Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Template:Airreg

Tempted to take Template:Airreg to deletion, it adds ugly external links into articles but also provides a non-neutral destination for the link. The nation specific registration links like the USA take no notice that registration marks are not unique and are re-used and the other hard links are to airfleets.net (one of many spotter fleet lists that can be used none considered as reliable sources) and the accident link to asn again one of many that could be used. Cant see why normal citation and referencing could not be used. Just looking for opinions before I raise the TfD. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Source checker needed...

Greetings to all project members!!! The FAC of Boeing 767 needs a willing contributor for source spotchecks (pick several citations to examine, and verify corresponding article text). Links, PDFs, scans/images have been prepared for this purpose. If anyone can help with this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for any assistance. SynergyStar (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Source check has already been done, no longer needed. SynergyStar (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate Pages

List of military aircraft operational during World War II seems to be a significantly less complete duplicate of List of aircraft of World War II Wondering if maybe they should be merged, or the first page just deleted as all it can offer is some pics - most of which are on the linked pages.NiD.29 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In reviewing them both I think that List of military aircraft operational during World War II should be redirected to List of aircraft of World War II. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - and I have done so. (Note that the target really needs some work...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh can we get rid of the flag fest! MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I started on the Section Header Capital Problem....GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The flags predated my additions - Thankfully I am not alone in thinking it excessive - someone wanted them, and someone else obliged.

Additional suggestions are welcome - I was thinking of sortable tables with columns for name, 1st flight, service entry, country of origin, operators and possibly role (if that won't make the page unmanageable). On the same note, I think there should be a naming convention for these pages (military aircraft of <era> and/or of <country>) so that they are consistent as variations encourage the creation of duplicate pages. A standardized data format would also make the pages look more professional.NiD.29 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Article tagging

I was all excited to see new Discussion on the Mark IV bomb sight article that I did some time ago. However, it was simply a couple of tags being posted. Normally I ignore these.

But instead of ignoring them, for some reason I took a look at the one from the aircraft project and got a little frustrated. The tag says that the article is stub class and failed B. I would suggest that neither of these statements is true.

On a larger scale, it seems that this is always the case. I can't recall any of these tags in articles I've worked on being updated manually. The only case I can find of such a tag being edited are what appear to be 'bot edits after some other process updated the article state, for instance, when the North American XB-70 Valkyrie when to GA.

So, what is the purpose of these tags then? Is there any formal review process? Are they used for bookkeeping? Did they do something in the past but are no longer used that way?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean Mark XIV bomb sight? Those tags do indeed get updated regulary, and there is a review request page - WP:AIR's isn't very active, alas, but MILHIST's review page is extremely active with massive turnover and constant reviews. In the case of this particular article, it's certainly not a stub, but it does fail B - there are several cases of unreferenced statements in the article. It's C-class. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you post a link to the WP:AIR review request page? thanks!NiD.29 (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for info Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. MilborneOne (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an assessment, I'm trying to understand the purpose of posting these up at all. I see the utility of posting them up after an assessment, or during it (like peer review), but posting one "automatically" with no information seems more confusing than useful. Is there any secondary purpose being served? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's not very clear, so let me expand. I fully agree with the idea of article assessment, in fact the only problem I have with it is the general failure to get people involved in peer reviews (and I see this has been noted above). But I seriously question the need for a tag in the article before such a step has started. For instance, I suspect you would all agree that we do not need a tag that states that a peer review has not been started. Likewise, I don't see a purpose to tagging up articles with project tags before the project has had anything to do with it.

There is a problem being caused… I have something like 5 to 7.5 thousand articles on the wiki. Following these for updates is very difficult, in spite of all the tools I've tried. Tagging articles on the talk page makes this even more difficult. It also falsely implies, through the UI state, that there's a discussion going on when there most often isn't. If there was a different page for this then it wouldn't be an issue, but as it stands, I see the Discussion tag turn blue and get all excited. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Carterton hot air balloon accident

Just advising that I have I have created Carterton hot air balloon accident, where unfortunately 11 have died in New Zealand. per Guardian [1]. "New Zealand's worst air accident for more than three decades" since Air New Zealand Flight 901 crashed into Mt Erebus. Any problems, with the page name particularly please advise/fix! N.b also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. - --220 of ^Borg 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Another page was started an hour earlier at 2012 Carterton hot air balloon crash, so 'my' Carterton hot air balloon accident is now a re-direct to that better developed article . (Oh well!) - 220 of ^Borg 02:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the article is coming along reasonable well. It seems worth an article as it is a pretty high profile accident. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Tense

Probably should know by now: if there are no flying examples of an aircraft but one is on display in a museum etc, should the Design and Development section, particularly the description of it, use the present or past?TSRL (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If one exists somewhere I have for example used is and only use was if they no longer exist. MilborneOne (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been doing the same as MB1 - if one exists, or even if it is not clear, then I use present tense. In clear cases, such as when only one prototype was built and it was destroyed, then I use past tense. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - will follow.TSRL (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

SR-72?

Just found this. Can this be worked on or is the round-file proposal appropriate here? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Filing cylinder, I think. It's a deliberately and admittedly spurious name assigned to a rumoured project from five years ago, with no obvious connection to any other known project. It might be worth a passing mention in a list of rumoured black projects, or something like that, but almost certainly not under the SR-72 name. Shimgray | talk | 22:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I already indicated "delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SR-72(plane)! - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

My first thought was "Aurora" before I noticed the date... (and wasn't SR-72 a name tossed around for Blackstar too?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if the name was used as a joke or the ill-informed. Remember, the SR-71 became the SR-71 because the original name was mis-spoken, it was originally the RS-71. The RS-71 became the RS-71 because it was proposed to replace the RS-70. The RS-70 became the RS-70 in a re-purposing of the B-70. Thus, the "71" is in line with the bomber series from pre-1962. Sure, the AF likes to pick weird numbers like F-117 to throw people off, but they deliberately pick ones that aren't in series in these cases. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's assuming, of course, that F-117 wasn't in series...the pre-1962 series being extended to cover HAVE DOUGHNUT et. al.! ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Cameroon vandalism

