Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

I am proposing that the modular Template:Infobox aircraft begin infobox system be replaced with individual infoboxes. The current system is non-standard, it is confusing for first time users, and it doesn't use the {{infobox}} template like all infoboxes should.

I've created replacements for these templates in my sandbox and tested them at User:BrandonXLF/C. The only real reason to keep the current modular template system would be allow for the modularity, but that aspect of it is rarely used. The only case where two of these modules are being used (excluding begin) are {{Infobox aircraft career}} and {{Infobox aircraft type}} with a total of 57 articles using both templates. The only other instance of these templates being used in the modular fashion is with one article (Genairco Biplane) that uses {{Infobox aircraft engine}} and {{Infobox aircraft type}} which is shouldn't as the article is not about the engine and it makes the infobox confusing.

Replacing current uses of the templates would be as simple as replacing {|{{Infobox aircraft begin with {{Infobox type, removing }}{{Infobox type, and removing the bottom |} at the end. For few articles that use both {{Infobox aircraft career}} and {{Infobox aircraft type}}, the only extra steps would be to replace the }}{{Infobox aircraft career line with | career = {{Infobox aircraft career and to add a extra {{ at the end of the infobox. This work should be easy to automate.

Since the current names of the infoboxes are preferable to keep, a check can be added to the infoboxes to check if they are given the |name= parameter, and if they are, they would use the new format the uses {{infobox}}, or else they would use the current format. Once all uses of the infoboxes are updated, the old code can then be removed.– BrandonXLF (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear but does this mean that we now just use for example "infobox aircraft type" on its own as it includes the begin elements, will this change be done with a script or are we expected to change all 12000 article by hand ? MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

MilborneOne, yes, you would just use the infobox on its own. I am planning on making the changes myself with a script. – BrandonXLF (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. MilborneOne (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

That is some interesting work you have done there. I think your proposal has some merit. I would suggest that we do a really thorough consultation here and not rush an adoption, just to avoid any unintended consequences. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I support the proposal, but I have just one question. How would individual aircraft that are of a unique type (such as the P-51XR Precious Metal) be handled? Currently, the infobox contains both the "type" and "individual aircraft" templates. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

ZLEA, as demonstrated here, articles like those would use {{Infobox aircraft type}} and then pass {{Infobox aircraft career}} as the |career= parameter. – BrandonXLF (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is "image border" being given a flag? This is neither a necessary, useful or desirable variable. At no time should the image be left without a border. Also, unit cost is currently deprecated. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

NiD.29, since "image border" already has a flag on the current template, I think it's best to keep it as it for now and to remove it at a later time. As for "unit cost", what template is this on? – BrandonXLF (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Unit cost was in the 2nd template, "Infobox aircraft type", but that has been dropped from Aircraft infoboxes. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oh I see, it wasn't on the template itself but it was on the example page. I've removed it now, thanks for noticing it. – BrandonXLF (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, the unit cost and program cost parameters were both removed from Template:Infobox aircraft type. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, I've removed that one as well. – BrandonXLF (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I just found a very old, two sentence stub at Rocket turbine engine. From reading it, I can't tell if is a Air turborocket, Air-augmented rocket, or neither. Any thoughts on what to do with this? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The Air turborocket article treats the Rocket turbine engine as a sub-type of the turborocket, itself a type of air turborocket. But as it also says, terminology is in a mess, and it is not our job to second-guess that. Based on the state of Rocket turbine engine and principles of good housekeeping, I'd suggest a merge and redirect - at least until things sort themselves out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Roadable aircraft be merged into Flying car. You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Flying car/Archive 1#Merge proposal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Boeing YAL-1 where it was brought up that there is no formal consensus on whether mission modifiers should be included in navboxes for US military aircraft designation sequences. I think it's time such a discussion took place.

Personally, I am opposed to mission modifiers being included for the following reasons:

• Mission modifiers are essentially variant designations. Even if all variants of an aircraft have a specific mission modifier (such as the OV-10 Bronco), we do not list variant identifiers (the letter at the end of the designation) unless said variant has its own article separate from the other variants. We don't even list the variant letter for the A-36A Apache (see here), which was the type's only variant, so why should mission modifiers be any different?
  • Also keep in mind that some aircraft, especially helicopters, carry many different mission modifiers, but are generally referred to by their most well-known variant. For example, the H-47 Chinook is most commonly known by it's CH-47 variant, but other variants carry the HH-47 and MH-47 designations. Saying that the MH-47 is a variant of the CH-47 would be like saying the P-51A was a variant of the more well known P-51D. Including mission modifiers in the navboxes would only fuel such confusion.
• Since mission modifiers are attached to the basic mission letter of the designation, it can cause confusion with sequences which actually had double-letter basic mission identifiers (such as the "OA", "RS", and "SR" sequences).
• Mission modifiers can also create the misconception of separate yet intertwined sequences to readers that have little knowledge of the US military aircraft designation system. The "B", "RS", and "SR" sequences are an example of separate sequences that are, well, sort of intertwined. The "RS/SR" sequence is already confusing as it is, so it would be easy for a less knowledgeable reader to confuse the different "RQ", "MQ", "CQ", and "XQ" designations of the UAV sequence for separate intertwined sequences.

These are my opinions, I'd like to hear what others have to say about the matter. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I think you have presented a very cogent argument here. I agree. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

See Skydive Örebro DHC-2 Turbo Beaver crash for a new crash article. It's probably not notable, and the incident has been discussed at Talk:de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver#Severe accident in Sweden 8 july 2021. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For simplicity in this discussion I am including roadable aircraft in flying cars.

We have an infobox template for aircraft in Template:Infobox aircraft. There is a parallel template for cars at Template:Infobox automobile. Now that flying cars are moving from the curiosity box to production engineering, it seems time to decide how to do their infoboxes. Typically an article on a flying car will be required to display selected information from both infoboxes. For example the PAL-V Liberty is currently only certified for road use, yet its article section has been given an aircraft infobox. Including both infoboxes would add clutter and be confusing to maintain. Is it time to create a hybrid infobox along the lines of Template:Infobox flyingcar? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Flying cars have so many compromises. They can be both car and airplane but are horrible at both. Which is why they are still a novelty item. Even when production starts (it hasn't yet), it will still be in very limited numbers. I'd say that a flying car infobox is likewise not ready for prime time.  Stepho  talk  23:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I support the creation of a new infobox, and I'm not sure that I agree with Stepho. While no flying cars have yet entered production, and many are either not airworthy nor roadworthy, they were at least designed to be roadable aircraft and should still be treated as such in the same sense that we treat all other never-flown/unbuilt aircraft as aircraft. While they have had their "many compromises", flying cars have existed since the 1930s. Category:Roadable aircraft currently lists only 44 articles, which probably won't grow by much in the near future, but the fact that these vehicles fall under both the car and aircraft category necessitates a new infobox with parameters covering the relevant details of the vehicles. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of the Roadable aircraft article is now merged across to Flying car, per the discussion consensus. There are some remaining entries, which are obscure projects and of dubious notability. I have started a discussion at Talk:Roadable aircraft to try and establish which should be merged across and which should just be deleted. Any discussion comments, help with the article, etc. would be welcome.

These projects are springing up everywhere like mushrooms these days, and I am sure that most should be humanely buried. However Wikipedia articles for them are also mushrooming, though their ability to meet WP:GNG often appears dubious at best. Not sure what we can do about that, other than chase them all down and argue the AfD toss time and time again. Any better ideas?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see new articles on individual models can be stopped. As long as they meet WP:GNG they can be kept, even if they never fly or get to commercial success. Even the failures prove something, in fact they probably prove more! Perhaps we need a list within Flying car of successful and failed projects? - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So here are some, ah, borderline articles of projects that have as yet to hatch out. Haynes Aero Skyblazer, Samson Switchblade, Krossblade, Carplane, Aerocar 2000. I am sure there are more where those came from. Are we seriously going to pass off all this CGI vapourware and scrap plastic as meeting GNG? As for status, we already describe anything not yet flown as a "project" and anything that has as a "prototype"; seems to cover all bases. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Meeting GNG doesn't mean they have to have an article. Perhaps a list article of failed or dormant projects would be a viable place to merge these to. BilCat (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that most of these faltering CGI fantasies put up by nobodies very obviously fail GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Then they should be AfDed, but there's not much we can do to stop the articles from being created in the first place. Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and they will! BilCat (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed a merger at Talk:Zlín Z-26#Merger proposal. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sukhoi Checkmate has been created, along with at least 2 drafts that I know of. Too soon? BilCat (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably not too soon, as it is in the news right now. - Ahunt (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

An editor has just reverted cited content, apparently on the grounds that it is not the aspect they are personally interested in. More eyes/comments would be welcome at Talk:Two-stroke diesel engine#Special:Diff/1035300967. (Duplicate posting here, as not many watch our Engines sub-page). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

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/Skydive Örebro DHC-2 Turbo Beaver crash. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Eurocanard has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurocanard. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:North American A-36 Apache#Article title for a discussion on the article's correct title. BilCat (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have requested a move at Talk:List of military aircraft of the United States (naval). - ZLEA _T\^C 03:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed that List of military aircraft of the United States be split here. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

See Eurofighter Typhoon for several examples of these, at Eurofighter Typhoon#Procurement, production and costs, Eurofighter Typhoon#Armament, Eurofighter Typhoon#Structure, Eurofighter Typhoon#Sensors, and Eurofighter Typhoon#Propulsion. Among other things, these are flag farms. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Horrible. Way over-the-top use of tables and flags. I'd suggest we blank all the peripheral ones unless and until some consensus on their inclusion is agreed. Per MOS:FLAGS, that is unlikely to include any flags. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I can see a simple table of which countries use which weapons on their Typhoon might be relevant if sourced but not which particular pylons on the aircraft they are used. There's only a certain level of detail we need for average reader. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

