned source material; the Development section of the topic is now approaching a 'decent' level from the previously-scant coverage. I've tagged the article for material to be brought over from the German Wikipedia equivilent, it has to be said that their Design section is leagues beyonds that of what we have sitting in the English article right now. Does anyone have an interest in helping out getting the Design section dragged up to standard? Kyteto (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've now done a great deal of work to the Design section and redone the article's lead. It is now approaching what I consider to be an adequate level of coverage of the topic, although it could be better. Do any editors have the time to review the changes, and possibly to make fixes to unintended mistakes that remain? Kyteto (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox aircraft

Is it me or has somebody made the aircraft infbox caption centered, looks really daft. MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The caption below the photo? The only change to the coding of {{Infobox aircraft}} since April 2011 was last July and was wholly reverted two weeks later. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably just me, I have just seen another editor centering all the other captions in an aircraft article and I noticed the lead image was also centered. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of info boxes, why does the Republic of China Armypage have bold lettering in them? FOX 52 (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that someone has been centring captions in aircraft article captions - but I've let the issue alone unless I edited an affected caption. Re ROC, One of the infoboxes (Template:ROC Army) has a link to the article page itself. The mediawiki software automatically adds bold when it removes the selflink. That said, the infobox code also had "big" tags and bold added. I've removed those when I edited the infobox just now as I also had to stop the infobox floating to the left of the other infoboxes. The infobox only exists in that one article as well. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
More on topic. I did go looking to see if there was policy of manual of style on the subject of centred captions put couldn't find one. If the MoS is against centred, then I'm happy to amend instances I find in the course of editing an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My experience thus far is that captions under images within templates seem to be cente/red, while those in ("thumb"-sized) boxes of their own are left-aligned. I imagine a left-aligned caption under an image in a template would look odd. CsDix (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
See what you mean. The "infobox weapon" template (and various TV programme ones) centres the caption under the image. I've seen some longish captions under pictures within the body on an article. They look wrong when centred - in my opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Motorcycle pod

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Motorcycle pod has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Promotional article, no reliable sources, does not meet general notability guideline

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Spitfire prototype

Hi, hoping you can provide some feedback on how to treat K5054 here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Indian helicopter deal controversy

Concerning reports of bribery over India's order for AW101s, Indian Chopper deal scam was started a couple days ago. Is notable enough for a separate article? I'm not sure if this case is as major as events covered by separate articles, such as Al-Yamamah arms deal and Lockheed bribery scandals. I suppose we can give it a couple months to see. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's had plenty of coverage by independent sources (for instance, in the last month, four articles in Flightglobal and fourteen in the Times of India) so I think it passes the GNG and it should be easy enough to write substantial sourced content. bobrayner (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It clearly could do with a more neutral article title, unless Indian English is different to British English it is clearly not a scam either just alleged old fashioned bribery. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Three of the sources listed in the article call it "chopper scam." Maybe it's not a representative sample, but it could be the common name that the media is using.  — daranzt ] 20:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Being honest, the use of the word 'chopper' doesn't seem very appropriate for the formal writing approach of an encyclopedia, as the term is shorthand slang for helicopter. It just looks weird; if a better name emerges, it would probably be best to change it. Kyteto (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aerocar 2000

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Aerocar 2000 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced since 2009, no indication of notability per WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It is probably covered in Janes All The World's Aircraft from that period (2000) if anyone has access to a copy. - Ahunt (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not finding anything under that name with Jane's online search page. Jane's does have an entry for Mini-Imp, a 1-seat version of the 4-seat Aerocar IMP light aircraft. I suggest merging some basic text from Aerocar 2000 to Aerocar. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have added a reference to Sweeney's website and used it as a reference for now, I have removed the prod but as I cant see any evidence that it actually flew so may be a merge candidate. Although Sweeney owns an Aerocar 1 it doesnt look like a direct connection between them. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of fighter aircraft

Just for information I have added a proposed deletion tag to Comparison of fighter aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I had seconded it for PROD, but the tags have now been removed. Time for WP:AFD? - Ahunt (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
AfD is the next - and appropriate - step. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
AfD done, please participate in the discussion. Roger (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename of Airbus A350

A discussion to move Airbus A350 to Airbus A350 XWB is in its final stages. Some more comments are welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for February - Transall C-160

Greetings WP:Aircraft I recently read that, pretty much to the day, fifty years ago the Transall C-160 first took flight, making 2013 a fairly significant year for the type; as its intended replacement the Airbus A400M Atlas is also due to come into service in two-three months from now. The article we have currently for the type doesn't really do the aircraft justice, my expectations are of an article two-to-three times the current size. Thus, I have decided to put the C-160 forward as my next project, and shall endeavour to start work upon the type shortly. If any like-minded editor has any interest in the topic, drop by and lend a hand, the redevelopment goes by much easier with good company. Kyteto (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Extremely rapid progress has been made on the article, much of it thanks to User:MilborneOne and User:Nigel Ish. In barely 24 hours, the article has ten-fold in citations, tripled in file size, and practically every section has been greatly refurnished and added to, even an entirely new Design section launched. Well done everyone! As an aid to other editors, I've tagged the article with a translated link to the German language wikipedia, as there are things that we can learn from and take advantage of from their mature article on the subject. Kyteto (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do with my HighBeam subscription. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish, MilborneOne, Kyteto -- Let's get this thing to GA before March 25. I'll scour HighBeam to see what kind of stuff is missing, meanwhile you guys copy-edit, clean up the references, add missing contents that aren't locked behind a paywall, and polish the article up. Any objections? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions
One of the main things missing is the use of this aircraft in combat by South Africa during the South African Border War. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
While the Border Wars has now been mentioned, albiet from a single source's perspective; I'm not sure that the article is ready for a GAN. My personal objectives with this article were in regards to resolving its poor coverage of the topic - I'm pleased to say that the response from the community, to say nothing of my own edits, outpaced my expectations and has taken the article further than I thought it would get. It is possible to put it forward for a GAN certainly, I don't think it'll fail as it is. In my own opinion, it would be good to see some of the great detail that remains in the German article making an appearence before doing so, there is plenty to add in that area. I'm pretty tapped out for sources now, but I won't stop looking for anything useful, I'll see what I can come up with. Kyteto (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge Fokkers?

