Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Swiss Air Force

With despair I give up with Swiss Air Force, every time I try to clear out the trivia and lists of serials and mentions of hydraulic test rigs (must be notable as it has a serial) the Swiss dump editor reverts. Clearly a competence problem as the same user under different guises has trashed a lot of Swiss aviation articles with badly translated text dumps from other wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Would more eyes be a help or not? - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

On my watchlist — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force could do with a cleanup, too. [Update] Any help appreciated, I'm a bit busy right now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help but User:FFA P-16 has reverted it back to his/her version already! List of Swiss Air Force should be copied out of the main Swiss Air Force article rather than being FFA P-16's version. I am to involved but would appreciate somebody trying to have a word with FFA P-16. MilborneOne (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm prepared to have a stab at the List of aircraft... There are some formatting issues I'd try at sorting.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, as the user has started to attack me I will stay away for a while, note that a third identical list of historic aircraft is also in History of the Swiss Air Force. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

....then there is FFA's creation Bucher aircraft tractor with its {{infobox Weapon}}, about an aircraft tug used by the Swiss Air Force, and which I am sorely tempted to send to AfD; and FLORAKO about a radar system. YSSYguy (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I may have opened up a veritable vat of worms, but I left a note on FFA's Talk page suggesting that his/her English isn't good enough to edit on en:WP. YSSYguy (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A good idea. In the meantime I've knocked some of the worst edges off the Bucher tractor article but its still not English idiom. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

My own view is that as long as this editor is putting up new and useful information that we can knock into shape, this is a Good Thing. IMHO, non-English editors should be encouraged, perhaps to sandbox their stuff more and ask for help knocking it into shape. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is criticism that coverage of non-English subjects is lacking. "Scaring them off" could be counter-productive.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lack of coverage of non-English subjects and being illiterate in Enlish are not excuses to allow editors to persist in bad and disruptive behavior. This user has been active for several months, and shows no sign of being "scarable". Also, has anyone checked this user's contributions in German WP? We have had cases where users who were banned or blocked on their native language's wiki for similar disruptions, or had been otherwise disruptive there, would then show up here and cause disruptions, whose bad behaviors were excused for similar reasons. In most cases, all allowing such bad behavior does is to scare off the good contributors we already have, both new and experienced. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

He has been blocked on Norwegian WP, mainly for repeatedly dumping google-translations into the same articles as here. There too came the "its poorely writen" and we should all stay away-stuff, but some admin deleted the talk page (twice, even) so examples of behaviour can't be shown. The Swiss air force article in Norwegian is protected (admin-only edits) which is fun because now two guns (Oerlikons) are shown in the aircraft listing... I am now so fed up with this person that I do like Pontius the Pilot and wash my hands of the whole sorry mess Paaln (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm certainly not surprised. I hope that perhaps someone here can succeed in reaching out to him and helping him, because if not, a block is surely forthcoming here also. - BilCat (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I already dropped a suggestion on this user's talk page. Have to see how it goes down. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Should this List not be "List of former aircraft of the Swiss Air Force"?NiD.29 (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs expanding with current aircraft? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on information provided by FFA P-16 on their talk page I have drafted an explanation of the tail numbering system at User:Steelpillow/Aircraft#Swiss Air Force. The intention is to add it to this article as a new section to the Swiss Air Force article. What do folks think? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a composite article covering it and their aircraft designation as described at the start of the list of aircraft of Swiss Air Force article (like a combination of British_military_aircraft_designation_systems and United_Kingdom_military_aircraft_serials). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It already includes those designation codes, though as a bulleted list rather than a table. I just think it is too short to stand alone. The article on the Swiss Air Force is its default home and would not become overly long. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen Belgium aircraft registration and serials which is probably a format better suited for a small country like Switzerland ? MilborneOne (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll steal ideas from it. As an aside, that's not a grammatical article title. It should be "Belgian...". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have done the deed, also swapped some content between the Swiss Air Force and the List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

List referencing

Just for information following a difference in opinion on some of the accident lists following the List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities discussion above and in particularly List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft, I have gone to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#References in Lists for further external input, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Role cats

We have just had Category:Torpedo bombers added to a large number of aircraft articles, some of which were not primarily torpedo bombers! and we are now having calls for a photo-reconnaissance category to be added to De Havilland Mosquito and then probably every other aircraft that has been anywhere near a camera. The current Country Type 19xx-19xx category system has worked well for a number of years with the intention that article were only categorised in the original design role so as to limit the number of type cats. I fear that the spread of these role categories will end up with some aircraft with many categories that are just not defining. These different roles may be better as lists, perhaps we need a discussion on these changes to our current cat system, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed completley on that - roles should be the "Country Type year-year" format only. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Country Type year-year" is a poor basis for a sole means of categorizing aircraft

1. Many of these cat pages have few entries and it takes a lot of navigating to find even a few similar types
2. There are too many criteria for each cat.
3. So many cats makes completeness a problem, and verifying completeness difficult.
4. "year-year" is open to interpretation - is it 1st flight, primary service only or does it extend to when a type was being used for secondary roles? If an aircraft was in service for an extended period, does it get an entry in multiple eras - or just the first one? If only the first one, then someone looking to see what aircraft filled that role during a later period won't find it, making the system pretty much useless. And then there is the ambiguity of when some types were reused for other roles.
5. If ever completed, each aircraft will have more entries than if just by role or role+country.
6. Arguments about lists being useless are moot so long as cats are broken they way they are.

Now for some ideas...

• their location isolates them from the article - cats related to content should be with the content, unrelated cats below.
• they should be subject to references (forcing them above refs).
• incorporate cats into the Aircraft Infobox unobtrusively - entries are automatically cat entries for said fields, thus type, national origin, manufacturer, first flight, introduced, and retired fields could all be automatic, and without the excessive cross referencing that "Country Type year-year" creates. This also allows for greater standardization as any wonky roles can be caught easier that as they currently stand while at the same time allowing for more cats without it overwhelming the page.

There are a finite number of roles and the Mosquito is perhaps close to being a worst case scenario - it shouldn't be a problem to have cats for every role it carried out - if they are organized properly, and properly referenced to eliminate arguments. Type should have multiple lines, with each line being a linked cat, max, say 5 roles by order of importance? Thoughts? NiD.29 (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not clear what the category system is on wikipedia, they are not designed to do what you suggest in your ideas. The country-type-decade has served us well for many years so it would be a major change to undo it. The country-type-decade are always related to original role and first flight so fairly simple. Clearly categorising every role an aircraft has ever had is a tad to far and not really needed, it would probably take years to define what the roles are never mind what aircraft they relate to. I will have a read of you comments again but perhaps it may help to describe what you think would be a sensible category system to add to the country-type-decade system so we can discuss it. I dont think anybody has objections to lists of aircraft by role and I see you have started List of torpedo bomber aircraft, although I note it doesnt include aircraft like the Avro Shackleton or Fairey Gannet both of which can attack ships with torpedos! MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just some examples of what not to do to the Mosquito:
• Fighter aircraft
• Night fighter aircraft
• Bomber aircraft
• Reconnaissance aircraft
• Photo reconaissance aircraft
• Torpedo bomber aircraft
• Mine laying aircraft
• Training aircraft
• Target tug aircraft
• Interceptor aircraft
• Night intruder aircraft
• Pathfinder aircraft
• Fighter-bomber aircraft
• Anti-shipping aircraft
• Meteorology aircraft
• Transport aircraft
• All-weather fighter
• Research and development aircraft
• Air racing aircraft
• Aerial survey aircraft
• Plus probably some more, clearly nobody would want to add these as categories to one article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply discarding the Country Type year-year entirely - merely that it is somewhat cumbersome with a lot of sub cats, and other systems could be used with it. Note that there is already duplication - I notice you didn't comment on the existence of both "World War II British bombers" and "British bomber aircraft 1940–1949" as cats on the Mossie article - and not really sure about the existence of Category:De Havilland Mosquito since everything on there should already be elsewhere on the page. Also since there is a navbox listing all the De Havilland aircraft, why does there need to also be a cat page (that may or may not be as complete)? Most of my suggestion had to do with incorporating the cats directly in the main structure of the article (infobox or see also), rather than buried at the end where they are rarely seen, simultaneously allowing them to be referenced - currently a major lack. Of course hidden cats would stay put. BTW that list is still far from complete however both those types seem to be referred to as Anti-submarine/maritime patrol aircraft more than as torpedo bombers - not sure where to take that yet though I am inclined to include them.NiD.29 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Perhaps a navbox style list (hidden by default like the others) could be used to provide the complete listing?

To answer your point 4. above, there is no intrepretation. It is by year of first flight, period. As for the Mozzie comments, "World War II British bombers" is a "performers by performance" category that should be chucked, but seeing as I got personally attacked by multiple editors for trying to delete performer-by-performance categories for much lesser conflicts, I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole anytime soon. Category:de Havilland Mosquito exists because everything on there should not already be elsewhere on the page - it contains WP:SPINOUT articles on the type. Navboxes and categories are complimentary - this has been hashed out many times before. As Milborne points out the "role cat" sounds like a good idea until you dig into it and realise that it will result in Thirty Cat Pileups like the disgusting mess that used to be here (scroll down to the bottom and weep). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, glad to hear there is no wiggle room on the dates.

I don't see the number of cats as the real problem (though why there would be cats for guided missiles of ... for countries that don't produce them themselves is beyond me) - it is the lack of organization. A similar means to the templates, with a stock layout and the content hidden behind "show" tags should allow much greater use of cats without creating the unsightly mess - though measures would still be needed to prevent them breeding as on the AMRAAM article (Bahrain Defence Force guided missiles? seriously?).

Aren't WP:SPINOUT articles supposed to be linked from within the page anyway?

