Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

List of unmanned aerial vehicles

Hey everyone -- I found this wonderful article the other day and I wanted to bring it to the attention of the project. Cutting to the chase, the big question is whether or not this article should exist. There are probably thousands of UAVs out there today, and their number is increasing exponentially. We don't have a list of all aircraft, should we have a list of all UAVs? There's another question to ask if we decide to keep it, but there's no need to confuse the issue right now. So, should we take it to AfD? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We do have a list of all aircraft at List of aircraft! The article is a bit of a fan boy magnet i did have a big clear out and tidy up in January 2010. Dont see why we should not have a list but it may be better to divide them into big ones and small ones or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I just assumed that there would be no way of having a list of all aircraft! Well, if we're going to keep it, you make a good point about finding a way to slice and dice it. Size is a good way to split them, but by country might be good as well (see below comment). If you're looking for where to split them, I suggest following the US Navy's lead would be fine. Per NAVAIRISNT (NAVAIR Instruction) 13034.1D, the Navy divides UASs into 3 categories, nominally divided my takeoff weight. Cat 3 is 0 to 55 lbs, Cat 2 is 55 to 1320 lbs, and Cat 3 is greater than 1320 lbs.

Another question is if all the redlinks are fine (I'm personally in favor of them). Also, dividing them up by country might be convinent because the best source I have for the masses of UAVs is the AIAA World UAV Roundup Poster (PDF), and it divides them by country. (As an aside, that poster is pretty wonderful for illustrating how many UAVs are out there... it's quite a list!) -SidewinderX (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ejection seats

We seem to have zero coverage of ejection seat types, that's quite strange? Any volunteers to kick it off? A navbox full of red links would be a start. I've got some free photos and a book about Doddy Hay (who was either paid a lot of money or bonkers!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a good subject and well worth an article on each family of them, just need refs! - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Plenty to read about them at the ejection site, possibly not deemed a reliable source but it would be a good start. Company websites might have more. Not seen a book on seat types but I would think that there are some. There is possibly a notability question on seat types but I think they are on a similar level to engines. Only way to find out is to create an article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin-Baker has info and specs for their seats from Mk 1 to 16 here. I have lots on the Mk 7 and its retrofit to the F-104. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability is 100% about reliable sources. The the ejection site looks WP:SPS, although fairly accurate and reliable enough for use as a secondary ref. Martin-Baker's company site is just about ideal, although some third party refs (like paper books) would flesh out the notability. Let me see what I have. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been though my own library and found very little on ejection seats. Mostly what I have is a general article on what they are and how they work in The International Encyclopedia of Aviation. That ref could be useful for backing general comments within articles, but no seat-type specific information. This really is a neglected topic! - Ahunt (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This might be a good source of history for the Ejection seat article. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty out there for sure, it was individual seat types that I was thinking of like Martin-Baker Mk 10 for instance, article structure and content, article naming convention etc TBA, just been too busy to think about it but I can't see a problem with creating seat type articles. A job for the winter probably (once all the engine articles have been created of course!!!!). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that will work fine. As I noted it is a neglected subject area and we are in a good position to rectify that over this winter. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel another task force coming on! Bit worried about notability, if a fully loaded 747 piling in close to a highly populated area with its flight deck on fire is not worth an article then a lowly 'bang seat' (which probably never featured in the news) won't stand much of a chance...I'll get me coat...?! To quote Forrest Gump 'and that's all I've got to say about that'. ;-) Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ICAR Comercial vs IAR 36

Can you make a check to see if it was the same model? Thanks :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only the same model, but the same aircraft (YR-ACS), since only one seems to have been built. Article IAR 36 started life as Messerschmitt M 36, then was rightly to moved to IAR M 36 then (rightly again) to IAR 36. As the aircraft was built by ICAR, you might think it should be titled ICAR IAR 36 (Smith's Messerschmitt book is not quite clear on this)? Commercial seems a bad choice (Smith does not use that name) since it labels a class of aircraft which may, according to the article, include another type. FWW, Smith does not mention a Rumanian M 18b.TSRL (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They are related - According to the article "The First Twenty Five Years:Romanian Aircraft Production 1911–1935" by Dénes Bernád in Air Enthusiast No 63, Bfw first tried to sell a design for a single-engined passenger aircraft to IAR, this being allocated the prospective IAR-36. When negotiations broke down, BFW then went aroun the other Romanian manufacturers, eventually agreeing to design an aircraft, the BFW M.36 for ICAR, the single example being built by ICAR as the Comercial - As the IAR-36 as such never really existing - the two articles could probably happily be merged.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That would explain Smith's (confusing, confused?) comment that ICAR built it as the IAR 36. Certainly merge, though I'm not sure about calling it ICAR Comercial because of ambiguities. Certainly need several redirects.TSRL (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

this in Flight appears to be relevant.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No name for the aircraft - typical of Flight in those days. However, in another piece they do talk about an ICAR Universal (capital U), and that's also the name of the Wiki article. I think I've also seen an ICAR Touring, so maybe ICAR did not do numbers, just role. In this case, ICAR Comercial (or Commercial) may well be right. The Universal and Touring use Anglicised names, so maybe Commercial is better?TSRL (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

ICAR definately seemed to have used names - Universal, Aerobatic and Turing (Touring?) as well as Comercial - strangely enough, the author of the AE artical seems to switch to Commercial in a postscript to the article in the next issue!Nigel Ish (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, and now? IMHO the right name must be the original romanian name but... I'd like you to reach an agreement on how to call this aircraft (YR-ACS) the same way in all foreign language wikies.--Threecharlie (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Romanian Wiki, in its article on ICAR, mentions the ICAR Comercial (as a redlink) but says it was a licenced Messerschmitt M 18 - that is the only mention of the aircraft I can find on foreign wikis and suggests that Comercial is the correct name.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I put commercial into a Rumanian dictionary, which translated it as comercial. (Also tried touring: not direct translation but tourist -> turist, so I was wrong to suppose anglicised names. Right name surely ICAR Comercial.TSRL (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

AESL Airtourer vs Airtourer

IMHO the same model.--Threecharlie (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...definately the same aircraft - I think a merge is in order.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the merge should use the name Victa Airtourer, since they designed and produced it 1959-66. They also produced more than AESL. AESL will appear naturally in the text and in Variants. Do you agree? Details of two Victa variants appear in Jane's 1966-7, p.9-10.TSRL (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems sensible. This may be useful as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Airtourer was a DAB page for the term until some user decided to add more info and try to make it an article! Strange indeed, but a good catch, 3. I doubt there's much useful info there that's not already in the main article now. So do we try to make Airtourer beck into a DAB page, or just go for a redirect? Are all Airtourers the same basic type, or was it used for other types too? - BilCat (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO a DAB page is only (and must be only)... a DAB page. If I read more than a small description for a redirect to the completely page I think "this isn't a DAB page" (sorry for my simple english...). There is also a space provided in the template to inform the reader of the page to which model is derived. If PAC CT/4 is the last development of the original Airtourer I think you should write only in the incipit (but it is just my idea). :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Amphibious aircraft: a category?

Putting together a recent article on the Johansen CAJO 59 amphibious flying boat, I was surprised to find that there was no [Category:Amphibious aircraft]. Should we have one? There a lot of flying boats and seaplanes that qualify, even only including those that could use water or land by pilot's choice, not requiring a floats for wheels switch or vv. in advance. If the answer is yes, where should it go? Personally I tend to think of them as water-borne aircraft that can use runways, rather than vv. (not entirely logically, perhaps) so would put it as a sub-category within [Category:Seaplanes and flying boats], but what do experienced categorisers think?TSRL (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe as there's a Category:Amphibious helicopters already. -fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyviol image?

I believe that user who have uploaded File:Ikairport10.JPG has not been realized (or wants to hide deliberately) which is a possible copyviol. I know that, in en.wiki, is normally used fair use but the notice says that you can transfer the image in Commons (and I believe would make "a bad end")--Threecharlie (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The permission says: © کلیه حقوق مادی و معنوی برای خبرگزاری اکونیوز محفوظ است. استفاده از مطالب این سایت با ذکر منبع بلامانع است (I think traslate: All Rights Reserved Akvnyvz spiritual agency. Use of this website is copyrighted by mentioning)--Threecharlie (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Raised at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_September_8#File:Ikairport10.JPG, other images by the uploader also appear to be suspect. MilborneOne (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, we still have File:LCH.jpg hanging around. I'm certain whve deleted this one before, and that it's not copyright-free. It's like Whack-a-Mole! - BilCat (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged it as a copyvio on commons, couldnt find the HAL source but linked to an Aviation Week piece that credits HAL for the image. I would have thought that commons would be wise now to images taken from blogs. MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot seems to fall through the cracks there. Left hand/right hand and too many cooks syndromes, just like here at ENWP. - BilCat (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Gray or Grey?

The MQ-1C Warrior has been renamed the "MQ-1C Gray Eagle". Or the "MQ-1C Grey Eagle". I tried googling the names on army.mil, and the ghits are about half and half for each spelling. So what do we move it to? Somehow, I don't think General Atomics MQ-1C Gra/ey Eagle will be acceptable! - BilCat (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly, since it's a US machine, it seems to be grey: http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/7036 TSRL (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that source should do as definitive, as it explains the spelling rationale. - BilCat (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But now we've another question: Who's Chief Grey Eagle? The quote in the source says to look him up, but we've no article on him! - BilCat (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Found a Grey Eagle named Clarence Grey Eagle that supposedly moved Sitting Bull's remains to safety in South Dakota according this Time article. But Sitting Bull's article says it is disputed whose remains were moved. There could be another Grey Eagle also.. -fnlayson (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bf 110 problem

In 2008 I set up an Operational History section for the Messerschmitt Bf 110. In doing so I wrote the sub-section and cited it myself. A couple of years on (today) I created Messerschmitt Bf 110 operational history to allow greater technical expansion of the main Messerschmitt Bf 110 article. USER:MilborneOne has decided to add a copyright violation tag to the talk pages, which is in effect suggesting I have plagiarised from other people. He keeps adding the in the edit summary "needs proper attribution". I have told him that ALL of the citations and practical all bar a handful of words that were copied across (virtually the entire section in that regard) were written by me yet he insists on reverting my removal of these tags.

So I’m asked to provide proper attribution when I can point to the history of the article and prove that all the citations and information were provided and written by me. Frustratingly he is refusing to listen, or as he puts it, “to trawl through the edit history” – which isn’t long.

His latest response, after I somewhat forced the issue, was this [1]. He points to barely a dozen words contributed since 2006, to prove his 'point'. Do I really have to accept the indignity of this tag? Or can I reword the entire dozen or so words then remove it? I can't revert again because it will be the fourth time. Dapi89 (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The tag is about copying within Wikipedia and providing attribution. According to WP:Splitting, when splitting off Messerschmitt Bf 110 operational history you should have included in an edit summary pointing to where the text came from (Messerschmitt Bf 110). -fnlayson (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. How about I delete the article, start over so these ugly fact tags can be removed? Dapi89 (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Give WP:Articles for deletion a go then.. -fnlayson (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• All it needs is Template:Copied placed on the talk page (which it currently has). Even though you wrote the original text it still has to be shown which wiki article it came from originally, it's a relatively minor thing to have to do isn't it? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What has annoyed me is that MilborneOne's description of it was an "illegal copy and paste", which I take to mean plagiarism. MO's message on my talk page suggests that it warranted deletion, but he's 'letting it go', which is a cheek since I wrote the thing in the first place. I just don't see the need. The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 operational history was done this way, yet he didn't jump on that one. It’s the same with the Bf 109, Mosquito, He 111 (the last one I did write myself completely). Dapi89 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was helping rather than just delete the page I added the tags myself and left a note in case you were not aware. If you have done it before then we need to add the tags to the other pages. I am sure if had deleted it I would have been in the wrong in your eyes and if I fixed it I am still in the wrong isnt Wikipedia fun. MilborneOne (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh as an aside it would probably still need the tag even if it was your own work. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

While the phrase "illegal copy and paste" could probably been avoided, everyhting esles that Milb1 has stated in this entire affair is correct. The tags can be avioded by simply stating in the edit summaries where the text is going, and coming from, as appropriate. Don't worry about who wrote what - it's really inconsequential in the scheme of things, and as Milb1 noted in the last comment, attribution is proably required even if only one person wrote the text in question, and also moved it. - BilCat (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-30MKI problems

There are problems at the Sukhoi Su-30MKI article - at least one user (plus a couple of ip editors) keeps making uncited changes to the article - mainly inflating the aircraft's performance above what is cited, but also making claims about changes to the avionics fit which are not supported by the references. More eyes are urgently needed on this article.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

New Anon at work

See Bernt Balchen and Ford Trimotor for examples of an anon at work. There may need to be some monitoring of the situation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

It might be best to see how long they last, and then attempt to clean it up. However, if it continues on more articles at a fast pace, we would need to take action sooner. - BilCat (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Add to YF-22 stub or convert back to a redirect?