We have two article on the same aircraft, Fokker M 7 and Fokker M.7; the first has a picture but not much text. I suggest we should merge into the second one, with its more conventional title. Any arguments against?TSRL (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say to just do it. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree - go ahead, merge and redirect! - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, done.TSRL (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft: proposed deletion of section on Construction and design

Hi, please join the discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

High beta fusion reactor

The High beta fusion reactor article is about a project of Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, so it may be of interest to project members. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to do with aircraft (or reality?), this surely such be quietly merged into fusion reactor. Looks like an optimistic company ad at present.TSRL (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence (2)

Hello. I'd like to volunteer to start working through the articles featuring Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence in order to (1) standardize the parameter names used (specifically, to use the one-word lowercase names that already exist, such as "name", "image", "injuries" etc, rather than "Name", "Crash image", "Total injuries", etc); and (2) where evident, separate the type and cause of the occurrence along the lines of the "outcome" and "cause" parameters in the template's sandbox version and testcases page – in other words, to prepare the articles' templates for this kind of version of the template (without assuming that something like it will be deployed). I'd aim to amend the preset types offered as/when an article demanded it.

Would I have people's blessings to proceed..? CsDix (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  • No response either way, so I'll "be bold". CsDix (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

N.V. Vliegtuigbouw 013 Sagitta

I propose that the article name be changed to Alsema Sagitta as that is what the glider is more commonly known as. Discuss:--Petebutt (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As the lead in the article explains the aircraft is known by a large number of names, Alsema Sagitta being just one of them and that link redirects to the article at present. When I started the article I opted for the present title because of the large number of unofficial names and because this one seems to be the official name, cumbersome as it is. Our WikiProject norm is to use manufacturer-designation-name and not designer-designation-name unless there is a good reason to do so. I created redirects from all the other names and variations to ensure that any reader searching for it would find it. Perhaps you can show why you think Alsema Sagitta, named after the designer, Piet Alsema instead of the manufacturer, N.V. Vliegtuigbouw, would be preferred over all the other possible names? The only reference I could find to the use of that name was in one ref and then only by inference that some people might call it that. According to Soaring magazine in the USA it is most commonly called the "Dutch Sagitta", but that is most likely because Vliegtuigbouw is unpronounceable in English . - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
What is the most common name? bobrayner (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The aircraft is very rare, as only 20 were built and is called so many different things that there doesn't seem to be one common name. Every source on it uses a different name, which is why I just went with manufacturer-designation-name as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ahunt that the naming convention is crystal clear. While exceptions are allowed, there seems no strong case here. BTW my Dutch is pretty basic, but I think "Vliegtuigbouw" spelled as it sounds in English would be something like "Fleeg-toig-bough": "vlieg" is to fly, "tuig" is a thing, so "vliegtuig is "aircraft", while "bow" is "build". In England we would have called its equivalent "The Aircraft Factory" (and but for Royal patronage, we did). The word is also used in a general sense, as in "Maatschappij voor Vliegtuigbouw NV 'Aviolanda'" better known as Aviolanda. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Flugzeugbau is the same thing in German, very common. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


Airplane was recently changed from a redirect to fixed-wing aircraft to a full(ish) article. Did I miss the discussion? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That just happened today (March 2). There's been no discussion on that here recently. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not required and is against consensus on that term, I would say turn it back into a redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Fixed-wing aircraft used to be our article for Airplane/Aeroplane. Someone decided to broaden its scope to cover the other types of fixed-wing aircraft, and that was done without prior discussion. Given that, we were going to have to split the article eventually anyway. I know the choice of title is controversial, but that will never change. Perhaps we can "time-share" the titles - one month at Airplane, the next at Aeroplane, and so on? :) - BilCat (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
So what to do? At the moment its an article that probably isn't on project members watchlist, but will be the article that readers arrive at if they go looking for airplane or aeroplane. There are choices that ought to be decided -
  1. Revert, sort out the naming choice and then create the article properly - its a copy and paste of the sections of fixed-wing aircraft.
  2. Let it stand, check the attribution history is OK, remove duplication from fixed-wing aircraft and work on the naming issue.
  3. a third way - if there is one.
Thoughts? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft#New airplane article

Someone has been bold and created an article at airplane. Not sure I agree. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that article should have gained support here first. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Given that this article is no longer about airplanes/aeroplanes only, as originally intended, why not? It was going to have to be done anyway. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
But we would have been prepared and have sorted out the naming issue and wouldn't have a the situation where the new article is a copy and paste of this article without this one receiving some trimming/restructure at the same time. The talk page of airplane still has the aviation project redirect template. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It's nice to see someone agreeing with me. IMHO the article is long overdue for restoration. Rather than trash the new article because its content is imperfect, it is far better to improve the content. This will also allow some aeroplane/airplane-related material to be trimmed from this article here, now that the "no place else to put it" excuse is gone. "not prepared," eh? ISTR seeing several attempts at preparation (one was my own? I forget - I certainly proposed it a while ago), only to be squashed because the present article was not yet mature enough to be seen as more general. That is now fixed, so we can hopefully now go for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your work on this WP very much. Thank you for what you do to improve all aviation-related articles! I did not bring it up for discussion for a couple reasons, but mostly because I saw the lack of an airplane/aeroplane article as a missing point in our Wiki. Here's a related example. Say there was an article called defender (association football). This article describes all the aspects and characteristics of all sorts of defenders in association football. Say then that I wanted to create an article specifically on the center back position, which currently is just lumped in with the other positions. Would I need to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Football? The resulting article would unquestionably fall under their jurisdiction and would need to survive an AfD review for notability, no doubt about it, but do I need to discuss creating the page and taking centre-back information from the main page to the new daughter article?
I don't mean to be trite at all. This is a big deal and I'm not ignorant of the issues faced in the past. But the article I moved content from is unquestionably, after all these years, an article on exactly what the title claims to be--fixed-wing aircraft. It is emphatically not an article just about airplanes. This has left the English Wikipedia in the unfortunate and absurd situation of having no airplane-only article. No good. (Side note--seriously?? did we seriously not have an article on airplanes?? I know they were covered in fixed-wing aircraft, but ducks are covered in the bird article and we still give them their own article!) Red Slash 21:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I find it sad that wikipedia had to suffer, all just because people couldn't agree for so long. ScienceApe (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion

I moved the other discussion above here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

There is an older version of an attempt to create this article at Aeroplane, as per this diff, which is nearly twice as long as the current version at Airplane. It may be a better version to use, but I've not made a section by section review of them. - BilCat (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

related activities

I just undid a move of aviator to airplane pilot by the same editor as resurrected airplane on the grounds that its a big move without discussion since aviator is suitable for all aircraft whether fixed or rotary, powered or unpowered. (Pilot (aircraft) I might have let slide ). GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

And it is indeed at Pilot (aircraft) now... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I really, really like the title you semi-proposed, GraemeLeggett. It seems very appropriate and perfectly fitting to the subject of the article. Red Slash 02:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Although really confusingly not all Aviators are actually pilots, which is why such moves should be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Coandă-1910 fracas again

There's an IP editor revisiting the dispute we had for page after page about the Coandă-1910 aircraft, which some view as having exhaust routed to the ducted fan, but some don't, and very few think that it flew, while most think it did not. Places to watch:

It would be nice to have some calmer heads address the guy's concerns. He's convinced himself I am guilty of sockpuppeting and other deviltry. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I chipped in here. Don't know if it helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It helps! Another big help is that IP guy got himself blocked. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming of Grumman amphibs

Should Grumman G-21 Goose, Grumman G-44 Widgeon and Grumman G-73 Mallard include their model numbers? They don't seem to have much popular recognition, and in many cases we don't use civil model numbers (Breguet Nautilus, not Breguet 790 Nautilus, for instance), even for other civilian Grummans (Grumman AgCat, Grumman Kitten). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Flight (International) doesn't seem to have for most of its coverage in the archive. But does use it on occasions and, when it does, uses both hypenated and non-hyphenated forms ("G44, "G-44"). GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


A couple of aviation-related categories have been nominated for renaming at WP:CFDS. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Gliders, gliders, and gliders, all different?

I noticed while poking around the categories that we appear to have at least two, and possibly three, categories for gliders that pretty much duplicate each other. There's Category:Gliders and Category:Glider aircraft, which overlap wholly in scope with the latter apparently being 'most used' (but the former probably being the preferred title), and then there's Category:Sailplanes which seems slightly nebulous vs. Gliders/Glider aircraft (the article for it is even titled Glider (sailplane), not Sailplane). I'm leaning strongly torwards proposing merger of the first two (clearly duplicates), but aren't sure if sailplanes are sufficently different to be split off seperately from "glider gliders"? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is all a result of recent glider wars were all the glider articles were moved/renamed and redefined a number of times and I suspect the cats couldnt keep up! Hadnt noticed until you mention it that sailplane redirects to Glider (sailplane) clearly somebody lost the plot somewhere. Just so we dont get fluffy animals mixed in with aircraft I would ditch "Gliders" and start the tree at Category:Glider aircraft then use subcat Category:Sailplanes for anything that is not military (which can go into Category:Military gliders). If we ignore sailplanes which has its own "type" tree we end up with a lot of sub-cats that need to be changed to Glider (aircraft) 19XX-19XX which is not that elegant. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Personally I'd put them all together; otherwise we have to agonise case by case on the performance characteristics of each aircraft, particularly difficult with prewar models. Presumably the Gliders vs. Glider aircraft distinction dates back to the gliders which are not aircraft debates i.e. (Gliders (animal). Cf Milborne above; I'd be happy with the Glider aircraft cat but think there are many civilian gliders which are not high performance aircraft, i.e they only go downhill (e.g. Zoglings)! Category:Sailplanes best avoided.TSRL (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree - combine them all into one cat! - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
After looking at it some more, I think the intent may have been for Category:Gliders to be the general glider-related-articles category, and Category:Glider aircraft to be for articles on specific glider types (i.e. Category:Jet aircraft). But it still needs a lot of work so I'll see what I can do when I get the chance... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Cold War aircraft categories at CFD

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_2#Category:Military_aircraft_of_the_Cold_War. DexDor (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

777 operators source request

Would anyone be able to help me in finding sources for List of Boeing 777 operators? Pretty new to the project and I'm not really sure where to look... Have recently made some improvements to the page. Honestly, it was in a pretty good state before, it currently uses one reference to supposedly source a LOT of information that it doesn't actually verify, which is a rather major concern. I see the project homepage recommends, a site I think is excellent, but I wouldn't have imagined that it would pass WP:RS. Is it really alright? Are there any other good sources for this kind of thing? Cheers. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 21:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Dont think is a reliable source, the best source is the yearly reviews either in Flight International or Aviation Week & Space Technology, the companies own website can be used as well. MilborneOne (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash

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:Articles for deletion/2013 Vauxhall helicopter crash. - Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for April - Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma

Greetings WP:Aircraft. After last month's stirling overhaul of the Transall C-160, I've picked on an article I've felt is fairly poorly developed - the original Puma helicopter. Modern day descendants are not only being produced to this day and have been hitting the press recently, albeit not for positive reasons. The original variant still remains in service with many operators, alongside the derivatives and successively larger models that have since followed in its wake; it seems a shame that a helicopter with such an impact has such scant detail on itself. I'm singling out the Operational History of the Puma as needing dire reworking and expansion, I aim to develop the Development history as well. If things go well and the material becomes apparent in my fact searches, I may expand on some of the foreign-manufactured equivalents such as the Atlas Oryx. If you have time to spare, happy hunting! Kyteto (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There is little point in trying to improve the article when User:FOX 52 continues to own the article, deleting any changes that anyone else makes. (see [3] and [4].Nigel Ish (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Untrue as the sources added was an improvement with a visible pdf from flight globe, giving the reader an actual view of the reference being presented. It was your (Nigel Ish) ref just placed in a pdf, and some sources were just dead. FOX 52 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You reverted other peoples cited additions, re-introduced errors and gross falsehoods like statements that the US Navy is an operator of the Puma, and falsely labeled references from 1987 as from 1978. There is no point in attempting to improve the article if any changes are going to blindly reverted. Certainly not for me as it is clear that any edits that anyone else makes are liable to be reverted.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Never a good idea to suggest someone made "gross falsehoods" maybe its better to say it was good faith edit(s) and please note my re-introduction of the US Navy was with the addition of "(contracted by Everygreen)" Also making a slip up of switching a date I doublt is hardly a "false" intentional action, as it would serve no purpose. cheers - FOX 52 (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed that an edit war had broke out at the beginning of the overhaul, it hasn't contributed to a positive/constructive atmosphere for editors to work in. I've decided to be cowardly on the issue of the Operators list and avoided making any edits to it entirely to avoid getting pulled in further on that; I have managed to bang together about ten KB of cited text for the Operational History and a bit of Development content. I'm hoping that things remain peaceful on the article and more good things can continue to be implemented - there's certainly a lot of content that could still be written about. Kyteto (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I have just launched a Design section for the type; it could use the eyes of others to see what's lacking as I've literally pulled it together fresh today. Kyteto (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Updating on progress - about 20kb of written text + cites has now been added to the Design and Operational History; that's good progress in my opinion. I'll keep looking to see what I turn up, most of my planned sources have now been tapped. Does anyone have any useful sources I've not used so far? Kyteto (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

World Operator Maps

After reviewing several aircraft operator maps, I've discovered that most if not all are either, out dated or just plain difficult to read. Additionally they seem redundant as we have the operator lists, with which I believe the reader, can utilize with more ease. It is with this assessment, which I like to commence removal of the map images, anticipating there are no objections – thoughts FOX 52 (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I like the world operator maps from an article-viewing standpoint. As an editor, I don't tinker or update the, but I find that a simple colour-coded global map gives the information more succulently than a massive cumbersome list. I would be sad to see them go. Kyteto (talk)
ei; (EC 725 Operators) - Saudi Arabia? They do fly the Super Puma as per this [[5]]. - (EC145 Operators) where's the Bolivian order? Which I updated myself (EC145 Operators map) and not a fun task. While the maps are quaint, I believe most readers will comprehend the cumbersome lists (name of a countries), than a colored in spot on a nameless map. FOX 52 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Three surface aircraft

There is a proposal here to rename the Three lifting surface aircraft article to Three surface aircraft. You are invited to contribute to the vote/discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons categories

As we know the category system at commons is strange I have been looking at some of the Type (Operator) cats and a many of them have been added or changed by users who dont even read the image captions or have no idea. Westland Wessex (Royal Air Force) was full of Navy examples. Does anybody know how they are meant to work! File:Westland Wessex HAS3 XT257.jpg was tagged as Royal Air Force although it is a Naval HAS3 variant that has never seen naval or air force service but just happens to painted in RAF colours! As I have long given up trying to find anybody on commons actually interested in creating a logically cat system just take this as another moan, sorry. MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The category tree on Commons is something that I've mentioned in CFD debates here as almost being a case of "if Commons does it it's something we shouldn't do". - The Bushranger One ping only 22:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Some of the file people on Wikipedia subscribe to the notion that if Commons does it, then it should be enforced on Wikipedia, regardless of wikipedia's different rules. -- (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
They clearly have never studied the mess that is used to categorise aircraft images on commons. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sir Baboon McGoon (B-17) - notability

I have been looking at Sir Baboon McGoon (B-17). As it stands, the text of the article covers the aircraft landing in a field of sugar beet in Cambridgeshire and being flown out again, and then the capture of its crew by the Germans after it came down in the North Sea. I'm not getting a notable vibe from it at the moment but it could have been an article abandoned before the editor got to the meat of its importance. Before taking to the AfD mechanism, and to reuse a British courtroom expression, "is anything known?". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We should probably have a "spin-off" article from the main B-17 article covering notable named B-17s as a group, but as for stand-alone articles, only very few are notable enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea Bushranger; a combined article on the 'notable individuals' of the type to fold all but the most notable B-17's into. Kyteto (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Any thoughts on how we can ascertain the nearly notable for their own article. We're not going to end up with a list like Crew of the RMS Titanic are we? GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I only have a rough idea of how to do so, I certainly see that being a problem though. My notion is that we have to demand some reason of individual notability ("what makes this particular B-17, in its operational history, status, wider culture, or other associations, stand out from a typical aircraft"), an actual explainatory (and cited) written explaination of importance/reason for inclusion for the entry as mandatory to avoid being deleted as non-notable. I imagine, if a few editors are willing to be strict on making the first cases justify themselves, it'll be harder for the article to fall down a slippery slope into a 'random list of B-17s of varying degrees of importance (and some unimportance!)'. It is a valid fear; but don't we run that same risk to a greater degree with the status quo, whole individual articles being written of questionable worth/individual value; at least with it being channeled into one article the expansion can be kept an eye on easier, and routinely pruned back to sanity easier - with an avid gardener, it could work in my opinion. Kyteto (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Su-35 GA review

Try to help with concerns raised on GA review for Sukhoi Su-35. Any help is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I, as the initiator of the GAR, needs a third party to read my rationale before deciding whether to strip the article of its GA status. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