This is what I had in mind (links would be preceeded by category : )...

dates could be amalgamated if required. NiD.29 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My first cup of tea of the morning hasn't kicked in yet so it could just be me, but could you do a real life example of that navbox? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem is "service entry" and "retirement" are nebulous, and we absolutely do not categorise by operator. Country of manufacture, that is all. Speaking frankly a lot of your suggested category tree would be shot down at CfD as WP:OC. (As for Bahrain and missiles, note that that category, has, thankfully, bitten the dust, as Category:Weapons by country explicitly calls for country of manufacture only.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, as for organisation, I've been slowly working on trying to standadise cat order. Manufacturer, country/decade/role, engine configuration, wing configuration, everything else. However, I don't believe you can put cats behind show tags - they're either there or they're not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I anticipate tweaks - heading to bed as I have to work in the morning so don't have time right now. Nationality was of producer and would usually only have one entry, second entry is for aircraft like the Avro Anson where a major line of development took place in a second country. Service entry and retirement dates can be eliminated easily enough. Bigger problem is getting category tags to work inside the nav box - I don't have time at the moment to find the solution for that...NiD.29 (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

For better or for worse, you can't. Categories always go in the outlined box at the bottom, and that's unchangable in any way, shape, or form. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My two penn'orth:

• WP:CLN advises us that "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods." category:lists of aircraft reveals some weird and wonderful lists, and the list of lists is sure to grow. We have some weird, wonderful and IMHO overly-obtrusive navboxes too. It is only consistent with the quoted guideline that the categories should mushroom alongside. I find it hard to justify assertions that the addition of an article to many categories is undesirable, or that categories are not suited to certain purposes better served by lists or navboxes.
• I agree with MilborneOne that NID.29's proposals for categorisation are not appropriate. Categories are intended purely for internal navigation purposes, so external referencing is not relevant: If the category name contains information not in the article content, then it needs to be added there, e.g. "The Mosquito has also been used to spread malaria in Paflagonia.<ref>...[[Category:Aircraft used for germ warfare]]". Also, WP:CLN advises us that "it is recommended that articles not be placed in ordinary content categories using templates..." as this is really meant for admin categories such as stubs.
• We are seeing more and more articles about designs which never flew or never even left the drawing board. These need to be listed and categorised, but the "date of first flight" is inadequate to the task. Something like the date of first proposal would be more appropriate. But then, what about consistency with the craft that did fly? Logic dictates that these dates would be that of first proposal tto. Which opens up a big can of worms, for example when was the Spitfire first proposed. The first Type 300 proposal? The design at the time of ordering K5054 or issuing of the specification? The final elliptical wing with its eight guns? Or, do we have separate lists and/or categories for the types that never flew? That last seems unhelpful to the average reader.
• Yes, it's currently all a mess. I think we need to evolve a global hierarchy of classification and apply it, with a good dash of common sense, to all of lists, categories and navboxes.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

K - np. Just an idea. Perhaps projects need to be listed separately? Mixing them in with those that actually flew would seem to add confusion unless there is a way to clearly indicate that they are projects - perhaps a Projects sub-category?NiD.29 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A separate category for aircraft types that never flew would be unlikely to improve things - there would be debates (e.g. some might argue that Hughes H-4 Hercules never flew) and how would it mesh with the existing cat structure? Categorizing by cancellation date is the least-worst option as it puts them with other aircraft of the same era. Note: There are also categories like Category:Military aircraft procurement programs of the United States that can be a home for articles about cancelled aircraft projects. I suggest any proposed large-scale changes to the aircraft category structure are planned (and that includes thinking about problems they might cause) before starting a discussion at WP:AIR/C's talk page. DexDor (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, aircraft that never flew are, currently, not categorised by date at all - see Category:Cancelled aircraft projects; the "Abandoned ______" subcategories are the ones that never flew. (Really the types that did fly shouldn't be categorised there, being cancelled isn't defining in most cases!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not completely correct; WP:AIR/C#Era says "Aircraft projects that were cancelled without ever flying are categorised by the year the project was terminated or abandoned (ie, the closest that they got to a first flight.)" so for example Amerika Bomber is in a 1940s aircraft category. DexDor (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Then consensus has marched on since WP:AIR/C#Era was updated, as this was discussed awhile back and the consensus was to remove all by-year categories from unflown types (which was done en masse). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editor is back

Some of you may remember the issues I had with Stodieck (User talk:Stodieck) some time back. The user was eventually banned for a considerable time. For more see my record of the dispute or, if that gets corrupted, the associated diff. Well, this user is back, abusing me (and others) again in style. I am reluctant to see a permanent ban as this editor otherwise makes many useful contributions. However any word about acceptable behaviour from me will only inflame. Would somebody, the more folks the better, try to cool the guy down before I am forced to ask for that permanent ban? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the out-of-place comment on Talk:Three surface aircraft and informed Stodieck to stick to consensus building. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, however this guy has come back again, if anything worse than ever. Would somebody else be able to have one last try? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Lists of aircraft by air force

There are a growing number of lists of aircraft by national air force, see Category:Lists of military aircraft. These lists can differ widely in style and content details from one to another. Is this a Good Thing, or might it be worth agreeing a standard format? Or, is there actually one already? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should just have categories in place of the lists altogether? - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a general guideline somewhere to the effect that Categories, Lists and templated Navboxes all have their separate virtues and one can have all three providing broadly the same set of links to suit different purposes. A maintainer's joy for life. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Categories can never be complete because of complaints about 40 cat pile ups (organization, not deleting them is needed) and disputed inclusions - regardless that any given page SHOULD appear on a lot of different cats (where appropriate), while lists can be made more complete, AND can have additional useful info such as dates, nationality, ad references etc.

I agree that a common format should be established.

The lists should be sortable tables with (aside from the link to the page), country of origin, 1st flight (or similar, establishes period) and number built (establishes importance) as well as references for inclusion and data. Using a table helps discipline format and content, improves readability, missing data is obvious and errors are easier to spot. Images are best run outside the table as many aircraft lack suitable images and having only some in the table messes the spacing up.

Additional notes may be appropriate sometimes, but is usually trivia better added to the linked page. I am also not a fan of including variants (either none is needed, or there are too many to ever be complete). Retirement dates and status are hard to nail down so should only be used sparingly.

I think a naming format should be established as some are "... Air Force aircraft" and others are "aircraft of ... Air Force" - they should all be one or the other.

(IMHO) (ps - I think i prefer the images to be centered vertically when entered on the table) - cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Categories? No no no no and just to be absolutely clear, no. We do not categorise by operator. Full stop. This is consensus as demonstrated for a very long time at CfD, and as described in the description at Category:Weapons by country. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Format should reflect content. If very little is known then there's no point in creating a table that's 80% empty eg because dates of entry and exit of service is unknown and sources don't give the number in use. I definitely would never add aircraft pictures within the table - they either have to be so small that you can't see anything or if at thuimb size they dwarf the short text entries of the table. One or two decoratively arranged on the page showing aircraft in that's Air Force's markings makes sense. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with GraemeLeggett, especially about the pictures. But as the list fills out it can be a pain to convert an overgrown bulleted list to a table. One can create an invisible table layout for starters that can quickly be made visible when the list warrants it:

An invisible table

Type 1	1930 -	1935
Type 2	1932 -		3 still flying

A visible table

Type	In service	Retired	Notes
Type 1	1930 -	1935
Type 2	1932 -		3 still flying

The date-range hyphens would need cleaning up, but at least all the formatting would be unchanged. I thought about templates but the "never entered service" scenarios get messy.

Worth pursuing? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for July - Gloster Meteor

Greetings WP:Aircraft. I took my sweet time trying to decide which article to place under the spotlight for some much-needed reworking, there's so many candidates to pick through. So this month I decided to pick one of the biggest and most high profile aircraft of them all, an article I've seen in need of a thorough overhaul for the last two years - the legendary Gloster Meteor, a pioneering aircraft that helped establish the viability and superiority of the jet engine as a means of aircraft propulsion. My main beef with the article isn't a lack of coverage, that is mostly on the mark - but a lack of citation, people were in too much of a hurry to say where they got their information from often! As I've corrected more than a few mistakes from the books I'm using on the topic, clearly it isn't all necessary right either. My particular hope, beyond spending time to address the citation issue, across the breadth of an extensive Operational History, is to build up the Design section of the article. I've already been making some progress on this, and I'll keep at it, but this article is far too large for one editor alone to make a difference; I'm hoping that some of the editors here may once again find an hour or two this month to tackle this article and resolve the niggling issues spoiling an otherwise great aircraft article. Thanks in advance! Kyteto (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Update - Lots of work has taken place on the article, several editors have been quite active in copy-editing and finding reference material for portions of text. The Development section has been heavily redeveloped; the Design section has been finally built up to a state which I would view as adequate (not amazing, but far more closer to the mark than the long-term stub section that it had been before). New books and journals have been cited to long-uncited information across these sections and into Operational History. The Operational side of the article could still use some work, many paragraphs remain uncited; much of the important stuff such as the Korean War has been bolted down and cited properly now though, so good progress was made here too. Kyteto (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash

A new article on a light plane crash. Completely doesn't make WP:AIRCRASH or WP:NOTNEWSPAPER for that matter. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Dont think it is notable for a stand-alone like similar accidents it is just recent news stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Wait a bit, and when the flurry of news reports disappears (it made it to the television news bars here - "10 killed in Alaska light plane crash" - now that's "widespread significant coverage"), take it to AfD. YSSYguy (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am monitoring the aviation news reports to see if anything is emerging that makes this crash notable and I am not seeing anything so far. AVweb summary: Alaska Crash Investigation Proves Challenging. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus that this is a non-notable accident. I will try sending it to WP:PROD as a first step. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The original article creator has removed the PROD tag so i have sent it to AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash see below. - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter 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 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash. - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Notaforum template

Just to note that a new IP user has been adding Template:notaforum to aircraft article talkpages, this should only be used for articles that have an issue with forum type postings and is not really a general use template. I have left the IP a note about it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Your specific note seems to have worked. I tried a Welcome message and general note on including edit summaries with no luck. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Opinions sought on the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service featured article nomination

I nominated the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service for featured article status a bit over a week ago, but it's yet to receive any substantive reviews. I'd appreciate it if members of this project could consider posting a view at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian service/archive1 - negative reviews are very welcome if you don't think that the article is up to scratch. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Rotary Air Force RAF 2000‎

This article seems to have attracted a COI editor determined to remove all criticism of the design and adding his/her own opinions. Some extra eyes on this article would be useful. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have protected the article to encourage discussion and to stop disruption. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You even protected it at the right version. - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:List of utility helicopters

For information I have just nominated this new template for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 29#Template:List of utility helicopters. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image foulup by User:777sms

Back in June, User:777sms took it upon himself to make changes to the image syntax in Template:Infobox aircraft begin, as detailed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 35#Template:Infobox aircraft begin. Well, his ill-advised changes have had unintended consequences: All the infobox images in the histories of all articles which use the infobox are now boroken when viewin ghte pages histories from before the date when the changes were made are now broken. See this diff for an example. I thought allowing thes changes to be kept was a bad idea, and now we know why. I'm sorry I didn't think of this when it happened. So now, as far as I can tell, we will need to find an infobox code person to make a fix so both styles will work. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's going to take the addition of "If" type code to detect if "File:" is present in the image name or not. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