YF-22 had been a redirect to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor article until it was turned into a stub article a few months ago. There's enough content in the F-22 article and at Advanced Tactical Fighter to make a decent size article out of it. But maybe the YF-22 article is not really needed. What do you think? Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be folded back into the main article. If for no other reason that it should discuss the changes made between versions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The YF-22 to F-22 changes are covered in the F-22 article and would not removed. -fnlayson (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand, my point, obviously not clearly expressed, was that the YF-22 article might have had real value if it discussed those changes. But since it doesn't it should be merged back in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The YF-22 article doesn't discuss anything at the moment! That's the question here: SHould we try to expand it? I think the changes could be metioned in both articles, with some care not to overlap too much. The specs are a little different, and it would give us a better place to showcase the YF-22 photos. I'd support it in general, but it would really depend in the final product. Jeff has good experiance in splitting article, and if he believes there's enough material to support one in this case, then that works for me. - BilCat (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, that's what I was trying to ask initially: is it worthwhile long term to expand the YF-22 article? Expanding it would allow the F-22 article to be shortened some. -fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It'd be a little shorter, but not by much. I was actually surpriesed just now by how little info on the YF-22 is in the F-22 article. I couldn't even find one photo there at first galnce. As such, I'm definitley for expanding the stub. It'll still probably be a short article, but with photos and specs, it will be a decent one. - BilCat (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't see why the prototype(s) of an aircraft should have a separate article to the production version, personally. Wouldn't most of our non-specialist readership prefer a well integrated single piece? Few aircraft go into production exactly like their prototypes and their specs usually are a little different but that doesn't, to my mind, make a case for splitting. Such a case should be exceptional.TSRL (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While we don't have many of them, there are a few variant articles on prototypes. The X-35 was really a technology demonstrator, not a prototype, so that one might not count. The one that comes to mind that is is the Lockheed XF-104. We could also probably justify one on the YF-16 (and the F-16C/D too), but with the proliferation of variants of the Falcon, we've gone with a variants list page instead. It really depends on the aircraft itself, and how the article is put together. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly prefer that the details of the prototypes be discussed as sections of the main article. Otherwise it could be hard to follow all the changes, especially back in the prop days when you have have quite a few different prototypes. As far as I'm concerned the only time a prototype article should have a separate article is if it never made it into production.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The differences aren't discussed there now, not in depth anyway. - BilCat (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus here on what to do with the Lockheed YF-22 article, which means the article stays for now. As such, I'm inclined to go ahead and start improving it, as there really isn't much about the YF-22 in the F-22 article, and it is already quite long at 105 kb total. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added some refs, links, and expanded the text just a little to keep the article from being an instant AFD target. I'm not intending to expand it further until I get some response to my statement. With a few more paragraphs of text, which won't be hard to find, and a specs template, the articel would be just as long as the Northrop YF-23 page, with the potentioal to be a little longer if the differences with the F-22 are described in more detail. - BilCat (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would vote to go ahead and expand it as a separate topic! - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I'm with Ahunt here -- Go ahead and expand it! Test aircraft and test platforms have stories all their own, and many of their stories are more interesting than the production aircraft! Bill, I've got a decent number of sources (AIAA articles and the like)--- just drop me a line if you'd like to take a look at them. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Another comment -- we should be careful to avoid overlap with the Advanced Tactical Fighter article as well. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Aircraft specs templates up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_11#Category:Aircraft_specs_templates - at the moment it only includes Template:Aircraft specs and its documentation.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have responded there, I don't think that it should be deleted, populating it is the way forward. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that as someone has just full protected the other aircraft specs templates, populating it will be harder than normal.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw that as I was in the process of trying to populate it, what I would call a 'pre-emptive strike' by the nominator and not how I would deal with it at all. Trevor has created many more specs maintenance template categories, they are hidden so I don't see what the problem is. Hopefully Trevor will respond soon. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NC-4

The article NC-4 has been "reworked" by an anon, whose IP points to Hunstville, Alabama, USA. This userhas been active at various times this year, continually uses condecending and insulting edit summaries that borderr on incivility, so you may remember seeing his edits before. A lot of his edits involve changes that often make more of a mess that he thinks he's trying to clean up. The bulk of his edits today have been with one IP, which has warnings at User talk:98.81.13.169, but he has used at least 2 other IPs today too. Some help watching his edits would be appreciated. After he leaves the NC-4 page alone, it'll probably take some work to clean it up, but I know next to nothing about the aircraft. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Now he's trying to destroy the Northrop P-61 Black Widow article. Many of his edits are contrary to MOS, including overlinking, and I haven't seen him add a source yet today. I did a mass revert, but I don't recall that stopping him in the past. I also don't recall him ever responding to a note on the IP talk pages, which is made more difficult for us because his IP keeps changing. It's times like this when Openb editing really puts experienced editors at a disadvantage, because 3RR effectively applies to us only, and the admins will enforce it, and we have no other way to get their attention. That;s what's really frustrating about it - we have to play by the rulles, but they don't,a nd no one above the sysop level seem to care about the problems it causes for us. We're just unpaid baby-sitters. - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

John Knudsen Northrop is now a bit of a mess as well, I appreciate Bills frustration but with changing IP addresses means they cant be blocked and we cant protect all the aircraft articles after the fact. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have stepped in to help on the various articles. - BilCat (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified helicopter

Does anyone know what the gray tandem-rotor helicopter behind the green Yakovlev Yak-24 is? It looks very much like a Piasecki H-21, but why would it be in a Russian museum? Might be interesting to note in the H-21's Survivors section if we can find out and confirm it's still there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes its a H-21 [2] - Apparently Nixon gave one to Krushchev.Nigel Ish (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Or the civil version Vertol 44 registered N74056 http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N74056 MilborneOne (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to find someting reliable to use, and add it to the H-21 article. - BilCat (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Aircraft articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Aircrafts currently in production

Newly created minimal-content article at the (mispelled) Aircrafts currently in production. PRODed but removed without comment by article creator. I hate to see an apparently new editor first article AFDed, but I don't see much to redeem this one, as its "subject" is better covered elsewhere already. We could probably use one some one to act as "ambassador" while the rest of us send this to AFD. - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Article has 0 text explaining what all it is supposed to cover. It is somewhat covered by List of civil aircraft, except there's no in--production/out-of-production text in the List. There may be some other similar article as well. -fnlayson (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Aircrafts? Has to be AfD'd as the prod was removed, no clear article scope and even then ... Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd correct the title, but I think the creator would just move it back, given how he's reacted to help on the aricle or in adding links to the Boeing airliner pages (badly!). Btw, I still find AFDs too complex to file, so someone else will need to do it. - BilCat (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Got it. See AfD page at WP:Articles for deletion/Aircrafts currently in production. -fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

On the AfD page Nimbus made the good suggestion to use a category for aircraft in production instead of this article. This seems like a good idea to me. I can not find a category similar to this. But maybe I'm missed one. -fnlayson (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable idea, perhaps we can do an experiment and try just one aircraft type and I would suggest Category:Airliners in production first. It would only be used for articles in the Category:Airliners category tree and only for aircraft in production that has had at least one aircraft delivery to a customer. If that works out then we can look at other aircraft type in a controlled manner. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but who's going to ensure that an aircraft or type is removed from the category when production stops? Just a thought: Would it be less disruptive to have the opposite i.e. 'Out of production' criterion? At least all members of that category would remain members as time goes by, barring the production of replicas, of course. --TraceyR (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion Tracey... That would definitely be the easiest thing to do! My only hesitation is that that might be less useful to readers than the "in production" category. And the other question that needs to be asked is -- do we really need it? Right now the infobox has a line for "Produced". Are there readers out there who want to go through a list of aircraft in production (or no-longer in production per Tracey's suggestion)? -SidewinderX (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You would be looking at thousands of entries in that category as opposed to a hundred or less of all aircraft types currently in production. We would remove the category when production ceases as vigilant aircraft article editors, in fact having the category would allow us to see at a glance the 'big picture' and entries that don't appear to be right should stand out. It does rely on good information from the manufacturer, they don't always announce when they've ceased production (in case they want to start the line up again probably!). I did briefly suggest an 'out of production' category on the AfD page but in the vast majority of cases that would be stating the obvious and would not be needed. I think that we should give it a go. My only thought on Milb's trial suggestion is that I would ask what is an airliner exactly? If we went for 'aircraft' it would cover the lot including helicopters etc, would be interesting to see how many entries would be in this category. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I assumed an airliner was any aircraft that was in the Airliners category. It doesnt have to be airliners it could be one of the other type categories. I just though we should only do one first if we think it is a good idea. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realised after I posted that you meant to try it on aircraft already categorised as airliners (there is a bit of a grey area sometimes what exactly an airliner is). It doesn't look as if it will be easy because they are split down into sub-cats such as Category:Brazilian airliners 1990-1999. There is no 'master category' (although there is List of airliners), a disadvantage of having to categorise specifically but that's how we are supposed to do it! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• If airliners is a bit vague, "civil aircraft" or something similar could be used instead. -fnlayson (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly support Category:Aircraft in production with subcats Category:Airliners in production and possibly Category:Military aircraft in production. Category:Aircraft out of production would be a no-go, though, as it'd be even worse than Category:Jet aircraft was. *shudder* - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Note - the article was deleted today as a result of the AfD process. - Ahunt (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Tense guidelines

Should there be some tense guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) like the Aircraft Engines subproject's guidelines? Interested users should go to the Layout talk page and add comments. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

T-X Program

After neglecting it for several months, I have finished writing up an article for the USAF's T-X program. It is viewable in my sandbox here.

My question is: Where should I put the article? Unfortunately, T-X is already taken by a fictional movie character, so I can't put it there. We don't tend to put "program" in the title (see KC-X or Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance). So where should we put it? T-X (aviation)? T-X (USAF)? T-X (aircraft)? None of those seem quite right to me... Any suggestions?

Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources call it "T-38 replacement", but why claim namespace for the United States. "USAF T-X program" states exactly what it is. Once an aircraft is selected this can be changed into a redirect. Hcobb (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

USAF T-X program is a good name. There won't be confusion if another nation's starts a T-X/TX program. -fnlayson (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple comments there-- First, we don't include "program" in article titles. With the lone expection of Joint Strike Fighter Program, we drop program. (VXX, Advanced Tactical Fighter, Lightweight Fighter, etc.) Second, the article should not be changed to a redirect... the article is for the history of the program, not for the actual aircraft. (Lightweight Fighter vs. F-16 and YF-17). Can we use "USAF" in the title? Or does it have to be United States Air Force T-X? And if we do it that way, do we have to rename all these other articles with the nation/service they are for? (USAF Lightweight Fighter? IAF Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft?) What about T-X (USAF) or T-X (United States)? That lets us use the parenthetical for cases like this where there are conflicts, without encouraging labeling everything in that way. Does that sound reasonable? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts? I'm done with the article and I'd like to put it into the namespace! -SidewinderX (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Something like "USAF T-X program" was all I had. Got no idea now. -fnlayson (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as there aren't any other T-X/TX programs with articles, the MOS recommends agaainst preemptive disambiguation. As such, T-X program is fine with me. We could try to come up with a naming guideline for such programs, but if it's too complex, it'll be in the same boat as the WP:SHIPS naming convention is now. It's being contested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)#Looks weird for being too complex and using pre-emptive DABbing, among other issues. Thus, I think what we have for the existing articles works. - BilCat (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

On preemptive dismbiguation, WP:PRECISION states "Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program..." I think that rules out any fear of "claim[ing] namespace for the United States". If another article on a T-X/TX program is created, then we can discussw what to do with the titles. - BilCat (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it seems like T-X program is the place to put it. My only question is to make sure we're fine with include "program" in the article title. Bill's example of the Apollo program does it, but, like the example I listed above, very few of our aircraft procurement programs do. If everyone else is fine with T-X program, I'll go ahead and put it there. -SidewinderX (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, and in the case of the Apollo program and even Joint Strike Fighter Program articles, "program" is effectively the disambiguator for those article, as there are other primary topics for the basic titles. Joint Strike Fighter is still widley associated with the F-35 itself, so that page redirect to the aircraft. The primary topic for T-X is most likely the Terminatrix, unless perhaps a redirect to TX is better, but I'm neutral on that one. - BilCat (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill, I agree with your reasoning. The article has now been moved into the namespace at T-X program. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

UAV vs RPV issue again

There is a tenditious editor who keeps adding too much info on the UAV/RPV issue at General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper This has been discussed with the user several times, but he keeps coming bakc every few months to add more details to the Lead. Help confirming and maintaining a consesnus would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting old. I added a couple words in the Lead to cover the point about a human controller with RPA/RPV. Time to move on.. -fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing re: Whitehead

See these contributions. Includes multiple reverts/edit warring at Aviation history. - BilCat (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering a GAN of Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

Hello Aviation Wikipedians.

The article I've been reprocessing recently, with some huge aid and knowledge from User:Bzuk, has been the famed Avro Arrow. I feel that it is approaching the mark for nominating to be listed as an aviation Good Article, and have made this post both to notify the community of my activity and intentions, and to allow input from other members to be made. Thoughts? Kyteto (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess nobody cared either way, proceeding with nomination. Kyteto (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

BAMS and the MQ-4C

Hey everyone -- looking for a little discussion about what to do here. We currently have a small article about the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance program. It is mostly about the competition, and less about the aircraft that won (modified global hawk). Recently, the BAMS aircraft was given its designation, MQ-4C. My question is what should we do with the existing BAMS article.

I suggest we leave it there at Broad Area Maritime Surveillance, and we make that a "program" article, like the Advanced Tactical Fighter article, or the T-X program article I recently posted. Then I suggest we create a Northrop Grumman MQ-4C BAMS article for the actual aircraft. That article will have to be moved once the official name comes out (probaly related to the Boeing P-8 Poseidon), but that may not be for a bit. I don't mind putting together the framework for this article if we agree to address it that way.