GAR needs to proceed

No actions have been taken over at Talk:Sukhoi Su-35/GA2. Somebody please have a look. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If nobody bothers to appropriately address this GAR, I will remove it myself within 24 hours. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Uh, nobody else can work on it with the in use tag you added. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The Inuse template does not stop another editor from delisting the article on its talk page. Look, there are numerous sources (which I have gathered recently so I can expand the article) regarding the development, design and trials of the Su-35BM. The article does not adequately include such events, and so I will shortly strip it of its GA status. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Why don't you just update the article without wasting time and effort on a formal GAR? It sounds like the only real reason why it needs work at all is because more material has become available recently, so that it might not meet the "reasonably complete criteria". If you want someone to look it over once you're done to make sure that you've met the GA criteria, let me know; but there's no need for all this drama, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ACAZ aircraft

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:ACAZ aircraft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Fishy COD edits

An IP user has been editing the Carrier onboard delivery page to revmove sevearl times to remove the image of the V-22 from the page. What makes these edits a possible COI is that the IP is registered to Northrop Grumman, builder of the C-2 Greyhound, the V-22's competitor in the COD role in the coming decade. Also, they appear to be adding a ver batim definition from an unspecified USN website, which is a probable copyvio. Any help would be appreciated, especially in semi-protecting the page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's from a USN website, it's PD and not copyvio, but probably not kosher, and the removals certainly aren't. Eyes on the article, will take further action if they hit it again. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

STOL has been moved to Short takeoff and landing (aircraft technology)

Seriously?? - Ahunt (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm I've undone the move as undiscussed, controversial, and against WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Well that was my thought! Thank you for handling that! - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence

A user has requested a change to the protected template due to a bun fight on its use at Air France 447, the suggestion is to depracate "type" and add a new "summary" to replace it, comments at Template talk:Infobox aircraft occurrence please. MilborneOne (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for May - Blackburn Buccaneer

Hello WP:Aircraft; it's the first of a new month, thus it's time for me to dust off another overlooked article - Blackburn's Buccaneer. This aircraft holds a rather interesting role in history, being the last major fixed-wing naval aircraft developed by the UK, the type's unusual appearance and fuselage shaping has led to the Buccaneer being referred to as the ugliest aircraft of all time, though I will refrain from personally commenting to that effect! As an article, it could really use reliable citing, there are a lot of good sources out there that could be incorporated to expand areas such as Development; it'd be nice to see the Operational History expanded to better cover South African operations for example. See what you can do if you have time to do a look in, I'll be hitting away at it with what I've got soon enough. Thank you in advance! Kyteto (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've always thought the Buccaneer was attractive, at least for British aircraft! ;) The later lizard paint job made it look uglier than it was. ANd surley the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod is much uglier than the Buccaneer. - BilCat (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Well if you want ugly Blackburn naval aircraft, there is always the Blackburn Blackburn!Nigel Ish (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; you could say I've actually found more affection for the type while working on this article, so it has certainly been worth the effort of dragging it up to a better standard! Regardless of its aesthetic properties, some quite thorough work has been done to overhaul the article content; special thanks goes to Nigel for going above and beyond the usual call of duty, having made substantial progress with the article before I had even begun my editing spree! It's worth a look in if you haven't see the article in its current state as of the last four days, its been a fair shift. Kyteto (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Tanker templates

Just noticed that Template:Canadian Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft has just been created (although none of the aircraft are actually Canadian) possibly as an answer to Template:United States Military Aerial Refueling Aircraft. Tempted to request deletion of them both as they dont really fit in with any of our navbox schemes and could lead to a rash of similar role by user templates, any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur on all points. BilCat (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree too - far too much clutter. - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Help with KAI T-50 Golden Eagle

A new user has been re-arranging, re-adding some uncited data, and re-adding comparable aircraft list to this article. I've tried removing all or part of the user's changes over the last 2-3 days. The comparable aircraft list was removed there after a discussion on this talk page about a year ago. Some help with this or improvements to the article are much appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the images the user has been adding look to be taken from various web sites. I'm not sure if they are really free or not. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I have removed all the images added by the user he/she doesnt appear to understand copyright and I have left a warning on the users talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the help! Most of those images are/were on Commons, for whatever that's worth. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The copy vio photos are back in the article. I can't risk reverting again myself. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I reverted the user readding the images and he quickly reverted that. I gave a warnign for that. That's about all I can do without me edit warring. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Just to note I blocked the user for lack of understanding of image copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Germany cancellation of Euro Hawk

Germany canceled its order for Euro Hawk (a RQ-4 Global Hawk variant) earlier this week. This is covered at Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk#Luftwaffe now. Please check to see if the coverage seems complete and wording is neutral. Thanks for any help. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just added the total cost up to the point of cancellation (almost 600 million Euro). What a fiasco. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yea, a big mess. The sensor pod development can be carried over to other platforms. Thanks for your help and User:Kyteto's help especially. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No article on Roger Druine

Hello, not an aircraft guy, but ran across the redlink for Roger Druine while I was making the Turbi disambig page. He seems to have developed some interesting designs, and has his own infobox, but no main article. Just pointing out the lacking. Good luck! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If we had some biographical refs we could certainly start one! - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a little piece in Flight hereTSRL (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Now a blue link for starters. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Help with unhelpful edits

IP user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disruptive with non-neutral edits and vandalism to Sukhoi PAK FA, Chengdu J-20, and some related articles. Multiple warnings have been given without any changes. I've posted a notice at WP:AIV. Try to help clean-up these articles where you can. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not clear vandalism for WP:AIV and NPOV noticeboard is for specific articles. Review by an admin seems needed here. Done, thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Eyes on articles please

{{aviation lists}} is being removed from Hughes XF-11 and Hughes H-4 Hercules an editor who doesn't understand that consensus is for its inclusion on all aircraft type articles. I reverted the removal, only to have that reverted with an identical edit summary to the original removal. I've pointed the editor to WP:AVIMOS and advised them to come here if they belive a new consensus should be discussed, however additional eyes on the issue can only help. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about Lockheed Model 10 Electra

