Wikipedia talk:New articles (Aircraft)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Non-new entries

Could we include major updates to existing pages on this page? Many of the updates I had listed (see history) took stub pages with 4 lines of text and converted them to articles. I think readers and editors watching the New Articles page may want to know when a stub or an existing article undergoes significant growth and revision. As an editor expanding the stubs, I definitely want to advertise these changes to get input from readers and fellow editors. In addition, I think this is a valid place for advertising new aviation-related articles such as the FICON piece. We could create a separate "new articles" page I guess but IMHO that's too much compartmentalization. Emt147 04:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It's all yours, mate. Geoff/Gsl 04:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for being understanding. :) Emt147 05:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Cross posting

New articles for military aircraft types should also be posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/New articles. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently-discovered new articles

Several months ago, I put in this section heading for new article wich had been created in previous months to the current one, but had not been listed. It now seems it's being used for new articles created during the current month, but which were not added by the creator. THis throws of the counts of the article categories. I really don't mind if it is used this way, but I think we ought to at least try to get some more opinions on this. We don't have to change this month's list unless we want to, but we wcould clarify the section heading with a rewrite or hidden note for next month. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably my fault I thought that you could only add articles you had created in the main categories - I discovered that a lot of articles were being created by others but not listed , a lot of them needed wider attention so I started listing articles created by others in the recently-discovered bit. Quite happy if they are put in the right category if that is the concensus. As it takes time every day to do is it actually usefull ? MilborneOne 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I used it to gather articles that had not yet been tagged for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation (as they possibly had not yet been counted/included in the project).--MoRsE 19:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed anyone could add new articles to the main lists. I guess we'll see if someone else remembers what it was supposed to be. If not, we can just try to reach a consensus on how to handle it. It's not really a big deal, only we should all use the sections the same way for consistency. - BillCJ 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ - you're absolutely right that originally anyone was adding any new articles to the current month, whether they had started them or not. The purpose was really as an invitation for help and input from other project members. Back then, there were still a significant number of articles about aircraft from contributors outside this project; meaning that it was a big job to add navigation templates and specs. Now that the vast majority of articles on aircraft are produced "in house" as it were, the cleanup function of the page is gone. Now, it's probably valuable mostly for its motivational value, and I guess for anyone interested in tagging articles, as MoRsE suggests. I started training a bot to help identify new aircraft articles - I'll move the controls to the New Articles page here in case anyone else finds it useful - it doesn't do too bad a job now. --Rlandmann 20:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we now add Found articles into appropriate list, albeit they may not be up to project standards - one presumes thay would be dealt with by editors watching this page ? MilborneOne 13:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO we should add new discovered articles regardless their standards. I'm looking at New articles (Aircraft) and I'm trying tweak / standarize new articles or at least add them to my watch list. Piotr Mikołajski 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian flag

Someone seems to have changed the code for the Italian flag. the {{flagicon|Italy|1861}} [[Italy]] displays only Italy, while you have to write {{flagicon|Italy|1861-state}} [[Italy]] in order to display the result Italy. A lot of aircraft articles are now just displaying the text "Italy". I have tried to correct some, but I really don't have an idea how many other are affected, as I am having trouble with my AWB-bot (the old version refuses to start, and a new one can't be installed). I will however try to fix them when I see them, but any help would be appreciated. --MoRsE 19:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Piotr Mikołajski is pretty good at using flag templates, and the main person behind our using them in the project of late. He may have an answer for you. I do know that there have been some disputes in the Flag project lately, and it is causing havoc with a number of templates, such as {{ROC}}. Piotr has proposed setting up guidelines for flag usage in our project, and perhaps we might even consider doing our own templates ofr them, if that's allowed/we can get permission. - BillCJ 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

{{flag|Italy|1861}} is code for civil flag - Italy but {{flag|Italy|1861-state}} is code for war flag - Italy. In fact we have no standard for posting flags and some aircraft operated in Italy have civil flag, others have war flag. IMHO we should talk about it on WP:AIR talk page and set some guidelines. When such guidelines will be prepared I'll make list with all necessary codes and comments about timeline. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Recently discovered articles

Just noticed that articles are being deleted and amended in older parts of the list. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that any found articles older than the current month are put in recently discovered articles rather than edit the historic lists? Refer to discussion further up list. MilborneOne (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Up to spec?