One last comment -- even though the aircraft is related to the Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk, it is so different in mission and loadout that I think it should be a seperate article. Plus, it is its own billion dollar procrument program in the eyes of Congress and whatnot. -SidewinderX (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd move Broad Area Maritime Surveillance to Northrop Grumman MQ-4C (probably leave the "BAMS" out of the title for now), and convert it into an aircraft article. BAMS already is a partial aircraft article now, with the specs section. We don't have any guidelines as such on when to create program articles, but the general rule of thumb in WPAIR has been to merge them in with the winning aircraft as long as separate articles would be quite small. This is what we did with the P-8/MMA, the UH-72/LUH, the ARH-70/ARH, and other recent programs. In the cases of ATF and JSF, these are very major programs, and the amount of info availabe warrants separate articles in their cases. - BilCat (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I would agree that the BAMS article is mostly an aircraft article... most of the prose is about the competition/program, only the specs section is more "aircraft" oritented. As for your other comment, about program articles, I don't know if I like that rule of thumb. Programs are interesting, and the aircraft/designs not selected often get lost to the annals of time. For modern programs we have the luxury of having the sources and stories available, we can write articles about. I think we should try and preserve the program articles, even expand them if we can. -SidewinderX (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I said "partial", not "mostly". :) Anyway, I'm not saying we shouldn't have them for all programs, but just saying why we havn't so far, and why I think that has worked well for us. You're welcome to make a case for restoring any o fthe program articles that have been merged, adn creating new ones. Just as with the new naming conventions we passed a few months back, consesus does change over time, especially as editors come and go. - BilCat (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, sorry for misrepresenting your comments :D. Well, I guess I'll just volunteer to work both articles and leave it to consensus on whether or not we should do that. I'm obviously in favor of having both articles, but I'm happy to let consensus rule. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not going to push either way. For the most part, the program articles ae a new feature, but I'm not opposed to them being separte from the aircraft articles if they can be more than stubs. - BilCat (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Jurca Tempete/Dart

After fleshing out Jurca Tempête, an article which includes the Jurca Dart as a variant, with inlines etc I found there was a separate stub Jurca Dart. The Dart was distinct from the Tempête, with a revised wing, but closely related to it. Since only 1 or 2 Darts were built (there is some uncertainty) and the Tempête article contains just the same info about it that as in the Dart stub, but includes the aircraft from which it was developed, should we not merge (essentially delete the stub) and redirect?TSRL (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the best thing to do is merge and redirect the Dart article to Jurca Tempête. The wings part should be referenced during this, I think. -fnlayson (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, redirect the Dart article to the Tempête and incorporate the text that can be moved. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Harrier Jump Jet

FYI, Harrier Jump Jet has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Schräge Musik

Really need some help here, as an image is being challenged, albeit, IMHO, it is historically significant. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

Icelandic Air Policing

I created an article on NATO's Icelandic Air Policing yesterday and am interested in developing it to B class. The main barrier to this at present is that I can't find a comprehensive list of deployments. There about three deployments from different countries each year, and the sources I've found mention deployments from Spanish and Polish forces in addition to those in the article (which appear to have occured in 2008 and 2009) but I can't confirm if or when these took place. Does anyone have any references on these? Thanks Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-35/-35BM merger

The Sukhoi Su-35 and Sukhoi Su-35BM articles appear to be about minimum-change variants of the same basic aircraft. The differences are so minimum that both types are covered in both articles! A merger has been propose before, but was shot down by the alphabet fanboys (the ones who create a new article every time the Russians add new letters to an aircraft designtion!) Whatever your view on the merger, any input would be appreciated. - BilCat (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Were you going to start the new merger discussion at Talk:Sukhoi Su-35? - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I wanted to see what the consesnus was here first, minus the fanboys. I'll probably add a new proposal there today, if someone doesn't beat me to it. - BilCat (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll let someone else start this one. -fnlayson (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a merge a couple years ago without success. I sorta gave up on it a few months ago and cut down on the overlap in the 2 articles. But I do support merging them. -fnlayson (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeff: I did read that conversation there from 2008. You were just ahead of your time! The points seem still valid, time to move on it this time, perhaps? - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hopefully. Sukhoi and Jane's describe the Su-35BM/Su-35S as a new version of or new generation of Su-35, for whatever that's worth.. -fnlayson (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Jane's 2010-11 gives details, at the individual aircraft level, of the 5 modified Su-27s, 9 (non-static) Su-35s and current 3 Su-35Ss. Under "Current versions" it describes the Su-35 as "Prototypes and pre-series" and the Su-35S as "Production. Previously known as Su-35BM". This suggests to me a single article, either titled Sukhoi Su-35 for simplicity, or Sukhoi Su-35S to focus on the production aircraft (assuming production of the 48 ordered, started 11/09).TSRL (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, merger section started at Talk:Sukhoi Su-35#Merge_Su-35BM. -fnlayson (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Interested editors please provide a yea or nay there. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as Merge and the articles were combined. Thanks to BillCat for finishing that off. -fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft incident article

Delta Air Lines Flight 4951 covers a seemingly minor incident. I believe this can be covered sufficiently at Bombardier CRJ700#Accidents_and_incidents. I tried PRODing it, but that was contested. Time for AfD or just redirect the article? -fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only related to the aircraft type so that is where I would send it as you suggest, a redirect would be the logical answer. On a related subject we do need to sort WP:AIRCRASH as soon as possible, it is being used as guideline/policy when it is only an essay at the moment. Also needs to be 'ratified' by a WP team independent of the aviation project as we often get accused of 'doing our own thing'. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's the whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability and its sub-pages that are essays. What exactly would the process be to turn them all into guidelines/policy? Do we just remove the essay header tag after checking through them? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Have not read through it but WP:PROPOSAL seems to be the starting point. Should be done if only for the air accident articles initially as they are causing problems. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we really need to move a clean accident article policy forward, before a certain editor nominates them all for deletion. Have a look at User:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents and also User talk:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents as we were making some progress there. - Ahunt (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 32 participants listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Participants, perhaps they should be asked if they would like to help? It's not really my field but I do pitch up at the AfDs (there is also an impression that we vote to keep all of them which is not so). There are roughly 1,300 articles tagged as air accident related, does seem a lot to me. Now would be a very good time to get 'all the ducks in a row' as it is surely only going to get worse. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's their 'bag' basically. We all do our bit, I mainly look after the engines (with others of which you are one, thank you sir!), ejector seat types is something that I want to look at next. I'm quite happy to look at proposed guidelines. I wrote the WP:AETF ones so have some idea. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I redirected the Flight 4951 article to the CRJ700 article. Note the guidelines developed at User:Mjroots/Notability of Aircraft Accidents may need to be combined or copied over what is on this draft page: WP:Notability (fatal hull loss civil aviation accidents). -fnlayson (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Dyn'Aéro

Just been looking at the article on Dyn'Aéro company. There is a section on accidents and Incidents, unusual in a company article, which deals with a particular incident to a specific type (Dyn'Aero MCR01). Should not this section be on the aircraft page, rather than that of the company?TSRL (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unusual. The MCR01 aircraft article already has an Accident section with the same entry. Just remove the accident section from the company article. -fnlayson (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that the aircraft article was only created a few hours after the Accident section was added to the company page, so it's not as perplexing as it might otherwise seem. I do concur with removing it as suggested. - BilCat (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the GF revert at Dyn'Aero, I didn't realise that an article had been created for the aircraft, which is why I reverted the removal from the company article. Mjroots (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Coandă-1910

FYI, Coandă-1910 has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it's eligible for PRODding, so I've removed the tag as contested. Notability isn't an issue, and I doubt there are any other isues that warrant the article's deletion. It's primarily a content dispute with behaviour issues by POV pusshers,and deltions won't solve those problems if the involved users just move on to other articles. - BilCat (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

perhaps other editors would care to look over the discussions with respect to contributing alternative reputable sources for the article. There is some contention that Charles Gibbs-Smith had insufficient technical background to be a impeccable source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What an absolute quagmire the discussion has turned into! FWiW, Gibbs-Smith was considered a preeminent aviation historian during and after his lifetime. Bzuk (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Bzuk, Gibbs-Smith specialist readers about his work: link1, link2, link3, link4, link5, link6, link7, link8 --Lsorin (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is not one mention of Henri Coandă or the Coandă-1910 in your links. What you see there is a spirited academic discussion of Ader, of Cody, of other aviation pioneers who could have eclipsed the Wright brothers in being first with powered flight. None of those letters is applicable to Gibbs-Smith's expertise on Coandă. Binksternet (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute at Coandă-1910

Can I please get some eyes at Coandă-1910? There is an ongoing editing dispute on this article. I am requesting full protection of this article until the issue is resolved. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Title format

Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka (Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka) has quote marks in the title, which is non-standard, and difficult to link to. I assume it should be at Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka, but since that page has been edited more than once, I can't move it. Anyway, it was previously at Ohka, but moved to the new title without discussion, so I also wanted to make sure that Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka is the best title. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it should be Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka, without the quote marks. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ditto - the quotes should go.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've added a {{db-move}} tag to Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka to remove the quotes from the title. Hopefully an admin will move it shortly. - BilCat (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Some cleanup is still needed, see [3] and [4] with a huge tag attached to one of the articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the {{db-move}} tag on the Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka page, which will get an admin to come by and delete the page so Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka can be moved. That's how the tagging process wordks. - BilCat (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much! I've added the new {{Italic title prefixed}} tag to the page to put the proper italics in the title, as now permitted by WP title guidelines. See nect post for more info on this feature. - BilCat (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka for deletion as DB-R3 - misnomer/typos. - BilCat (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Italic title features

WP now allows article titles to be formatted in italics (full or partial) using several new templates. The primary one is {{Italic title}} (see Balls 8 for an example), while {{Italic title prefixed}} allows partial italics to be used at the end of the title (see Yokosuka MXY7 Ohka}.

Several projects have incorporated italics into their infoboxes, such as Template:Infobox film and Template:Infobox ship begin. Would there be any interest in adding an italic title toggle field to our Template:Infobox Aircraft Begin? We have a few hundred Individual aircraft, many of which could use full or partial italics in their page titles. I could ask Trevor for help in putting this together if there is any interes. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

8-Ball (aircraft)

FYI, 8-Ball (aircraft) has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Aurora (aircraft)

Aurora (aircraft) is desperatetly in need of attention from mature editors, being the recent target of fan-boy edits adding unsupported claims, and having large pre-existing unrefereced sections, not to mention a HUGE list of pop-culture "appearances". Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to BZuk for jumping right in with his cutting shears. - BilCat (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the article is beyond rescue and could safely be deleted, but I'm open to being surprised. Roger (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would never get deletion approved on a deletion process. There are plenty of RS-material for this entity, particularly AWST. It'll either end as no-consensus, rewrite but keep, or ordinary keep. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose deletion, too. The 'Aurora' (regardless of what you call it (SR-91, Blackstar*, etc.) and whether or not it even exists! (a subject on which I keep a skeptical but open mind...)) is decidely notable and can be RS'd, as noted. And there's plenty of evidence ('doughnuts on a rope' and such) that something might well be out there (with apologies to Agent Mulder). * I do wonder if maybe Aurora (aircraft) and Blackstar (spaceplane) might be mergable, though... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Probably so. There's a lot of overlap in the Aurora and Blackstar, though they seem to be different aircraft based on their timeframes. -fnlayson (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That Tu-160 comparison table...

...got reverted to be in the article again, this time by an IP editor. I zapped it, but it seems we're going to have to keep a sharp eye on it lest it rise from the grave yet again! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Detailed Specs Article

I just came across Aircraft Detailed Specifications – Global Express XRS, though it was added in March 2010. It appears to be a regurgitation of the PDF files listed as sources, and really adds nothing new. Is this something we want to keep, or should we PROD/AFD it? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Gak! That should be summarised in the specs section of the Bombardier Global Express page (assuming they're talking about the Global Express 7000 and not the 700-something like it says!). Prodded. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Must be the Global Express, the Bombardier Global 7000 seats 10, which is about half of what's on the spec page. -fnlayson (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I missed that Bombardier Global 7000 is a new article. Thanks for starting that BilCat. -fnlayson (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Piper Altaire

Per this article on FlightGlobal, Piper is replacing the Piper PA-47 PiperJet with a slightly larger aircraft, the "Piper Altaire". We should probably create a an article at Piper Altaire, in order to make sure this is done right, once it's been totally confrmed that this is indeed what Piper is doing. - BilCat (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Stub is up. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hawker 200

Hawker is introducing the [Hawker 200, per its website. From this source, it appears to be an upgrade/rebranding of the Beechcraft Premier II, but being under the Hawker name now, we should probably do a variant article for it separate from the Premier I. We should get more info in the nex few days, but watch out for new WP airticles. Also, per the same source, Beechcraft is introducing the King Air 250. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

New article is up at Hawker 200, as this news release from Hawker confrms that the Permier II is now the Hawker 200. - BilCat (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest focus article - Bristol Britannia

Both the upgraded and re-referenced Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow and Avro Vulcan have been completed, both have recently passed their GA reviews and are now listed as Good Articles. My current article of focus is the Bristol Britannia.