Over the last couple months some IPers have been adding Cameroon air force or army as an operator to several aircraft and other articles. These are all dubious and incorrect additions. The current one is 41.202.199.125 (talk · contribs), and previous ones include 41.202.200.48 (talk · contribs), 41.202.205.107 (talk · contribs), 41.202.202.154 (talk · contribs), and 41.202.202.136 (talk · contribs). Is there some way to get a range block on these addresses? Thanks for any help! -Fnlayson (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just blocked 41.202.203.103 (talk · contribs) as a vandalism only acoount, all the edits appear to add nonsense or inflated figures for the Cameroon forces aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be an idea amongst some people who live in little countries that if they inflate their country's military might on Wikipedia that their enemies will read it and acknowledge them as a great power ans surrender without a fight, or something similar. In some ways this seems to be a symptom of Wikipedia's wide influence. Either that or these are just raging nationalist delusional nuts. At least in this case the IP traces to the country in question. I get worried when it traces to my country instead. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Media links

Just raised a comment on Talk:Boeing B-29 Superfortress about removing the ever expanding media links to the internet archive but I have noticed that other american aircraft are gaining long lists of videos. I am pretty sure that these articles are not meany to be directories of videos and stuff and external links should add to the article. Suggest that we remove these media lists, any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to note I have informed User talk:Crowish about this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I added those because they're freely accessible/downloadable primary sources from the US government. Crowish (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• That does not mean they have to be added. Links should provide info, images or something not in the article per no. 1 in WP:ELNO. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they don't belong - Wikipedia is not a collection of links. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been reviewing Crowish's links and removing the ones in which the article topic is covered trivially. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK I'll quit contributing; no prob. Crowish

• There's plenty of other things to do here. Using those links as references would be good. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Friendly edit war over at Multirole combat aircraft

I fear that MCA has been hijacked into a pro/anti one specific aircraft piece and could use quite a bit of trimming by an editor who hasn't been part of the silliness. Hcobb (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Article chock full of synth/OR I think. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit of a mess, suggest it should be pruned down to just a defintion and examples, anybody going to take the chopper to it! oh! before you do I must add my favourite aircraft as it must be better than yours. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we smash it down to a one-paragraph category page then? Hcobb (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I did reduce it to something more sensible but another editor has added back lots of stuff about Libya which frankly does not appear to be that relevant! MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed it all - it amounted to an advertisement for the Rafale and nothing else. I think we have a WP:COI problem there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And despite it being put back the Rafale fan club is edit warring and continues to add the content. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue has taken an interesting turn: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Laurent Simon has found no less than four accounts being misused by the one person to POV-push the dispute on this article. We have almost certainly been dealing with sockpuppets, one particularly eager to cite himself and promote his favourite aircraft in an unbalanced form - the list of problems with this approach are frankly too many to list: all the socks have been banned. That should hopefully slow this guy down. Kyteto (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It has taken me some days, but I have un-mangled the Dassault Rafale article at the hub of the POVish editing spree. If anybody cares to review my reversions to check if I haven't accidentally cut out worthwhile information or otherwise been too hasty, the validation would be appricated. To be honest, the Rafale article could use some editing support and expansion in some areas (though not in the style of the troublesome editor who provoked conversation!) - I've done what I could to quickly realign the page and salvage some of the good out of the splattering of 'facts' from blogs, web forums, and other uncitable junk sources/over-weighted quotes. Kyteto (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Who was that masked designer?

There's a discussion at Talk:Messerschmitt P.1112 about the correct spelling of the name of one of Messerschmitt's band of merry men. If anybody with knowledge in these areas could chip in, it'd be appreciated, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on a page please

Can some folk keep an eye on Hoverbike? SPAs and IPs keep trying to change it from a redirect (Hovercar) to a vaguely promotional page including "examples" that are in no way close to either the subject or a hovercar either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

1944 Camisette Air Crash

This is an article on a wartime Dakota crash in France with a loss of 23, sad but hardly unusual in wartime and I cant see anything unusual in what are hundreds of similar operational accidents. I have already removed a long list of victims and survivors, any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It fails WP:AIRCRASH and the refs cited in the article don't add up to much, including one blogspot one! I suspect this was started as a WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - Ahunt (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 Camisette Air Crash. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sikorsky H-5

Sikorsky H-5 was just moved to Sikorsky R-5 (the pre-1948 designation) because H-5 was the British designation! I have reverted the move and asked that they start a move discussion, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Supersonic fuel efficiency

For information Template:Supersonic fuel efficiency has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 22. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Aerospecs missing template

Who is placing all these tags. A lot of them are superfluous, are they being placed by a bot which needs spanking for being overzealous?Petebutt (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Should be in the edit history? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of them are because the specifications are unsourced.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Similar aircraft - lists

An editor has been adding some broad lists to Similar aircraft sections, for example List of aircraft of World War II to Foster Wikner Wicko‎. My feeling is that these lists contain so many aircraft, with most not similar and the few that are of course unmarked, that this not useful. The aircraft's participation in the war is better noted in the text and one or two examples of similar aircraft, carefully considered, put in this section. Likewise with national air force use. What do you think?TSRL (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The addition of list links to articles has to be done carefully as there are tons of them! - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that the article is much use as it is but providing links in every mentioned article is a bit over the top in my opinon. I did notice the link added to one Miles aircraft where one had been impressed in Australia and therefore counts as a second world war aircraft - not sure anybody else would consider it those terms or find the link in the article of any use that can not be provided in the operators/operational sections. Second World War aircraft are well categorised so the confusing article probably could do with a major re-work or deletion, particularly as it could do with more flags! but in the meantime we could probably loose the link in most aircraft types. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - more flags! LOL - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the flags are now gone aside from those of the country of origin. BTW that list gets far more hits (~2000 per day) than most of the pages it links to.NiD.29 (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The number of hits is a reflection of the title and the expectation from the user, we dont have a measure of the dissapointment level! MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That is why the page had more hits in the past month than for any other month since it was created AND it exceeded 2500 hits yesterday, the highest number the page has ever had? Your aesthetics don't match those of the majority of the users of the site apparently, nor do they behave as you are anticipating. The lists (and similar and related) are important even if somewhat ambiguous, particularly when the alternative is to wade through a truck-load of badly written, factually suspect prose to get to the one bit that is useful. A list approaching completion (even if it is a bit large) is far more important and useful than the presence (or absence?) of some flags. It is useful for comparisons, for applying a neutral non-POV perspective, for identifying unknown aircraft, and for a host of other reasons. While it may be true that Second World War aircraft are "well categorized" there is no readily available means of reaching that from within the page unless there is a link, and that is the best place for one. While the Miles aircraft may have been a bit extreme, (and I changed them and the Foster Wikner Wicko‎ back), most of the aircraft on the list should have a link to it as it helps provide context that may be missing within the page.NiD.29 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The categories can be accessed by clicking on the...category links. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The categories are hopelessly incomplete as they rely on a link being on each and every relevant page (a huge job not nearly complete enough to be useful), and reorganizing them seems to require a script. Add to that the number of aircraft for which a page has not yet been created - without a list page they will continue to be missed even if they are on the all-encompassing "list of aircraft" whose link makes little sense (but appears on many pages). Until the categories approach a similar degree of completeness the List of aircraft of World War II‎ will be useful. BTW page view stats for Category:Military aircraft of World War II shows a peak of just 25 visits in the past 3 months. Perhaps the format or location of the categories links needs work - assuming it isn't just that there isn't enough material there to attract any interest. Maybe if they were moved into the infobox (or above the references) from well below the article where no-one goes?