Looking at, for instance, Curtiss XP-31 Swift, the template {{aircraft specifications }} doesn't offer an option to add fuel capacity. Seems to me that's something essential, no? Trekphiler (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

94 (and more?) new aircraft in Jan. 2009!

Is this a record for one month? --TraceyR (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not bad going with 26 engine articles as well, would be nice to have a link to the archives (unless it is there and I can't see it). A few hours left of January to produce six more aircraft then! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We've had quite a few months over 100; the record is currently 237 new types (March 2008). The archives are linked right at the top of the New articles page. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff, I've found the link now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone rate my new article

Evening all,

Could someone please rate my new article Mitigation of aviation's environmental impact please and give me pointers on how to expand it. I was thinking noise, NO_X emissions and contrail reduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plane Person (talk • contribs)

A new editor on the scene

Please note the angry and disruptive editing of the the following record. It involves an opinionated but unverified set of changes. Can anything be done? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Ian Fleming International Airport

While not within our direct purview, Ian Fleming International Airport may be of interest to our editors. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Happy New Year to all aviation editors and readers of this page! Surprisingly, for the last three years we have produced exactly 102 new aircraft articles each January: can we do it again?TSRL (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

All the best - we can certainly try but they are getting more obscure. MilborneOne (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Obscure? That's become my specialty! - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Managed ten so far - only ninety one to go but I expect I will get some help before the end of the month! MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done to all article creators as we have passed the hundred mark (and the 102 target!) this month, good work. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You got us off on a flyer! Seconded: it's the most in a month since October 2008.TSRL (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The month isn't over yet. I have one to write later on today, as I am sure others have, too. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay now January is done - wow we did well! Great team effort! - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New article submission archiving

I just created an archive page for the 2010 submissions to keep things tidy. At the top of each year's archive page is a link to previous or later years which to me seems a slightly long winded way of doing it. This page Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/submission history now appears to be the master index but I wonder if it would be better to move to a navbox format for easier navigation, placing that at the top of each archive page? Or even simply use an archive box? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable idea - it will do no harm to create the navbox. MilborneOne (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try the archive box suggestion first and see how it looks, most likely in a sandbox. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Have tried a live edit here: [1] I'm not sure if the search function works but if it does that would be an added bonus. If we went to this format then the master page Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/submission history would become redundant (assuming nothing links to it). There might be a better template to use as most of them are designed for talk pages. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Would a simple navbox (like our standard manufacturer one) at the bottom of the page be any better? MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)This sandbox version has a dummy template [2]. The advantage of this is that any page it appears on would be bolded. I am struggling a bit with best placement as the aviation style guide box gets in the way (but I'm sure somebody clever could fix it!). Yes, a normal template at the bottom would work but I think everybody has got used to finding stuff at the top and if the page has not been archived monthly (as often happens) then the navbox would be a long way down. Another option is a new category for these pages but that would appear at the bottom as well (unless it was deliberately linked somewhere at the top). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If we put a navbox including all the years at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/submission history 2009 for instance you just would not know it was there unless you scrolled down half a mile!! Another thought is that the aviation style box might not be necessary on these pages, it does not appear on all of them, might reduce 'clutter' at the top if another box gets added . Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Header numbering?

Do we need to introduce a hidden instruction on how to add entries and increment the number of articles in the header? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently that might be a good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

What if we left the numbers out entirely, or at least waited until the month was over to tally them? - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

makes sense--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually that does make sense. Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing/New articles we aren't using heading numbers and it works easier. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree, we dont need the number in the header. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Lacking any further discussion, I'll take them out for this month. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Drop the header numbers but keep the counter.TSRL (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Extrapolaris stubs

Having patrolled all of his aircraft stub article s it is becoming evident that he/she is deliberately introducing errors. Why he/she does this I cannot fathom. Maybe to discredit Wikipedia in some way. Can someone else please look at them, just to make sure I don't miss anything!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting! Can you give an example so we know what we are looking for? - Ahunt (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Academic now, as i thinkk I have fixed everything and he has a permanent ban for copyvio--Petebutt (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh good.  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)