Please take a look at the issue raised at WP:Help desk#Lockheed Model 10 Electra and help resolve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Direct linking

Hi, it's been suggested to me that this might interest some of you with regard to directly linking to airplane when referring specifically to an airplane as opposed to an unspecified fixed-wing aircraft. Red Slash 20:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked Red Slash to stop using AWB to change these links as it was my impression that the use of piped links to fixed-wing aircraft was an ENGVAR issue. Can anyone else cast a light on this? --John (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That was the case when airplane and aeroplane redirected to fixed-wing aircraft. We now have an article at airplane, with aeroplane redirecting to it. - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Was that a consensual move or is this a WP:BRD situation? --John (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The creation of the article airplane was a bold move by User:Red Slash, but has been accepted by WPAIR as something that long needed to be done, but was put off for many years because of the airplane/aeroplane. No one has proposed merging the article back to fixed-wing aircraft. Was that what you were asking? - BilCat (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I would echo that the new article was long overdue, it has not been contested since it was created, and Red Slash is doing the right thing in updating the links. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

P-39 first flight date

Major sources disagree as to the year of first flight for the P-39, either 1938 or 1939. There was a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page in Dec 2012. The discussion has resumed at Talk:Bell P-39 Airacobra#Further discussion, and fresh input is welcome. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Pull up (aircraft)

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:Articles for deletion/Pull up (aircraft). - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk featured article nomination

I have nominated the McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk article for featured article status, and its nomination page would benefit from additional reviews. I'd appreciate it if editors with a view on whether this article should be promoted or not could post their views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk/archive1. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cirrus COI edits

The following articles: Cirrus Aircraft, Cirrus SR22, Cirrus SR20 and Cirrus Vision SF50 seem to have attracted a COI editor intent on casting the company and the products in a better light. They have indicated that they are representing the company. I have left them a talk page welcome and COI warning but they aren't communicating. Some extra eyes and attention to these articles would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Project editors can note that this person is continuing to reshape all Cirrus articles to company requirements, adding company images, etc. They are still not talking to anyone. Some extra help with these articles would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Have added my twopence to their talk page. I am also concerned that corporately-owned images such as File:Cirrus Aircraft Logo.jpg are being uploaded to the commons. Sorry I don't know enough about agreed conventions for such light aircraft articles - all that blow-by-blow feature stuff, where does one stop? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I have not more time today due real life issues but all the images uploaded to commons by this user need to be marked as iffy, they really need an OTRS release from copyright holder which doesnt appear to be the same as the uploader. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you, for your thoughts and help! MB: no rush, perhaps when you have a chance you can recommend how best address this. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Cessna Citation Mustang

We seem to have an IP editor repeatedly determined to slip in operating cost information into this article, against existing consensus. The ref is very biased as they are a lease/rental agency renting out this aircraft type. I suspect the main reason to want to add this information is for spamming purposes. There a short discussion on my talk page. Some extra eyes on this article would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

On my watchlist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Face-wink.svg - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft begin

User:777sms has taken it upon himself to make changes to the image syntax line in the Template:Infobox aircraft begin infobox, per this diff. When asked on his talk page why he was doing this, his responded: "Just delete the repeated and redundant. Thanks". He's also removed my compalint from his talk page, adn another editor's also. Note the user is using AWB to update the infoboxes in articles, but it will probably take a long time to fix them all.Can an admin please intervene, full-protect the infobox template, and undo thse changes until we have a chance to discuss them? thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any harm coming from this and they're quick to fix all the transclusions, so maybe turn a blind eye just this once. — Lfdder (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The point is that it was the way it was for a reason, as the infobox was designed a certain way to do certain things. It should not have been changed without discussion. - BilCat (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
What's this reason? If no one's welcome to make changes to this tpl it should've been fully protected right from the start. You've nothing to complain about now, really. — Lfdder (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
That's what I want to know. The user who made the changes certainly doesn't know. I guess we'll find out soon enough, when we see how many of the infoboxes are broken after the update. If there are none, that's fine with me. - BilCat (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding absence of full protection, the template notice says "This template is used on many pages, and changes to it will be widely noticed. Please test any changes in the template's /sandbox or /testcases subpages, or in a user subpage, and consider discussing changes at the talk page before implementing them." If this had been discussed it might well have been agreed and a bot or somesuch brought into play to make the changes much quicker. The editor made the template change at 4:55 this morning, at which point all usage of the template was broken - ie every picture of an aircraft in the infobox disappeared (there are about 10,000 transclusions of the template; not all have a picture but most do). Since then, the editor has been changing the infobox entries to make them work again. I estimate about 6000 or so have been fixed by this point 7 hours later. A significant issue which should have discussed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

OK I have fully protected the template before anybody changes it again, as the user has changed over half the 10,000 articles already it is probably best to let them finish, although why anybody would volunteer to change 10,000 articles by hand is not clear. It should have been discussed and has been suggested if agreed the change could have been handled easier by a bot. I/we need to have a look at protecting the other high use templates to discourage disruptive editing again. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope there won't be any other formatting issues from the changes. To Lfdder: my apologies. I was in a foul mood before you posted, and I took it out on you. I'm sorry. - BilCat (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
That's all right then. And I'm sorry for my own earlier reaction. — Lfdder (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Any change like this should begin by making the template robust for both types of input. Then the change to the pages can be made without disrupting anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I have withdrawn the user's AWB access. Snowolf How can I help? 14:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Is he finished converting all the transclusions? — Lfdder (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
No, other people are having to step in and clean up his mess for him. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, maybe we could've waited with rming AWB access then. Why burden other people? — Lfdder (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm running a check now and its not really a burden to double check it all; the changes were very simple. I'm using the transclusion list for the template and checking for "image = file" with the find and replace listing. The disruption for a few hours while the pages were largely updated was the real issue; but the editors endurance was longer than most and dealt with the vast majority of the pages before stopping. Its just a little clean up and check, that's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. — Lfdder (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks like he has restarted converting pages once again. I really don't get what the point of breaking all these pages was for. - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
All pages were changed appropriately; I double checked it with AWB. Should be no remaining issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking! -Fnlayson (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Designs never flown