PS. Not limited to aircraft articles see S-80 submarine as example among [Spanish] ship articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I support Graeme's removals there. There is no need for a general encyclopedia to get down to more minutia that Jane's would ever carry! This is beyond encyclopedia and is fanboy-ism. - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not fanboyism, it is supply chain, being able to see what it is possible to carry, and who uses what. There's a reason pages are often better in other languages. And common flags are more compact and quicker to read than words. It is obvious English Wikipedia can no longer be used as the main translation source. 80.218.134.237 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Most of the tables were uncited. And there are specific Manual of Style guidelines for use of Flags instead of the country name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Information should be sourced to reliable sources, which most of these tables weren't. Unsourced information (or information sourced to other Wikipedias - which amounts to unsourced information) is of no value, while many of the additions were adding elaborate, over-the-top detail.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The Eurofighter supply chain table which you simply removed had lots of references. 80.218.134.237 (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@80.218.134.237: Fancruft comes in many forms. No fan ever thinks their additions are cruft, but the consensus here clearly does. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• (e/c) Probably because Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Try a simpler presentation in a list or summary text. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not indiscriminate. The Spanish presentation is good, and tables are easier to read than text. I will no longer write here to help with translation. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Well that pretty much proved the contention. - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Other Wikipedias can chose to be so full of flags that one can hardly read the text in places, but English Wikipedia has purposely chosen not to do that. BilCat (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what was proven and in this case the flags make it much easier to read (the only non-obvious one is Oman). Trigenibinion (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Trigenibinion Obviousness is only a point of view. It can't be said with absolute certainty that any one national flag is "obvious" to everyone. - ZLEA _T\^C 20:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a tooltip that you can use the first time you see an unfamiliar one. There are few different flags in these tables. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Tooltips don't work on many tablets and mobile devices, and even some computers, so that's not a solution available to many readers. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess in that case they will have to click on the flag learn something. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Not on English Wikipedia, as we have policies against the such. uses of flags. If you don't like that, you can attempt to get the policy changed, but you can't just ignore it. BilCat (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have seen pages where there are several tens of different flags without the name next to it. In this case it is indeed a problem. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because there are "several tens of different flags without the name next to it" does not mean that they do not follow the guidelines. We have tens of thousands of articles that do not follow various policies and guidelines, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to adhere to them. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That page did not follow the guidelines. Each flag appeared only once in a list, without name. And some were hard to discern. In the case of my tables, even applying the "name the first time" rule would be ugly and inefficient design. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

But a flag legend list could be placed on a line before the tables, as there are so few of them. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The flags aren't the only problem with the tables. However, the consensus here so far is that we should not use the tables to present minor information in the aircraft articles for various reasons. BilCat (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It's OK not no include the information when it lacks references. The Eurofighter supply chain I think should go on a separate page, especially if the other versions are going to be added later. Trigenibinion (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

For Eurofighter supply chain (as in particulars of which components come from where as opposed to the complexities of an international consortium building a complex aircraft) to warrant a separate article it would need to meet WP:GNG including for "significant coverage". GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think both the component tables and any descriptions of the process could go on the same page. Trigenibinion (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I see you are determined to add the same content to as many articles as possible - [1], [2], no matter how much it unbalances the articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The F1 content came from the RMAF page. As you removed the updates on the F1 page, I added them to the RMAF page during its cleanup. Trigenibinion (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You have to understand that this version is sometimes referred to as MF2000 and other times as ASTRAC (I have even seen M-VI). Trigenibinion (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing about whether the North American XB-70 Valkyrie should be included in the List of experimental aircraft. Editors are invited to add their opinions at Talk:List_of_experimental_aircraft#XB-70_is_an_experimental_aircraft_and_should_be_included. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Just found some Tupolev reconnaissance drones in canard configuration: Tupolev Tu-123, Tupolev Tu-141, Tupolev Tu-143. They are not currently included in the list of canard aircraft. Should they be? In other words, should we be including drones in lists of aircraft, and if so then are there (or do we want to impose) any caveats or restrictions to their inclusion? I do not see this issue as entirely trivial, as there may soon be a case for splitting off things like a list of flying wing drones from the list of flying wings. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

They are "aircraft" of course, but it may be useful to list them separately just to help readers. - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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/KaiserAir. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A discussion has been started here to rename the article "Vertical_stabilizer" to "Vertical_tail". (Hohum ^@) 18:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Following the chaotic straw poll, a proper WP:RFM has been opened at Talk:Vertical_stabilizer#Requested move 28 September 2021, to which you are invited to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Per this edit to Template:Aircontent, the parameter headings were de-bolded with the edit summary "MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. Rm bolding, but avoided adding heading markup – cannot be certain which level of header would be appropriate." To be honest, the template now looks bad on articles. Is this something that should be reverted? (Only a template editor or admin can edit it.) BilCat (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree this needs fixing, one way or the other! - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

In a previous discussion (lost in some talk archive or other), quite a few editors felt that the needs of individual articles differ markedly; this template is quite often inappropriate and using it is more trouble that it is worth. Those who disagree with that sentiment now have to issue of pseudoheadings to fix. One option could be to reword it in a less this-is-a-heading kind of way, for example:

Comparable types include:

• Scruggs Wonderplane
• Foo Barplane

Related developments include:

• Thisplane with knobs on
• Another one

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw what you did there with Template:Blockquote! While it actually looks nice, I suspect some "well meaning person" would say that was an unauthorized use! - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. Since when did clarity of presentation and WP:Ignore all rules ever trump self-important busybodies? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Nailed it! . - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Simple bolding isn't a pseudo-heading AFAIK. Pseudo-headings use semi-colons, not bolding markup. As such, this change should be reverted. BilCat (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a good point. I support that position. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought a lot of aircraft articles' "See also" sections looked a bit strange lately, and after seeing this it all makes sense now. I suggest that the change be reverted ASAP. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks even stranger as the specs sections immediately above use the same style. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I’ve requested that the edit be reverted here. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done, by the same editor who made the edit in the first place. Make what you will of that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The editor has now replied briefly, and this discussion is now ongoing where it belongs, at Template talk:Aircontent#MOS:PSEUDOHEAD violations. Feel free to join in there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've conducted a GA review of the Sukhoi Su-57 and I've listed some of my reasons for why it doesn't qualify and should be delisted until further improvement. I’m in the middle of revamping the article, but until that’s finished I don’t think the article in its current state qualifies as GA. I would like to hear people’s feedback on the matter, as I don’t want to unilaterally change an article’s rating. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The above illustrations (at the time of posting; awaiting rotation) are from Aerial Travel for Business or Pleasure, published by Thos. Cook & Son in 1919, captioned as shown. They seem to be artists' impressions. Did such aircraft ever fly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The five-seater looks like the Grahame-White G.W.E.7. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a mention of a similar thing to the other in Graham Wallace's biography of White, a twin-fuselage aircraft carrying seven passengers in each. There it is described as having three engines, all in the central nacelle. It was never built.TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been wanting to make redirects appear a different color to me for a long time. This would be very helpful in certain situations such as quickly spotting redirects in navboxes. I finally found the solution at Wikipedia:Tip of the day/March 17. However, it makes the links appear red when you press/hover over them, so I changed the colors to various shades of green. See User:BilCat/common.css if you want to try my color scheme. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Marc Lacoste just moved Gulfstream G650 moved to Gulfstream G650/G700/G800. I thought I would bring that move here for some discussion on this move in particular and aircraft type article page naming in general since this conflicts with Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming.

We have been naming aircraft type pages after the first of predominate type and then describing variants in the text and redirecting the variant names to the main article. A good example or this is Cessna 206, which incorporates the 205 and 207 in this manner. My main concern is that Gulfstream G650/G700/G800 is not the designation of an aircraft, but a sort of cobbled together title. Also I am not sure how we would handle it if, say, the G800 was split into its own article.

Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I kept the G500/G600 naming scheme. They are low-changes variants, like the -200/300/400 for the Boeing 767, I'm not sure one variant should have a separate article one day. A better name could be the GVI TC name, but it's way less common than the G650/G700 and now G800 marketing designations.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Article names with "/" in them are never a good idea in wikipedia. Normal convention would be to use Gulfstream G650 family if the variant are that noteworthy to be reflected in the title. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne, “G650 family” is cleaner and follows convention. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support Gulfstream G650 family. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A bit late, but I'd prefer splitting up the articles to at least Gulfstream G650 and Gulfstream G700, with perhaps a separate Gulfstream G800 too. Too many variants lumped in with poor organization makes a poor article, and even with good organization, which is rare, it's often still too confusing. I know I'm sometimes in the minority on this, but still prefer more smaller articles to fewer larger articles for bizjets. Manufacturers mix and match fuselage sizes and wings for bizjets far more than most of the airliner companies, and trying to artificially combine articles that would be better separated just make a big mess most of the time. A point on this is that the lead still hasn't been updated to include the G700 2 years after it was added in, much less the G800 added to it. BilCat (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I support BilCat's proposal. Per WP:NAIR#Subtypes and variants, a subtype of an aircraft "may be notable if its parent article requires splitting and... the aircraft has received a distinct model number from its builder or manufacturer." The G700 and G800 did receive distinct model numbers and may be considered as much variants of the G650 as the PA-48 Enforcer was of the P-51 Mustang. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, the G700/G800 are low changes variants, and does not deserve a separate article. Keeping all the GVI variants in the same article help explaining the slight differences between them. If one variant section grows enough to be split out to a separate article, it would be OK to do this at the appropriate time then.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)note the G700 and G800 are marketing names, not type names

I just ran across 3 articles with a lot of overlap: Custer Channel Wing, Custer CCW-5, and Custer Channel Wing Corporation. Any suggestions on how to eliminate the overlap? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