References style

Amused to see two different editors at work (User:Magus732 and User:Chesipiero), one changing the ;Notes and ;Bibliography to ===Notes=== nad ===Bibliography=== and the other in different aircraft articles changing them the other way around, do we wait until they meet up in the same article or have a word before they clash! MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that as well. I figured there was other higher priority work to get on with, but I guess some people get "enthusiastic" about one issue and run with it. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#References doesn't offer any guidance on this. Perhaps we can come up with a consensus there, including the input of those two editors, of course? - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect they must be a MOS thing on this somewhere or is it a local project choice? I did leave a note on each of the talk pages, they may be along soon. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The MOS guidance is at WP:FNNR and it isn't much help as it says almost any style is okay. WP:CITEVAR does say "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Although that seems to address reference styles themselves rather than reference heading styles. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

CITEVAR is an oft ignored guideline that I understand means don't add templated citations to an article that is using non-templated cites and vice versa. Stylistic changes to long established header levels with no edit summary are discouraged across the whole of WP, especially when they introduce an error such as here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to what Chesipiero is doing, but I thought it was appropriate to list the entire reference section (including the Notes and Bibliography parts) under the TOC. It makes page navigation a little easier (I think it does, anyway) and completes the TOC by including everything that's on the page. Magus732 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Although, personally, I think the use of the word "amused" is a little uncaring. This may not be a big issue, but it isn't funny when I find out I may be going against consensus; I've been in this situation before, and it's anything but amusing to me. Magus732 (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, the intent of using semi-colons instead of subsection labels is to shorten the TOC. Either way the appearance is almost the same, except for the TOC. So I think this minor. This is a separate issue from changing Citation style/format (CITEVAR). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying you think shortening the TOC is a good thing or a bad thing? I only ask because, no offense, but I don't believe I found an actual opinion in your statement, Fnlayson. Magus732 (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no real opinion. I usally collapse the TOC and scroll or search through articles. That's why I think it's a minor thing, and not worrying much about. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. Magus732 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I started at the beginning of the year a cross check between Commons category Aircraft and the relative article on Wikipedia in order to link each other with enwiki and commons category. I noticed that Notes and Bibliography were written not all in the same manner; the ===Notes=== written in this way appears too bold respect to ==References== in particular when the Notes and Bibliography are few lines long. This was the reason of my changing.Chesipiero (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between the two styles as visually impaired people using an audio reader do not hear a semicolon as a break, and therefore using === === is a better choice as it delimits the sections in a manner that is more understandable, and inclusive.NiD.29 (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I never thought of that, NiD.29, but that's a valid point. Magus732 (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:World War I Aircraft of the Entente Powers

Template:World War I Aircraft of the Entente Powers - Another random collection of aircraft by war template being added to aircraft articles, any opinions? MilborneOne (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Way too big already to be of value as a nav box. If this were completed by adding all the participating aircraft it would be enormous. - Ahunt (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - already clumsy and with only the major types included - this is the sort of info that is better presented as a list page - which already exists anyway at List of military aircraft of the Entente Powers in World War I.NiD.29 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Aiiii, my eyes...yes, this is totally "list not template" material. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 31, comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Boeing 7x7 series and Boeing Commercial Airplanes

Hi, I opened a merger discussion. In my opinion, such a move would be uncontroversial, but I also thought it might be a good idea to raise the issue here, in case I (a non-expert) might have missed a crucial counter-argument.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Left seat and Right seat

I think an expert is needed to clean up or expand these stubs. Currently, they are nearly duplicates, so one might also think about merging them somewhere, maybe into cockpit?--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A merger would look reasonable to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I also suspect they are made up terms, that said I would agree that they can be redirected/merged to cockpit (although the more normal term in civil aviation is flightdeck (which strangely redirects to flight deck as in aircraft carriers rather than cockpit). MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen them used, so they're not WP:MADEUP, but they don't have the level of prominence requiring seperate articles, that's for sure! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

OK understood but the made up did come from my experience where we use the terms port or Captain's seat and starboard or First Officer's seat never left or right. MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Help from it.wiki

Hi to all, I'm here for a problem in the bibliography of Heinkel HE 18; I have translated and brought part of your article but the ISBN 0-7106-0710-5 not correspond to what is reported (same Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation but "London: Studio Editions 1989 2nd edition" vs " Dambury, Connecticut, Grolier Educational Corporation, 1980, Vol. 5"). Therefore, while considering reliable person who wrote it (Rlandmann ), in it.wiki there are doubts about the real source and what will be reported. Can you help me? Can you also write in it.wiki at it:Discussioni_progetto:Aviazione#Radiali_Siemens-Halske:_mi_sa_che_esiste_un_problema? Thanks--Threecharlie (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

?--Threecharlie (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

A bot added the wrong (US edition) ISBN several years ago. I have now corrected the en.wiki article to the UK edition ISBN. (Mio Italiano no e buono). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, but sorry, I have a question for you. Did you check on the actual paper book or did you change the ISBN code without actually see it the code? I haven't this source and I must trust in your bibliography...--Threecharlie (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked about four or five copies of the UK edition for sale on Amazon and Abe books. All had the same ISBN number, so I used that in the HE 18 article for the reference to the UK edition. I do not have a copy of the book. Re. "HE" and "HD" which you asked on my talk page, "HD" is short for "Heinkel Doppeldecker" (in English, "Heinkel Biplane") while "HE" is short for "Heinkel Eindecker" (Heinkel Monoplane). The HE 18 was a monoplane, see Flight, 26 March, 1925, Page 175. If Jane's records it as the "HD 18" then either that is a misprint or there is another Type 18 with a biplane wing, I do not know which is true. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Powerfin nominated for speedy deletion

This article, about the US propeller manufacturer, has been nominated for CSD as not asserting importance. I have contested it, but as I started the article I cannot remove the CSD tag. Can another project member please review this matter and see if the tag is justified or not? Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you wish to apply for a WP:REFUND? (if so, asking the deleting admin is generally the best way of handling this in the first instance). Alternately, I'd be happy to post the content into your user space so that you can add references which establish the notability of this company and then move it back into article space. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I did leave a note with another admin, but if you could userfy it for me that would be appreciated. It is a relatively easy task to expand that stub into a larger article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Done: I've just posted the content at User:Ahunt/Powerfin. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Project members can note the article has been restored and expanded somewhat. I will search for paper refs when I can get to my public library, but if anyone can add to the article in the meantime that would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for August - Hawker Sea Fury

Hello WP:Aircraft. I thought that, as an appropriate contrast to last month's work on the Gloster Meteor, it seems appropriate to try to make improvements to one of the last great piston-engine aircraft, the Hawker Sea Fury. It has the distinction of having several successes in combat against early jet aircraft during the Korean War; in more recent times it is perhaps best known for its role as a racing aircraft - a large portion of these aircraft appear to have survived with small civil owners for this purpose. I plan in the coming days to start adding more information out of a pretty good text I've borrowed, if anyone else has good material to share, I'd be happy to go through it and add what I can if you don't have the time to edit the article yourself. Kyteto (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Albatros id

I'm trying to determine the type number of a little 1920s Albatros. It's either L.72 (as according to Flight, though a year or so later they have an article on another L.72A, completely different) or L.71 as Histaviation has it: both describe a small pusher flyingboat. I think Flight's designation may be wrong but it's clearly the more citable source. If there is a citable German civil register it could be sorted, for the machine was D519. Goldenyears says D519=L.71, but it's not the best source either. Anyone know a good German civil reg, or perhaps another citable source for the machine itself? Contemporary German mags, maybe, or Air Britain?TSRL (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Flight on 28 January 1926 shows an image of L72 "D-519", this [1] says that D-0519 was a L71 WNr.10055, probable just causes more confusion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's odd that the only (AFAIK) D-519=L.72 association is in the source we would usually take as the most reliable.TSRL (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Another Albatros question

fr:WP have an article on the L.66 and L.67, little parasol sports jobs. Their one reference is the Studio, London edition of Jane's Encyclopaedia of Aircraft (1989). Now my edition is the Portland House (U.S.) edition, also 1989, and this doesn't mention either of them. Does anyone have a copy of the Studio version and maybe could check to see if the pair are in it? I'm particularly interested in L.66 variants and to know if the L.67 was a single seater version as the French claim. Thanks for anything you turn up.TSRL (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Image upload

Just one to note, this File:AirAsia 9M-AFI at SIM Airport.jpg has been uploaded today, it appears to have been uploaded to planespotters.net first, probably just before uploading here, it now has a planespotters net copyright statement that matches the uploaders name. What they didnt notice is the image is already watermarked "Ivan/Sandhiyudha". We have seen flikr washing before but it is the fierst time I have seen a similar trick using one of the aviation sites. MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Cancelled military aircraft category tree...

...after looking this over, and pondering it for awhile, I've decided to nominate this tree at Categories for Discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 15#Category:Cancelled military aircraft projects. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Sunrise Aviation

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/Sunrise Aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

List of aviation pioneers

I have been in discussion with User:Godot13 who wants to improve the List of aviation pioneers article, first to turn it into a table format and then to try to get it to featured list standard. He has asked for support in particular with referencing and finding entries that are missing, the page has only a few watchers but Godot13 will leave a note on the talk page to explain what he is doing, appreciate when he is ready if we can help him with this task, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Piper PA-24 Comanche

This article has a large amount of text that has been tagged as "ref required" for over five years. Most of it is likely close to accurate, but I cannot source it. Does anyone have any refs that can be added to support or correct the text? - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Had a go at some bits that we wrong and removed some stuff that is unlikely to be notable but I cant find anything on the other stuff, appears to be some old promotional info, perhaps others can have a go. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding and fixing all that, it helps a lot! - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

East Haven plane crash and 2013 Rockwell 690B crash

Two different articles on the same non-notable accident! They don't even agree on the same date. AVweb claims it happened on Friday 9 August 2013. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirected the first, prodded the second. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that, although I bet the PROD doesn't survive. I wasn't going to touch either one. Even starting a discussion about non-notable light aircraft accidents these days seems to just attract hostility. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Just out of interest do we know how many of these fatal accidents to aircraft like the Commander and smaller they actually are a year ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thousands... Aviation Safety Network - 1689 occurrences in the ASN safety database for year 2013 --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Only about 30% of the entries in that list have fatalities (so, 500 so far this year), and 2% involve ground fatalities (33). --Carnildo (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

As predicted an editor removed the prod tag. - Ahunt (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

An AfD page on this article was created a few days ago. See WP:Articles for deletion/2013 Rockwell 690B crash -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

PowerTrike Light, PowerTrike II and PowerTrike Evolution

An editor has tagged all three of these newly created articles on ultralight trikes for WP:CSD. I have contested them as the articles are on notable aircraft and referenced to third party refs. As the article creator I cannot remove the tags, but can any other project member please review these nominations. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If those are spam/promotional then most every aircraft article needs to be tagged as well. The CSD tags have been removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that was my thought too, they are as factual and non-promotional as I can make them and based on third party independent sources. Thank you and MB1 for reviewing the articles and de-tagging them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Early flying machines

When was the last "early" flying machine? You are invited to join the discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Chinese jet fighter generations

Chinese official sources keep calling their latest designs "fourth generation jet fighters"

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90786/8381946.html

This is because they had ZERO Third-generation jet fighters and so skip that generation in their counting.