Visiting a couple of articles on designs that never flew, I changed the lead from "The Xxx was an aircraft which..." to "The Xxx was a design for an aircraft which...". This must happen often, so is there an agreement on how to handle this. For example should I have said "project" rather than "design"? And where do we start to treat it as a real aircraft - mock-up completed, half-built on the factory floor, on the tarmac but never flown? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

In some cases you can get it all out of the way in one sentence - Supermarine B.12/36 "was a British prototype four-engine heavy bomber design that was destroyed by enemy action before completion during the Second World War." or Hawker Siddeley P.1154 "was a planned supersonic vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) fighter aircraft designed by Hawker Siddeley Aviation". An intro should be considered as a whole and may depend on the exact circumstances of each aircraft (successful aircraft are all alike; every unsuccessful aircraft is a failure in its own way - to steal from Tolstoy ) but the first sentence should not be ambiguous. "Planned" and "design" at the very least imply an aircraft that was less than a success. There must be plenty of ways of phrasing stuff "xxxxx was an unsuccessful project to produce a fast bomber for the Freedonian air force". You've also got "unbuilt" "never completed" "paper project" "tender". GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for June - Aérospatiale Gazelle

Hello WP:Aircraft. I thought for this month, as the redevelopment of the Puma went so well earlier in the year, I'd try to make a big effort on a similar era helicopter from the same firm, the Gazelle. I've had this one on my to-do list this this time last year (ironically, the Puma was a last moment change of heart, I didn't think it was going to be as popular with editors as it was!), it would be nice to give it the same kind of treatment that our better helicopter articles have received. Considering in excess of 1,700 were produced, there should be a great girth of history on which to properly write up. I'll be dredging source material for new content for the Operational History in the coming days; a Design section is sorely missing and shall hopefully be produced during this month-long overhaul. I hope to see you alongside me, and thanks in advance for your efforts! 21:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The article has had reformatted and cleaned up. Referencing has started. Overall it is in much better shape, but more work is left to do. I need to dig out some books to add background/origin and other info. Thanks for the work done and any assistance provided. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I must admit, I've been a bit neglectful of this project; I got caught up for the first week of the month during a spur of the moment overhaul of the Handley Page Victor. Now that's out of the way, I'll make sure I focus on the actual focus-article! Kyteto (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Big progress has been made in the last 24 hours; the design section is now well-furnished and good for purpose. In my opinion, it's now the operational history that needs the attention; I'll do what I can over the coming days. Kyteto (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I've pretty much used up all the sources I had for the project; the article looks decisively better. In my opinion, the British operational history is not very good at this point, I'll see if I can still dig some stuff up; if anyone has stuff on this particular aspect of the Gazelle, that would be fantastic. Kyteto (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Saab JAS 39 Gripen

Someone has placed a POV tag on the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen - demanding further coverage of two crashes during testing and corruption scandals, and wants the article delisted as a GA for the same reason.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested to the editor that he/she might consider creating a separate article, similar to Lockheed bribery scandals, there seems to be sufficient source material available for it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
To those project members who decide to join the discussion, note that the issue is not just about the infamous 1989 and 1993 crashes (both highly public and widely publicized) and the recent bribery scandals, but also the political debate during development, and just about any mention of any civilian or non-technological aspect of the development project.
Peter Isotalo 16:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
More eyes on this topic please. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is a severe problem on our hands with regards to this issue. I do not believe the editor has been editing the article in a neutral manner; in one instance, the editor has falsely attributed his personal negative spin against the aircraft to a source that does not appear to say any such thing. To put it briefly, the editing is not neutral. Kyteto (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that is overstating the case. It seems to be at least as much to do with inexpert editing by a non-native English speaker. That needs support, not brickbats. I'll second the benefit of having more eyes on this topic, the talk page is getting edgy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC) [updated 17:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)]
And please let those be eyes that actually know something about what I've brought up. Or who actually care to learn more about it. Those who have commented so far appear to have had no background knowledge about anything I mentioned, but still have had very strong opinions about it. A little more humility would be nice from now on.
Peter Isotalo 18:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Weapons of the Falklands war

Just removed this new category from aircraft articles per previous precedent but just for good measure sent it to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_25. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that most of the weapons by war have been deleted but we still have Category:Military aircraft of World War I and Category:Military aircraft of World War II, I would consider sending them to CfD but not sure what we do with the second world war ones as it has loads of sub-cats like World War II fighters, any ideas? MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
A case might be made that the First and Second World Wars are "different" because of the effects that had on development of aircraft and war in (and from) the air. Also cats are more manageable than lists. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
OK understood.MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Also given the brickbats that were flung at me during the previous discussions, I'm afraid that even if they aren't suitable categories nominating them would be a very bad idea. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Visual editor

I don't know if anyone has tried this editor, which I appreciate it is still in beta, but some minor tweaks using it produced some odd effects with the Aircraft specs template. After editing some text in another section, the source code contained the specs info in two forms, one roughly as before and a second version in the form you might use if you ignored the template and entered data and typed (in the editor) Powerplant etc. The edited text also contains two copies of the specs. In its new, confused state this is very hard to edit further. You can see how this might happen but it seems to me that, for now at least, it's best avoided.TSRL (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In my experience Visual Editor does not work well with anything in a template. The developers claim it will all be worked out so long as editors put in the bug reports, but it's safer not to use it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have tried out the visual editor as it is out of its test phase has now been rolled out for general use. I think we are going to have some trouble as a result of it being fielded far too early. It is slow to load and very difficult to use on anything other than just plain text. Editing links and templates is very problematic. I realize that it was designed to make it easy for new editors to contribute, but in my testing it does the opposite and will likely drive people away due to its large number of shortcomings. My main concern is people using it and breaking page formatting, particularly templates, but let's see how widespread the problem is going to be over the rest of this week. - Ahunt (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