After some consideration, my intention is to merge Custer Channel Wing into the Custer Channel Wing Corporation article, and to reduce any overlap of the CCW-5 article. Any comments/objections? BilCat (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good.TSRL (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that sounds feasible. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure when I'll get to it, but I'm certainly open to other suggestions in the meantime before I do. BilCat (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd merge the other way. The "Channel Wing" development is the notable thing here, the corporation's only claim is its manufacture of the last prototypes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. There was so much duplication, there was naff all left to merge across. I also took out some of the stuff duplicated from the CCW-5 article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! BilCat (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The article channel wing still remains!TSRL (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It should remain. There's not much overlap, and there have been at least two other channel wing aircraft from other manufacturers. BilCat (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Aircraft_specs#Use_of_bold_in_this_template. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now hacked out a new table-based layout, which I am proposing to replace the current layout. Comments there would be most welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Please note I have nominated Category:Flying boats in production for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_4#Category:Flying_boats_in_production. MilborneOne (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, Embraer next-generation turboprop is illustrated with fair use promo pictures. As its configuration evolved from wing-mounted engines to aft-mounted ones, two pictures illustrate both configurations. Do you think both illustrations are useful to understand the change, or is the text sufficient ? Please add your comments in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 October 26#Embraer concept art, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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/Militi M.B.1. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

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/Air France Flight 072 (1993). - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion on including this text at Talk:Scaled Composites 401. Additional editor input would be useful in establishing a consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the specs for one variant of the General Electric J85 engine? An IP user has been modifying the specs to cover a range of unspecified variants, when only one needs to be given. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The ref for the J85 specs, an annex for a technical book published by Springer, seems fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Lacoste (talk • contribs)

Thanks, but I'm unable to access that source at this time. Does it have the specs for the J85-21? That's the one I intended to use, as it is afterburning. 07:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, pp. 282-283 (pdf: pp. 16-17)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Luft'46 and The Aerodrome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Viking CL-515 be covered in a new article, just as the CL-415 (Bombardier 415 Super Scooper) exists separately from the CL-215 (Canadair 215 Scooper) ? It's another generational update/upgrade. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It is covered as a minor variant at Canadair CL-415#Variants, but you could trying making a case for a separate article if it is different enough from the 415 and there are enough references about it that it wouldn't just be a small stub article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The 515 is supposed to be available as a non-firefighting amphib from the factory, and as a convertible firefighter/transport, so it's quite different right there. More different than the 215 is from the 415 -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The CL-515 is not a new design, it's just a (proposed) derivative. New avionics and a larger door aren't sufficient ground to start a new article..--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The redirects Canadair CL-515 and Viking CL-515 should cover this.  Stepho  talk  11:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

An editor just added Blohm & Voss P 208, Blohm & Voss P 212, Škoda-Kauba P14 and Henschel Hs 117 to Category:Abandoned projects of Nazi Germany, which looks a pretty recent creation. They are already in Category:Abandoned military aircraft projects of Germany. Hundreds of therse aircraft projects are becoming notable as records are declassified or rediscovered and books are published about them. Often they were an ephemeral paper project studied for a few weeks, produced at a meeting alongside several other such, and promptly discarded. Is it sensible to put them all in these categories, or should we rationalise the category tree? For example should we create a Category:Abandoned Nazi aircraft projects of Germany and make it a subcategory of the others? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories on Wikipedia are a constant organization issue, especially when people just keep making more of them arbitrarily. In this case Category:Abandoned projects of Nazi Germany was started some 14 months ago. More specific cats are probably more useful, so in answer to your question, "yes". - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It may well be due to my own lack of insight (if not outright stupidity) but I never saw much use in the mere concept of categories. The few times I tried to consult them in some quest for enlightenment, they never helped, at most perhaps very exceptionally. So my vote is for "do not create any new categories, unless clearly proven useful". Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Every time I do "page hits" comparisons on categories on Wikipedia my conclusion is that readers aren't using them. Overall it is probably not worth spending a lot of time on them, at least at the expense of improving articles. For example, the category under discussion here Category:Abandoned projects of Nazi Germany has an average of two page views per day. That is probably just editors adding pages and checking them; likely no reader views at all. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

This does appear to be a wider phenomenon. Besides such delights as Category:Proposed World War II military aircraft of Germany we also have similar categories for shedloads of other countries. Sometimes, life is too short and precious to waste; I think I will follow others here in ignoring the whole Babel of nonsense. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I started FA review on D. B. Cooper. Your input and contributions are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We have a declared, paid, COI editor who has been trying add a bunch of text to this article. I have them explaining what they want to do on the talk page now at Talk:Electravia#Important_information_added. They have provided some proposed text and refs, but the text is mostly not supported by the refs (some is) and is far too promotional in nature. It all needs completely rewriting to incorporate the company history into the article. That is a worthwhile endeavour, but the refs provided are multiple, complex and all in French. My ability to translate the refs into English and correlate them all into some new text that covers the company history has been exceeded. Is there any other editor here who has enough fluency in French to assist here? - Ahunt (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello all! I've written something about an individual aircraft in one of my sandboxes. I have a small question though: should I create the article as "Deli Mike", the clear common name, or should I stick to "Airbus A340 TC-JDM", which is the standard use in most individual aircraft articles? Thanks! (Also feel free to fix spelling mistakes! xD) ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this article passes WP:GNG? The only conceivably notable aspect is the unusual unreliability, referenced only at [3],[4] and [5].— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Having read the draft article I was thinking the same thing as @Steelpillow:, it does not even come close to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Notability#Individual aircraft. An aircraft that goes unservivcable a lot? I owned one of those years ago. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely an interesting story, but not unique. All operators probably have stories about "hangar queens" that spent more time in repair than flying. That might be a notable topic itself, if we can.find significant coverage that meets GNG. BilCat (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I won’t get into the notability of the topic (everyone else has done a great job with that), but I’ll attempt to answer the original question. The name of an article on an individual aircraft should follow WP:COMMONNAME, which is generally the aircraft’s name. An aircraft’s registration or serial number are usually only used if the aircraft has no name. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a move discussion at Talk:Curtiss YP-37#Requested move 8 January 2022 involving at least two articles which may be of interest to the project, as it could affect the titles of other aircraft articles also. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

A new user has created this article with no sources whatsoever. I've been unable to.find anything in a G-search, so I suspect it to be a hoax, in line with.the user's other unsourced claims in other articles. It's currently PRODded, but if anyone has access to any reliable sources about it, please add them to the article. On the other hand, if it's a definite hoax, it should be deleted as soon as possible. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Enikon is a Croatian aerospace company specialising in airliner cabin trims and parts. The Greek company mentioned maintains aircraft only, no mention of any design work. Perhaps it's coincidence but T-21 and Tutor are both Slingsby glider types. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it carries all the hallmarks of a hoax. I have posted a warning on the user's talk page about their general lack of sourcing, and several of us have reverted all their other article edits. It remains to be seen whether that will draw them into discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

In fact the infobox "Primary users" link to the Hellenic Air Force is clearly a hoax, so I think that Template:Db-hoax is probably justified already. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank all! That one definitely smelled! BilCat (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

And the user was indef blocked for edit warringunconstructive editing and adding fictitious content. BilCat (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is mainly intended to cover aircraft designated under the 1924 USAAS and 1962 Tri-Service designation systems. However, articles on aircraft designated under other US designation systems (like the 1922 USN system) or even similarly structured non-US systems may also be affected by this discussion. Also, sorry in advance for the wall of text.

In the move discussion at Talk:Curtiss YP-37#Requested move 8 January 2022, it was brought up that there is an unwritten standard to include the last status prefix used by a non-production aircraft in the article's title. The problem I have with this is that, in cases like the Curtiss YP-37 and Bell YFM-1 Airacuda, the last status prefix used ("Y" in these cases) was not the only status prefix used (in both cases, there was a prototype with the "X" prefix). To understand why this is a problem, one must first understand how the very similar 1924 USAAS and 1962 Tri-Service designation systems work.

For both systems, distinct aircraft types are designated with a basic mission letter followed my a number (for example, "P-51" means "Pursuit aircraft type 51"). To denote variants, a letter is added after the number (for example, P-51D), though early on the first production variant usually lacked such a letter (the first production P-51 variant was the "P-51", the second was "P-51A", and so on), but this was changed in 1948 to avoid confusion between the variant and the type as a whole. Status prefixes and mission modifiers were also used to denote special variants, such as prototypes or variants intended for roles other than what the type was initially designed for. Both the status prefix and the mission modifier are located before the basic mission letter. If a status prefix/mission modifier is used in conjunction with a variant letter, then the aircraft is generally considered a sub-variant of variant denoted by the letter (the XP-51D is considered a sub-variant of the P-51D), otherwise, it is usually considered a distinct variant (the YF-16 variant is distinct from the production variants).

With this information, it becomes clear that an aircraft with an "X" prefix is distinct from an aircraft with a "Y" prefix. Therefore, it cannot be said that the XFM-1 was a variant of the YFM-1 or vice versa, but that both are distinct variants of the "FM-1" type (not to be confused with any hypothetical "FM-1" production variants).

I propose several solutions to fix this fallacy in article titles:

• Proposal 1 - We remove status prefixes from the titles of articles on aircraft which had more than one such prefix officially assigned to it during its lifetime, whether such variants were actually built or not. Under this proposal, aircraft which only had one prefix assigned can keep their prefix in their titles. Personally, I think this proposal is more compatible with WP:COMMONNAME.
• Proposal 2 - We remove status prefixes from all article titles unless the article specifically covers that variant (for example, Lockheed YF-22).
• Proposal 3 - Same as Proposal 1, but also remove the mission modifier for aircraft which were assigned multiple mission modifiers throughout their service history (Boeing CH-47 Chinook covers the "HH-47" and "MH-47" in addition to the "CH-47").
• Proposal 4 - Same as proposal 2, but also remove the mission modifier for all aircraft unless the article specifically covers that variant (for example, Bell AH-1 Cobra).