See here for the correct generation for Chinese fighters that are erroneously listed as 3rd gen by us: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/12/inside-china-whats-in-a-fighter-jet-crash/?page=all

So can we have some cleanup and notes about the Chinese use of fighter generations? Hcobb (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The general idea is to ignore the generation tags and not use them in aircraft articles, they dont mean anything except for those willy waving about mines bigger than yours. Mostly made up and not defined if the Chinese articles still mention generations then we need to amend them to remove. Nothing wrong with mentioning features but not generations. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with MB1, I think we previously pretty much developed a consensus that the idea of "fifth generation", etc is really little more than marketing. - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I third those sentiments. The 'generation' gumph is just marketing spin, without any consistent basis and therefore much of any meaning. It strikes me as a load of hot air about nothing, and should be just struckout from articles. There's plenty of solid, meaningful barometers and comparative basis to utilise in its place. Kyteto (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX

In the Boeing 737 MAX is a table of orders at also had the same information in words, (like foo placed and order on 21 December 2011 for 99 aircraft. As this was just duplicated information and not adding anything I removed the text. User:Tistscien has copied the deleted section and created List of Boeing 737 MAX orders, I have proposed deletion as a duplication of the related article (it was also copied without attribution! any thoughts ? MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Added the contributors and removed corresponding the deletion proposal as proposed by MilborneOne; also within Wikipedia its often not absolutely necessary to list them if the original article is linked. Tistscien (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We have now sorted out the attribution issue with a Template:Copied but I still have issues with the information being duplicated in prose and table, not something done on other orders articles. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The main reason was to rescue the masses of carefully edited, worthful content. The table is a temporary problem, yes. Long time solution is surely the proposed short summary like that, as the article and orders will grow. Intermediate solution possible? Tistscien (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I performed some improvements to standardize the article to the other lists of aircraft orders. please take a look and feel free to contribute in improving the article. Refer to: Category:Lists of aircraft orders and deliveries. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for September - Saab 35 Draken

Hello editors of WP:Aircraft! After finally completing my contributions to last month's focus, the Hawker Sea Fury; I thought the time was ripe to address the limited coverage of an article I've been considering for some time now, the Saab Draken. The unusual double-delta wing configuration alone makes it a curiosity for me, but the considerable number that were build and its long service life make it a little disappointing that it is so scarcely covered by the existing article we have up. I am hoping that the efforts of myself and other editors here can turn the article around; there is a great deal to cover in the type's Development, and most likely enough for a healthy separate Design section as well. Thank you in advance for your input! Kyteto (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight

List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight has only 7 watchers and not a lot of project involvement since 2007, appears to have a few hundred airliners missing! MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Then be bold enough to AFD it. Move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:PROD applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

...and now to AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Amy Johnson

Just for information Aviatrix usage has been raised again at Amy Johnson. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Forestry unmanned aerial vehicles

Is it appropriate to have a category for Forestry unmanned aerial vehicles, and should we be populating it with manned aircraft or with multipurpose UAVs? bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no - we can't categorize here, this is list country. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

archive.is

Lots of different IPs all changing links to usaf factsheets to point to archive.is, all the ones I have looked at have no contents. Suspect it would have been easier just to point to the current factsheets on af.mil, anybody know what the IPs are up to? MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a good-faith effort to archive dead pages, but I suspect the sites being "archived" have/had robots.txt or whatever to keep them from being archived? Are they all with no content? I'm honestly leery to click on anything ".is"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To be fair all the ones I have just tried were OK so it must have been the first ones I clicked, as you say I must assume good faith but it seemed unusual that a batch of IPs from different countries like Vietnam and Indonesia all start on the same task at what appears the same time. I dont have time to check every link and the factsheets still exist at af.mil (problem is they have been moved recently) so the more current link could be used, either way it involves some work. It may be worth leaving them unless they go for FA/GA or such like. MilborneOne (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it could be one or two highly dynamic (cellphone?) IPs. I'd think to leave them as long as they're not "broken", after all the fact sheets might always get moved again - although there is a reason the |archiveurl= paramater exists in {{cite web}}... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

OK we can close this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this wasn't quite such a good thing after all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Textron AirLand Scorpion

Textron AirLand Scorpion was created as an "Article creation request with basic info referenced from Aviation Week article", but there's no real content in it yet. I've stuck a {{uc}} header on it to help forgo any attempts to speedy delete it, as I do think there is enough info out there to justify the article now. I'm going to try to add some more sources and a basic Lead to the article now. Would anyone like to tackle trying to make a real article out of this? If so, just put up a {{iu}} header up, and I'll leave it alone for the time being. Alternately, if the is deleted, I'd be willing to host a userfied veersion of the article. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As a prototype has/is being constructed it is probably worth of an article, needs some non-AirLand sources. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Just out of interest the Scorpion is registered as a Cessna E530 with the registration N531TA to the Cessna Aircraft Company, it also has a Cessna experimental construction number. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

According to a news source based in Wichita, Cessna did the bulk of the design work, and built most of and assembled the prototype. However, I've not seen any source, especially those from Textron, refer to it as a Cessna aircraft. That may change in the future, especially if Cessna builds production examples, Textron has not decided who will build it as yet, per the sources, assuming it ever goes into production. They may be leaving it open for production in other nations. (It might be a good fit for Canada instead of the F-35, as they could almost certainly afford it. They could call it the Arrow II!) - BilCat (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well at least we could afford more than one of them! - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Bombardier CSeries

A well intentioned editor has taken loads of images of the Bombardier CSeries first flight and has added them to the article in good faith, I have removed the majority of the images and the gallery but they may not understand that we dont actually needs loads of images or a gallery of what is the same event. If other users can keep an eye on it please. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Watched! Amazingly I know this person from D*!! - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Verification of F-101A move

The article on the F-101 contains this little gem: This Voodoo, serial number 53-2418, which is privately owned, has been moved to the Evergreen Maintenance Center in Marana, Arizona to undergo restoration for display at the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum in McMinnville, Oregon.

I'm contemplating on working the article up for GAN and can't find any RS source online that confirms this. The websites for the Evergreen Museum and the Evergreen Maintenance Center, now Marana, don't mention this at all. The website for the aircraft's former home the Pueblo Weissbrod Museum no longer list it as one of theirs. Does anyone have a source that I can use, perhaps a magazine specializing in warbirds as I can't imagine that this hasn't been noted somewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightning tyres

A Florida IP wants to change tyre to tire on English Electric Lightning with the edit summary Changes made to maintain consistency within article and articles amongst jet-power aircraft. I have reverted twice if others can keep an eye on it, and all the loads of jets that are not actually American! MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I find the claim that we standardize amongst topics slightly amusing considering the brouhaha I went through trying (and failing) to get Soviet/Russian spaceflight articles to standardize on "program" or "programme", it was hard enough just to get the categories all using one spelling! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the editor misunderstood the line in Engvar about using more widely used words instead of those of limited geographic use - confusing geographic differences in spelling (eg tyre/tire) with geographic difference in words (eg tap/faucet ). GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Chinese UAV subcategoriation

A discussion has been opened at CfD about whether or not Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles of China should be broken down into subcategories. The discussion can be found here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Although some have commercial use most of them just seen to be based on radio-controlled toy-helicopter technology! Although we consider all flown aircraft to be notable I suspect most of these would be hard to justify as stand-alone articles, although not part of the remit they are some really big radio-controlled model aircraft around if they were fitted with a camera would they also be considered UAVs. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of these "teeny-tiny" types would, barring further coverage in sources, would be best placed in lists, assuming some didn't take that as starting a slippery slope of mergeorama.... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for both comments on notability of articles on UAVs. Many of the proliferating Chinese UAVs (and articles on them) seem to be coming out of (competitions at?) Chinese universities. Please see my concerns on this topic at Talk:List of unmanned aerial vehicles of the People's Republic of China. This seems to be a rapid growth sector in China today... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a good reason to consider all flown aircraft to be automatically notable, bypassing the general notability guideline? I think it's better to stick to the GNG. If a topic passes the notability guideline, it's notable; if it doesn't, it's not. bobrayner (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

They are automatically notable because almost all aircraft ever flown pass WP:GNG, in that there are independent third party refs that describe them. - Ahunt (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the ones which pass the GNG pass the GNG, but that is circular and useless. Many aircraft have flown, and if some don't pass the GNG, it's unhelpful to gloss over that by arguing that lots of other articles are notable. bobrayner (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It is long-standing consensus that all flown aircraft are notable, not "automatically" but they are notable for having been flown, the same as a sports player becoming notable the moment they play in a major league game - there is no difference. Now, that said, WP:V must be satisfied through WP:RS in all cases. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

More UAV cats

We seem to be creating loads of UAV cats, today it is Category:Unmanned military aircraft of the United States probably tomorrow we will have Category:Blue unmanned aerial vehicles used for dog walking. Honeywell RQ-16 T-Hawk has so many UAV cats the thing will be to heavy to lift off. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to go for much more monolithic cats instead, like Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles with no sub-cats. The stats on page hits show that very few people use these cats to find articles anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater; such a suggestion would be (pardon the pun) shot down in flames at CfD. The fellow who's creating all of these UAV cats should be cautioned to slow down, though, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact, after looking at it more, I actually rather agree with most of these categorisations - aside from the OC of Chinese UAVs (being dealt with at CfD) and a misunderstanding over "of Europe" (now at CFDS for the less-outlying "International"); heck, subdividing the "Unmanned military aircraft" category is something I planned to do at some point, and the T-Hawk's categories are in fact all appropriate. I think a little less bitey commentary is called for here, to be quite honest, and a little more guidance and welcoming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox images