UK MoD photos

A large number of UK MoD photos are now avaible on Commons, including many of aircraft. See WT:MILHIST#MoD photos for details. - BilCat (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Felixstowe F.5 and serial numbers in captions

An IP editor added the serial numbers of aircraft in photos to the captions in the article. I removed these twice with the edit summary as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations registrations are not used in Wikipedia. This was based on our agreed consensus on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations. Then an editor reverted the serial number removals with the edit summary Undid revision 562574728 by Ahunt (talk)Plenty of aviation related articles do show registrations, and that IS encyclopedical information. It might be well, though, to discuss for a consensus. My understanding was that we already have a consensus to avoid exactly this sort of trivia, but I thought I would bring this here for discussion. Does anyone see a need to change our existing consensus? - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the need to change our exiting consensus. Serial numbers in captions is primarily a legacy leftover from the days when our old friend DaveG was active. He usually alsonadded the full aircraft designation block numbers for US aircraft. I try to remove them when I see them, but they still rem a in in many articles. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree no need for a change, is N4563 a F.2A or a F.5? and as the image is not the best you cant actually read the serial number anyway so it is a bit of original research. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I just restored your edit again. On my watchlist now. [Update] Oh, yeah, I cast a quick eye over the consensus and it looks pretty sensible to me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Registrations, serial numbers or even aircraft names don't add understanding unless it is specific to some aircraft actually mentioned in the text eg a prototype or singular modification. And even then description works better ("second prototype", "last built"). There's room on the image page for the particular serial -assuming its not actually visible on the aircraft, or forms part of the filename - if required. To quote from the MoS "Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text". A caption that gives the aircraft serial, unit, pilot's middle name and inside leg measurement is definitely out of order. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Good summary. The text in the caption should add some useful info, not just trivia. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I stand corrected. Thanks for your patience. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

A new article List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities has appeared in the last few days and has already requested featured list status, not sure but doesnt it just duplicate other lists we have? if it is needed it is full of abbreviations and jargon but that hasnt stopped lists being featured and then used an "good examples". MilborneOne (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The new article was a DYK for yesterday which is a bit suprising, however I have added a proposed deletion tag. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The proposed deletion has been removed by the creator, it is my intention to take it to AfD later when I have time. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I have listed my concerns and comments on the article talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Try editing the list and tell me if you think the page notice has a hint of OWN about it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Try to avoid removing column headers for no reason at all. Why would you do that (particularly with the ironic edit summary of "useful column name"?!!) Try to avoid taking articles to AFD when good faith attempts are being made to address talk page concerns. Strikes me that the few editors within this project seem to wish to entirely own all aviation articles. It's not the first time I've experienced this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
An unfortunate slip of the cursor when typing - display delay a side effect of editing large articles on this usually up to the job netbook. And putting aside OWN, a page notice whose opening sentence is large font (150%) all-caps bold text starting with the word "STOP" is not a friendly greeting for an experienced editor let alone a new one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder what could have inspired such an idea?--Godot13 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunate indeed. All the other lists of this type have so few references, you're probably used to editing an article of a few KB. And adding a large message to a edit page to advise against bad insertions is commonplace. Please relax. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The edit notice does appear to be particularly bitey - and it makes a strange claim to superiority for the Aviation Safety Network (which I'm not convinced is a reliable source - at all - it certainly from my experience contains many, many errors) over anything else. This worries me.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well no-one said the edit notice couldn't be changed (you can do that yourself!!). But I'm interested to hear from more than one member of this project that the ASN sources aren't reliable. I'll need to look into this because a lot of the good and featured material I see coming from this project use ASN. Very interesting! (Btw, I've reduced the shoutiness of the edit notice). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
For the record, the page notice is edit protected "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:" (admins and accountcreators) GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I've contacted the admin who created the edit notice on request from Godot13. It's my understanding that restrictive notices such as this are strongly discouraged, especially when they're not supported by the consensus of a discussion on the article's talk page. My personal view is that the notice should be deleted or disabled. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess someone neclected to invite me to this party...--Godot13 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed. And I believe some of the regulars here have overlooked the irony, the Template:Editnotices/Page/List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft does exactly the same thing and User:Godot13 simply based the editnotice on that. Whatever happened to AGF in this project? Based on what User:Nick-D has said above, could someone point us to the discussion where it was agreed that this edit notice be used on that particular article? For what it's worth, I've toned down the red/large text on the list we're discussing. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Two wrongs don't make a right, and the editnotice (which someone seems to have removed) on the 50 fatality list had additional problems with regard to the that that it was giving undue prominence to one particular source (even if ASN is considered to meet WP:RS, there is no reason why it should be considered superior to all others) and that it seemed to suggest that items where the references were not cited in a particular format would be deleted (rather than made consistent). If edit notices are to be used to draw editors attention to inclusion standards etc, then careful thought is needed to ensure that they are backed by some sort of consensus, are worded in a welcoming manner and don't lay down unreasonable requirements. All in all, these things need to be discussed rationally rather than getting into finger-pointing or shouting at each other.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
        • But what a hypocrisy to moan about an editnotice which is entirely based on editnotices that exist on numerous poorly sourced lists that this project seems to advocate above one which is properly referenced. And once again, per Nick-D, please demonstrate where such editnotices gained a community consensus. You need to look at your own project lists before starting to criticise others. In other news, If ASN doesn't meet RS then the aviation project has a much wider problem, there are hundreds and hundreds of articles that rely on it for referencing. If it's not reliable, I'll happily work my way through and remove them and tag articles accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Broadbrush accusations of hypocrisy hardly help to move a discussion forward or find a consensus. The wikiproject is not a homogeneous hive mind, and it is wrong to act as if it is. Considering your "other news", some sort of consensus would be needed to carry out mass removal of references to ASN - either locally or at WP:RSN.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)