While on the topic of lists and "see also"'s and such - shouldn't the basic see also appear first in the list of categories in the template, since it shows up first when displayed? NiD.29 (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I also fail to see the point of adding List of civil aircraft - a huge set - to, say Miles Falcon. The article makes it clear that it is a civil design (both in terms of what it did pre-war and in its catalogue entry) and giving a long list of other similar and quite disimilar aircraft does not seem to add value.TSRL (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The List of Civil aircraft is not really a lot of help as it only list less than 5% of aircraft considered Civil and is mainly modern types all of which are already linked on each article in the far more complete List of Aircraft. I was a bit suprised by the comment about a number of aircraft without articles as the page has only three red links. Dont get me wrong I think the List of aircraft of the Second World War is a vast improvement on how it was previously but I dont think we need to link the list from every article if we have them in categories. Most of the list is fine but I dont think it needs the one-off impressed aircraft, experimental types and prototypes. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rem'd the civil list - I hadn't looked through it all that much and didn't realize how useless the page currently is. Perhaps that should be split into sections - post-1945 civil and pre-1945 civil based on date of first flight?

The problem with one-offs is that quite a few were actually used in a military capacity - which makes it difficuly to eliminate some and not others without making the list seem more incomplete than it is. Numbers used would be a useful addition in this regard but it will take a lot of digging for many of the types.

BTW on the subject of lists I am wondering if List of Japanese trainer aircraft during World War II should be merged into List of aircraft of Japan during World War II (not sure of how this is done), and on duplicated categories if "Category:Aircraft naming conventions" could be merged into "Category:Military aircraft designation systems"? Thx!NiD.29 (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Kaproni Bulgarski KB-11 Fazan

Just created Kaproni Bulgarski KB-11 Fazan but having problems with a reliable reference for the specs and engine. I have a source that says is was powered by a Alfa Romeo 126 RC 34 radial and other blog type sources that say it had a licence-built Pegasus XXI engine. Was the prototype different (it did have a different wing) ? any help with reliable sources appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

According to an article in Air Enthusiast No 96, the first prototype, the mid winged "Quasimodo" had a Alfa Romeo, as did the high winged 2nd prototype and initial production series of 6 high-winged KB-11-I. The definitive KB-11-II Fazan had PZL-Bristol Pegasus XXI engines from stocks captured by the Germans during the invasion of Poland.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nigel and for the update to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH

This article on the propeller manufacturer was recently put up for WP:CSD as non-notable, mostly because the article only cites the company website as a ref. I know there are profiles on the company in Janes and other publications, so I have removed the CSD tag. If anyone has quick access to Janes can they add some refs? - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Focus article for January: AgustaWestland AW101

Happy new year to the editors and readers of WP: Aviation. I have selected the next article I shall be putting work into overhauling for this month, the AgustaWestland AW101: I think the Development and Design sections could be covered in much greater detail for example. Books and articles are materials currently absent, but I shall endeavour to contribute to; if anybody else has an interest in joining my efforts, I would welcome your help. Thank you for your efforts on the Panavia Tornado article last month, I think it is a very significant step-up in quality and detail from the previous incarnations; hopefully this mini-project will go just as well. Kyteto (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good article for improvement. I'm on board. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The reconstruction has been proceeding quite well. There are some tags asking for citation that I'm having trouble dealing with, but 60 or so new references have been added in under a week, which is extremely good progress. I doubt there is much left to do; but what is left, I always would enjoy company on the resolution of. Kyteto (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• The article has been referenced so no cite needed tags remain. Does anybody see any major issues/things about the helicopter not covered in the article? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think I've got a book detailing the aircraft's development history; you need anything, just ping me. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• The point of the request was to find what is missing. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: this article was promoted to GA recently. Thanks to Kyteto and others for their efforts! -Fnlayson (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

rename request

A request has been put forward to rename Fixed-wing aircraft @
Talk:Fixed-wing_aircraft#Clarification_of_article_scope.2Frequested_move

Input is appreciated. NiD.29 (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was closed as no consensus, but the person who asked for comments ignored the result and pressed ahead with moving fixed-wing aircraft material to Aeroplane. I reverted him and then GliderMaven reverted him. Let's see where this goes. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Flexible winged aircraft

Petebutt (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Petebutt (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Hello,I propose that a new sub-project be opened to cater for flexible winged aircraft.I propose this for several reasons:

• 1. Flexible winged aircraft are bytheir very nature a class apart from fixed wing aircraft.
• 2. and probably more important, the Aircraft project will very soon get swamped by a Tsunami of less than notable hang-gliders, paramotors, para-gliders and their ilk unless we give their enthusiasts somewher else to co-ordinate theiractivities.