Prompted by some approving comments on an image of mine which I had just uploaded, including the suggestion it should replace the existing infobox picture, I wondered if we had any guidelines for this top spot. As the number of external sources and images on Wikicommons grows, its more likely that better pictures will become available. So how should we chose, noting of course that there will always be exceptions and special cases? Personally, I think I'd put in flight images at the top of the list, on the basis that an aircraft's proper place is in the air, first decent contemporary period ones, then modern, then (perhaps) replica, if faithful. Failing that, then ground images, outdoor then indoor depending on quality and in order of preference contemporary period, modern, replica as before. I thought that some sort of agreed loose order of preference might ease my regret at the demotion of my favourite picture! What do you think?TSRL (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

My long-standing belief, based on my memories of past discussions, is that when it comes to pride of place in the infobox, in-flight > on-ground > on outside display > in museum , however contemporarymodern < period, even if the contemporarymodern image is color/in-flight and the period image is b&w/on ground. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

By contemporary I meant period as opposed to modern.TSRL (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Aha. Changed then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Followed you.TSRL (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We actually already have guidance on just this topic and it basically agrees with what you have said: WP:AIRCRAFT-IMAGES. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this page. It does not not cover old vs new issues (or perhaps they are not an issue) but otherwise it's clear enough. Will follow!TSRL (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Picky but it looks better (to me at least) if the aircraft is facing the text i.e. to the left. There is a guideline on this I believe for biography articles where the person's infobox image should also face left. This point is often commented on at Featured Article review. Alternating left/right images lower down in an article should ideally also face the text, the effect can be seen at Airbus A330. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The best image available doesn't always face left. When possible, it does look better that way, but I think quality of the image should outweigh which way it faces. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Following up on the above comment, the resolution or quality of image should also be factored in, with the "best" image prevailing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

And a lot of times there isn't a choice to be had of which way the thing's facing! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

UAVs: notability and categories

Greetings. Starting with a new-page patrol review of HEBUST forestry unmanned aerial vehicle, moving to a TfD discussion and ultimate deletion of a humongous and redlink filled Template:PRC Drones, to the creation of a new list article based on that template, I've become interested in UAVs. (My apologies to any editors here to whom I've given a bit of heartburn to along the way.)

It's good to see an active group of editors, such as you seem to have here. The above experience has raised some questions for me, however, that I'd like to pose here for project input and guidance. First and perhaps still foremost is the question of notability, and a related question about the scope of this project. This may seem like an over-simplistic, novice question, but What is an aircraft? (and thus, what is within the scope of this project?) I'm not joking when I ask, does this project include model airplanes within its scope? (and where do ornithopters fit in?) The relevance is that many of the UAVs currently included in Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles of China may be little more than model airplanes. Easier asked than answered, perhaps, but with every science and technology institute in China and perhaps more and more elsewhere designing their own model (or 'experimental' MAVs), how do you determine which are sufficiently notable for including within Wikipedia?

Secondly, and I see that you've been discussing this already, What is the most useful way to categorize UAVs? There seems to be an implicit assumption that all or most UAVs are military in use or application. Yet, as has been well documented and reported on, there is a growing number of non-military applications for UAVs. This is one reason that I think it is useful to group military separately from non-military UAVs; both types will, I expect, continue to grow substantially in numbers. I notice that under Category:Aircraft by type there is a healthy array of subcategories by functional type; I imagine that Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles can evolve in an analogous direction. For now, I think it is useful to distinguish the following:

• ... by country (although many countries currently have only a small number of UAVs)
• ... by type (blimps, helicopters, MAVs...)
• ... by function or application (military, non-military; attack, combat, surveillance...)

For any subcategory, it might be helpful to have some general guidelines, and some of these have come out in discussion, such as a minimum number of entries. Part of what makes UAV categorization challenging is the rapidly evolving technological (and geographical) landscape of the subject. The explosion of UAVs in China makes this clear... Anyway, thanks in advance for any input and guidance that editors of this WP may provide. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm one of the few editors who still has hair after tackling aircraft categorisation (and almost certainly the only one mad enough to enjoy it); I'd suggest that part of your proposal works, but another part edges towards overcategorisation.

To tackle the second part first, the "by function" duplicates the existing aircraft-by-function categories; for example, Category:United States attack aircraft 2000–2009. As UAVs are still aircraft, they belong in this category tree; a "shadow tree" for UAVs would be clearly OC. However, the distinction "military/non-military" may well be useful, given the current explosion of civilian UAVs.

On the first part, seperating by type - "unmanned aerial vehicles" as the generic/WP:COMMONNAME for fixed-wing types; blimps; and helicopters are all valid categorisations. Micro UAVs may be valid; I'm on the fence about that one, primarily because I'm not sure how 'defining' (a key term in categorisation) this is, as I'm not sure if there's a 'bright line' between MAVs and non-MAVs, or if there's a continuum. If it's the former, then it's likely valid; if the later, it's likely OC and should be merged into the main UAV categories.

By country, even for countries with only one type (those, it should be noted, usually fall foul of WP:SMALLCAT but there is an exemption for comprehensive category trees, such as this), is valid. Given that the civil/military split is also likely valid, then "Fooian UAVs" > "Fooian military UAVs" is a valid scheme. (As a note, I would not use the UCAV term here, as while all UCAVs are military UAVs, the opposite is not true - but many non-UCAV types can, at least in theory, be armed.)

In a nutshell: civil ("default")/military yes, by-country civil/military yes, by type yes, by function no due to duplication.

As for the notability issue, that's thornier. Model aircraft are, I believe, not within the project's scope, and that is indeed a thorny issue when judging where the line is between "UAV" and "model aircraft". Now, as for these "little types", I'd suggest applying WP:COMMONSENSE: if the only sources are the manufacturer and/or seller, would only get one or two sentences in an article, and/or if they're clearly model-derived, and/or if they haven't flown or it can't be verified if they've successfully flown, a "List of unmanned aerial vehicles manufactured by Foo" or "List of small unmanned aerial vehicles of Fooland" would be the appropriate place to put them. If there are third-party reliable sources (such as Aviation Week, for instance) that can be used to place more detailed information in an article, an independent article is likely valid, particulatly if they're larger than the usual "lawn dart".

Ornithopters, as heavier-than-air aircraft, are within the project's scope. And now I must go caffinate myself! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Aeryon Labs

This article seems to have attracted a couple of COI editors trying to insert identical and very spammy corp promotion text into this article. Some extra eyes would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

CfD

This discussion regarding Category:Ansaldo aircraft may be of interest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the nom was withdrawn. - Ahunt (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Aurora (aircraft)

A couple of IP editors (probably the same person) keep adding UFO cats and nav boxes to this article on the basis that this mythical aircraft has been mistaken for a UFO. I have argued that pretty much every object in the sky has at one time been mistaken for a UFO, but we don't tag the articles on Cessna 172s, weather balloons and lenticular clouds with UFO nav boxes and cats. The discussion has been going on at Talk:Aurora_(aircraft)#UFO_Connection but the IP editors keep ignoring the editing consensus to remove these and keep adding them in. Some additional input from project members, for or against, would be helpful to come to a more conclusive consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Twin tails and twin fuselages

There is an article at Twin boom which I think should be renamed to something more specific like Twin boom aircraft or Twin tail boom aircraft.

I have recently created a List of twin fuselage aircraft and am wondering whether a proper article on Twin fuselage aircraft would be useful, structured along similar lines to the Twin boom article.

Any thoughts on either of these, or related, issues? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It really should be Twin boom aircraft; "Twin tail boom aircraft" is too tight a definition, looks silly, and is wrong anyway as they weren't just tails all the time. "Twin fuselage aircraft" would be part of the same article, IMHO, as by common useage there's often no real distinction; the P-38 and F-82 will both be seen by the majority of people as "twin boom" types. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Marginal cases

The Lockheed Lightning is generally regarded as a twin boom design, while the Thomas-Morse MB-4 is a twin fuselage design. What about these two (Web links are to Google Images search results):

• Fokker K.I[2]
• Dyle et Bacalan DB-70[3]

How should we decide, and what should we decide? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Those are both clearly twin-boom types. The Fokker K.I has a distinct central pod, while the DB-70 has an incredibly broad and deep fuselage section filling the centreplane between the booms. (Although this does illustrate why twin-boom and twin-fuselage types should be covered in a single article at the former title with the latter redirecting to it.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, for the DB-70, the 21 Feb 1930 Flight article says "it has two fuselages 'growing' out of the sides (or outer extremities) of the centre section". The 1932 article on the four-engineed AB-20 development is unfortunately mute on the subject.

the (wholly unreferenced) Fokker article describes it as being built of two aircraft, each of which had a fuselage but whether the result is a twin boom, I'm not able to say. Outwith anything references might say, I would have thought that in general if there was anything in the structures in questions - eg passengers - then said structure was probably more fuselage than a boom to support the tail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The Fokker K.I is really a three fuselage aircraft as there were seats or at least holes for seats in the two outer fuselages (and I do have some sources for that claim somewhere)... but then the Me.109Z/609 types had nothing but an engine in the opposite fuselage. Photos of the DB-70 show a lifting fuselage similar to the Burnellis, with booms, so it isn't a twin fuselage design at all. Then there are the oddballs - the Voisin E.28 and the Siemens-Schukert R.I with the stacked fuselages, or booms. It would provide a more substantial page if both twin boom and twin fuselage were included together, and then there would be fewer arguments. Also not really convinced that the Blackburn was really a production aircraft with a grand total of 8 having been built. I notice someone deleted the Blohm und Voss and Gotha asymetric aircraft - all of which had two actual fuselages, regardless of how they were disposed.NiD.29 (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the distinction between fuselage and boom is so weak as to cause a lot of needless arguments - after all there is absolutely no difference between the Me 609 fuselage without a cockpit and a BV 141 boom, beyond the fact that one is paired with a full conventional fuselage and one with just a "pod" (which is still a fuselage anyway, even if it lacks a tail - after all no-one is going to argue that the C-119 doesn't have a fuselage, however abbreviated). Also the distinction between production and prototype is also open for argument - better to just list how many were built and let the reader make their own judgement as to its success (or not). NiD.29 (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of us are interested in the distinction. The existence of marginal cases and slapdash terminology from some quarters does not nullify that. [Update. Please do not take that personally. I am referring to the less authoritative sources one finds around the place, no personal comment is intended 10:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)]. Putting the two in the same awkwardly-titled article would not prevent the arguments, merely compress them - and we all know that generates heat. As ever, we must set our own opinions aside (e.g. on when a body is a pod, a nacelle or a fuselage) and let the references speak for themselves. I find:

• Green and Swanborough, warplanes of the third reich. For the BV141 it refers to "the fuselage" (singular) and a "crew naceelle". For the Me109Z it refers to "the two fuselages" (plural). The authors' use of this terminology is consistent throughout. [Update. For the Me 609 itself it refers briefly to "two Me 309 fuselages". Not quite so explicit, but I think clear enough. 10:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)]
• Jones, US fighters. The Lockheed Lightning is "twin-boom" and the Twin Mustang has "two fuselages". Again, usage appears consistent throughout.