Now I realize that some of you may think that these proposals go against WP:COMMONNAME (to an extent, 2 and 4 do), but to quote the third paragraph of that guideline, Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. While many reliable sources use a status prefix to refer to an aircraft type as a whole, it is inaccurate to do so when multiple prefixes were assigned to different variants. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• No change. None of these is suitable. There is no "fallacy in article titles" to fix. In particular, there is no demand that every type discussed in an article must be a sub-variant; we sometimes include less directly related types for one reason or another, especially prototypes and predecessors. The common convention of including the last status prefix assigned is at least as good as any other and changing to anything else will confuse and irritate the knowledgeable reader more than it will help the novice. We have redirects and child articles to help with any disambiguation that might be necessary, and any opinions on accuracy will differ over accuracy with respect to what? To some editorial opinion here, or to established convention? No, we cannot cherry-pick which characters in the established conventions we keep and which we ignore. This is not an exception to WP:COMMONAME. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I follow. One, a knowledgeable reader would know that the "X" and "Y" are not part of the overall type designation, so I fail to see how removing them would cause confusion among knowledgeable readers. Two, you seem to be suggesting that a "Y" designated aircraft is a distinct type from an "X" designated aircraft. That is not how US designation systems work, "X" and "Y" denote variants of a type. According to WP:NAIR, while an aircraft type may be notable, it is not normally advisable to have a separate article for subtypes, much less individual airframes, and it is often the case that despite the aircraft type being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not. Because of this, creating child articles for the "X" and "Y" variants is not usually a good idea because they rarely are notable on their own. In a similar case to the JN-4 Jenny, many sources may use the designation of the most common variant to refer to the type as a whole, but that doesn't mean that it is accurate. Unless we rewrite the articles to cover the variant specified in the title, the titles will remain inaccurate and misleading. Any arguments that it the variant name is the common name are moot when said name is inaccurate. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I will point out that United States Military Aircraft Since 1909 (1989) lists the type as "P-37" without status prefixes on Page 748. Therefore, the determined in reliable sources part of the inaccuracy exception is met. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That Amazon link does not offer a "See inside" feature, so is useless here. Google Books does at least reveal that "One other P-36 variant does deserve mention. This was the XP-37, ...", so I think that example is not going to help your case in any meaningful way. As for the rest, we may agree to differ and wait for consensus to arbitrate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The Aircraft in Profile No. 80 Hawk 75 by the same Peter M. Bowers only refers to "XP-37" and "YP-37". GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Steelpillow The book is using "XP-37" to refer to the prototype of the P-37 type. You will notice that whenever "XP-37" or "YP-37" is mentioned, it is referring to their respective variants, not the type as a whole. The only time the type as a whole is mentioned is the example I provided.

GraemeLeggett I cannot check that source since my library doesn't have it. Does the book use either term to refer to the type as a whole, or just the individual variants? - ZLEA _T\^C 20:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

As individual variants under the company designation "Curtiss 75I". (listed between the 75H and 75J) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that, Model 75I was the company designation for both P-37 variants. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And the book does so without mentioning the "type" P-37 at all. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with Steelpillow nothing wrong with how we handle it at the moment, if an aircraft didnt get past the X or Y phase then it is the common name to include the prefix. MilborneOne (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• No Change - As Steel lays out, there's nothing wrong with what we've got, though that doesn't preclude individual articles from changing based on sources and common name. BilCat (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• No change - It has been very well explained that the current system is not broken. In fact, I would observe - using one of the examples used - using "P-37" for the XP-37 and YP-37 could be argued as being a form of original research, as a "P-37" without prefix never existed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking the non-existent "P-37" variant for the "P-37" type. The type designation "P-37" is used on Page 748 of United States Military Aircraft Since 1909 (1989). In fact, all of the types listed lack status prefixes, confirming that such prefixes are not needed to identify a type under the USAAS designation system (the XP-59 is the only exception, but only because the "P-59" designation was assigned twice). - ZLEA _T\^C 16:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that both authors of that work have been cited, variously in this thread and the earlier one, using the conventional naming in other works, we cannot regard anything they write as a reliable precedent. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've said it many times and I'll say it again, they were using "XP-37" and "YP-37" in the context of individual variants, not as a type. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps it also bears repeating that Bowers in Aircraft in Profile No. 80: Hawk 75 and Swanborough in The Complete Book of Fighters both used the conventional naming, thus defeating any attempt to support one or other usage by citing them either way. (FWIW I have not always found the Smithsonian to be entirely reliable; bearing their imprint gives me little confidence in Swanborough and Bowers' editorial oversight.) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any reliable sources that have investigated Alexander Kartveli's involvement in the design of the A-10? We seem to have a number of editors, mainly IPs, that are insisting that he "designed" the A-10. His obituary from the NY Times mentions the F-105 as the last aircraft he was involved with, but it does mention that he did consulting work with Republic after his retirement, giving no specifics. This claims seems to originate in low-quality sources primarily from the country of Georgia, and others online. I don't ever recall reading about his involvement with A-10 in the books I have on the aircraft. Any thoughts on how to settle this? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Refs, it needs actual, real refs. - Ahunt (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:NATs who add this don't understand that! That's why I'm trying to see if anyone has ever published research on it, or a source that details any involvement he might have had with the A-10 project. BilCat (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll check my library later. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've checked every book on the A-10's development I could find, none of them even mention Kartveli. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• That seems about right. I don't recall ever seeing his name in my A-10 books and other books that cover it. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I have also gone though a bunch of reference books from the earlier days of the A-10 introduction period and found no mention of Kartveli, either. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suspect sockpuppetry. Checkout the user contribs of the Kartvelli fans: Tethryss (talk · contribs), Badeumus (talk · contribs), GrasshopperK (talk · contribs), NoReformers (talk · contribs) and SneakyStephano (talk · contribs). See also this comment on another user's talk page. I notice at leat two IPs aiding the nonsense: 50.90.211.22 (talk · contribs) and 114.73.105.216 (talk · contribs), so either there is a tag-team going or the user has a dynamic IP. Either way, I'd suggest you can safely abandon any search for truth in the claim, and will find a visit to WP:SPI altogether more productive. Tethryss has the longest-established account, so that is the one that should head the request. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Steel. We probably need to do both approaches, in case the SPI doesn't pan out for whatever reason, we still have research to fall back on. That's partly why I asked if anyone knew of specific published research into this issue. BilCat (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I have now requested a sockpuppet investigation, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tethryss. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, the first investigator has unearthed/linked to a couple of YouTube discussions involving several individuals. May turn out to be an impromptu tag team, we shall see. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks! It is disruptive editing from multiple people instead. This seems sufficient to justify protection of the article from IPers (semi protection ?) for a while or maybe long term. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, please ask an admin to protect it. - Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

As this is apparently a campaign to disrupt Wikipedia for fun, then presumably someone will block those concerned.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I was tempted to join the Reddit discussion, as I'm apparently "the Wikipedia editor with 190,000 edits", but I'd have to create an account (what an interesting concept!), and I wouldn't want it connected with my Wikipedia account. BilCat (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahunt I've put in an RPP. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Super. - Ahunt (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Throughout www.alexanderkartveli.com his involvement in the A-10 design is repeated many times, including a video link to some other person (museum curator?). What that involvement was exactly is not defined. If he wasn't at all involved in the A-10 design then these claims are notable for being untrue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nimbus227 Youtube is not a reliable source. As for alexanderkartveli.com, it appears to be invoking a sense of nationalist pride by tying the A-10's reputation to a Georgian designer; a claim which doesn't appear to be supported by any reliable sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Are we getting into WP:HOAX territory here? - Ahunt (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:HOAX is about creating the hoax on Wikipedia. This fake news was created or spread on YouTube, and whether it is a hoax or just over-enthusiastic imaginings is neither clear nor relevant. I have some sympathy for Georgian nationalism; they have had a long, er, history of Soviet rewriting of history to unscramble, and we can hardly be surprised if related events in the West get caught up in that process from time to time. But fairytale, this one is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this useful or not? Would this imply that we need Category:Non-factual aviation publications or Category:Fictional aviation publications? - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure it makes sense, not a phrase I would use or have ever seen. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It certainly is not a term I have seen used in aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely over-zealous and needs rolling back. Every bookshop saves its Aviation shelves for factual works, while Biggles and his ilk go in the Fiction section. Truly a no-brainer. I have invited the category creator Headphase (talk · contribs) on their talk page, to join this discussion. Several others which they have created are already the subject of speedy deletes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a better term would be "technical aviation publications"? My logic is that there are many operational publications like maps, charts, and weather products which fit into an 'other' category that wouldn't really be considered mass media, and also some pubs which may be physically printed as books, but aren't written as such (Practical Test Standards come to mind). Headphase (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I would support moving it to something like Category:Aviation technical publications. Not sure where it would for for parent cats, though. Would it still belong in Category:Aviation media? - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Headphase, thank you for responding. Better to start with the current way Wikipedia does things. We have a high-level Category:Publications, with a relevant sub-category Category:Publications by interest. Meanwhile Category:Aviation is a subcategory of Category:Transport and has its own subcategories which include Category:Aviation media and Category:Works about aviation‎ (which last is empty and also a sub-category of Category:Works about transport). There is some obvious rationalisation to be done here, and the straight forward "Category:Aviation publications" would appear to fit well into the general scheme, as a sub-category of several others. So that is what I would propose here. Do others agree? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I like Category:Aviation publications as a solution! - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah Category:Aviation publications would be good. My only question; would the existing Category:Aviation mass media fit inside of that? Or does the term "Publications" imply something different than books/magazines/etc., so both would be equally-ranked under the larger Category:Aviation media? Headphase (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the exact topology of the category tree in this discussion. There is no overall standard for these particular categories on Wikipedia that I can see (or, if there is supposed to be then exceptions are widespread). We can take each such rearrangement on its merits; WP:BRD (the "be bold - revert - discuss" cycle) is a good way to get the uncontroversial stuff done and to identify where Project consensus needs building. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I came across these two navboxes this evening, Template:Valtion lentokonetehdas aircraft and Template:IVL, VL and Valmet aircraft (which was originally Valmet aircraft). I'm struggling to see the difference between them, noting that the second template was expanded and moved by a prolific page and template mover.