Quite a bit of progress has already been made, if anybody is interested in 1950s era aircraft it would likely be worth a look in. Kyteto (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To give an idea of progress since the start of the redevelopment less than 24 hours ago, references have gone from a total of 12 to 51, and article size had increased 33%. Kyteto (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Further update: the Variants section is in need of assistance from an editor equipped with the right texts. I can't uncovered evidence suporting the existence/details of the various models of the Britannia. Kyteto (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC).

As fast progress has been made, faster than I could have anticipated, I've decided to place a GA nomination for this article, as it now appears to be in a fair state to stand as a candidate. Watch this space. Kyteto (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is now listed, I consider the work on this article now more or less complete! Thank you everybody. Kyteto (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Category

I notice that Category:British helicopters 1950-1959 has just been created and it is a sub-cat of Category:British aircraft 1950-1959. I though the reason this wasnt done before as it mixes role based cats with type categories? Perhaps this should be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, IMHO, since helicopters are aircraft (and also IMHO, breaking down 'Fooian helicopters' cats by role probably shouldn't be done), that putting 'Fooian helicopters' under 'Fooian aircraft' would be logical. I'm just as happy keeping them under just 'Helicopters' though. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK but all the aircraft articles are decade classified by role not type at the moment so if the decade classification should be done by type then I think it needs some discussion first. MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll hold off adding more helos by decade to the aircraft by decade categories until/unless discussion/consensus is done/reached. Thanks for the poke. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This may come out of helicopter roles not obviously matching the current categories. Possibly due that at the first instance, "aircraft" conjures up aeroplane in the mind before helicopter. I suppose that troop-carrying helicopters would go under "military transport" and anti-tank ones under "attack". GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The catch is, a lot of helicopters have crossover roles. Mi-8s carry four rocket pods, while Mi-24s can carry troops. And the division between civil and military helicopters has always been rather blurry. The solution where they helicopters go under "Role Aircraft" but also (and simply) "Fooian Helicopters" seems to be the only one what won't turn into a disgusting mess, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite, file under as many cats as make sense.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed wing aircraft also have multiple roles. For example, the de Havilland Mosquito served as fighter, bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. The present categorisation is not ideal, I'd say, and might be better as British military aircraft 1940-1949; WWII fighter; WWII bomber; WWII reconnaissance aircraft: this keeps the decade cat role almost all-encompassing. Yes, I know a few flew as civilians ...! Thinking about it, maybe the WWII cats are too narrow, since Mosquitos were at work defending the Empire in Malaysia years later, so drop that WWII. TSRL (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the original concept of the role categories when they were started was that each type would only have one, normally the one the aircraft was designed originally for. MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm. With regard to the WW2 cats, I think perhaps categorising the aircraft in question with a combination of 'Fooian fighters 1940-1949' and 'World War II fighter aircraft' might work, with 'Fooian fighters of World War II' being depreciated? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Another decade category where type has replaced role is eg Category:French sailplanes 1980-1989. Should this not be Category:French sport aircraft 1980-1989?TSRL (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sailplanes and gliders have their own categories throughout. Which makes sense, IMHO. Also IMHO, some types (sailplanes, gliders, choppers) really should be categorised by type instead of role, or by both, due to their unique properties. Just sticking the sailplanes under "Fooian sport aircraft 1984-2525" would make somebody just looking for Fooian sailplanes scratch their head... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

With the helicopters by decade cats I would think it still is appropriate to add the role cat as well, any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Good Topics?

It occured to me that creating Featured Topics/Good Topics for WP:AIR articles might be a useful goal. The set of articles that caught my eye and made me think of it was the Avro Canada articles. Like so:

Avro Canada

6 articles

CF-100

CF-105

C102

CF-103

VZ-9

Any thoughts? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Having created a large number of ship topics, I say go for it! Finishing out a topic can add a little extra motivation when your energy flags a little. The problem with aircraft topics is that the individual articles for aircraft that were built in large numbers or widely sold require a huge amount of work. I've thought of building one on Polikarpov fighters, having already done some of the preliminary work, but I dread the work required to bring up the I-15, I-152, I-153 and I-16 articles up to GA status to finish out the topic. Or to finish off Tupolev piston-engined bombers, for that matter. OTOH, doing so gives a real sense of accomplishment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft specs - prop note

Is it just me, or is there a problem with prop notes? It doesn't seem to work, certainly not as the other, very useful, xxxx notes= lines do.TSRL (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A new editor on the scene

Please note the angry and disruptive editing of the following record. It involves an opinionated but unverified set of changes. Can anything be done? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

An incident I don't think we have

See WT:AV#An incident I don't think we have. This could have some repercussions on our efforts to caft notability guidelines for aircraft accidents and incidents. - BilCat (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Probable COI

User:Gdbaldw created the Baldwin Mono Tiltrotor in June 2009, and has not edited the article until Oct. 25, 2010. The user name is very similar to the author of a major source in the article, G.D. Baldwin. This appears to be a probable conflict of interest. - BilCat (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed that. It seems the article is fairly (remarkably?) neutral, or at least free of puffery, though. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but since we're tinkering with "his" article about "his" project, it might be good to make him aware of WP's policies on COI, just in case a dispute arises. - BilCat (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Microjets

I noticed that the term Microjet redirects to Very Light Jet, and that that is indeed a correct useage of the term. However, the first thing I think of when I hear the term is the BD-5J and its ilk. It seems to me that Microjet should probably be its own article, either about the tiny jet aircraft or about the engines themselves; thoughts? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not have associated Microjet with VLJs - I would think it should redirect to Microjet 200! MilborneOne (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, a quick Google seems to indicate that it was used for VLJs - both the Eclipse and Adam 700 are referred to by that term! It should be a disambiguation term at least, it seems. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to create a dab page. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also a manufacturer of very small turbine engines US Microjet LLC and MicroJet Technology Co. Ltd a Tawanese manufacturer of inkjet printing technology. Roger (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Those are good finds, I have added them to Microjet. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Augusto Cicaré

Created an article for Augusto Cicaré today. There was quite a bit more information in the Cicaré Helicopters site, plus dead-tree sources would be great, if anybody feels up to expanding it. I'd like to get it to DYK but have a lot on my plate at the moment and can't wrap my brain around further work at the moment. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Revolution Helicopter Corporation for more on this person. - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

List of aircraft

Just to note that a user is asking for all non-linked (red links) entries in List of aircraft (T-Z) needs to have a citation and any comments that have been added other than the blue link. Not sure why they have choosen T-Z and not any other lists. MilborneOne (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

From WP:REDLINK: ...rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles. This is saying that we should not have redlinks in our lists, we do have missing article pages. I mentioned this for List of aircraft engines a while ago (we have a missing engine article page as well). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institution cat

I know this has been discussed before but just like to say adding Category:Aircraft in the collection of the Smithsonian Institution to lots of aircraft just seems a bit daft particularly when it is added to mass production types like the Beechcraft Bonanza. Do we need cats for where the other 10,000 Bonanzas are kept! but even if it limited to institutions with aircraft on display you could probably add a few hundred cats to the P-51 and the like. Sorry no need to reply this is just a rant. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't need a reply, but I think you make a good point, we could have hundreds of cats for all the major museums, but does it serve any purpose? Not that I can see. - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the point is, the Smithsonian is something special...but then we open the can of worms about other national aviation museums. Personally, List of aircraft in the Smithsonian Institution would be a much better way of doing this, I think. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Here in Canada the Canada Aviation Museum is special. - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

List created (link above). Feel free, y'all, to help fill it out. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

North London Skydiving Centre

Not sure it is strictly in Aircraft's remit but I see North London Skydiving Centre has just been created I am sure that some of these drop zone articles were deleted a while back as non-notable and rolled into the British Parachute Association article but perhaps my memory fails me as some of them seem to have been around as stubs for a while. Perhaps they should all be AfD as non-notable? MilborneOne (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This one is quite near me, the article has a navbox where you can see the others (does not appear to be a category for them). On the fence on notability, probably no different to the flying and gliding club articles that we already have (notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc!!) As long as the advertising element is taken out of them I can't see the harm. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is currently at AfD and doesn't look likely to survive as no one has voted "keep" yet. I have been looking at the others all linked from Template:BPA Drop Zones and it looks like every last one of them fails WP:N. Any thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd nominate the lot at AfD and sort out the issue in one fell swoop. I suspect what notable content there is in each could probably be "rescued" by merger into the airfields they are based at. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Graeme: that sounds like a good suggestion. I'll have to research "massed AFDs" and see about that once the current one runs out. The curent AfD hasn't got much attention, but I suspect that move would! - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of North London Skydiving Centre

This notice is to inform members of this WikiProject about the nomination of this article for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the deletion debate. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Very Light Jets

While browing categories in my Endless Quest for the Perfect Categorisation™ (a most mythical beast), I came across List of very light jets and List of very light jet operators. I'm thinking that the latter really should be AFD'd, perhaps? The former is useful, but is a bit of a mess... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with List of very light jets is that since the Eclipse disaster most of the manufacturers on that list have been claiming that their aircraft is not a VLJ, see the opening sections for Very light jet for details on that. I agree that List of very light jet operators is just somewhere between an indiscriminate list and spam and should go. - Ahunt (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So...the term "VLJ" has become the equiviliant of "Station Wagon" in the auto industry, then. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck - but, please, it's not a duck at all, it's an Anatidae! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

List of very light jet operators

• List of very light jet operators has been prodded. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. It's been prodded before, I see. AfD time. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

...and as you can tell by the redlink it has now been deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ho or H 229?

What is the actual designation for the aircraft or should there be an alternative designation given? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Every source I have, including Luftwaffe documents (click on highlighted G) says Ho 229; the design was the Ho IX. The Ho IX project was handed to Gothaer Waggonfabrik who redesigned the airframe for mass production and it then became the Ho 229, although SOME sources say Go 229.Minorhistorian (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ross Perot Jr.

An article on the Spirit of Texas has been created. One of the pilots was Ross Perot Jr.. He had anb article (I don't remember when it was created), but it was speedily deleted with the summary "Subject is the son of a famous person, but other than that, no importance or significance is established; precedence set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scout Willis." As one of the two men to fly the first helicopter around the world, I think notabilty can be established. WHt's the best way to challege the deletion? I've never done that before. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've also raised the issue at User talk:Zzyzx11#Deletion of Ross Perot Jr., but the admin is semi-retired, so a response may not be quick. - BilCat (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops! There is acually another article at Ross Perot, Jr. (note the comma) in the title - that's the article I saw today. It looks like it did exist when the other article was deleted 5 years ago. So now my question is, which title is correct? The one with or without the comma? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

According to this article:"with or without an interceding comma". But all the examples, and most of the articles on this wiki, uses comma, it seems. Paaln (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Gulf Helicopters

Any help or suggestions we be greatly appreciated for User:Dancaffey/Gulf Helicopters I need 3rd party source(s) to show notability Dancaffey (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been moved to Article space (Gulf Helicopters). I think it needs better referencing from 3rd party sources. -fnlayson (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fan Boy Home to close?

Just for information List of fighter aircraft as been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fighter aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The consensus there so far seems to be "keep and fix". - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

KF-X article may need watching

A Korean editor is removing referenced information repeatedly from the Korea Aerospace Industries KF-X article, on the basis of "I'm Korean and know better", and is becoming uncivil in edit summaries. More eyes on the article might be good. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

New Focus Article for November: de Havilland Comet

Greetings WP: Aircraft

On my continuing mission to overhaul and properly cite key aviation articles, I have been making progress with the de Havilland Comet, held up by some as the first passenger jet. It is an extensive article, as well as being extremely important as aircraft go. As ever if people would chip in across the coming month, I'm certain that we can get it up to a higher quality and make it more useful for students and interested readers alike, I would be much appreciated of the efforts and the results made.

I wish also to thank those who have been working on projects such as Bristol Britannia, Avro Vulcan, and Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow; their efforts have created well researched and documented coverage for those aircraft, and I am glad to have been a participant in such efforts. Thank you. Kyteto (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As a project, WPAIR is probably ought to have efforts such as focus articles, and we have had them in the past, with little success in implementing them. Thanks for your efforst in this area. If I may, Id loke to propose that, for the nwe year (2011), we try to allow project input in choosing the focus article for each month, or make it more public if that is already being done. If that fails again, then you can keep choosing the articles you feel are best for you to work on. I mena no offense byt this suggestion, ZI just don't want you to feel that the b urden is all your owmn. In WP projects, it good to have someone with a "vision" and desire to improve articles, and who can actually led the way in doing that. Unlike WP:MILHIST, WPAIR does not have a coordinator, much less nine as with Milhist, so things can be quite haphazard at times here. but it seems to be what we all accept as the norm. - BilCat (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As you might surmise, I do have an interest in this topic and have a great deal more resources that were never fully utilized in the development of the article. One of the drawbacks I feel in K's approach is a heavy reliance on electronic sources, which is not altogether bad, but I do have access to Canada's largest collection of aviation books and periodicals, so I typically rely heavily on more traditional reference sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

I agree, the setting of focus articles should be a community project rather than by an individual. My own unofficial appeals do not intended to compete or stand in the way of the restoration of such a feature, I often come across articles I consider to be of high importance and in a good state for a refurbishing, as such I share them here. It is likely that I would take part in a community collaboration article of the month scheme (though not every aircraft may appeal to my tastes or resources, naturally, as is the case for everyone). Has anybody got knowledge on what happened to the prior collaboration section?