Can anybody provide reliable sources which contradict these? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Better still, can anybody provide a reliable source which sheds light on the Fokker and/or the Dyle et Baclan? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Fokker M.9 (K.1) has a brief article in Grey & Thetford's German Aircraft of WWI (p.338) and there is a more enlightening photo in Postma's Fokker - Aircraft builder to the world (p.26).TSRL (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. While photos always help, I was really asking for references on usage of the descriptive terms we are discussing. Does the Postma text give any clues? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Both articles talk about two fuselages but do not attempt a classification.TSRL (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, two fuselages means twin fuselage and not twin boom. That's enough to establish the classification used in the articles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and on the Blackburn type, seven examples were delivered and some saw operational service. Most if not all were to production standard. To me that makes them "production" types, I'd be hard put to find a better definition. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Numerous problems

There are numerous problems with this list that need to be addressed.

1.You need a definition independent of a specific type, because I can find references for anything you have excluded having two fuselages, including the P-38, but it is hardly worth the effort. Also some references like the Flight reference may be wrong, but if that is how you control inclusion, you'll have to include it, even when it clearly isn't or get into long winded discussions as to how it isn't. Likewise, many of the more obscure types may have so little written about them that finding a decent verbal description that explicitly says it has two fuselages will be a problem. Your opinion about what is a twin fuselage is also not a viable litmus test, and that is effectively what you did by writing in a ridiculous exclusion for the asymmetric twin fuselage designs.

2.The list is too short as a standalone list, and needs a wider scope or be added to the main article.

3.Pointless random trivia ("flown in five variants as Mks I-V"?), beyond what is relevant to the list isn't useful. Name, nationality, first flight, type, number built and design features (such as being asymmetrical) should be all that is required.

4.Every entry must be linked, even if it creates redlinks, as if it is notable enough to be included, then it is notable enough for a page and it is easier to find redlinks and fix them than to hunt down all the possible articles an aircraft may have been mentioned in, after the page is finally created.

5.Projects vs. One-off and experimental types - would seem to imply that if it hasn't been built, then it is a project, if it has, then it should be under experimental types, but you've listed an aircraft that has done bunny hops (inexplicably capitalized) as a project which makes no sense, as if that is a project, then so are all the rest listed as experimental types. Categories need to be consistent.

6.References should also be consistent - why the half a ref for the Bf 109Z?

NiD.29 (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Just one point, Flight is a reliable source - so it passes verifiability etc. At most one or more other sources can disagree with their choice of words and marginalize their opinion.

Just a second point, notable enough to be mentioned does not equal notable enough for a standalone article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is work to be done, in particluar a table format would be good.

1. Yes, it would be nice to have a generic reference. But I am not hopeful of finding one. In the mean time, specific references to the particular type seem the only option. Your rant against my "opinion" and "ridiculous exclusion" appears to miss the point that they are based on just such verifiable and reputable sources, as I took pains to note above. If you wish to challenge them then WP:VERIFY makes it clear that it would indeed be worth the effort to dig out equally reliable references to the contrary.

2. Maybe incorporate it in an article on Twin fuselage aircraft? Yes, I have been wondering about that. But I needed the list before I could figure whether there is a sensible article to be had.

3. There is potential confusion for the enthusiast, in that the Mks.1-V refer to only two airframes. I do not see that kind of disambiguation as either random or trivial.

4. Feel free to redlink. It's called collaborative editing. :)

5. While the BIPOD has been constructed it has never flown - its bunny-hops were not claimed as true sustained flights by the developer. Its current stated purpose is as a power train development vehicle rather than a flight-capable vehicle as originally envisaged. So there is the question whether any flight capabilities are still intended to be embodied in the current vehicle, or whether powered flight remains a paper capability, once envisaged but no longer. I cannot find a source on this point, so WP:VERIFY dictates that we do not mention such capability. Hence its present classification among the paper designs. As for the capitalisation, please see Talk:Scaled Composites Model 367 BiPod#BIPOD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

6. Thanks. Now fixed.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

1. According to Cambridge Aerospace dictionary (Gunston, Bill, The Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2004, ISBN 978-0-521-84140-5/ISBN 0-521-84140-2): Fuselage: Main body of an aerodyne, absent in all wing designs; when tail attached to booms called nacelle; with planing bottom called hull.

No mention of symmetry, fittings, occupancy, inclusion of tail, etc. Note that fuselage does not exclude nacelles and hulls, but includes them. No definition for twin fuselage is included, although twin tail is there (but doesn't add anything for our purposes). You aren't going to find anything much more authoritative. Since a twin fuselage aircraft is by definition anything with two of those, the B&V is a twin fuselage, as are a host of other types (but not the DB-70) - unless you can find a more specific definition, then anything otherwise is WP:NOR since you are in effect creating your own definition. ps - really appreciate if you stop changing other ppls replies - they aren't yours to edit.

2. normal practice is to create it in a sandbox first.

3. the number of airframes vs the number of variants IS trivial to the list. It belongs on the page for the aircraft where it would no doubt be of interest.

4. :)

5. Normal use on wikipedia for "project" is for unbuilt aircraft - ie still a paper airplane. Once it has been built, even if it hasn't been flown, or fails to fly (as happened with the bipod) it is then an experimental or prototype aircraft - of which there are many that failed to fly.

-cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

1. First, thank you for the Gunston quote, I am happy to treat it as authoritative, However I interpret it quite differently. Bear in mind that there are many kinds of nacelle, for example many multi-engined types have several engine nacelles. So just because something is described as a nacelle, even a crew nacelle, that doesn't necessarily make it a fuselage-nacelle. Whether a given nacelle or any other structure is a fuselage depends solely on whether it is the main body of the craft, and that is a judgement that must be made on a case by case basis. "Twin fuselage" only applies where there are two such bodies with no discernible difference in their "main" status, a dead heat. The BV type should therefore best be described as having one "main fuselage" and one "crew nacelle".

2. I did. I figured it's as good as many a lousy list of one thing or another so why not move it live too. At worst it will survive as a redirect. I don't relly like the "hide it til its perfect" attitude, I prefer the "get it out there where others can stumble on it and improve it" approach, which ISTR is also preferred by WP:WHATEVER.

3. Point taken. However if the content gets moved to a proper article, the numbers might become relevant. I'd rather they stared there until that decision is made. If you feel strongly, I won't contest their deletion now.

5. The point about the Bipod is that while the paper design is flyable, the "aircraft" bit of the prototype was never finished, it is just a car. It did not "fail" to fly, it was tested without any propellers. No attempt was made to do anything more than a bunny hop, a bit like taking a normal car at speed over a humpback bridge. I am assuming that a half-constructed aircraft, capable only of a brief gliding hop, is still classed as a mere project, am I wrong in that?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1. A crew nacelle is still a main body, but engine nacelles and floats are excluded. The Gotha for instance has a pusher engine mounted at the rear in one fuselage nacelle with a crew position, a la Farman (studies included a Farman type aircraft with two engine/crew pods), and a second fuselage with an additional tractor engine and crew positions making for two fuselages. Both are main bodies in their own right, even if they are not identical. Almost all propellor aircraft (aside from those with an even number of engines AND handed engines and props) are asymmetrical due to effects of propeller rotation.

2. No page is ever perfect and has to be moved at some point.

5. Is it an aircraft? It sounds like a test rig, but could be PR-speak for we couldn't finish it. The Rutan page lists it as a project, as they list almost everything he designed, but I would list it as an experimental type. Comment about capitalization was about bunny, not the name of the vehicle, which I assumed to be correct since it was so odd.NiD.29 (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1. What is a "main body"? You and I disagree, and we are unlikely to find that defined in any reference. I see the logic of your argument about crew nacelles but the opinions of a couple of editors are not sufficient. Another reason to dig out and stick to sources for each individual case, however much work that makes for us.

5. It was intended to fulfil two purposes, as a prototype flying car / roadable aircraft (for Burt) and as a test rig for complex hybrid power trains for use in that and other projected designs (for Scaled Composites). As such its aircraft persona was very much a project but has never been fully embodied in the prototype as built: it received its detachable wings but never any propeller. Indeed, if you take the view that a power-launched hop is a flight then it has actually flown - as a glider. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Hence the request for input over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation which is much busier than this page - just waiting for the input.

5. Even so, all other instances of the term on wikipedia refer to something that hasn't been built, while this clearly has been, even to the extent of having been flown, making it a prototype or experiment.

-Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• This talk page is generally much busier than WT:Aviation. This page is archived twice as frequently and still has more content now. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

5. OK, I get it. Like say a German jet prototype that was almost completed but never received its engines. You have persuaded me. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That just leaves:

1. The "main body" fiselage vs. nacelle debate.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Dassault MD.610 Cavalier

The book Vertical Take-Off Fighter Aircraft by Bill Rose has an entry on the Dassault MD.610 Cavalier, and the derivitive MD.620 and MD.630. These were apparently design studies by Dassault circa 1960 into a Harrier-type VTOL aircraft. It would make an interesting article, but the aircraft are not mentioned in any of my other print sources, and I'm reluctant to make an article based on a single source. There is some mention of the aircraft online, primarily for model kits and in forums, but nothing that qualifies as a reliable source. Does anyone else have any reliable published sources that mention of these aircraft designs? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Airbus 2050 Concept Plane

Airbus Concept Plane has been created, based primarily on an Airbus concept video. It was created by User:Kevin4789, who apparently created Airbus Concept Plane 2050 in June 2012, which was speedily deleted. Speedily delete again, or take to AFD this time? - BilCat (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically the previous article didn't fit A7; there should be a CSD for stuff like this, but as it is I've (perhaps optimistically) prodded it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think A7 fit for this article, but of course I couldn't view the original one to compare them. I figure this will probably need to go to AFD at some point, if only to be SNOWed. - BilCat (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Cat (bomber)