I propose this from a selfish point of view as I don't like to see hang-gliders cluttering up the Aircraft project,to my mind articles entitled Hang glider, para-motor or Flex-wing etc. etc. should suffice, unless a particular version is exceptionally notable.Anybody any thoughts.Petebutt (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Helicopters are a distinct type as well, but they're covered by WP:AIR. No need to split off "flexible wing" aircraft (a term I have never heard before, btw). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

To start it off how about a List of flexible-winged aircraftPetebutt (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's write what I really mean:Can we discourage articles about individual flexible winged aircraft, unless particularly notable. Rotorcraft have their own task-force, why not Flexible-wings.Petebutt (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A task force already exists for hang gliders etc. at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Air sports task force. Appears inactive but the bones are there. Powered flex-wing microlights carry a registration in the UK and need a pilot's license to fly, the UK CAA at least deems them as aircraft types, their notability would follow the project guideline. Hang gliders > Air sports task force, Powered flex-wings > Aircraft project would appear the way forward for article tagging. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Petebutt is referring to my recent article creation, as I seem to be the only one starting articles on ultralight trikes and hang gliders right now and listing them at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft). I don't have a problem with these articles being part of some sub-project of WikiProject Aircraft, but I do take exception to User:Petebutt's statements above "the Aircraft project will very soon get swamped by a Tsunami of less than notable hang-gliders, paramotors, para-gliders and their ilk unless we give their enthusiasts somewher else to co-ordinate theiractivities", "I don't like to see hang-gliders cluttering up the Aircraft project" and "Can we discourage articles about individual flexible winged aircraft, unless particularly notable". I am assuming you mean "aircraft types" and not "individual (ie single) aircraft" there?

The reason that I have written articles on trikes and have now started into hang glider aircraft types is:

1. A few years ago here on this very talk page we established a consensus to try to create articles on every aircraft type that has been flown. Some people started on the pioneering types, others on obscure French designs of the 1940s, others on one-off homebuilts. Because I have the refs and because no one else was working in that area, I started in on modern and then antique ultralights. When I had exhausted my refs on those I systematically moved onto trikes and now hang gliders. I still have powered parachutes left to go.
2. These are all notable from a WP:N point of view, all have reliable third party refs, as I pass up creating articles about any that don't. They meet Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) as well, which is the project's standard for inclusion.
3. Janes has lots of articles on pretty much every hang glider type, so these easily meet WP:GNG.
4. If there are any "enthusiasts" of these types on Wikipedia then they haven't been doing any writing. When I wrote my first hang glider type article there were only two other type articles in existence, so we don't seem to be under siege there with the threat of fancruft. As I am the only one creating hang glider articles I should point out that I am not a hang glider "enthusiast", having under one hour of hang glider time in my 5000 hours of flying time. I am writing them up because they are notable aircraft and because we don't yet have articles on them, not because I am a fan of any type or class of aircraft.
5. Why would we as a project decide that a French homebuilt, of which only one was constructed, is worth an article, but a hang glider design of which thousands have been built and flown is not worth an article? Take my most recent article as a good example: A-I-R Atos, a rigid wing hang glider, with 1250 built and flown and that has won many World Championships. Is there any reason not to have articles on these aircraft?

If you want their talk pages tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Air sports task force I can do that, but other wise I don't see any reason not to write the articles and not to list them at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft) for peer review. I would suggest that if anyone doesn't want to work on them or assess them etc, then feel free to pass them by. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with adding these article to the new article list. It would be useful though for all editors if when they add an aircraft they give a brief line as to what sort of aircraft article it is. I personally have little interest in General Aviation but a lot of interest in military prototypes. Hence an entry like "Foofoo Foo - 1960s Austrian glider" would help me decide where I want to apply my editing energies. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be easy to do. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

More the merrier I reckon. Graeme, if you have navigation popups enabled (My preferences>Gadgets) just hovering over a link (no clicking) shows the first paragraph of the lead. It also shows the class of an article on the front page and previews editing diffs without clicking on them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's rather handy, I'll try that. Already using assessment display. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - I rather like seeing the ultralights, powered gliders, etc. included; and the "discourage articles" comment did smell rather of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I took User:GraemeLeggett's suggestion and just added a brief description to my latest addition at Wikipedia:New articles (Aircraft). How does that look? - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, looking in hindsight , maybe I did shoot from the hip. I apologise for any offence, but I think a useful discussion did result. Thanks for your input.Petebutt (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No offense given and no need to apologize. I consider all of us here colleagues in an academic endeavour and that means that we need to challenge each other regularly on what we are doing, debate, stand up for what we believe will build the encyclopedia and generally push each other a bit when needed to make sure we are staying on track and not wandering off into fancruft or other deadends. As such I think that challenges, or "reality checks", like this are always useful discussions to have as it helps outline work to be done and how members feel about it. Certainly no harm done in bringing it up. That is how we collaborate here and one reason why this project is such a strong one! - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Avis C.4

Does anyone have a citable source for info on this aircraft. All I have are some unattributed info and three photos on flickr.Petebutt (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Try [2] or [3] with google translation. There are some references at the bottom FlugKerl (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What a mess - it is strange to have a redirect from Avis C.4 to an unrelated aircraft, also strange to then have some spec stuff for one (or two in this instance) in a completely unrelated article. Suggest the redirect is changed and the specs removed (we dont normally do comparisons). MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the specs from IMAM Ro.63 we need to do something with the redirect! MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

AVIS C.4 has now been created from redirect any help appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

See also edit warring on Sukhoi Su-30MKI

There appears to be a campaign of India v Pakistannationalistic edit warring on the related aircraft part of see also for Sukhoi Su-30MKI. Help may be needed to calm things down.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I took it back to your deletion of the list and urged some discussion. In light of the border skirmishes over "comparable aircraft" I really think we may want to once again look at doing away with this all together on a project basis. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, for modern combat aircraft, they seem to be more trouble than they are worth. For less controversial and more obscure types I feel they do add value - perhaps nuke at the first sign of edit-warring?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. I would hate for a real-life border war to have started here on Wikipedia between nutty nationalistic zealots. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with the removal (on this article and general) and we did remove the list at JF-17 Thunder and HAL Tejas a while ago. If the comparable aircraft was to stay we should really qualify the entries somehow (Ace Super Plane - 1950s fighter-bomber of similar size) although most of the comparison is really original research. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The Indo-Paki-China aircraft articles attract the fanboys in droves...as much as it pains me to say it at least on them perhaps it might well be best to do away with "similar aircraft" on them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• These edits are being made to aircraft roughly similar to the Indo-Paki-China aircraft as well. These edits are getting close to being disruptive, at least to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, they got the FMA SAIA 90‎, of all things (removing JF-17, adding Su-30MKI, so that indicates what POV that came from...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