On the Comet's refitting, it is progressing very quickly. When I started the article had a total of 19 citations, with the combined efforts so far it has been brough up to 92 citations, and there is still plenty of information in need of citing. All is going smoothly. Kyteto (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: The article is now awaiting a GA review, it should perform okay. If anybody else is interested, feel free to take a look.

For one last look, I've set another Canajan on the task of doing an overview, he has already spotted something... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Lancer (Helicopter)‎

Lancer (Helicopter)‎ keeps being recreated, despite multiple redirects by WPAIR members to Aérospatiale SA 315B Lama. It has a few sources, but nothing really recent, so I don't now if the helicopter has ever actually entered service. For now, it looks like the SA 315B aritcle is the best place for this info. Should we hold a merge discussion, or possibly even an AFD? Thanks BilCat (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be better to spin of a HAL Cheetah article and have the Lancer as a variant. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Or is that Cheetak ? (Cheetah = 315B, Cheetak = 316B). MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I've been able to find so far, the Cheetah is the SA 315B, but Aérospatiale sold it to other users too. - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

According the the printed souce I have (Frawley, Military aircraft book, 2002), the Lancer is a variant of the SA 315B (Cheetah). Is it possible that both types were to be upgraded to the same standard as the Lancer? - BilCat (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like they have taken a Cheetah and added a rocket pod on each side, flare dispensers and some armoured seats not a big change. http://www.hal-india.com/exports/helicopters.asp MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor variant, subject to nationalistic chest-puffing as usual. Merge and redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. The Indian fanboys are almost as bad as the Chinese ones sometimes. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lancer (Helicopter) has been cut-and-paste moved to HAL Lancer. Due to my chonic inability to file AFDs, could someone do the honors? (Should we include both pages on the nom to be complete?) Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HAL Lancer MilborneOne (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

NACA duct/inlet

A user has moved NACA duct to NACA Inlet. I've reverted this, as the given sources in the article use the term "NACA duct". Any help with resolving this issue would be appreciated, especially from those with reliable sources to contribute. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Try inserting this 1945 NACA report on NACA Ducts in as a reference. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Roger (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

MQ-1 Predator, again

An editor has been adding the "targeted killing" POVish phrasing to the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator article again - and not just in a single link, but throughout the article. I've rolled it back but more eyes on the article might be a good idea. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. However, I don't think moving it to General Atomics Q-1 Predator is the best idea. The current "Q" sequences always use a modified mission letter such as "R" or "Q", and "MQ-1" appears to be the common default designation for most sources when talking about Predator series in general. - BilCat (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See also the previous discussion at Talk:General Atomics Q-1 Predator#MQ-1 Predator. I think the points made there which resulted in the original move still stand. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was sleepy and didn't see that. Oops. I'll move it back later if nobody else chips in (or of course, you can), thanks for catching that Bill. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Payload (air and space craft)

Payload (air and space craft) could use a LOT of work! ANd perhaps a better title? - BilCat (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not just Payload, with the existing page there becoming Payload (disambiguation)? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Designations

Looking at the Vought XS2U article, something jumps out at me: the AWACS variant was given the designation - the article says - "TWU-1". "T"? I don't think I've seen this elsewhere. Was this the Navy's equiviliant of the Air Force's "Z" modifier for a design in the planning stages, before the prototype/"X"-modifier stage? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The US Navy site [5] says they were XS2U-1W then XWU-1 then cancelled. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

LTV Model 1600/1601/1602

I'm trying to prepare an article on the LTV Model 1600 variants of the NACF competition that led to the F/A18. There is some info at F-16 Fighting Falcon variants#LTV Aerospace Model 1600/1601/1602, but I don't have access to the souces cited there, and much of it contradicts the sources I do have, so I will probably write it from scratch. We could also probably use an article on the competition, the Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF).

I'm asking here (the F-16 talk page has an active SPA right now) about what to call the article. I'm leaning towards LTV Model 1602, the main entrant, or possibly LTV Model 1600 series. - BilCat (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably go with LTV Model 1600 family, as that seems to be consistent with similar groups of aircraft (e.g. Airbus A320 family)? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That would work too. - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Official" designations

We need to settle the issue of whether or not type certificates can determine the name of an aircraft type. (I think we've discussed this before, but I'm not good at searching the archives.) It's come up again at Piaggio P180 Avanti, where I forgot to check the talk page before moving it. Anyway, we have generally used the manufacturer's name/designation as official, esopecially if backed up by reliable sources. A company is free to call its products by whatever name it choses, regardless of what the type certificate says. To call it simply "marketing" implies the company can't use the names/designations it chooses. (Obvuioulsly military designations are exempt.) - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more of being consistant, in this particular example all the rest of the Piaggios are in the P.XXX format which just happens to agree with the type certificate. The company website is not allways the best source as the marketing people may not known what the official type format is and may just use whatever looks nice. The Piaggio website uses both P.180 and P180 in different sections. Its a bit like the old problem of AB.XXX or A-B.XXX or AB-XXX or ABXXX or A-B-XXX and in most cases I believe we have tried to use the same format across the same manufacturer. We probably redirect from the more common variants of the name. I think we just need to be the same across the same manufacturer. MilborneOne (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason that I support using the type certificate as the official version of the aircraft's designation is two fold. First as MB1 has indicated above often the company marketing information (pamphlets, website, press releases) all contradict each other as these are often made up by company PR people who haven't got a clue about this sort of thing. Second is that the designation on the TC is actually the one that the company has submitted to the FAA or other airworthiness authority (Transport Canada, EASA, CASA, etc). The FAA don't make these up, they are submitted by the company engineering staff as part of the certification process and essentially are officially what the company calls the aircraft and what the FAA or other authority has accepted. There are some times where the company buys an existing design and gets stuck with whatever the previous company submitted, as in the case of the Cessna 400 (formerly the Columbia 400 and before that the Lancair 400) which is officially on the TC as the Model LC41-550FG (for Lancair Certified, Model 41, Continental 550 engine, Fixed Gear), but I think in that cased of that sort of situation we have covered it well by calling the article by its common marketing name Cessna 400 but by explaining the designation in the text. To sum up I think the common name should be used in the title, but the text should generally use the official designation, with exceptions as in the C-400 where it would be confusing and therefore should be explained. In cases like the P.180 vs P180, where the marketing dept obviously can't make up their mind the type certificate should prevail. Whatever we decide here should be noted at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) and probably at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content for sake of completeness as well. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I take your points on the P180/P.180, that the issue is not as clear as I thought. However, I've encountered several aircraft types that differ quite widely from the "marketing" designations. In addition, many types are on the same type certificate for certification reasons, in that it's easicer to certificate an aircraft on an existing TC than on a new one. - BilCat (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal designations are uaually the original designation given to the types, as in the cases for the Hughes 269/300 and 369/500, but often the manufacturer chooses to cahnge designation style for whatever reason. These "marketing" desigantaions are generally the more well-known ones and ones used in most published sources. My main point here is that "legal" is not the same as "official", and in some cases, the legal designation is quite different from the common, public designation, and often unrecognizable as the belonging to the same aircraft.

The use of dots/dashes/spaces in designations is often inconsistent, and does change quite often in some cases. EADS appears to be standardizing the designations of its aircraft to not use spaces or dots, as in the EC145, not EC 145, and C295, not C-295, in more recent publications. I believe the same thing has happened with the P180, and that it's not just a typo on the part of some web writer. Older web material is often not updated, leading to consistencies within the same website, but the new marterial is usually consistent.

Even the British Armed Forces has done away with the dots in its Mark designations (Tornado GR4, not GR.4), though the dot was official for many years. Several years ago, WPAIR consensus was formed that if the dot was not used in a current aircraft mark, then the whole page would not uses dots, but the dot would be used on older aircraft. However, some editors follow their own style, and have removed the dots on all marks in some older articles. (One editor even moved North American Mustang Mk.X to North American Mustang Mk X with the summary "Hi Bill, this is an old article which I wrote, since then, I have been informed that the contemporary designation is now "Mk", doing away with the period"! I decided not to push the issue at that time.) To me, this is historically inconsistent, so we should probably revisit that one also. - BilCat (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Type certificate designations

Can someone please check the type certificates for the designations for the following:

• Beechcraft King Air/Beechcraft Super King Air series -
• Bombardier CRJ series -
• Hughes/MD 500/530 -
• Hughes/Schweizer 300/Sikorsky S-300 -
• Short 330 -
• Short 360 -

Super King Air

US type certificate A24CE has them as Hawker Beechcraft:

• Model 200 Super King Air (also Model A200C Super King Air, Model 200C Super King Air, Model B200 Super King Air, B200C Super King Air)
• Model A200 Super King Air
• Model 200T Super King Air (also Model 200CT Super King Air, A200CT Super King Air, B200T Super King Air, B200CT Super King Air)
• Model B200GT Super King Air (also B200CGT Super King Air)
• Model A100-1 Super King Air
• Model A200CT Super King Air
• Model 1900 Airliner (also Model 1900C Airliner)
• Model 300 Super King Air (also Model 300LW Super King Air)
• Model B300 Super King Air 350 (also Model B300C Super King Air 350C)
• Model 1900D Airliner

CRJ

The Canadian Type Certificate has:

• CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 and Series 440)
• CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 and 702)
• CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
• CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) my note - same as 705 with interior differences

The type certificate notes that the RJ200 is just a marketing designation for the Series 100 with different engines). So really they should all be Bombardier Regional Jet Series XXX or even (Bombardier CL-600 Regional Jet Series XXX), the type certificate makes no mention of "CRJ" as far as the certificate cares they are all variants of the CL-600 Challenger. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

My position is that CRJ100/200/700/900 are the company's designations for the aircraft, and what is most commonly used in published reliable sources. Having an article titled "Bombardier CL-600-2B19" would not convey to the average reader that it's about the CRJ200! "Bombardier Regional Jet Series 100" would be a more recognizable, but still not the common name/designatrion. Per WP:COMMONNAME, this would take precedent over the legal name used on type certifcates, which in this case was done so that the CRJs would not need to be certified as new aircraft. While I'm not in the industry in any way, this appears to be a common practice. - BilCat (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

MD500

US TC H3WE "MDHI (HUGHES)"

• Model 369
• Model 369A
• Model 369H (also Model 369HM, Model 369HS, Model 369HE)
• Model 369D (also Model 369E)
• Model 369F (also Model 369FF)
• Model 500N
• Model 600N

All the later 369s are marketed as Model 500s just to confuse. MilborneOne (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Short 330/360

UK TC Short Brothers PLC:

• SD3-30 (Variants 100, 200, 300, 400, 500)
• SD3-60 (Variants 100, 200, 300, 400, 500)
• SD3 Sherpa (Variants 100, 200)
• SD3-60 Sherpa (Variants 100, 200)

Continuing discussion

Thanks, Milb1, for researching the TC information. I don't have experience doing this, so I appreciatre someone else taking the time to do so. This also ensures that the information listed is not slanted by my POV!

As we can see, some these aircraft have designations that differ slightly from there type certificate, while others vary quite widely. Per WP:COMMONNAME, I believe the company's "public" designations/names should take precedent over the legal name used on type certificates, which in some cases was done so that the variants/derivitives would not need to be certified as new aircraft. While I'm not in the industry in any way, this appears to be a common practice.

The major execption of course would be with legally assigned military designations and names, which genrerally take precedence over company designations, though we sometimes make execeptions with aircraft that are in militaries of nations that don't assign designations, or with types that are also in civil service. - BilCat (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Bill: I agree with your point on using the most common name, which is usual on Wikipedia. How about this then: we stick with the most common name in use and if there is disagreement over the exact form of the designation (ie P.180 vs P180) because the marketing dept is confused then we defer to the TC for the final decision in the case of certified aircraft. In the case of non-certified aircraft then we are stuck. I think too that somewhere in articles where the common name or marketing name is different from the TC name that this should be explained as has been done in Cessna 400, Trivial differences, as in the case of Cessna 172 being certified as "model 172" can just be ignored, of course. How is that? - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds pretty good to me. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It has now been a week since the last comment here. Unless there is further discussion I will add this result to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) and probably at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content in the next couple of days. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• This seems very fair to me. -fnlayson (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have added some new text at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) to hopefully close this issue out. - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Related to this...

One thing I should ask while this is up, is there a standard for naming pages where the type has a U.S. military designation, and never got beyond the development stage - i.e., 'X' or 'Y' prefixing the designation? It seems that including the modifier (e.g. '...XP-56...') is used most often, but I'm sure I've seen articles that don't include it. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

...espeicially with regard to U.S. Navy aircraft. Great Lakes TBG or Great Lakes XTBG? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think we have anything specific for cases like that. But common sense and all points to using the last or most advanced designation that applies (YF- vs. XF- ). I believe the dashed number is for the version/variant, so that may need to be omitted from the article name. We have several aircraft articles like this such as XB-70, YA-9, YAH-63, and YF-23 for example. -fnlayson (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that'd be the case, but wanted to be sure. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that this isn't a reliable source?