I'm no expert but it appears that IVL and VL are the same entity but Valmet is not so I would suggest restoring the Valmet template to its former state. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

PS, Amazingly they only appeared together in one article! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems some sort of merger would be in order. - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading further they are related, we have two articles, Valtion lentokonetehdas which became Valmet in or around 1951. The Finnish navbox template has two manufacturer groups and the third group is unbuilt design projects. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Best solution then? - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Valtion lentokonetehdas aircraft is clearer (less foreign words) and has no redirects. There is a redirect for Valmet aircraft (to the other template). After checking nothing is being lost I would ask for Template:IVL, VL and Valmet aircraft to be deleted at TfD, acknowledging that it was created a year before the one that would remain. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Transclusion count is 21 to two in favour of the Valtion lentokonetehdas aircraft template. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like an easy solution there, then. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at TfD. There was a difference in the number of links in each template, the nominated one listed variants (of some types). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

These two articles appear to refer to the same homebuilt aircraft type. The design is variously attributed to Geoffrey Siers or William Buethe. I don't have any copies of 'authoritative' Janes AWA, etc. I believe that the DIY plans were offered by Jeffair (ie Siers, his prototype N19GS) from about 1976, and one of the later builders was Buethe (his one aircraft N78WB). I refer to them all as Jeffair Barracuda. Perhaps only Buethe now (?) offers plans, and that is perhaps the 'Barracuda II' ? PeterWD (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

There is some information at the EAA, there's a note that the rights were sold in 1982, an editor with EAA membership could read the magazine articles. There are other prefixes which could just be the builder's surname. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Either way it looks like a merge is in order. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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/2022 Þingvallavatn air crash. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

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/1986 Ljósufjöll air crash....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates_ for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Template:Aerotec_aircraft. BilCat (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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/Air Tahoma Flight 587. - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:RSN about use of the website f16.net as a source.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We have a debate over the Airbus A220 main sections: does the Airbus takeover chronology warrant a separate Legal aspects main section, or should it go in the usual Development main section? As we are only two discussing this point, further input would be welcome. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is attracting an unusual number of accident reports, which I suspect are not notable. Views?TSRL (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I just now noticed that articles about jet fighters no longer contain a pointer to the fighter's generation, at least not as prominently as before.

I'm sure there was a discussion and a new consensus about this. Could someone please point out where I can find this discussion?

Thanks! --84.132.144.110 (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably because outside PR departments and fighter fans it is pretty meaningless and has not been part of these articles for a long time so not a recent change. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

See here for mentions in this talk page's archives, as it's been discussed on multiple occasions. BilCat (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --84.132.144.110 (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone, Airbus A220#Bombardier BRJ-X is illustrated with a fair use promo picture of the earlier File:Bombardier BRJ-X.jpg concept. This early concept was dropped in favour of stretching the CRJ700 into the CRJ900, but there are obvious similarities with the later CSeries (now A220). Do you think this illustration is useful to understand the CSeries evolution, or is the text sufficient ? Please add your comments in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 March 15, thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Have we decided if www.airwar.ru. is acceptable?TSRL (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought the previous answer was "no". - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

And not listed at WP:RSPSOURCES at all btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be added to WP:AV/R#Problematic sources. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Just over a month ago I was hauled to the headmaster's office (full thread here). I was correcting what appeared to be a no-brainer situation. To save clicking the link here is my explanation:

Category:Glider aircraft is a parent category of Category:Sailplanes, an example is the Schempp-Hirth Discus which is in Category:1980s German sailplanes which is a sub-category of Category:1980s sailplanes whose parent category is Category:Sailplanes. Wikipedia:Overcategorization is the guideline.

I would like to confirm consensus to continue removing the parent category (currently 460 entries) or otherwise. Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. You are doing a good job there. Let us know if head orifice need a good talking-to. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Carry on! The parent category is redundant if a child category is present. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Epic Aircraft. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here. In the past I have handled COI edit requests for this article, but I read though this request and it is just too huge and time consuming for me to handle it. Each item needs careful weighing and vetting, some parts might be okay, much isn't, so perhaps some other editor will have the time available to take it on. - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@MaryGaulke: Can you show it as a series of diffs as explained in Talk:Epic_Aircraft#TLDR? thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem – working on this now and will reply there. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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/Gogetair Aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Viking Air, Longview Aviation Capital, Pacific Sky Training and De Havilland Canada have all been consolidated under the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada name. Should they be merged? Discussion at Talk:de Havilland Canada § Merge with Viking Air?. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Just accidentally stumbled across the proposed deletion of all the aircraft stub article by decade categories. Editors may wish to comment here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Outcome was keep. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There has been a proposal to split List of military aircraft of the United States since last August. Perhaps some more eyes would help move it along. See here. - wolf 04:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Since I'm a bit unsatisfied with the brightness of one of the images used in Cessna 150, I've just suggested a couple of possible modifications to that image in the talk page, and so I'm seeking feedback from here. Opinions welcome. Thanks. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I've finished an edit/rewrite of Pacific Clipper. Because I know I don't own the article, I'd like someone else to look at it.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There's been some discussion about about the world's first pressurised airliner (including subtleties of the aircraft being designed as an airliner or modified from something else, and whether it went into service or not) and whether it belongs on the Boeing 307 Stratoliner article at all. The current discussion is stalemating. Would some like to chime in at Talk:Boeing_307_Stratoliner#first_pressurized_aircraft ? Thanks.  Stepho  talk  08:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

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/Norwegian Air DY1933 Iran diversion. - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

We seem to be having a Wikipedia:Nationalist editing issue on this article. Some additional eyes would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the project assistance on this issue, in particular @Steelpillow:. It turns out the editor in question was a sock puppet of a banned user and has now been banned as well, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cypriot Chauvinist. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's a shame about the user, as I have a lot of sympathy for the Greek Cypriots too. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I have been there - Cyprus is a lovely place. - Ahunt (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the DLR Smartfish notable? Never built, so not notable by default and appears to fail WP:GNG. Seems to me it is just some daft punter's idea of a subsonic wonderplane to fleece even dafter investors. Should we WP:PROD it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

PROD? yes! - Ahunt (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The article Republic F-84 Thunderjet's Current A-class article has been nominated for review here, with the main problem noted so far being sourcing. If anyone wants to help improve the article to keep its A-class, or to help in the re-assessment, then please chip in.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Many prototype and one-off experimental drones get flown for various reasons. Do we have any notability criteria for them? It seems unreasonable to follow the criterion for manned aircraft at WP:NAIR, that if it flew then it is de facto notable. For example the Hyfish was powered by an innovative fuel cell but has no other claim to fame. It is covered in the odd small article at sources such as Military Aerospace and CNN. But is that enough to meet WP:GNG? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

We have a new editor who just started this stub article on what seems to be a relatively non-notable accident. Note there is already a much longer and more detailed version at Draft:ExecuFlight Flight 1526. Despite the article stating it was a Hawker 800, the sole refs says it was a BAe 125-700A. The accident is already listed at British Aerospace 125#Accidents and incidents. Suggestions? - Ahunt (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It's been moved to the draft space, and I've nominated it for speedy deletion. I don't see any useful way the new draft can be merged into the existing draft, so I think deletion is the way to go. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense to me. It looks like the original title Execuflight Flight 1526 was moved to Draft:Execuflight Flight 1526 and then redirected to Draft:ExecuFlight Flight 1526, while Execuflight Flight 1526 was then recreated and redirected to British Aerospace 125#Accidents and incidents. I think that solves it for now, if no one starts over. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Also of note, a previous version of the same article was deleted and merged as not notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execuflight Flight EFT1526. - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

User:ZLEA has added all the Auster designs as related to the Piper Cub and added the Template:Piper Cub aircraft to all the Auster and Beagle aircraft. I think it is a bit far fetched to consider the Auster aircraft as part of the "Piper Cub" family as they are very really distant cousins at best, thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree - that is a bit of a stretch. I have to ask, any WP:RS saying that they are? - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I was mainly basing their inclusion on a statement from the Taylorcraft Auster article, which states "The Auster was a twice-removed development of an American Taylorcraft design of civilian aircraft, the Model A." I somewhat agree that it is a stretch, especially since it is such an early branch from the Cub lineage. I'll leave it up to you whether the Auster aircraft stay in the template. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that Auster and Beagle aircraft are removed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Auster and Beagle removal from the template. Piper J-3 Cub has no less than 12 navboxes now, I will collapse them into a shell which I have done for other articles where these 'family' navboxes have been added and pushed the farm 'over the edge'. Related perhaps is that many aircraft types have extra navboxes listing what their designation was/is in a particular air force, there should be a discussion on whether these are necessary. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The Piper Cub was a development of the Taylor Cub - which was independently developed by both Piper and Taylorcraft, and the latter's developments were licence built in the UK by Auster, who proceeded to make their own developments, which were taken over by Beagle. It makes sense to put all of them together as they are related, and not particularly distantly, but not necessarily under the Piper Cub name as their common ancestor precedes the Cub (although it didn't differ much from the early Cubs, and isn't as well known). Arrowing A-2 Chummy -> Taylor E-2 Cub -> Taylor J-2 Cub -> (Taylor becomes Piper) -> Piper J-2 -> Piper J-3 Cub -> etc. Taylor left when it became Piper and started Taylorcraft with the Taylor-Young Model A (developed from the Taylor J-2) which then became the Taylorcraft A which evolved into its own lineage, which splits again with Auster. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

On a side note any idea where Template:Aircraft manufactured in Canada "Certified/factory-built aircraft manufactured in Canada" came from clearly not a standard nav box and I dont see anybody creatting one for the other 100 odd countries, a US navbox in this style would stupidly large. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You would have to ask @NiD.29: about the reasons for that particular nav box. - Ahunt (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