An Su-30 fan has been adding it to loads of uncomparable aircraft and a few other unlikely ones. MilborneOne (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This nonsense is now generating some nice personal attacks - perhaps some admin action is needed?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have collapsed the discussion and left a note on the users talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is easy to see why nationalism was the disease that resulted on more deaths in the 20th century than any other. We really have to do what we can to keep it out of Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to have been edit-warring or some sort of questionable edits to the see also fields of most vaguly modern combat aircraft types recently. I don't know whether this just two or three troublesome editors who are causing the problem, or if the problem is more pervasive. If the latter, the similar aircraft field problably has to go, at least from modern combat aircraft.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The see also section was created before we had better categorisation and infoboxes (sequence has already been deprecated), I think that we could probably loose the Template:aircontent and just use a simple see also section without any preformed sections. See also:A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. I think the aircontent template has been overtaken by the categories and infoboxes we now have and can go, anything relevant can be added as a simple list or added to the article if it meets the notability/reliable referenced/actually needed test. It is one less non-standard project bit that annoys the quality reviewers. MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just removing the comparable aircraft in the template will take care of the situation. It'd take a bot to remove and replace the template in the many aircraft articles. The navbox idea for comparable aircraft has been mentioned before as an alternative. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• That'd just move the edit-warrioring to the navbox, and certain members of the Citation Police would still holler about them at FAs and such. If "comparable" has to go, then it should go completely; "related" and "lists" are still handy to add though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If that happens I would like to note that there is very rarely a problem with the 'comparable engines' parameter and I would like to see that kept please. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that - that's pretty clear-cut (cylinder #, cylinder configuration, HP) vs. comparing aircraft! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As edit warring appeared to be continuing, I've commented out the comparible aircraft section in Eurofighter Typhoon.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The POV-pushers have hit Dassault Rafale as well; at this point I'm in favour of ditching the comparable aircraft section, it is just attracting too much POV-ish/nationalistic editing. Too bad they can't harness their energies into improving the body of the article, rather than flopping favoured names in and out of a list for all time... Kyteto (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No kidding! I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find the aim is to get the Bloggs Wonderfighter (6.5 Generation or one number higher than anybody elses) on to every page as it is the pride of Bloggsville and deserves a mention :} MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The similar engines is a different field so it could be left in if the similar aircraft is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What about making an example of the edit-warrers/wonder-aircraft-linkers ("pour encourage les autres" as the French would have it) rather than we change to accomodate their disruption. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest, leaving some heads on stakes? - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

More like egos punctured on pencils - figuratively speaking. If there is a genuine edit war going on then there are administrators who can remonstrate with the offenders, and perhaps get them to be better contributors or leave the field of battle. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Torwards that, I've created User:The Bushranger/Planewarrior as a potential means of getting the point across. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we have more aircraft category pages to replace "comparable aircraft"? Would this cause things to tip even more strongly to degeneration creep, where ever more marginal designs go up a generation because somebody else's goose was favored? Hcobb (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

More categories would just be overcategorization. And frankly the whole "Generation" thing should be ignored on Wikipedia, IMHO - it was, essentially, created by the manufacturers to say "we have the latest, greatest widgetwhizbang9001" and was "applied retroactively" by them in a (sadly seemingly successful) attempt to legitimize it. Compare aircraft to what is comparable, not "Jet Fighter: The Next Generation". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If we must have comparisons, can we do them inline and wellreffed? Source X says that fighter Y has faster spinup than fighter Z and that this will give it an advantage in knifefighting. Hcobb (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And here we go again... Except it's not always about X turning faster than Y, it's simply a list of "these are aircraft similar in size and type that are used contemporarily in similar ways" - at least, that's what it's supposed to be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do we decide? If somebody notable has made the comparison then fine, quote that. Otherwise it's just some wikier doing OR. Hcobb (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the project's style guide explictly says: Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. (Also we had this exact debate about, oh, two months ago with no consensus for any significant change...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I like User:The Bushranger's proposed template User:The Bushranger/Planewarrior! I also agree, as I have previously argued, that the fighter generation numbering is nothing more than manufacturer marketing noise. "Our fighter is fifth generation" is basically in the same class as Cessna's "land-o-matic" landing gear and "Omni-vision" windows. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Might want to check the spelling of Wikipedia in that template! In my experience slapping templated warnings on IPs just makes them see the red mist and they double their disruptive efforts. The project has to out-fox them. Tighten the comparable aircraft guideline (number of engines, precise role, configuration (swing wing, delta), era within two years of first flight perhaps), and add a shortcut to the section for use in edit summaries. There is some new wording in the WP:SEEALSO guideline: The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. I think this justifies comparable aircraft entries but we do need to keep it under control where editors are not abiding by the spirit. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And the nonsense continues - [4] - with the ip editor happily re-adding his/her POV to the comparible aircraft field and adding a nice rant to Jimbo's talk page, launching a "complain" about a "wiki used Milborne One" and accusing us all of being Indian racists.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also apparently the Su-30MKI will fit on an An-225 but a JF-17 won't...! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And there's more IP in-out-in-out editing of the Compariable Aircraft lists, this time on Dassault Rafale. I'm thinking now that these lists actually are a lot more trouble than they're worth - doing it all in prose would at least be require the nationalist-pushers to chain together a sentence, and that could be a lot more challenging than it should be for a certain portion of them... Kyteto (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think blanket removing it isn't the answer here: perhaps a general standard of not including it for aircraft in current service, or something similar, might help though. For some older aircraft, a simple "these aircraft are similar" listing aids the reader; clearly, though, when it comes to modern types, the fanboys of certain countries won't be happy unless their latest "mine's bigger" project is listed everywhere... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that if the template allows stuff to be added to the comparible aircraft field, then these nationalistic/POV edit warriors will continue to make stupid additions and edit war over them whether there is consensus here not to use the field for aircraft in current service or not. To stop it would either require semi-protecting everythiong (which will not be allowed) or removing / deativating the field from the template.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Template for deletion

It might interest the project that {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1785}} (!!!) has been nominated for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have removed the one entry which doesnt have a related article, just links to a list article if the TfD wasnt running! MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some others which may need looking at - {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1819}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1824}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1848}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1874}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1875}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1896}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1897}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1898}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1899}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1900}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1901}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1902}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1903}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1904}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1905}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1906}}; {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 1907}}. All are unused in articles, and many are blank. The first template which is used in an article seems to be 1908. Shimgray | talk | 19:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

NACA Report No. 877

NACA Report No. 877 - appears to be something for wikisource? rather than an article MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed we have a lot of these source documetns under Category:National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics ! any ideas MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Those certainly look like they'd be valid for Wikisource, I'd think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the many similar articles has been raised at Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NACA Report No. 133 MilborneOne (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Largest contract in commercial aviation history

There is a discussion here on whether to feature the Lion Air–Boeing contract (source) on the Main Page's In the news section. Comments from this project's members, as well as expansion of the relevant article, would be welcome. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Navbox on Gyrodyne, Glider (sailplane) etc

WP:LEAD says "The primary difference between an infobox and a navigational box is the presence of parameters: a navigational box is exactly the same in all articles of the same topic, while an infobox has different contents in each article.". Most non-aviation Wikipedia articles follow this rule. An example of both infobox (about the article's subject) and navbox can be seen at Family of Barack Obama.