I'm currently working on the Black Friday (1945) article and have found the book Beaufighter in focus on Google Books which has a detailed account of the battle. While all the details in its account I can check against other sources are OK and the book adds some useful extra details, I don't think that I can use it as it seems to have been published by a minor printing press (Red Kite / Air Research) and its author doesn't seem to have written any more substantial books. In short, it looks like it was the work of an enthusiastic amateur historian. Does anyone know anything about this publisher and/or series of books? Thanks Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If the book is properly referenced, properly written and checks out with other books there is no reason that it cannot be used as a reference; there is no reason to discount a book just because an author is an "amateur" enthusiast - often the work an enthusiast puts into research is as good as, if not better than the work of more established "professional" writers (one book that immediately springs to mind is The Wild Winds by NZer Paul Sortehaug whom, I know, is absolutely meticulous about his research and writing. Two others that spring to mind are Shattered Sword and the privately published Incident at Jebel Sherif which are both extremely high class references. Minorhistorian (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What MH said. I have a couple of Red Kite books and I see no issues in using anything that they publish per se.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is the guideline, we have no project specific ones that I know of. I'm pretty sure that it would be accepted as a reliable source at WP:FAC review. Even if there are errors in it then the 'verifiability over truth' principle per WP:VERIFY comes into play. If you spot obvious errors yourself then don't use that part of the book. If the whole book is rubbish then don't use it at all. A good writer usually includes a list of their own sources. Difficult to assess without seeing it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your caution, BTW, I can think of books published by enthusiasts which are absolute c*** and should not be touched unless wearing a Hazmat suit and a very long set of tongs; Sir Winston Churchill: Master of Courage...cough! Haaack!. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments. I've added the source to the article and used it as a reference, and no-one has complained in the A class review it's currently undergoing. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

World War II Allied codenames for Japanese aircraft

I just started an article on this subject and will be wiki-linking it to all 100+ applicable articles on Imperial Japanese aircraft. If anyone knows of articles on the same topic in other language Wikipedias, please add the links. I might try to submit this one for a DYK also. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We didn't have an article on this topic?! More proof that there is still tons of scope to start new articles! Great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Who has a copy of Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation post 1980?

I am looking to find out if an entry in Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation changed from what it was in 1980 to what it was in later editions. Here's the 1980 version:

• Coanda turbine (Romania) This was the world's first jet-propelled aircraft to fly, leaving the ground on 10 December 1910...

There is considerable scholarly friction about the Coandă-1910 ever flying, and I want to know if Jane's tweaked their entry in later editions, perhaps to reflect the contrasting views of experts. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1990 reprint is identical. Paaln (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Aha! It appears I am now looking for the 1993 version. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Flamingo

Help please with a queston - We have an article on the MBB 223 Flamingo but some references refer to it as the MBB 233 Flamingo. Is the 233 a development/variant of the 223? MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet searching turns up almost nothing for that, I suspect it is a typo! - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The 1968 'Observer's book of aircraft' only has it as the 223 with A, K and N variants. There was an Austrian twin, Flamingo SGP-222. Would like to know out of interest where these design numbers came from as they seemed to be used all over Europe at the time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - unless proven otherwise it looks like a typo - one of the few sites that uses 233 has a link to an aircraft that clearly says 223 on the engine cover! [6] MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that is what I call a proven typo in that case! - Ahunt (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is, Jane's ATWAs 64-65 and 68-69 list it as SIAT 223. Are we really sure it should be under MBB? Paaln (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Could be a number of names it started as the SIAT 223 (a development of the SIAT 222) but when the company was absorbed into MBB it became known as the MBB Flamingo. It was also built in Spain by CASA and some were built by Farner. MilborneOne (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A problem of transliteration from soviet aircrafts?

Hi ti all. In it.wiki, Lately I have been involved of soviet aviation and through an research done on a fighter plane unknown (to me), the Gudkov Gu-82 (Гудков Гу-82), I found that probably this is the same engineer (perhaps at the head of his own OKB) who participated in the design and development of the first Lavochkin "firma", the LaGG-1 and LaGG-3. A cross-searching with ru.wiki and other online sources in the Russian language has resulted in Михаил Иванович Гудков, as well Mikhail Ivanovich Gudkov in your trasliteration system, but in article Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Goudkov LaGG-3 you can seen the transliteration in Goudkov. I think it's an error of transliteration or transcription, what do you think? Thank you all for your attention :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly WikiP's Romanisation of у is u : see Wikipedia:Romanisation of Russian. There are a lot of transliteration systems, c.f. Romanisation of Russian, but all listed there make the same choice. No sign of Roman ou anywhere, so it looks like an error and is definitely non-WikiP even if it is the usage in an unusual system.TSRL (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just looked up the LaGG-1 and -3 in Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation (1989), where M.J.H Taylor says (p.568) "designed by Lavochkin, Gorbunov and Gudkov. Looks as if the pages need renaming.TSRL (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, and now? Can I move to new designation or I must attend more opinions?--Threecharlie (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks OK to me to go ahead and rename these articles (and make changes wherever needed in the text). --TraceyR (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed the -3 and changed Goudov to Gudnov within it, apart from the wls to other Wikipedias. Original article now a Redirect. Will repeat for -1 shortly. If gun jumped we can revert!TSRL (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC) -1 done. TSRL (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I made the same change in it.wiki. :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation overhaul on BAC TSR-2, tags need addressing

The latest push I have conducted has been on the cancelled strike-bomber, the BAC TSR-2. After adding around 40 cites, I have identified nine sentences in need of referencing, and I have not uncovered the material to complete them so far. If this aircraft interests you, you may just have read things I have not, and can complete these gaps. Kyteto (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that's taken care of then. Nominated for Review. Kyteto (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Missiles

Nothing really to do with this project but following our renaming exercise earlier in the year to add manufacturers names particulary to US aircraft the rocketery project has decided to remove them all from missiles! Which is leaving some really daft names the perfectly reasonable common name Bristol Bloodhound has been changed to Bloodhound (missile). Sorry just needed to comment on what appears to be a backward step and shows that we did was ok. Not really for this forum. MilborneOne (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I reverted the move for the Bloodhound (per CommonName as much as anything), and the naming does touch on aviation peripherally because of all those aircraft-carried missiles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I ruffled any feathers. I asked about naming formats for missiles over at WT:MILHIST, and was directed to WP:ROCKETRY's name format reccomendations, which are: Designation and name; Designation or name if only one exists and is unambigious; Designation or name with (missile), (rocket) or (missile family) if only one exists and is not unambigious. Manufacturer's names aren't mentioned at all there. If there's a concern or consensus that for some missiles the manufacturer's name should be included, IMHO they work better without them, but I don't have a problem with it. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Snowbird (ornithopter)

I've been trying to build an article at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Articles for creation/Snowbird (ornithopter). Do you guys think it's good enough to go live? 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It needs a bit of minor clean up in the wording, but I would say it can be moved to mainspace at this point. If it is moved please list it at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft). - Ahunt (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It was moved into mainspace, and I listed it at the list. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Super! - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I commented on this at WT:WikiProject Aviation#Snowbird ornithopter. It needs some more formatting, like why are the author names bolded and the dates in italics? -fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the style I use for references. The guidelines on references does not say that I have to use APA style or Havard style or IEEE style, etc, only that the article is consistent in its internal reference style. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor things like that can be fixed after it is moved to mainspace. No need for perfection, as long as it meets WP:N, which this seems to, then it can be moved. - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've marked it for evaluation by the Incubator people. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Aircraft design process

This notice is to inform members of this WikiProject about the nomination of this article for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the deletion debate. - Ahunt (talk)

Invitation to participate!

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin 2-0-2/4-0-4

A user has "updated" the Martin 2-0-2‎ and Martin 4-0-4 articles (with the number "0") to use 2-O-2 and 4-O-4 (the letter "O"), based on personal souirces and research. The same user discussed this at Talk:Martin 4-0-4 over a year ago, and there was no consensus to move then. I do note that Milb1 reported the TC for the 4-0-4 as listing "404". However, this is where the "new guideline" will probably force a name against the common ones, which are "4-0-4" and "4-O-4", not "404" - the debate is which one is considered more "official" and/or more common. Not sure that guidelien will prove useful, and this is partly why! - BilCat (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the original article name as 2-zero-2 which is the common name as the TC clearly uses zero. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Triumph Group‎ AFD fallout

A supposedly experienced user has nominated Triumph Group‎ for AFD. Curently, there is no support fo rthe deletion, but the user refuses to back down, and is getting tenditions. He's now removing primary sources that I;ve added to the article. Can someone please run some interference for be on the article before I kill someone? Any help addign reliable sources that prove notablity to dense users would also be appreciated. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Military Aircraft Insignia

A quite new, indeed - and, so far, single-purpose - user is attacking the Military aircraft insignia page, spamming it with citation-needed tags for the roundels and then starting to delete some. More eyes on the article might be a good idea. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

NASA 515

Just discovered this article created back in January. I'm not quite sure the aircraft in question is notable enough for its own article, vis-a-vis being merged into the Boeing 737 article, but I thought I'd find out what y'all think. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's more content waiting to be added to that article, the version could be covered at Boeing 737. The 737-100 section is a good place or group the military/government variants separately, e.g. Boeing 767#Military, Boeing 747#Government,_military_and_other variants. -fnlayson (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's supposed to be the first 737 built/flown, it probably has more of a jistory that could be included, with more info possible on NASA missions, as NASA is generally a PD source. - BilCat (talk) 06:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, there should be enough info in the NASA fact sheet and the NASA report listed in the article to make it a decent length. -fnlayson (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I added a prod before I saw your discussion. I added the reason as Does not appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article just needs a mention in the Museum of Flight and NASA articles but I note that it could also be included in the 737 article. Feel free to remove the prod if anybody thinks it is notable enough for a stand alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The creator has removed the prod as they believe it is a notable aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Major overhaul on List of fighter aircraft

FYI - I've completed an overhaul of List of fighter aircraft, specifically I've converted the list into a sortable table. There are a good number of blanks to fill in, so if anyone has any interest, feel free to peruse the table and fill in any blanks that you can. Also, if you spot any errors or omissions (which I'm sure there are), please feel free to fix them. The article could use a lead and some more references as well. There are further instructions and comments on the talk page of the article. Thanks! SnottyWong ^speak 19:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There are ommissions indeed - the First World seems to be lacking coverage, nothing by Fairey - so plenty of room for contributions.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Beechcraft Bonanza

It seems like well-intentioned editors keep adding to the article every time a Bonanza crashes. Is there a template or something to be added to the top of the Accidents and Incidents sections to remind people of WP:NOTE, WP:AIRCRASH and/or WP:NOTMEMORIAL? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We generally just use hidden section notes, as article tags for such notes aren't usually used on WP. A standard subst'ed template would probably be useful, and could be modified from the existing Template:NoMoreCruft. While some of these well-intentioned "editors" ignore similar exisiting notes on airliner articles, the admins and other experienced editors do note them, and it ,akes it easier to remove these items without it being considered edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The ref to cite in removing these from aircraft type articles is WP:AIRCRASH-SECTION. - Ahunt (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

UAVs at CFD

Just a heads-up for everybody, Category:UAVs and drones is up for discussion at Categories for discussion, more comments if anybody feels like it would be appreciated (and see also this. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK help

I've just completed a project I started over 3 years ago, the User:BilCat/Sandbox/Sikorsky S-60 article. It should be moved to Mainspace in a few hours. I think the article is a good candidate for DYK, but I've never done one before. Would anyone be interested in sheperding this one through the process? If so, you can discuss this on my talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I should be able to help out. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! - BilCat (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bill, made some subtle changes in my own inimitable style, a good DYK might be the story of Igor Sikorsky and his engineering going out for a quick flight underneath the S-60, using the same principle as the sling-hoist for out-sized loads. The group of them were out in the open on improvised chairs, looking very silly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another category question...