I have just proposed a new article Black Cat (bomber) for deletion, being last doesnt appear to be particularly notable but I am looking for other views, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Prod template got removed. I'm not sure if that is notable enough to for its own article vs. covering it in the B-24 article. Having its own stamp seems like the main justification for notability. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hum does every individual aircraft that has been on a stamp rate a stand-alone article? I will wait for any comments here but still considering an AfD. Perhaps it is an American thing but I still cant see the notability in being the "last American bomber to be shot down over Germany in World War II." amongs the thousands of allied (and axis) bombers that were downed in the war. Do we know the last American bomber shot down over Belgium/Italy/Japan/.... MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• My point was that the commemorative stamp seems to be the closest to making it notable. But that does not seem to be enough to me. I'd like to see other opinions on this, though. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• The "last bomber shot down" does not provide notability for an individual article, however the stamp issue might. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the GNG that marks an article for notability. But I suspect the number of philately books that cover this bomber in depth are few. And that the number of military and aviation books that cover it in depth are not that numerous. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Being the "last bomber shot down" does not automatically provide notability for an individual article, but the level of coverage it received in reliable published sources for the event would. We can check newspaper archives and warbird publications to find out if it's been covered as such, and might well be in connection with the release/existence of the stamp. - BilCat (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

According to references related to the stamp it was one of a set of ten to mark "American Advances in Aviation" and was picked as a representative of the type rather than some sort of memorial/commeration of the last bomber shot down over Germany. Some forums mention that a few more B-24s were lost in the European theatre after Black Cat but they may not have gone down in "Germany" but Italy and Hungary and the like. MilborneOne (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I was leaning towards delete until I realised that; apart from the stamp, the aircraft is the subject of a 275-page book published by Addison Wesley Publishing Company, a reputable publishing house, so it passes the Notability guidelines of this Project. YSSYguy (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that "Wings of Morning: The Story of the Last American Bomber Shot Down Over Germany in World War II"? - that is written by a nephew of the radio operator on (he's also a noted historian) so not so independent although reliable. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the definition of "independent" refers to the publisher, not the author... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Fan-in-wing

I have written a small piece on the fan-in-wing VTOL configuration, at User:Steelpillow/Aircraft#Fan-in-wing. Would it be best to:

1. Create a standalone Fan-in-wing article and link from other pages
2. Add it to VTOL
3. Add it to Powered lift
4. Add it elsewhere (please specify article)

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Powered lift would be the best place for it (and nice work!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

GAN for North American AJ Savage

Sp33dyphil has asked for a second opinion of his review of my Good Article Nomination of the article on this obscure bomber. To expedite the process I thought that I'd publicize his request here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Classification of VTOL aircraft

Hi, I have started a discussion at Talk:VTOL#Classification of VTOL aircraft — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

List of triplanes

I have drafted a List of triplanes. It's fairly long, but not horrendously so. Should it be added to the Triplane article or should it be given a separate page? Please reply at Talk:Triplane#List of triplanes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say a separate page! - Ahunt (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Alert: CCI involving many aircraft and engine articles

I direct the attention of the project to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Buster40004. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(and it seems some of his copyvios were in turn from WP:AVIASTAR, ugh... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC))

Police aviation

An IP editor has started a section in this article entitled "List of Police Aviation Units" and has been populating the list. This list could potentially have hundreds or even thousands of entries. I am wondering whether it should be removed, split off into a separate list article or retained. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in principle with a list, especially as there are articles to back them up. I'd suggest we wait and see how it grows. When/if it unbalances the article, then we can create a new page for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree; once it reaches WP:UNDUE levels it can become a valid WP:SPINOUT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that all sounds reasonable to me. I will keep a watch on it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Comments are welcomed at Talk:Douglas DC-7B N836D#Merge discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter Operators

The de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter# section is getting quite long. Any objections to splitting off the list to its own page, and trimming out the redlinks? - BilCat (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@BilCat: No. Seems like a good idea. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Airwolf (helicopter) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Airwolf (helicopter) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Blue Thunder (helicopter) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blue Thunder (helicopter) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 737 cabin width

I believe it is notable that the 737 fuselage may be too narrow for the average American because the fuselage was designed in the 1950s (with the B707 fuselage) when Americans were far less obese.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-25/airbus-pitches-wider-seats-for-overweight-passengers-in-the-u-s-.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/travel/airline-seats/index.html?c=&page=2

--66.87.118.137 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly notable most Americans have fitted on the thousands of 737s built without much of an issue. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It probably is notable, actually. I seem to recall there has been a change in girth of the average American over the years and it has begun to affect the larger citizen's ability to fly on certain narrower types, to the extent that new designs are deliberately made wider. And if a Brit like me back in Blighty has heard about it, there probably is enough reference-able material out there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

But it is nothing to do with specific aircraft more a general (or regional problem) perhaps needs to be in Airline seat. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unless something particularly notable in this context happened to a passenger on a 737 - a landmark legal case or something? (I'm not saying it did, just speculating.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Boeing vs. Airbus cabin width war

Howdy, the above editor was a few days ahead of his time. Since then, articles like this LA Times article have popped up in multiple sources. Now, these topix are very relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom Fullery (talk • contribs) 02:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That LA Times article only mentions Airbus. It does not really affect the above comments re the Boeing 737 article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Early flying machines and the pioneer era

How do we treat the transition from early to pioneer? You are invited to join the discussion here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Operators

I recently removed the civil operators from the Eurocopter EC135, with over thousand in use current consensus at WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS is not to list but make a general statement about the types of operator per WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS, which does allow A mention may be made of particularly large fleet operator, recent discussion here also deemed military operators to be notable (although AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS was not changed). User:Danmanmi questioned the removal and believes that we should list every operator that can be cited with a reliable reference. User:FOX 52 believes that we should compromise and list some operators that are notable like police and government agencies. User:Danmanmi has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout_(Aircraft)#Operators any comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Beriev Be-2500

Is there any evidence that the Beriev Be-2500 is still any sort of an extant project, as opposed to one of the full spread of napkinwaffe types the Russians threw at the west in hopes something would stick? If there isn't, as an un-built and never-to-be-built type it doesn't appear notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it is still listed on the Beriev website as a project, so I guess it is possible that they might build it. The cited refs do seem to make the project just barely notable and as a proposed project from an established manufacturer it would make Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Notability which says "The aircraft has received a distinct model number from a builder or manufacturer of other notable aircraft. (e.g.: since Blériot built other notable types, the Blériot X is notable, even if this particular aircraft was not completed or flown.)", but it also says "Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball articles about aircraft that have not yet been built are generally discouraged unless reliable sources provide strong evidence that the project is likely to come to fruition, or it is a project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft." Pretty marginal case I think! - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

napkinwaffe ... :D Thank you for that expression. It cracked me up! --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Realistically, I don't think there is going to be a market for a ship-wannabe aircraft that has 4(!) times the weight of the An-225, given that 1) the Airbus A380 and B747 aren't collecting orders, and 2) Beriev is struggling to sell the Beriev Be-200. Unless the Russian Navy decides to procure such an aircraft for amphibious military operations and be willing to fund the massive development bill, I have trouble determining how Beriev is going to get funding in the first place. I would suggest the article be deleted and the aircraft be touched on over at Ground effect vehicle. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Or simply redirecting it there would make the most sense, now that you mention it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We have lots of articles on unbuilt/never-built/not-ever-likely-to-be-built aircraft. Given that this is/was "a project by a manufacturer of otherwise notable aircraft", I'd try to keep it, if it passes GNG. That is marginal in the article, but there may well be other notable coverage somewhere. Btw, napkinwaffe?? Huh? - BilCat (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@BilCat: If further coverage could be found, the article would most likely still be a WP:PERMASTUB. If that's the case, the article should be redirected to Ground effect vehicle. If no coverage can be found, again it should be redirected. I really don't see this article surviving as a stand alone article. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem, @BilCat:, is that as far as i can tell it doesn't pass GNG. If it did, I'd leave it; I'm an inclusionist at heart. (Also, "napkinwaffe" refers originally to the various "Luft '46" projects that 'would have won the war if only...!' (they wouldn't), but is applied sometimes (as here) to the "throw a sketch on a cocktail napkin and see if it sticks" types.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Concur on GNG as written, but I don't know what else is out there about it, if anything. Thanks, I'd just never heard the term "napkinwaffe" before, but I'm familiar with the context. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Yes. Redirect sounds appropriate. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'ontributions 11:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the Be-2500 a ground effect vehicle/ekranoplan? The article describes it as an amphibious aircraft, though it could of course be incorrect. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Boeing Pelican is an ekranoplan design from roughly the same era, and also appears to be a long-dead paper-only project. BilCat (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Probable unfree image

File:Textron AirLand Scorpion Jet.jpg has been tagged for moving to commons, but appears to be an unfree image per http://www.scorpionjet.com/media-gallery/. It certainly doesn't belong to the uploader. Can someone tag this for deletion? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Image tagging is still a mystery to me. :) - BilCat (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I just use these:

• Copyright violation images on Commons {{copyvio|1=reason}}

• Copyright violation images on Wikipedia {{subst:db-f9|url=source URL}}

- Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Boeing 777X at AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing 777X. - BilCat (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Landing gear on space launch vehicles

With recent technological changes after 2012, and with one particular private company now endeavoring to bring booster rockets from orbital launch vehicles back to the launch pad and land them, landing gear may not be just for aircraft now, but also for some some spacecraft. In fact, SpaceX has been flying a full-size orbital-capable first stage tank in low-altitude tests for the past 13 months with a large-width landing gear (for a 106-foot tall tank), and intends to attempt a atmospheric return (from approx. Mach 10 and 100,000+ ft. altitude) and a landing on terra firma of an orbital first-stage from high-altitude (immediately following second stage separation) in early 2014. So the scope of landing gear is widening, de facto, not by fiat, but merely by the emergence of a new technological capability.

I have started a discussion over at Talk:Undercarriage—because that is where Landing gear redirects to—in order to address whether it is best to widen the scope of the existing Landing gear article (which to this point, quite naturally, has been aircraft-centric) or whether is might be best to keep the spacecraft-centric use of landing gear entirely separate from the aircraft-centric use of landing gear.