I propose the following changes to these "aircraft type" pages: (1) Remove the heading from the navbox, (2) Move the picture out of the navbox to become a normal lede picture. The heading is unnecessary as it just duplicates the page title displayed a few inches to the left and it incorrectly implies that the navbox is (an infobox) about the article subject. Separating the lede picture from the navbox would give us more flexibility in article layout, but the main benefit would be standardisation with the rest of Wikipedia; templates are confusing for newbie readers/editors so the more we can standardise things the better. About 30 articles would be affected by this change, but the template wouldn't need to be modified. DexDor (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this was discussed before and it was suggested that it should be a "navbox" at the bottom rather than an an "infobox", not sure what happened. MilborneOne (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Something like Template:Navbox aircraft categories perhaps, although that could be revised. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 30#Seriesbox aircraft categories where the consensus was to move it to the bottom but it appears not have been done. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Template:Aircraft_types_(by_method_of_thrust_and_lift) a better bottom navbox than Template:Navbox aircraft categories ? Another option (after separating the picture from navbox) would be to use a smaller side navbox (e.g. see User:DexDor#Proposed_aircraft_template). DexDor (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on Guizhou Soar Eagle

Can a few additional eyes be aimed in the direction of Guizhou Soar Eagle? It got randomly tag-bombed with a plethora of inappropriate tags just now, with an edit summary claiming that it "lacks VERIFIABLE references and citations" (patently false). I'm not sure if this is an overenthiastic editor, a compromised account, or a case of "references must be onlineitis", but I reverted the tags, but have to head out for the day so keeping an eye on it might be a good thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And he did it again. I've reverted again and left a note on his talk page regarding the inappropriate tagging. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Lonely list?!

Just found this by accident. It could be turned into something useful if someone has an up to date copy of 'Wrecks and Relics'. The aircraft at IWM Duxford are listed in the prose which may not be the easiest way for readers to discover what is there exactly. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason to not just integrate this list into Imperial War Museum Duxford? - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Could be done, I was thinking that it is a fairly long article already and it could involve some duplication of links. Our larger museum articles tend to list their aircraft by hangar or hall which has been done at the Duxford article but only in the prose and it's possible that not all the aircraft on display are listed (whether we want to do that is another matter but we usually do!!). The list as it is could be nuked by a passing AfD bod. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it just needs to be cleaned up, referenced and linked from (and to) the main article Imperial War Museum Duxford then? It seems odd that it isn't linked from there. It needs some nav boxes, a lead para and most of all at least one good ref. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, all of those! Here's the official list from the museum, they've even listed where everything is. Job for a rainy afternoon I think! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think so! - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately it's not raining here so I'm excused! Should be done really. Been there once, just too much to see. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I might get to it later on today. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the aircraft in the article are not actually part of the museum just resident at the airfield so really needs to be referenced etc., MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I made a start on getting it organized, but it really needs a line-by-line check against the ref now added. In addition to adding two nav boxes I added it to the nav box on British museums. - Ahunt (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I did a rough run through and eliminated the ones that didn't match the ref. - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You're a wiz! Wonder if they list the engines somewhere? There's milyuns and even more not on display! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad you thought that was helpful. Gradually we are making the encyclopedia better! - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Aerophile

Aerophile original created I suspect by the company User:Aerophile since blocked but most of the recent updates have been made by User:Aero4 that appears to be a SPA. Had a big tidy up and removed most of the marketing guff, including a huge map and a lat long showing the location of every balloon in existance. The SPA has re-added the map and possible may add back in some of the woffle. Although it is on my watchlist I would appreciate if others could keep an eye on it please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to those that have helped at Tethered helium balloon, the editors are clearly employees of or owners or related to Aerophile and as such most of the edits are promotional in nature. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

UAV Cats

A user has created a new category tree Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles by manufacturer and changing the traditional Foo aircraft cats to Foo uav - has this been discussed as I have not seen anything? MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The user has left a note on my talk page - evidently you dont need consensus to mess around with the article categorisation and asked me not to contact them when they are doing useful work! MilborneOne (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you've totally wrong footed me on this - I really wasn't expecting anyone to have issues with this.

(edit conflict) For the record I have created Category:Prototype and development unmanned aerial vehicles , Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles by manufacturer and subcats - I'm suprised that anyone would need to question such simple categorisation. "Unmanned vehicles by manufacturer" already contains numerous pages, and the categorisation is only partially complete, with obvious future scope for growth. All "foo uav" are subcats of the relavent "Foo aircraft". eg see Category:Boeing unmanned aerial vehicles I'm at a total loss as to why anyone would have issues with such regular changes.Mddkpp (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I only did work on the products of the larger companies, there is scope for further work in categorisaton - but this would need some editorial insight as to which categories have scope for growth.

There's a minor issue on whether Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles of the United States refers to uav's made in the USA, or operated in the USA - currently there is a lot of overlap - but this could become a problem in the future and may need to be clarified - in particular BAE systems is UK registered company, but manufactures in the USA - there may be other examples.