Looking over Category:Aircraft by country, I see several examples of a "Aircraft manufactured by X and Y" country when a country changed names (Austria and Austria-Hungary, Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Serbia...). According to the category naming conventions, this is discouraged in favour of seperate categories for each (and "Soviet Union" and "Russia" are seperate cats). Should we be looking into changing this? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a category for Category:Soviet and Russian aircraft engines and I have often wondered what the difference might be. Most of the articles in that category would say that they are 'Russian engines'. It can get confusing unless you have degrees in geography and history! I have a very good book and it is simply titled 'Russian piston aero engines'. If any categories are very obviously wrong then you could bring them up at WP:CFD as renaming them is a long-winded process. I suppose that a country's name at the time that the article subject was designed or built would be the most accurate and the right one to use but you might end up with many categories for what is effectively the same country. This must affect other projects, might be worth asking around, possibly at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I would be interested to hear the outcome. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:NCCAT, "When historical and political complexities (such as mergers and splits) create articles that belong to two countries, do not create a "Foo of X and Y". Instead, list articles in both "Foo of X" and "Foo of Y". For example, "Foo of Russia" and "Foo of the Soviet Union", not "Foo of Russia and the Soviet Union". So it seems pretty cut-and-dried, but I thought I'd ask here first because some of the aircraft-by-manufacturer categories have some pretty complicated templates on them and I don't want to break them! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Beechcraft Model 16

Just created an article for the Beechcraft Model 16 - did it really exist I can find only one ref for it? any help appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems it did - there's a link at Wings Over Kansas mentioning it here but the server seems to be down at the moment. Also, according to this, it appears to have been a variation on the Model 23. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Aha, a little more here (which says it's not a Musketeer...). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look around for some photos of it - not easy to find! Maybe it was a secret project? - Ahunt (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The N-number doesn't appear on a search of the FAA website, nor does a search for Beechcraft Model 16 bear any fruit. I suspect their website is not the best at showing all of their records but there are real people there who will sometimes answer e-mail enquiries. The answer would be OR but a summary could be placed on the talk page (where OR is always allowed!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The FAA on-line registration database often does not include registrations that were cancelled prior to the on-line database being instituted, unless there is a aircraft with that same N number that was registered after the on-line database was started. So, yes, it is incomplete from a historical perspective. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the timeframe of the Model 16 (1970), and the purchace of the Beechcraft CT-134 Musketeer by the CAF in 1971, is it possible this was something Beechcraft was trying to sell to the CAF as a basic/ab initio trainer before they selected the CT-134? Also, has anyone searched the FlightGlobal archives yet for the Model 16? - BilCat (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The CT-134 was a bit of a "panic buy" when the Tutor proved unsuitable as an ab initio trainer and the Chipmunk had been retired, so it is unlikely that Beechcraft had planned to sell it to the CF, but it may have been intended as a trainer for general military use. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I do realize that, but it might be mentioned somewhere in something that covers the CT-134 purchase. Just a guess/speculation on where to look for more info. - BilCat (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I suspect it would be more likely to be found in the Beechcraft documentation than in the CF documentation. - Ahunt (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Just found in a search our Beechcraft article has "Single-engine, all-metal training aircraft. Designed and flight tested in Liberal, KS in 1970. The wings and tail section were two feet shorter than the Model 19. It had a Lycoming O-235 engine rated at 125 hp (93 kW). Only one was ever built because Mrs. Beech did not like the aircraft." unreferenced and added in May 2008. Strange so little info around on it and no images. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled by the model number: AeroFiles have a plausible explanation for Beech starting at 17.TSRL (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

First jet-propelled aircraft in 1910: RfC

There's a request for your comments at Talk:Coandă-1910#First jet RfC about whether the Coandă-1910 article should contain a sentence saying it was "the first jet-propelled aircraft". See you there! Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Boats

FYI, there is a proposal to cover the boat aspects of flying boats in a new wikiproject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Boats . 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

EgyptAir Flight 763 at AfD.

Heads up that EgyptAir Flight 763 is at Articles for Deletion - and appears it possibly is a notable accident under WP:AIRCRASH L3. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 10:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Hanoi Taxi and Lockheed C-141 Starlifter

As the C-141's Operation History section is so small and undersized, it strikes me as reasonable to merger the article dedicated to the operational history of a single one of these aircraft, with the article of the aircraft as a type overall. This is not meant to depreciate the significance of Hanoi Taxi, but the content between the two hardly seems worth splitting; there are three paragraphs unique to this subarticle, and can be incorperated into the main with little work. However, such a move should be taken only with the consensus of this discussion group, to which I now submit this motion. Discuss? Kyteto (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We probably need to work on sourcing the Hanoi Taxi first, before even considering merging the articles. On the merge, the Hanoi Taxi appears to be a notable subject. I think it would be better to add more content to the C-141 article apart from one mission, IMO. - BilCat (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

List of successful aircraft types

I just came across this article. It was started on 5 March 2003. I have to admit that I didn't know Wikipedia was that old, this must be one of the first articles ever started. No one has been working on it in the last year+. It has never had any refs, has no inclusion criteria and seems to be entirely original research and an indiscriminate list to me. Any reason to retain it? - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to the very definition of indiscriminant OR. I don't think that this article would be missed.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Has to be kept because it lists the Tiger Moth! :-) Mmmm...It's a reasonable list but complete OR. Virtually nothing links to it, making it and orphan, by deleting it or redirecting it nothing is lost, redirecting might be the easiest option but where to redirect it to is not easy, some of the aircraft are listed at list of most produced aircraft but that doesn't necessarily mean they were successful. Who defines what is 'successful'? Fraught with problems. It's got to go I'm afraid. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been prodded. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that - you beat me to it! Let's see if anyone takes it down, it would be a waste to have to go through WP:AFD for something that bad! - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

List of most produced aircraft is a far better one, as it's less POV, and based on objective criteria. By the way, that article has undergone some recent changes, which in my opinion are just AWFUL! I've reverted per BRD, but I anticipate some flack. - BilCat (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has removed the Prod yet, so that is a start! I think if the article survives that we will be compelled to come up with List of unsuccessful aircraft types just to provide some balance. I can't imagine trying to get consensus on the inclusion criteria for that one, though! - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen by the new redlinks the PROD was successful and the article is now gone. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Some Hawker stuff

Just found an unreferenced new article, P1103. Contains some OR etc and I'm not so sure about the image license either. It is actually referring to the Hawker P.1103 which was the original designation of the Hawker P.1121, the cited reference given at that article covers it although there are only a couple of lines. I was going to redirect it to the P.1121 and add the original designation. It is a redlink in the Hawker navbox but I can't see that it is worth an article of its own. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur, that really should be redirected to the P.1121 (and the navbox changed to pipe the 1103 there). So redirect away! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Much of P1103 looks to be covered at Operational Requirement F.155. Should probably state something about P.1103 was to meet this requirement in the P.1121 article. -fnlayson (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The two are distinct types - however the P.1103 appears to be adequately covered in the Operational Requirement F.155 article. Also if the line drawing is as claimed a Hawker Siddley drawing then it isn't PD-GOV-UK - Hawker-Siddeley group were not part of the UK government.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it ought to be folded into the F.155 article. Buttler's British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters Since 1950 probably covers them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe redirecting to P1103 and Hawker P.1103 to Operational Requirement F.155#Designs might be best, plus a mention in the P.1121 article, even linking to it. The difference between them as I understand from the reference was that the P.1103 was govt funded and the P.1121 was a private venture.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft (DABs)

Pages like those in Cat:Aviation terminology use a variety of words to DAB them: eg Endurance (aircraft); Ceiling (aeronautics); and AIDS (aviation). The same sorts of varieties are used in Cat:Aircraft components. Any chance of coming to a consensus for the future, so that the same (word) is used throughout? Exceptional cases excepted, of course, but as a default. It might get more DABbed wls in text, especially for those who don't know (like me, til lately) which Cat to look in. Don't think it matters much which word we use but, as a suggestion, (aviation) is pretty general. What do you think?TSRL (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it would be good to standardize these, check Canard (aeronautics) vs Transponder (aviation), CIGAR (aviation), Final approach (aviation) vs Trainer (aircraft), Transponder (aircraft), Fairing (aircraft), Yoke (aircraft) and Flap (aircraft). There are probably a lot more. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd say (aviation) would be my first choice, although (aeronautics) might be more applicable... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me of the saying that a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee! It's a product of people doing their own thing in the past, it still happens now but not so much. We will be sorting this out for years to come. Best thing is to support and not oppose anything that promotes standardisation (assuming that it is a consensus standard!), even being bold and sorting these obvious things out unilaterally is not easy, especially with the categories. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Think we should concentrate on establishing a consensus on future use, but don't know how this works: how is such agreed and logged?

Looking into the two cats mentioned so far, Aviation terminology and Aircraft componemts shows that most editors (about 70%) have understandably used the first word of the cat as their (word) for DAB. Since Aviation terminology is the bigger cat, this means that (aviation) is the most common choice overall, though not the ovrwhelming one (23 (aviation) to 18 (others)). So a consensus on (aviation) would minimise the task if we decided to revise existing wls later.TSRL (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support using (aviation), just for simplicity. - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Airbus A320 family

I'm on a semi-wiki-break, so I made some seemingly small changes to the heading strudture of the Airbus A320 family article to bring it inline with the WP:AIR/PC guidelines, per this diff. An IP user has set about reverting the changes [Can´t see any article improvements here, withthe edit summary "Can´t see any article improvements". He reverted my revert witht he summary "Again no improvements: Discuss anything you want: but this structure exists for many months. Use the talk page!" Fine, but now he's decided to split off the entire section to a new article at Airbus A320 Enhanced! Without discussion, of course. :) To my knowledge the A320 Enhanced is just a term for small enhancedments, and is separate from the new A320NEO proposal. The A320E info should probably be under the design section, but I didn't even have time to bring that up before the user decided to spin it off. The A320 Matrix-Keanu Reeves could probably be a variant article in the future, but I don't think we need one now. Any help resolving this would be appreciated, as I really don't want to spend too much time on disputes, which I'm trying to take a break from anyway! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the IP user's unexplained blanking and moved the A320 Enhanced section under Development. That should help some. The NEO is different and looks to be starting soon. -fnlayson (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Airbus just laubnched the NEO today, so we should be getting more info on it in the next few weeks. So what should we do with Airbus A320 Enhanced? Tag it as a content fork, PROD/AFD, or Merge? - BilCat (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "prod as a content fork", myself. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Far too minor for a stand-alone article, re-merge and redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Black Friday (1945) FAC needs further comments

The featured article candidacy for the Black Friday (1945) article (which I nominated and which covers an Allied air raid on German shipping in Norway) hasn't recieved any comments for over a week. Any comments and votes (including opposes, of course) would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Friday (1945)/archive1. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Green airplane

No it isn't about airplanes that are painted green, that would be easy to deal with. This article was started on 19 November 2010 by User:Greenairplanes as his sole effort on Wikipedia. I have gone through it and at least added titles to the refs and combined duplicate refs so we can at least see how many refs there are. I also removed some Wikipedia articles used as refs (see WP:CIRCULAR). A few other editors have done a bit of clean up and tagging, but it remains a difficult article with too many lists and not enough prose. The refs are troubling too as in many cases they only "sort of" support the text and the whole thing really looks like a COI/COATRACK sort of thing. I would nominate it for deletion, but I am not sure that it isn't a notable subject, although the article title undoubtedly needs changing. Maybe it needs carefully stubbing, or even redirecting? Input would be greatly appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be scrapped. I have good reason to suspect that it plagurised content from elsewhere. The following line was stolen word by word straight off Boeing's Official website: "Boeing recognizes the serious challenges facing our eco-system and is committed to improving the environmental performance of its operations, products and services. Our greatest contribution to meeting the challenge is to pioneer new technologies for environmentally progressive products and services". This next line was stolen from a peer-reviewed journal: "Air traffic is expected to double in the US by 2017 and internationally by 2010 according to Federal Aviation Administration". I've ran several searches like this, it is uncited word by word plagurism in every sentence I decide to test so far. Many sections are POV in the fashion they've been put together, it reads like an agenda rather than equal coverage of the issue; many of the titles deliberately take a negative tone on the issue to prejudice a section before it is even read by the reader. Many terms are misused (Major Airlines Sustainable Goals section has no airlines in it, but aircraft manufacturers!). It doesn't read well, it doesn't play well with the rules, and I see multiple serious problems at the core; better off without, I motion that we throw the wrecking ball at it. Kyteto (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That's bad. The article should be tagged with {{Copypaste}}, {{Db-copyvio}} or other template at Category:Copyright maintenance templates. -fnlayson (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume this means it's been that way from the start, and thus, there's no clean version to revert to. CSD would be the way to go then. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And it's gone. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that is what I call teamwork! - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

New template, input requested

I just created Template:U.S. black aircraft, and would like assistiance in adding items to it - as well as honest opinions as to whether it might be useful. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously well-intentioned, but it's a probable cruft magnet. I'd lean to not having it, as I think the subject are better handled elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Super Tucano

For some bizzare reason I can't fathom, El Salvador's entry in the 'Operators' section of the Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano article has become a vandalism magnet by IPs. More eyes on it can't hurt. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Watched! Would it surprise you to learn that the IP vandal traces to San Salvador, El Salvador? - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. But one of the other IP vandals had its whois come up from, of all places, Korea - ! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

F-16 Agile Falcon

F-16 Agile Falcon is a stub that's existed for about 5 years now. As far as I can tell, it was just a concept as such, though it eventually led to the Mitsubishi F-2. It sems like the content would be better if merged to F-16 Fighting Falcon variants#F-16 Agile Falcon. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't read as if anything physical (an example, eg as in British Aerospace EAP) so merge seems best. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What he said. Mergeorama, dude. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd merge as well, any reason why this hasn't happened yet? Kyteto (talk)

None that I could think of. The Agile article has been redirected. -fnlayson (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Another individual aircraft of dubious notability?