Would very much appreciate input from aviation project members who might have an opinion on the matter. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems fine to me. Landing gear on spacecraft is not really a new thing if the strut legs on the Apollo Lunar Module (and maybe others) can be considered landing gear like skids on helicopters. There's also the spaceplanes with aircraft-like gear. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who responded, here and on that article Talk page. I think it is settled with a good consensus that some amount of info on the use of landing gear by spacecraft and launch vehicles should just go in the existing article, but of course with only a small amount of the article about that (much less widely seen) use of landing gear. N2e (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change of article name

You are invited to comment on the proposal at Talk:Undercarriage#Proposed change of article name to move Undercarriage to Landing gear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Air Defense Identification Zone (North America)

Now that China and Japan are getting into the act, does anybody else see a need to move this article back to its previous name of Air Defense Identification Zone ? Hcobb (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A380 Network

Hi guys, I am from the italian community. I just wanted to know if any of you notices any error in this file: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A380_12-13.PNG I based it on the Network posted a few hours ago by Airbus itself (https://scontent-a-mxp.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1426491_768692646480355_1858400008_n.jpg), although there is something wrong in my opinion. Lufthansa was operating on San Francisco too, wasn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperNick95 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy

McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II has been nominated for FAC. All comments are welcomed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Early flying machines

A lot of work is still needed on the Early flying machines article, to fill in missing detail and add balance, although I have now finished my efforts to rescue and restructure it. Hoping some of you might like to contribute, if only to mount a tag-bombing sortie. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of aviation pages and notability

Hi, another editor is insisting on reverting me. I have started two separate discussions: on the notability guidelines for the timeline at Talk:Timeline of aviation#Notability, and on the Phillips 1904 multiplane in particular at Talk:1904 in aviation. Hoping you can contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A discussion on Guido Dinelli is under way at Talk:1904 in aviation#Guido Dinelli. Currently only two contributors, so any contributions would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

ArtRave

I added this article, for an event in which Lady Gaga premiered the "world's first flying dress", to the Aviation WikiProject. If it should be associated with this project, in addition to or instead of the Aviation project, please let me know or make the appropriate changes. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipoff. The Volantis is really just a VTOL Personal air vehicle - or would presumably be classified as such before she could legally "wear" it outdoors and untethered - with the "dress" bit being a hinged plastic safety bodyshell which clamps the "wearer" in place so they can't fall out. I'd say that its notoriety will long outlive the ArtRave event and deserves its own Volantis (aircraft) article, which would come within the scope of the Aircraft wikiproject but probably not Aviation. I don't think that the event itself really belongs with either. The Daily Mail has published quite a useful article on How Lady Gaga's flying dress works. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

All, please now weigh in at Volantis (aircraft). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of multiple spec templates in one article

We are having another discussion about the use of many spec templates in a single article over at Talk:EFW N-20. Since this is the subject of a long-standing consensus, project members are welcome to voice an opinion on it. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Arado E.381

An IP user is keep changing the citation format in Arado E.381, no related discussion so I presume this is still not the done thing, I have reverted the change twice now but looking for some advice from our citation/ref experts, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor's edits seem to solely consist of this sort of undiscussed change to reference format. I don't think that the editor is a newbie here and I strongly suspect that they have an account here but are not logged in, whether by accident or deliberately to avoid scrutiny.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:ILC says that any method is acceptable, but that the same method should be used throughout a given article. Does the Aviation WikiProject have any special approach? Otherwise I guess it would have been one of those "You shouldn't mess for the sake of it but if someone else does, don't get into a fight over it" issues - if an editor wants to waste their time, why lose sleep over it? However, if we smell IP sockpuppetry then that should be investigated in its own right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR says that the reference format shouldn't be changed without discussion. There have been a few editors whose edits appear to primarily/totally consist of this sort of edit (i.e. mass changing of reference format, so the edit pattern does start to raise suspicions.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

InView Unmanned Aircraft System

A bit of a promotional campaign with InView Unmanned Aircraft System, a few company images have been added and the type has been added to a few overview articles, just a note that the images need to be tagged on commons as no evidence of permission but I dont have time tonight, suspect a COI editor, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Aeronautics vs. aviation

You are invited to join in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Aeronautics_vs._aviation — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Avery JA-5 Walrus

This article has been around for 2.5 years and has a lot of issues, but very few references that don't add up to much support for the text there. Should it be rewritten and tagged, stubbed to what the text supports or sent for deletion? Opinions are solicited! - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As it actually exists (or did) then it should be kept but it does need a good clear out of all the guff. N13JA is still registered but the status is shown as expired (in 2011). MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Great work, it looks a lot better now. There is still lots of unsourced text there, so I have just tagged it for now. It may well be WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Gulfstream Girl

I just removed this from the Gulfstream Aerospace article. The only thing I found about it in a brief Google search was from this blog, which is probably not a reliable source. I can't see this as notable to the company article at this point, as it doesn't appear to have received any coverage, much less wide coverage, in reliable published sources. - BilCat (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really notable and the claim that "many people" would cancel an order for a $40 million jets because of something on facebook is hard to believe. MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if it is true there is no indication of any order cancellations in the law firm blog. Otherwise it is a routine trademark case, there are millions of them going on all the time, so "not-notable". - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Vertical Takeoff and Landing Experimental Plane (VTOL X-Plane)

Sikorsky have just been given a contract to come up with a design for DARPAs VTOL X-Plane program[4], have we got anything on this yet? MilborneOne (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't find anything on it here on Wikipedia. Do you think it is too early for an article? - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Propably worth a starting something with jsut a summary from the DARPA project per http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Vertical_Takeoff_and_Landing_Experimental_Plane_%28VTOL_X-Plane%29.aspx if nobody does it first I will have a go tomorrow. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it will be "all yours"! - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

And now started as Vertical Take-Off and Landing Experimental Aircraft MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Seen! - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Cessna 152

We seem to have a new editor and an IP sock determined to replace the good lead image on this article with his own, really poor image, instead. I have reverted him twice and asked him to discuss but he just keeps reverting. Can another editor review this please? - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I restored the consensus image yesterday. Today the user changed it back without yet discussing this on talk page. I just warned the user not to make these non-neutral changes and to participate in the talk page discussion there. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a neutrality problem, but it's definitely not a better image. bobrayner (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

More generally, the article already has several samey photos - all conventional exterior shots of a single aircraft. I think it would be helpful to get some variety. Images of production, maintenance, layout or technical detail would be great; or at least just a plan view like this... bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! I put that plan-view in! - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

-(e/c) The user strongly favoring his/her image over another image seems non-neutral, at least. Some images with different views would surely be good. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked out this editor's contribs and they are playing the same game over the article on Denham Aerodrome. There is clearly no intention to seek consensus. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have left the user a warning to seek consensus, see how they react. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for looking at this. Since he seems determined to replace good existing images with his own poor quality images this seems to not be a real content dispute. Perhaps it is another university foolishly giving credit for Wikipedia edits that remain in the article, here at the end of the school term. Regardless, he isn't talking and is edit warring to get his pix included, so I would suggest after all the warnings if he keeps going to just block him and move on. Given his past use of IP sox these may need blocking as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Breguet M.5

Just looking at Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War I (a 2001 edition found in a charity shop!) and it shows a picture of a Breguet Biplane Type M.5 bomber Winner of the competition for high-powered avions in Oct. 1915 and much used for night bombing in 1916-1917. The same image is used as a lead in Breguet Bre.5 but it calls it an escort fighter rather than a bomber. And the article makes no mention that it is developed from the Br M.4 light bomber. French first world war is not really my area but are they actually the same aircraft as our article calls it an escort fighter! and makes no mention of a Type M.5, thanks MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"The Type 5, derived from the Type 4 bomber late in 1915, was regarded by the Aviation Militaire as a two-seat escort fighter or reconnaissance-fighter ... the Type 5 fighter, or Bre 5 Ca2, never equipped a complete escadrille, a few aircraft of this type being issued to each of the units operating the Bre 5 B2 bomber version..." - Green and Swanborough, The complete book of fighters. It looks like there were distinct fighter and bomber variants and this is causing some confusion. Sorry I don't know the significance of the "M" in this context. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Update - I have added reference to the the bomber variant in the article. Some of that Jane's stuff might be good to add too, if you feel charitable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I will do something soon. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Avery JA-5 Walrus‎

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/Avery JA-5 Walrus‎. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Can of worms?

I've come across an astonishing number [5] of articles on chinese UAVs created by a single user since September this year. A look at the users talk pageUser talk:XdeLaTorre shows

• a refused articles for creation[6], refusal reason that it need more references- it has four, but three look like manufactures own.
• a notification of a csd, article deleted Creating Liu Feng UAV as copyvio/advertising.
• An AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTA UAV, closed as no consensus but imo actually best kept because it is a manufacturer rather than a type article.

My concern here is that there are a huge number of articles that are poorly sourced, created by an editor who does not participate in discussions ( no answers on talk page or reponse at AfD) & that since only one of the articles has a talk page with a wpaviation tag on it these articles have crept in under the radar. Looking at them it would appear that many could be better included in group articles: this is imo something that needs to be looked at before it gets completely out of hand.TheLongTone (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we talked about this a few months in regard to categorisation, no real conclusion but they may be better just put into a list. It looks like every university student in China is building one but most in my opinion are little more than toys. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the issue here is that the editor is unwilling to engage in discussions about the viability of the articles, rather than the articles themselves. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that if the issue is not addressed it will grow to a point where it is a huge pain in the butt to deal with rather than a medium sized one. And since all I've looked at have only Chinese references, it either needs the cooperation of the article creator or someone who can read Chinese. As commented, those with pictures wouldn't reaise an eyebrow if they appeared on the cover of a model aircraft magazine, but certainly some might be notable.TheLongTone (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, most of this user's articles are non-notable, and those that might be lack intelligible references. The burden is on the artticle creator to establish notability, not on us to disprove it. Lacking any community involvement from the editor, I think we should just blast round after them marking the articles for speedy deletion as fast as they are created. If the editor starts re-creating them, then we can get their account blocked. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears we can nominate for Speedy Deletion under the exception to Non-criteria 5. Notability, where "the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Serve me right for sounding off without checking first, you see before you a complete U-turn. These are not just student projects. Pretty much all these UAVs have purportedly seen operational service for agricultural, policing and other purposes, having been developed by associated organisations. Some date back to ca. 2008. I think we just have to accept that the Chinese have been very busy in this area. How we handle the language barrier vs. verifiability is not this WikiProject's problem. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Worth posting a notice of this discussion on the users talk page?TheLongTone (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See my updated comment, posted just above yours. Might not be necessary to engage them after all? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Easier with their cooperation, since I assume they can read Chinese.TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Move Miles M.76 to EoN Type 9 K.1?

Revisiting this article and adding an image and specs led to this suggested move. Neither Kendall nor Miles completed it, with Elliotts' wooden backup version, a bit different from Kendall's BGA competition winning design, being the only one to fly. Any support or dissension?TSRL (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dont have a big problem with a move as the prime would then be the aircraft that actually flew. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Move, per MilborneOne comment. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Flight at the time called it the Kendall K.1 [7] GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

And since it failed certification, Elliotts never took up their license? Then a move to Kendal K.1 would make more sense after all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Kendall K.1 sounds like a good compromise for a composite of a design by Kendall, fuselage built by Miles, and wing built by Elliots. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)