Another minor problem is that Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles of the United States is place in the category Category:United States military aircraft (this was already done by the time I got their) - but some of the pages are about non-military uavs eg NASA. I'll leave it to someone else to sort that one out. Thanks.Mddkpp (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Its really the removal of foo aircraft from the article that is the main issue it is a standard category used on aircraft articles and we dont normally use sub-cats like foo helicopters or foo gyroplanes as the aircraft types have a different scheme that dont involve the manufacturer. Perhaps we should wait from comment from other users like User:The Bushranger who deals in cats all the time, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm suprised you don't - something like Category:Boeing helicopters would be useful - not only does it make it easier for people to find helicopters by Boeing, especially for people who aren't familiar with the subject (which is what encyclopedias are for) - but you also get "Helicopters by manufacturer" for free - which is useful too. I suggest doing this for "transport planes" "military aircraft" and maybe others. If I'm looking for pages in Category:United States helicopters I should be able to use the categories by more than one method - eg by date, manufucturer, function, and maybe other categorisations too eg "twin rotor" etc (I've got to say that currently the categorisation scheme for helicopters is not that useful..) Mddkpp (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The helicopter cats are a bit of a mess. However there is WP:OC to be wary of. "Boeing helicopters" would be bordering on OC; "Boeing aircraft" is fine. With regards to the UAVs, I'm afraid the Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles by manufacturer tree is overcategorising in my eyes; UAVs are aircraft, and thus belong in the "Aircraft by manufacturer" tree. The UAVs can, and should be, also categorised individually in the Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles by country tree, but UAV+mfg, not so much. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "prototype and development" category absolutely has to go - "current"/"future"/"development" etc. categories are strongly discouragedit's confusing as it gives the appearance of being for types in development - something that is strongly discouraged by the category folks these days - but instead contains all types that didn't make it into production - including X-planes. This is overcategorization and I've proposed it for merging. These categories were made in good faith, don't worry, I have no doubts about that - but they are inappropirate, alas, and should be upmerged back to the main manufacturers' categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are being way to over-cautious on OC - helicopters (or rotorwings) are a very distinct form of air-transport - very different from fixed wing aircraft - it's not like I'm suggesting categorising ford cars by the number of doors - more like splitting ford heavy haul trucks from ford automobiles - if I want to find "Company X helicopters" how the ? do I do that - that is exactly what categories are for - I shouldn't have to open 50 pages to see something as simple as whether an aircraft is a helicopter or not.

The "prototype" category is obviously not "future developments" as the majority are past projects that have been long closed.. I can't put that another way.

X planes (as far as I know) are/were "prototype experiments" - wtf? You mention them like they shouldn't be in there??

If I have made mistakes in there could you tell which ones they are and/or fix them. Or explain.

I understand there may be an issue about putting current developments in - but the ones I have added as (as far as I know) - development planes - not the production model. Again if I have made errors on this one please correct them.Mddkpp (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to find helicopters built by Boeing Vertol, you go to Boeing Vertol - on which there is a list. And seperating out "development planes" isn't something that's done; purely experimental types have a series category for them; there is also a cancelled/abandoned category tree for those that were proposed but didn't make it to production. Lumping prototypes, cancelled projects, and experimental types all together seperatly causes nothing but confusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone is an expert like you. How am I supposed to know to look for "boeing vetrol" when I have never heard of it before ? - it doesn't even say on Boeing that vetrol is the helicopter division.??

If I want to look for helicopters by category all there is is a list by date of introduction - this is useless except for the one purpose it serves - it's normal to categorise by muliple topics - it is definitely not up to you to decide what or how things are categorised. I don't appreciate being instructed "how to search" for helicopters by you.

I see the category "experimental aircraft" now - for some reason that had be placed in Category:civil aircraft - despite being full of experimental military vehicles. why?Mddkpp (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to be helped in finding articles, why ask? (And I don't appreciate having thinly veiled claims of incompetence aimed at me, either). However this is for the community to decide, one way or the other; my personal viewpoint is that the UAVs-by-manufacturer categories should be merged back to the aircraft-by-manufacturer categories, while you clearly have the opposite view. And that's fine - people disagree. I'd like to know what the rest of the project thinks though before potentially taking any other categories to CfD for a full discussion, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As is probable clear I dont think we should change from using Foo manufacturer aircraft on related articles and not using any further division. It makes it harder to find if you need to know both the manufacturer and type. It will lead to Foo manufacturer gliders, Foo manufacturer hang gliders, Foo manufacturer small blue aircraft etc., we dont need it the aircraft types have a reasonable cats system already and we should not mix them. I would support rolling the foo manufacturer UAV cats back into the aircraft cats. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Categories have been proposed for merging here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

de Havilland Comet up for A-class review

I noticed that Kyteto has put de Havilland Comet up for WP:Military History A-class review here. Try to help or provide review comments. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox aviation

An editor here has started a discussion on reducing the use of this info box. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Medway Microlights

It seems that two employees of this company have discovered this article and are attempting to "improve" it by breaking templates, adding unsourced information, non-standard terminology and other unhelpful edits. Both have been welcomed and warned for COI but are persisting regardless and not communicating with anyone. Some of their latest edits are probably just bungling around resulting in breaking templates, but keep requiring reverting. Some additional eyes watching this article would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is still under siege from COI editors who keep breaking the page templates, adding uncited information and adding non-standard terminology. Some help watching this article is still needed! - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a month. Hopefully that will give you chaps a break. Mjroots (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Paid COI - Honeywell

Hi all. I have a financial COI with Honeywell and am working to help them improve Wikipedia articles in compliance with Wikipedia policy and ethical best practices.

I have left comments on the articles on Honeywell Aerospace, Avionics and Next Generation Air Transportation System with proposed revisions and requests for their review by neutral editors. I'm also working on seeing if we can contribute some images and discussing some improvements to my Honeywell Aerospace draft with an editor on my Talk page.

Since this project is filled with editors interested in aviation, I thought I'd just drop by and see if there's an editor that wants to collaborate with me. Check out my user page for more about me, my COI, etc. King4057 (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I'll have a look at the articles... (articles about specific aircraft types tend to get lots of eyeballs; articles about general concepts or about businesses in the sector tend to get less) bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool. One thing I wanted to bring up was that the main Honeywell article brings up some protests related to World War II. I can only presume - and only because I haven't seen anything to tell me differently - that these protests had more to do with Honeywell's former ammunitions business than the avionics they were supplying to the war effort. Didn't want anyone to think I was hiding a piece of history. King4057 (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Tatra T.101

I've made a start at User:Mjroots/Tatra T.101 (will do more tomoz). Any editor in the UK or elsewhere with access to the current issue of Aeroplane is welcome to expand the proto-article. Assistance in sorting the Specifications section is particularly welcome. Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just found this website which will prove useful in expanding the article and ensure that it is not solely from a single source. Mjroots (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Claims of plagarism on Talk:Consolidated P-30