I just happened across Konrad Adenauer (aircraft). I'm not at all sure the subject is notable, but I don't know if I should prod or propose a merge. Thoughts? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• ...and along the same lines, there's the rather pitiful-looking Comparison of UAVs, which I've prodded as being rather indiscriminate. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some information at Air transports of heads of state and government#Germany that this could be merged to. Or, the info in the pther article could be merged to Konrad Adenauer (aircraft), and the article renamed something less specific. - BilCat (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just propose the article for deletion - no sign of notability of the individual aircraft MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Infobox Aircraft Career

I've stumbled across an issue with Template:Infobox Aircraft Career. When the Infobox Aircraft Type features the 'developed into=' paramater, the 'Career' banner gets stuffed over to the right-hand side of the box, like so. Can somebody more versed in template-fu fix this? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

solved (changed Template:Infobox aircraft type), and added the 'developed into' part at Scaled Composites Proteus again. --Antheii (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

List of tanker aircraft

Just came across List of tanker aircraft - apart from getting rid of the flags is it worth saving? we already have a list in Aerial refueling. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

My gut feeling is no- its adds nothing to the existing list and only confuses the issue. (And its a horrible mess).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I do think the list portion of Aerial refueling is long enough to support splitting it to its own page, but probably at List of aerial refueling aircraft to match the article title. I completely agree that List of tanker aircraft is a horrible mess. I'd recommend deleting (to prevent recovery of the mess)/salting it, and redirecting it to either the main aricle, or the new list ipage if it's created. - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I recommend killing with fire! Let it be gone. Kyteto (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. (And I've prodded it.) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

In favour of deleting! Antheii (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations and References for red link aircraft on aircraft A-Z

Folks, I have come across in articles some photos of rare aircraft that are listed in List of aircraft that are red links. There is a request that no references of citations be posted next to aircraft names. But I was wondering if the WP community could reach some type of agreement that if it is not a red link then a citation or reference can be posted, and maybe in the future then a stub article can be done from the various citations. A good example is the Lanier aircraft listing. Lanier and his son did some very interesting research on STOL aircraft (ie their aircraft could out perform a Helio Courier in STOL). Here is one article I found on one of his earliest designs the "Lanier XL-4 in a 1931 magazine. Just a thought. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As a logical reason, that makes a lot of sense to me, unless there is somewhere else we can cache those sort of refs by topic. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification, someone, please: if we add a type to this list, and it appears red-linked, should we add a cite (proof of existence) or not? I notice that User:N2e has been adding a lot of cns to redlinks in this list. I can understand his/her thinking, but is this policy? From Jackehammond's second sentence above, it sounds as if it against policy to add cns.TSRL (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to think (assuming the manufacturer isn't itself a redlink) that the list of their aircraft is a simplified repetition of a list within the article on the manufacturer. Perhaps a single reference could be added to the start or the bottom of the list to work for all. The intention is surely to give some reference for the redlink articles without overwhelming the references section for the page. Alternatively would a {{main}} linking to manufacturer article name#appropriate section suffice? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the manufacture's names are red link -- e.g "Lanier Aircraft". And that is the problem. Also, I have added another red link on the Junkers J.1000. When I first saw the larger article on it in a 1931s Popular Mechanics article I though someone(s) has pulled a prank on Popular Science. But it was an actual trans-Atlantic design that the founder of Junkers wanted to build, but could not get financing on both sides of the Atlantic. When I create a red link (ie one of these days I will swear off trolling old magazines and discovering these rare and forgotten aircraft) I guess it bugs me, so I try to turn it to a green link. If anyone is interested in doing "a little" editing on the stub which I can work on (I am terrible at starting an article) -- see J.1000 sandbox I have just created and where I am parking all the info on photos I can find on the subject. If anything, if you are into aviation, you will find it VERY interesting. Especially the PM article. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This list has been assembled without refs (wrongly, but there are many other such lists in WP, and the advice in the ref section of the list is clear:"Assigning individual citations for each entry is superfluous as entries with articles will have reference sources in the articles" though it dodges the redlist problem), so that there is a worry that genuine aircraft entered from unknown but reliable sources will be deleted after a period of cn marking. We might lose more than we gain, since the list is a useful way to find new article subjects.TSRL (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles is also a good source for wanted articles! MilborneOne (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

URGENT!!! Action Needed on a whole swag of aircraft images slated for Speedy Deletion

Because Ian Dunster has "retired" from Wikipedia his talk page has suddenly been inundated with "Images for Speedy Deletion", affecting several different articles. One such article which will be seriously affected is Hawker Tempest. Several photos have already disappeared and more will follow - I don't have the time to go through all of these so urgent help is required. Thanks Minorhistorian (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that some are now being claimed public domain as the work of the British government but provides no evidence a lot of the wartime aircraft images were actually taken by the manufacturer not the government. So I suspect they may well get challenged again. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

An example is File:Tempest V NV696.jpg which is credited to Charles E Brown and claimed to be in the public domain, most of Brown's images are still copyrighted. Although for an unexplained reason commons has decided that all Brown's images before 1957 are pd-ukg something the RAF Museum (the current copyright holder) would not be amused at! MilborneOne (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged the Tempest file on Commons here.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification on Nomination for Deletion of Derbyshire and Lancashire Gliding Club

This is to notify members of this WikiProject that Derbyshire and Lancashire Gliding Club has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derbyshire and Lancashire Gliding Club. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Downwash

The Downwash article has been PRODded and contested. It desperately needs help, especially reliable source. It doesn't look like any regular WPAIR editors (past or present) have ever edited the article. - BilCat (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I may have a ref, let me check! - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ref found, page aggressively fixed to conform to ref, detagged, etc. Bill: Thanks for adding the aviation lists box, you beat me to it by ten seconds! - Ahunt (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning a related topic... propwash/prop-wash doesn't exist, but prop wash does 65.93.13.148 (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the article title is Slipstream. Both propwash and prop-wash could be made as redirects. - Ahunt (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Managerved

I am having a problem with this user and could use some extra eyes here, especially admin eyes. He appears to be a WP:COI editor hellbent on promoting Flight Design aircraft. We already have an article at Flight Design CTSW which covers the whole family of CT aircraft, but he keeps copying text from http://www.flightdesign.com/index.php?page=product&p=18 and http://www.flightdesign.com/index.php?page=product&p=35 as well as photos from http://flightdesignusa.com/ into his user page and user talk page and then moving the pages into mainspace. He has had three articles deleted as copyright violations and has two more nominated for CSD right now again. As a result of constantly moving his user and user talk pages into mainspace and then having them deleted his history is rather confused, but he has been warned about this many times and I have left him several non-template notes trying to get him to understand that Wikipedia doesn't accept COI spam and engage him in a dialogue. To date he has not talked to anyone. Based on notes he left on CTLS Flight Design (moved from User:Managerved) and Mc Flight Design (moved from User talk:Managerved) he has now filed some OTRS tickets, I presume to justify releasing the copywrite text he is copying under a free licence. He has also uploaded File:Ctls overview.jpg copied from http://flightdesignusa.com/, although he has posted an OTRS against that as well. Obviously even if he has justified all the copied text and photos under OTRS this is 100% pure spam and we already have an article on this type at Flight Design CTSW. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

His post at Talk:Mc Flight Design confirms this is a COI problem. - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well as can be seen his articles got deleted for a fourth and fifth time. I left him a note urging cooperation instead of COI/SPAM. Some eyes would still be helpful, unless he gives up his advertising campaign. - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay he has now started on a new tack, created an obvious WP:SOCK at User:Flyingved, vandalised the Flight Design CTSW article for a fourth time and started creating a spam article on the Flight Design CTLS once again at User talk:Flyingved. I removed that copyright violation there text when I left him a vandalism warning. I fully expect he will restore it and then attempt cut and paste it into Mainspace next. Complete story at Special:Contributions/Flyingved - Ahunt (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I left the new account a warning about sockpuppeting at User talk:Flyingved, but we are really getting close to needing some admin attention here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I got some communication out of him: Talk:Flight Design CTSW where he once again admits he is a COI editor. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Research Request

Hey all -- does anyone have a copy Gunston & Gordon's "MiG Aircraft Since 1937"? I'm researching some info on a little-discussed MiG-9 variant. I've got Belyakov and Marmain's "MiG", but I was wondering if there might be some more info in the Gunston book. If you have it, and don't mind looking something up for me, drop me a note here or on my talk page! I really appreciate it! Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, but I've got Gordon's OKB MiG book which is probably more thorough. And don't forget his Early Soviet Jet Fighters, which would probably also need to be referenced for completeness's sake.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:International military aircraft 2010-2019

This is inform the members of this project that this category has been nominated for deletion. Interested members are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_16#Category:International_military_aircraft_2010-2019. - Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

on a somewhat related note regarding these categories. Can someone explain the hideous civil aircraft template in the middle of this one Category:Fighter_aircraft_2010-2019 compared to this one Category:British_airliners_1940-1949? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The "the" issue again!

Per this diff at Saab 37 Viggen. I've opended a discussion on the article's talk page, and issued a 3RR warning to the user. - BilCat (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been a similar issue with Saab JAS 39 Gripen also. -fnlayson (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft category renaming

FYI, over one thousand categories have been nominated for renaming. See WP:CFDALL in the "speedy" renaming section. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_20#Speedy_hyphen_changes_with_objection - I have opposed what is a trivial change to three-thousand aircraft categories, I am sure they are more important things in the world to do then change hyphens for en-dashes. It is a MoS guideline but not policy and I suspect another example of wikipedia being to exact when the real world doesnt care. I have only one "-" on my keyboard so it would mean messing about when creating the categories. Comments welcome but it a MoS guideline, sigh. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MilborneOne. Until such time as designers and manufacturers of computer keyboards get off their lazy butts and add separate buttons for all the glyphs consisting of a single horizontal line (hyphen, minus, en-dash, em-dash, whatever...) I can't be bothered to distinguish between them either. I get the impression that takes a particularly anal-retentive personality and a large dose of neurosis to actually begin to care about this non-issue. Wikipedia is the only place I have ever come across this disease. I tend towards, but have not yet fully achieved, the tranquility of Don't-give-a-fuckism. Roger (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The latest comment is that it is not a problem not being on your keyboard because you can have some wizzy tool or use the edit pull-down at the bottom of the page. Hard to believe but some of still dont use any wizzy tools or scripts just a standard english keyboard. I have to agree with your summary Dodger. MilborneOne (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Roger and MB1. If it bugs people then I won't revert them for changing it, but since they all look close enough to the same on the screen I certainly just use the keyboard dash. - Ahunt (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I add my voice to the opposition to this unnecessary change. Who decides these things here? --TraceyR (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If some non-compoop fool wants to do this I question their mental competence: chances are once such a change is made some other idiot will want to change it all back again...duuuooh! Minorhistorian (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Boeing Renton Factory

Just came across this article Boeing Renton Factory when it was used as a link, an editor commented three and half years ago that the page has very little info on the factory and just repeats info from the related aircraft articles. Nearly all of the information has no relevance to the factory. Anybody else think it needs a major chop of content but can we provide anything better to replace it? MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

First jet in 1910? The Coandă-1910 article is at GAN

After quite a lot of argument about sources and relative weight, the article Coandă-1910 is now nominated for Good Article. The aircraft has been put forward by some experts as the first jet aircraft, while other experts say it never flew. Some experts say it had fuel burnt in the air stream—others say it was a pure air jet with no combustion, too weak to fly. Because of this foundational conflict in expert sources, the article was very difficult to write. Thanks to Lsorin, TransientVoyager, Andy Dingley, GraemeLeggett, Romaniantruths, Man with one red shoe, Rosiestep and Amatulić we are where we are today.

Anybody not listed above can review the article at GAN. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Geodata being added to aircraft articles

Over the last few days, User:The Anomebot2 has been adding Geodata to aircraft articles, which in most cases do not have fixed locations. The lastest are Sikorsky S-42, Sikorsky S-76, and Sikorsky X2. The previous incidents have been reverted, but that isn't stopping the bot from adding such data to other aircraft articles. Could an admin intervene, possibly shutting off the bot, and try to have the bot's owner, User:The Anome, fix this issue before the bot continues to operate? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Left a message at User talk:The Anome to see if we get a response from the bot controller. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -fnlayson (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Diffs were added on the bot's talk page, but it is still adding geo data links to some aircraft articles. -fnlayson (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about B-class assessment

Criteria B5 of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/B-Class is "contains appropriate supporting graphics, infoboxes, or images" - does this mean that an article REQUIRES a photo for B class? If so, a large number of articles (possibly a majority) can nevever raise above C-class (or start for WP-MILHIST as there are no free photos available.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I would take that to mean that if photos, etc, are available then they should be used but they are not mandatory, but perhaps other editors have other opinions. - Ahunt (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That statement reads like an Infobox should be enough, but with no image that's not a graphical thing. Some articles don't lend themselves to an image, i.e. an image is not appropriate. The B-class checklist just says "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate." -fnlayson (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In general an infobox or a picture suffices to meet B5, IMO, but some articles don't lend themselves to either and I don't worry about it then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft identity

Can someone help me to identify this aircraft? It looks like a member of the Beechcraft King Air family, but I don't know which breed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bill, You are quite right, it is a Beechcraft 99 Airliner. Have a good New Years. (Incidentally I added the name to the Commons file and added the picture to the aircraft type article - it is a nice photo) - Ahunt (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes, it is a good photo, though it doesn't show the under-fuselage "thing" very well. I just found the airline's write-up on its website - it looks strangley familiar! - BilCat (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Good eye! That is an optional (maybe even after-market) belly pod for cargo and baggage. Yeah I was wondering how that user got the photo since it is an air-to-air photograph and looks oddly official- Ahunt (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I saw the pod on the photo on its webpage, so I knew it was there :) Anyway, the last 2 paragraphs on the company's fleet page look like an edit-down of an earlier version of the WP Beech 99 article's Lead (pre-Hawker Beechcraft). - BilCat (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey we're famous! - Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yay! So if we get a letter from the airline's lawyers about the photo, we can have the Foundation contact them about attributing the aircraft description! An unrelated, now-dufunct airline, Trans-Jamaican Airline, used to use Britten-Norman Trislanders back in the 80s. I'd love to find a PD photo of one for the Trilander article - they were quite attactive. - BilCat (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Found a copyrighted one at airliners.net. Not the best photo in the world, esp with the DC-3 sticking its nose in the pic! - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)