A Nav box connects related items together to provide more direct navigation paths - just because some folks don't use them, and actively loath them does not change that - nor does it change that many people do in fact use them. US aircraft are already covered by dozens upon dozens of different Nav boxes, so don't need a national one, but for the smaller countries, where most of the designs aren't already covered under common designation systems, or by a small number of large manufacturers, it is useful. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If a navbox doesn't have a parent article (usually linked in the header bar) then it is very likely to be questioned, it's one of the five criteria listed at WP:NAVBOX. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 06:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There are similar problems with Template:Lockheed Martin aircraft that has been added to non-Lockheed aircraft. I reverted one insertion to the Armstrong Whitworth Ensign article with the edit summary of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL but there was actually a linked number 5 with the no-wiki text 'design study'. How can an aircraft that is already flying be a design study for another company? Other insertions have been reverted by other editors. If there is a link from 'vega' to these aircraft a new navbox should be created and an article (or expanded articles) to clearly explain what the connection to these aircraft types is (if there is one). Our job here is to clarify encyclopedic subjects and link between them, not muddy the waters. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The 'Vega' line title presumably relates to the Vega Aircraft Corporation and not the Lockheed Vega aircraft which it would be understandable for a reader to assume. The line is unlinked. The B-17 appears as 'licensed production' and its article gained the Lockheed navbox, we generally don't link aircraft built by other companies during wartime, we would have Spitfires in the Westland navbox for instance. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Since the American Airlines order last week, the Boom Overture article go has been subject to users making claims that the aircraft is a scam. The latest attempt focuses on the company's connection with Roll-Royce, per this diff. There is a source which I've never heard of, but that doesn't mean it isn't reliable. However, the user has misrepresented some of what the. source says. Has anyone else seen any quality reliable sources covering this issue? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

A denizen of the Secret Projects forum has been making similar heated claims and has had to be moderated down by the admins. We can safely revert their nonsense here. For a current take on Boom and its competitors "edging closer to commercial reality", Flight Global subscribers may read this article. More sources have been posted in the later pages of the Secret Projects Boom thread. R-R do seem to have made it clear that they are not prepared to fund development of a commercial supercruise engine on spec. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I made a move request for the Fairchild PT-19 article. However, due to "tradition" I am somewhat ambivalent myself on the official status of the name, so I was hoping for some additional expert input. If anyone would like to contribute, please do. –Noha307 (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

See Template:Stealth aircraft. I'm not sure we really need this. Even the creator seems not to understand what are and aren't stealth aircraft, and it seems like a good way to start perpetual arguments over what should and shouldn't be listed. It currently has flags too. Ugh. BilCat (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Off to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion? - Ahunt (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Next we'll be having Template:Canard aircraft, Template:Supersonic aircraft and Template:Aircraft with the nosewheel leg longer than the main undercarriage. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, does any one understand what licenses on Flikr are compatible with Wikimedia Commons? I've found 2 photos of the Bell 207 Sioux Scout that would be great additions to the article, here and here. They are under some sort of Creative Commons Share Alike License, but I no nothing about which licences are compatible with Commons and/or Wikipedia. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That photo is under a "Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)" licence, which is compatible: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the Flickr2Commons tool can be quite helpful in that regard and automatically detects incompatible licensing. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Would one of you be willing to upload these? I'm out of my element on that, and not up to trying to figure out the upload tool just yet. (I can add them to the article to do my part.) BilCat (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I can do that! - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'm reading the Flickr tool page, and I may use it another time. BilCat (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it is a super-simple tool to use and as Colin notes, won't upload any photos unless the licence is compatible, so it makes it pretty worry-free. I uploaded all four from there (they were on sale!), so have at it! - Ahunt (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again. The PD images in the article were quite atrocious, but all I've ever been able to find. BilCat (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I've found a vintage color photo here, but no licensing information. It's probably either a US Army or Bell photo, but only an Army photo would be PD. BilCat (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's a ZIP of about 10 photos. I'll see If I can find any online somewhere with source info. BilCat (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem, all you have to do is ask and answers will appear. You may want to update the article to add this "aircraft on display". Flickr says it is in "Building 6008, U.S. Army Aviation Museum, Fort Rucker, Alabama"!

Incidentally you don't need to even bookmark the Flickr tool, it is linked from the general Commons upload page. It is self-explanatory on how to use it from there. All you need are the Flickr URLs and the rest is mostly automatic. Well you may need to add Commons cats... - Ahunt (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons has enough cats already! BilCat (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There are cats on the internet? Wow! Who knew? - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Cats own the internet! LOL. BilCat (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Bell 207 Sioux Scout
• 
  Bell 207 Sioux Scout
• 
  Bell 207 Sioux Scout
• 
  Bell 207 Sioux Scout

The article List of light transport aircraft has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, Undefined criteria

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EngineeringEditor (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

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/2022 Longmont mid-air collision. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a list of unreliable sources for aircraft/aviation? For example the article on the Gotha Go P.60 cites two websites, Luft46 and The Military Factory, and nothing else. Is either of these reliable? Luft46 used to be awful but has been cleaning up its act, but I don't know how we stand with it today. The other, I have no idea about. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Military factory is mentioned here and here on WP:RSN - while there isn't extensive discussion in either of the mentions what's there isn't terribly positive. From what i've seen of it, then it should be purged with fire.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I've purged the article of both sources and have added a bunch of books that cover German WW II aircraft prototypes and unbuilt designs. Other than those specific to the Gotha aircraft, I'd suggest purging those unreliable sources across Wikipedia and replacing them with cites from the books that I've provided. The first step should be deleting all references to the online sources from the articles, letting them stand as unreferenced paras until somebody feels like working on them, and adding the books to give editors some RS's to use to improve the articles. I'm unlikely to do many of them as improving the P.60 article alone is proving to be more troublesome that I'd expected. If I didn't plan on improving it to GA quality, I could rest easier, but once you've assembled all the sources and started reading, it just makes more sense to finish the job :-( --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a vast improvement. I see you have also started a discussion on the sources on its talk page; I'll reply further over there, when I can grab the next moment. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

To address the original question: Do we have a list of unreliable sources for aircraft/aviation? We do have a list of reliable ones: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources which includes Problematic sources which mentions Luft'46 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Luft'46 and The Aerodrome. Please feel free to update that page! - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the Military factory to it, Luft '46 was already there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Astonished to find that the article on Messerschmitt relied almost entirely on Luft '46 cites. this was its state before I cleaned them out. A great many articles on German aircraft and manufacturers are in the same boat, by the look of things. I have cleaned up a few more, but it looks like a huge job to both do that and find good sources to replace it everywhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have added the Secret Projects discussion forum to the list of problematic sources. It carries many discussions on what material is and is not reliable. Obviously, much unreliable material gets posted there too. I have noted that citations on Wikipedia should reference the material which is evidently reliable, and not the discussion as such. If others feel that this is not quite right, please open a discussion on the Resources talk page; revert my words to taste, per BRD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Problematic sources for the ongoing discussion about yet more such sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have given an update on the state of play at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Resources#Update and would appreciate any help in purging the remaining cites. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This category was just newly created. Are we making categories for each military? I was thinking for some aircraft types like the Douglas DC-3 or Bell UH-1 Huey this sort of approach could add hundreds of categorizes to those articles. If I recall there was a past consensus on this, but I am not finding it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories or in the talk page archives. - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on whether anybody finds these categories useful. There are always fanatics who claim they do. Can't see it myself, but at least they are not as bad as the endless navboxes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If I remember these type of cats have long been frowned upon using the logic that aircraft like the C-47 could potential have hundreds of such user categories to no real value to the encyclopedia. I am sure similar categories have been deleted in the past MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe we have deleted these sorts of cats before, for just those reasons. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Project members might be interested in the long list of UAVs currently proposed for deletion, some have already been deleted. See User:SDZeroBot/PROD_sorting#History_and_Society/Transportation. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Most of these should have been proposed a long time ago. Run-of-the-mill drones are mostly not notable. The especially heavy spamming with Chinese playthings tells its own story; per WP:PROMO, "Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." A few probably should be justified in being kept, but with the Chinese so reluctant to publish in reputable English-language journals, they are not helping themselves establish notability here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Can someone with the appropriate permissions move User:Nigel Ish/Sandbox Dewoitine HD.780 to Dewoitine HD.780.? I can't do it as it is currently a redirect.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. BilCat (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Second opinions, intervention, etc. welcome at Flying car. See the page history for the blow-by-blow. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Flying car/Archive 1#Alef Model A, which you are welcome to join. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Flying car/Archive 1#Whitehead on whether or not Gustave Whitehead's No.21 model should be listed in the article on the flying car. Strong views are being put, and any sanity checks or views on consensus here would be very much appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

A discussion has also now been started on the Fringe noticeboard, see here. Participation in this is also more than welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This WikiProject covers many articles which include lists of aircraft. Some of those lists include both types which have flown and types which have not. Where a list includes both classes, a sortable table offers the opportunity for a Status column so that the distinction can be made transparent. For more about all this, see WP:AVILIST and its associated talk page.

Two changes recently proposed elsewhere include:

1. Split the mixed types out into flown and unflown lists, and abandon any idea of mixed lists. This goes directly against the reason we adopted the sortable table format.
2. Preface every such list with an article or section title which advises the reader of the fact, for example List of flown and unflown delta-wing aircraft instead of just List of aircraft with delta wings. It has been suggested in this edit comment that failing to do so breaches WP:ASTONISH.

These options would also affect the many bulleted lists, such as the overarching List of aircraft - which would become the List of flown and unflown aircraft but with no status indicator for the individual items. Do people here think that either of these is worth rolling out? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Project members might do well to read the relevant thread on WP:FTN, for context. [3] This clearly isn't an abstract discussion about lists of aircraft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is where one of these changes was proposed. It is the discussion I already notified in the previous thread above here. In it, AndyTheGrump accuses this WikiProject of wholesale policy breaches (if it isn't me making the whole WikiProject thing up, he seems unsure about that), which is one of the principal reasons I brought it here for clarification. Ever more wild accusations and proposals are being bandied around, so it is important that the project does make itself clear here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I have accused this Wikiproject of absolutely nothing. Instead, I have noted repeatedly that you have failed to provide the slightest evidence that the Wikiproject in any way supports the misleading list title in question. You claimed it was in accord with 'consensus'. Provide evidence for this 'consensus'. Now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Try following the links in my opening paragraph and having a read. No, my friend, it is you who repeatedly refuse to read and respond to the evidence I proffer. Note especially the information on Status, a topic you have been so assiduously avoiding. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

(ec) So, 'consensus' comes down to an essay you largely wrote yourself, interpreted by yourself to permit inclusion of Gustave Whitehead's non-flying (by mainstream consensus) machine in a list of 'flying cars'? An interpretation not in the slightest supported by anything the 'status' section actually says? Really? That's the best you have to offer? No actual discussion where any consensus on relevant topics was reached?. Anyway, this whole discussion is clearly a red herring, since the core issue is whether Wikipedia should be including fringe claims in the list at all, not about arbitrary 'status' labels. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seldom seen such absurd rambles here. You press me for evidence and then say it is irrelevant anyway. For the benefit of others I would note that the Status values include "Project" on the explicit understanding that "if a type has not flown then it remains a 'Project', whether or not construction was started or even finished". The accusation that this is "an interpretation not in the slightest supported" is given the lie in no uncertain terms. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

How about providing some evidence that despite appearances [4] you aren't using Wikipedia to promote historical revisionism against mainstream consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You are breaching WP:AGF again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

And yet again you are failing to provide a policy-based reason why Whitehead's non-flying machine (per WP:RS) should be promoted as a 'flying car'. You are of course entitled to hold any opinion you like on the matter. What Wikipedia does not however permit is engaging in such fringe promotion in articles. As you are no doubt already aware, given your continuing refusal to respond to the issue directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Andy: That does sound _very_ grumpy. Why the imperative? Why the "now"? Wikipedia content is all about collaboration. Neither was Rome built in one day, we are not in any hurry. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to 'collaborate' with someone who repeatedly refuses to address the core issue that began this discussion - the promotion of historical revisionist content, against mainstream consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump Can you please explain how Steelpillow has engaged in historical revisionism? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion of the fringe theories noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

He can't explain there, either. Believe it or not, the WP:FRINGE police are now wanting to turn our aircraft list style guide on its head, on the basis of one paranoid theory about one entry in one aircraft list. I know it sounds mad - and it is. But it is also serious. Do go and see for yourselves, the discussion he refers to is here. And if you care to comment there, so much the better. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

" WP:FRINGE police"? "one paranoid theory"? You forgot the bit about the shape-shifting lizards... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

"You forgot the bit about the shape-shifting lizards" Dang it, Andy's on to us... But seriously, it appears that Steelpillow has defines flying cars differently than you do. It hardly counts as revisionist history to have differing criteria for inclusion in a list. I suggest that you provide a real explanation for your accusations or retract them. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

How about no? Just because Steelpillow wants to spread the same discussion over multiple pages just so he can spin things his way doesn't mean that I'm obliged to play along. This discussion started at WP:FTN. It should have stayed there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

So be it. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This discussion does not belong here. It belongs on the article talkpages. As far as I'm aware, there is no rule that says that we have to clear edits with a Wikiproject before making them. That's just bizarre. If this WikiProject is in the habit of encouraging reverting in that fashion, then it should get out of that habit. jps (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This discussion ostensibly covers a great many articles. This WikiProject maintains a style guide for aircraft related articles. We have a specific guideline on aircraft list formats. That is what this discussion will hopefully feed into. It is all aimed at distilling consensus to achieve better articles more easily, not at world domination. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, 'distilled consensus' will be able to distinguish between style guides (generally good for consistency) and inclusion criteria (which by necessity have to be subject-specific, and are in no shape or form governed by 'style'). 'Better articles' are arrived at through careful consideration of the topic, of relevant reliable sources, and relevant Wikipedia policies. Not through inappropriate invocations of style guides as some sort of holy writ. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

That is true (although I choose not to perjure religion alone and include atheistic world domination in that) but do not forget that "criteria" are one of the things that WikiProjects are expected to address, and inclusion criteria for lists are a rather obvious example of that. We have a fair scatter or exceptions to our guides, and always will. Ultimately, people who regard this project discussion as fatuous have no obligation to engage in it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Saying we have no obligation to engage in it is one thing, but if you, as you did, revert an edit and say in the edit summary that it cannot be done unless/until there is discussion at a WikiProject, this strikes me as talking out of both sides of your mouth. jps (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

And petty bickering about purported edit summaries is going to improve this WikiProjject's styler guide exactly how? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Purported edit summaries"? Either you wrote the edit summary or you didn't. Either you believe that such edits need to be discussed at a Wikiproject or you don't. jps (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

A parallel discussion to this one has been started on the Flying car talk page, aimed only at that article. Much the same issues apply, so whatever logic dicates that one will also apply to all the others. You may wish to contribute there as well. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

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/Transition (aviation). - Ahunt (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

AIDC T-5 Brave Eagle currently has a non-template specs section. Could someone familiar with the proper template please add it to this article? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast! BilCat (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Your post caught me "on duty". - Ahunt (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

See here. Thanks. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft engine currently lacks the coding for the "Design group" and "built by" parameters used in Template:Infobox aircraft type. As the infobox is protected, could a template editor or admin please add those parameters to Template:Infobox aircraft engine? It would be especially useful for Soviet, Russian, and Ukrainian engines where an engine is designed by a design bureau, and built by a different factory. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I second that proposal! - Ahunt (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

This makes sense; I agree. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the support. Since there doesn't seem to be a template editor/admin watching the page today, I've made a request at Template talk:Infobox aircraft engine#Template-protected edit request on 26 November 2022. BilCat (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done It works the same as in the aircraft type infobox, so there should be no problem adding the new parameters to the engine infobox. BilCat (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What's the difference between manufacturer and builder? The doc page no longer appears to match the template.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• According to Template:Infobox_aircraft_type#Parameters, the Builder "manufactures the aircraft, but is not responsible for design". The template is not clear on manufacturer. I assume that designing and building are both done by the manufacturer. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  Fnlayson, Yup. Generally, it's the prime contractor(s). BilCat (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  I updated the wording for those parameters. Feel free to tweak or correct if needed. BilCat (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

• Good and simple add, thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A newly created article on the Cansa aircraft company has been prodded. A division of FIAT I believe or it was merged in to that company. It has an Italian article. I've added a few bits and pieces including the company navbox but a citation from a reliable source should save it, I can't physically access my book sources at the moment (Santa storage area). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the Prod with a request they give us a few weeks, but as the Prod was endorsed, I except the article to be AFDed shortly regardless. I've also added it to Wikidata, and there's an article in French too. I have Gunston's book on aircraft manufacturers, so I'll try to add it as a source when I get back to my library room presently. BilCat (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Since the article was only created two days ago, I've moved it to Draft:Cansa so it can be worked on without threat of deletion. I'll speak to the creator about using a draft next time. (Unless someone more diplomatic beats me to it!) BilCat (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm a WP:FR writer, and we have many articles translate from WP:EN. It's the case for Barringer Trophy, which is mainly sourced with soaring magazine by an author, @Tonycondon, inactive since 2017. 8 of these ref are missing their title. It seems that soaring is the magazine of the SAA, and that any member of the SAA can access them: SOARING MAGAZINE ONLINE. They might be such members right here (at least it's more probable to find some here than on the French Wikipedia). If it is the case, should it be possible for them to consult the 70's archives and complete the missing titles ?

Thanks, Gaillac (talk) 10:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I just found an old stub, Simple Plastic Airplane Design. It's about a type of r/c model airplane, so it's our usual type of article. I've never heard of it, so I've no idea if it's notable. Should it just be redirected somewhere else relevant? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The 'referencing' there is a mess with web links thrown in places and a forum page in the References section (I'll remove this one). -Fnlayson (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Fails WP:GNG, the referencing is hopelessly insufficient. The material is also used on model gliders, so I'd suggest a merge and redirect to Model aircraft#Flying models in the section on Construction. There might even be a whole paragraph worth preserving, or maybe just a one-liner somewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this new UAE-South Korea MC-X project has an article? There does not appear to be a Wiki MC-X article now. This may deserve a draft article if the project gets started. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway at Talk:Mikoyan MiG-29#Mig-29 Short range Myth. that may be of interest to editors. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 January 22 § Template:Infobox aircraft begin for a discussion about a series of infobox templates in the purview of this project. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Can someone fix the notification so it doesn't corrupt every single article that uses the infobox.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I tried but it is protected to prevent just this sort of mess. You need someone with then proper access to either remove the notice (preferable) or use the proper <noinclude> tagging. It is not acceptable to leave over 15,000 broken articles like that! - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I've raised this at ANI - hopefully this will get the attention of someone with appropriate template editor rights.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully it has been fixed. Not a good start to that discussion, though. - Ahunt (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the use of the Designer parameter in the aircraft infobox, at Template talk:Infobox aircraft type#Designer field. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Template talk:Zeppelin aircraft#"ZMe" aircraft. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The layouts in the Operators sections of some aircraft articles are getting quite ridiculous. For example, see Pilatus PC-6 Porter#Operators for an overly compact very-hard-to-read layout. The columns are so small that some of the entries are on multiple lines, making it even harder to read. Then there are the galleries. What's wrong with one straight column with photos on the right side? Not everyone uses a 24-inch or 32-inch monitor, and even some mobile users prefer to use webview, as Mobile View is quite sucky. I use a 10-inch tablet, and the view of that section is awful. I can just imagine how bad it looks like on a phone! See here for the diff before columns and galleries were added. It is a little long but very readable. BilCat (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that one needs fixing as you describe above. As far as galleries like that go: our policy at WP:GALLERY says: Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. So basically that means this must be fixed! - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I used the template:columns-list with a 15em column width. It's easily adjustable, try to change it to 20 or 25em (I tried 20). I use a 13 inch laptop, not really a giant screen. A single column was wasting space, so multiple columns are welcome. The beauty of the columns-list template is to adjust the number of columns to a defined column width, which can be set at the optimum for each case; so on a limited width phone, there will be a single column, and on a giant desktop there will be many columns, not a huge whitespace.

As for the gallery, I hadn't the gut of deleting it entirely as some editors seems to love having many operators pictured. It seems excessive to me, but I left the deletion for another editor, bolder than me!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Not all web browsers support those features, so it's quite mess those of use stuck behind walled-garden OSes. Given a choice between whitespace and hard to read, I go for whitespace, with thumb photos to help fill the space. BilCat (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We're in 2023, which browsers don't support columns? Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

They support columns, some just don't adjust well to fit the screen. BilCat (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I am using Firefox on a 1920X1080 px screen and that pages looks like a mess. - Ahunt (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's better to forgo columns with for Operators altogether. The intent is admirable, but it doesn't work well for everyone. BilCat (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

try to adjust the width first--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to give that a try, if you like! - Ahunt (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I already changed to 20em. I'm pretty sad Firefox seems to be subpar those days. Anyway, if it works with chrome (works for me) and safari (similar webkit i think) it's ok for 82%+ of users. I'm not sure establishing a rule for the minority would be a good thing.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Way too narrow - even at 20 em - its not the browser that's the problem, its that you are cramming too much information into the columns - once they have text in rather than flag tempates, it would be better to either remove them or have them REALLY wide - say 50–60 em.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Nigel Ish, it is not the browser, but just too much info crammed into too small a space. I have a theory that in the case of this one article, that just turning the non-compliant galleries into right images will sort the columning out just as it is, at normal browser widths of 1000-1500 px (I am using Firefox at 1500 px wide, which is probaly wider than most laptops do). - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Marc's removal of the galleries was good. I have added a single image to each section, so that the columning will at least be consistent on the whole page from section to section. At 1500 px browser width I see only a single column of text plus the right side pictures. At 1920 px (full screen width) I see three columns of text plus the images. With Marc's and my changes, perhaps others can have a look now and see what they think? - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no need for the columns to be wider than the widest line. I pushed to 30em, going above that would be a waste.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

With a modest screen width and only one column, the images take up half the display. They add nothing to the encyclopedic value of the list and, for the aforementioned reason, are counter-productive for some users. They should be wholly removed from this section, to make room for an extra column to appear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

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/2023 Isabela Cessna 206 disappearance. - Ahunt (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion ongoing about whether we should be including aircraft prices within article text at Talk:Boeing 747-400#Resale value. Additional input would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone think this accident is in anyway notable? - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it's notable yet. Is it still missing? BilCat (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The aircraft seems to be still missing, but that alone does not confer notability. Thousands of light aircraft are still missing. Best evidence is it crashed into the water and with 2 1/2 weeks now passed it is unlikely to be found. So: no notable people involved, no WP:LASTING effects of any kind and otherwise just one of thousands of light aircraft crashes globally each year. Basically WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on this one? If not I am going to send it to AfD in a few days. - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Isabela Cessna 206 disappearance. See below for full announcement. - Ahunt (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to close this out, all input at AfD was to delete it and it is now gone. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The word "uprated" is often changed to "upgraded", as many people think the former is a typo of the latter. Does anyone know of an article that covers the term "uprated" means, and/or what an "uprated engine" is? It would be useful to be able to like to such an article or article section, as we currently are able to do with attitude/altitude and planform/platform. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

In general it means an engine for a which a new version is produced that has an increased power output over the previous, or baseline version. One ref. The opposite is a "de-rated" engine which is limited to produce less power, usually to improve reliability or increase the time between overhauls. - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I had a vague idea of what it meant, so thanks for the fuller explanation. Is there an article somewhere where the concepts can be covered, so we can link to them/create some redirects? BilCat (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It is very general, so perhaps it could be added to Aircraft engine? - Ahunt (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any guideline against linking to Wiktionary, but there is this. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding something to aircraft engine would probably be good, though it's applicable to other vehicles' engines also. BilCat (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

It is a common enough engineering term, and not just in aeronautics. It is not the same as "upgraded", as in certain contexts de-rating an engine to improve life expectancy, reliability, fuel efficiency, cost, etc. in a given application can be seen as an upgrade. But WP:NOTDICTIONARY, so we should not go to town on it. I'd suggest explaining it briefly in the parent article on engines generally, maybe add a subsection on Uprating and de-rating to the Performance section there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds best to me. (And I agree an upgrade might include derating.) BilCat (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Just for fun, here's an example. In 1937 Arthur Clouston and F.E. Tasker bought the wreck of de Havilland DH.88 Comet racer K5084 off a scrappie, had it re-registered in its old guise as G-ACSS and got Essex Aero to rebuild it. Its old de Havilland Gipsy Six R racing engines were also available but Clouston declined, because they were so temperamental (which he had suffered from in the past). Instead he bought a couple of new Gispy Six II production engines. Although based on the Six R, these had been upgraded in many ways in order to greatly improve ease of operation, flexibility of installation, reliability, maintenance, the option for hydraulic propellers, and so forth. However, in order to achieve all this, the Six II had been de-rated to a slightly lower power output from the highly-tuned racing R version. So there you have it, an upgrade which involved de-rating. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The term normally used is rated power which redirects to power rating. That article mainly discusses electrical components but helicopter engines are mentioned at Power rating#other definitions. The section could be expanded and refine the redirect to link to that section. War emergency power uses the same redirect. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that article needs some attention. The power rating of an electrical component is how much it can be fed, whereas that of an engine is how much it can deliver. But the article structure does not make this sufficiently clear. Rather than try and make the mashup work (as a dictionary would), I think it cleaner to treat them in different articles, and add the odd hatnote/dablink as required. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

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/United Airlines N7431. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 1722 was recently created. At first glance, it seems like a non-notable incident. The creator is fairly new, so I trying not to WP:BITE, but this should probably be AFDed. BilCat (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That incident is getting general press coverage and even aviation press coverage, but no injuries, no damage and seems to have just been weather related, so not likely to result in an airworthiness directive, or any other changes, etc. An airliner lost some altitude on take-off, but didn't hit anything, is kind of a "so what?" Overall I think this falls neatly under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING, so, yes, I think it needs to go to AfD, unless you think it would be better to send it to drafts and see if it somehow becomes notable enough for an article over time. That said, my link above makes it sounds like the FAA has already closed the case and the NTSB is not even involved, so we are unlikely to learn anything more than we know today. - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi guys, I am the creator. Yes it is my first article and I thought I would start with something in the news as practice. I see your points. However, there is also still investigation going on with NTSB, so there may be more development on this story. I am OK if you guys want to draft this until we see what the outcome of NTSB is and at that time I can update it and we can bring live if something more newsworthy comes out.

I am also working on this one United Airlines N7431. It's a little harder to find news on this one, but from what I have gathered so far it was an important incident to set precedence. The investigation's findings were vital in implementing new measures and practices. There were also 3 deaths on this one. Please let me know what you think. Shinadamina (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

On United Airlines Flight 1722, the report on AVweb seems to indicate that the FAA have closed their case and the the NTSB are not investigating. Do you have a ref that says the NTSB are still working on it? If neither are, then we are not going to get any more info than we now have.

Regarding United Airlines N7431, you have said in the article that it resulted in changes in procedures, but not what they were, even generally. If you can add that it would satisfy WP:LASTING, otherwise a simple mishandling stall/spin training accident is not really notable. - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

On United Airlines Flight 1722, This BBC article says that the NTSB results will be coming in about 3 weeks.

Regarding United Airlines N7431, I am now unable to locate where I saw that info, and I am thinking that I may have mixed this up with another flight, so I for now I will remove the info and look for the info again. However, would you say this one is more notable due to 3 deaths? Shinadamina (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the BBC link, although I am not sure it will conclude much other than they flew into a wind shear/downdraft/storm.

No, it is not three deaths that make accidents notable, otherwise we would have over a million Wikipedia articles on car accidents. For aviation training accidents like that, it really comes down to lasting effects of any type. If there weren't any, then it really isn't notable. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Since the NTSB has promised a rapid (and probably brief) report on this incident in a few weeks, it may be best to see what they have to say and then decide whether this incident is notable or not on that basis. If it results in some WP:LASTING changes to procedures, or similar, then it will meet our criteria for an article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Any further thought on United Airlines N7431? It seems to be entirely non-notable: a simple training accident with an empty DC-3, one of many thousands of DC-3 crashes. There were no notable people involved, no lasting effects or even any lessons learned. Fails WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

And United Airlines N7431 has now been deleted as well - no arguments were made to keep it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been seeing Simple Flying used as a source more and more. Does it qualify as a reliable source? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say yes, with caveats. They are certainly a professional team of aviation journalists trying to offer unbiased news. But remarks like "the Chicago Tribune notes that April 1969 saw the British-built prototype, number 002, take to the skies for the first time. Then, in October that year, the New York Times reported that the French prototype had flown supersonically for the first time, flying faster than the speed of sound for nine minutes"[5] worry me that they have not gone back to primary sources to check the purported facts. They could be cited as an RS in support of the claim that the NYT had reported X, but not for the claim that X is factually true. In other words, they are careful not to make claims they have not verified, so we can't cite them for those claims either. But where they do make an explicit statement, then yes we can cite them. Bit of an awkward answer, really. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, overall it seems like a reliable source with editorial oversight. No source is error-free, though, so you have to keep an eye on claims made and where they come from. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems to have poor fact checking and tends towards sensationalist stories. They're a subsidiary of Valnet, which seems more like a BuzzFeed or Gawker Media competitor, geared towards page views, rather than a high quality professional trade publication. I'd preferably have the same story reported by FlightGlobal or AviationWeek.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I take your point. On the other hand, no RS is perfect and we must always be on the lookout for bloopers. Not even Flight and Aviation Week get everything right all the time. I suppose it all hinges on the frequency of mistakes in their reporting. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

And being capable of self correcting. Right now their 29 June 2019 story on the 737NG production end is still titled Boeing Delivers The Last 737 Next Gen Aircraft (ten month too early, and excluding military variants) while they strive for "100% accurate headlines" and "uphold our journalistic integrity by correcting such errors". Meh.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) searching "corrected" on flightglobal or "correction" on aviationweek yields actual article corrections, not so much for simpleflying.

Meh indeed. Maybe they can't be trusted after all. Have you tried pointing out their gaffe to editorial@simpleflying.com as they invite readers to do? Their response might be instructive. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't wrote to them.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)