An ip editor has claimed on Talk:Consolidated P-30 that there is large scale plagarism in the article from US Fighters: Army Air Force 1925 to 1980s by Lloyd S Jones - I've found a scan of the book in question on the internet and cannot see any copyvio - however more opinions would be useful in order to confirm whether or not there is a copyvio.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

here's what I wrote in the article talk page further to Nigel's investigation:

Yes, I'm quite sure [that there has been significant plagarism], and so sure that I'm wondering if you're looking at the same book. I dont have the book in front of me here, but I was referring to a copy that I believe to be from the 1970s (perhaps there have been revision)? I read about the P-30 there then went to wiki for additional info and was surprised to find the very very very close similarity, including entire sentences and multi-sentence segments lifted wholesale from the book and/or provided with trivial modifications. If you'd like, I can find the book and scan it. I haven't looked at other aircraft and so it's probably not right for me to speculate, but I kind of suspect we'd find many other examples of this for other older aircraft. Amazingly, Jones is not even cited in the references, which hints at a deliberate attempt at obfuscation. (I assume Jones is a primary source here). 86.26.12.110 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can, that would be fabulous. It cannot be posted here for obvious reasons, but you can certainly email it to an established editor who is not involved with the writing of the article to compare. I do a lot of copyright cleanup on Wikipedia, and would be happy to help, but I can't access this book. :/ Alternatively, can you perhaps provide for Nigel's use some keywords or chapter headings that might help him locate the material, in case he has a revised version? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article anyway - based on several sources - hopefully this will eliminate the immediate problem.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for catching that, 86. It likely wasn't obfuscation, though - back in ye olden days of Wikipedia referencing was a "as you like it" kind of thing, meaning if you didn't like to reference, nobody was going to squawk. We're a lot better about that now, but there are a lot of old articles from ye "good" olde dayz that could use a good monkey wrench taken to them - good work Nigel on cleaning this one up! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion - Moyes Litespeed

I have proposed the Moyes Litespeed article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moyes Litespeed for lack of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added to the debate there, but if any WikiProject members have access to Janes and can add refs from it that would be helpful. This aircraft is clearly notable as it has won dozens of world, national and regional championships. I am already adding those refs now, so we can quickly end this AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This AFD was closed as keep on the basis that no one made a delete argument beyond the nominator. I think this AFD also lends some strength to the value of The World Directory of Leisure Aviation as a reliable ref as well. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Do accident reports belong in articles about manufacturers?

The consensus here has always been that they don't and that if they belong anywhere it would be in the aircraft type's article, not in the manufacturer's article, but an editor is arguing that one accident should be included in the Lancair article. Discussion is at Talk:Lancair#Safety_Controversy. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sukhoi Superjet 100

Can someone help me please with an editor removing country flags on the orders. I think thats incorrect. See A380 A350 B787 Comac ARJ21 Comac 919 MS-21 or most other aircraft orders. The flags add important info in a compressed form. Otherwise one have to include the country. Tagremover (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Flags are depreciated in most cases. They should be removed from the other articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In most cases we shouldn't be using national flags in a table of airline operators. If we really have to include the country (why? The subject is a business, not an ambassador or a national sports team) then it's probably better to write the name of the country. bobrayner (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a big fan of flags myself but the project consensus is the only place flags are used is in the list of operators to indicate country of use (rather than the operator directly). They should not be used anywhere else like lists of orders or in the infobox. Removing them from one or two articles and not the other 13000 odd is probably not the best thing to do without gaining a clearer consensus as it would take a lot of effort and edits to change all 13000. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like bot-work to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you like starting edit-wars to me. Respect all editors who added flags. Search consensus. WP:MOSFLAG is a GUIDELINE, not a policy. Tagremover (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Search consensus? Consensus throughout virtually all areas of the project that flag icons in articles are a Bad Thing, you mean? Also, please stop assuming bad faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Start a vote. Tagremover (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • We're not a democracy. MOSFLAG discourages the use of flags--period. BTW, of that list of airplanes you mentioned, most of them didn't have the flags (now, none of them do). I also don't see why the country should be included--what does it matter whether a company from Laos or the PRK or the US orders a plane? Drmies (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You have no experience, so you don´t know, that the flags are for example here: List of Boeing 787 orders and deliveries. You probably know guidelines and policies, but they don´t make a GOOD article/list.
    • Respect all editors who added flags. Search consensus by voting. WP:MOSFLAG is a GUIDELINE, not a policy. Tagremover (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. And the Manual of Style may not be labled "policy", but it has the same force on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Tagremover, what is the nature of this "compressed information" that you think flags carry? --John (talk) 06:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Misleading flags in some of these tables

So far I've found a Reunion flag used for Air Austral (a French airline), and somebody tried to cram two different flags alongside each other to represent some kind of dual-nationality for AF-KLM as well as for AviancaTaca (and a triple flag for SAS). This is inappropriate, but I'm actually relieved - in other areas I've found worse misuse of flags (for instance the UNIA flag used to mean "black people", the UN flag meaning "foreign", St George meaning "anglophone", and multiple national flags photoshopped together to make one composite new flag for a subject which spanned national boundaries). Virgin Atlantic is half-owned by Singapore Airlines so I'm surprised nobody's tried making a composite flag for that yet. bobrayner (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment (RfC)

An RfC has been started on Talk:Sukhoi Superjet 100#Vote on flag removal. —Compdude¹²³ 20:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 2010 Austin suicide attack

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Austin suicide attack. - Ahunt (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Stratolaunch carrier aircraft - Scaled Model 351 - Roc

I was wondering if Stratolaunch carrier aircraft should be renamed to Scaled Composites Model 351, like how other Scaled aircraft are called. According to the April PopMech article, it's also nicknamed "Roc" but doesn't carry an official name yet. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What do most sources call it? It's tempting to go with a structured naming scheme consistent with other articles, but really our first priority should be to reflect what sources call it. bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a catch in Commonname here, in that "Stratolaunch carrier aircraft" is used in many sources, but it's describing the aircraft, not naming it. "Scaled Composites Stratolaunch" seems to be the most common actual name, so I'm BOLDly moving the article to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that "Stratolaunch" is the company that ordered the airplane, so isn't the name either. "Scaled Composites Stratolaunch" would just be combining the names of the two companies involved. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Assistance needed with Armenian Air Force

A new user has removed cited text from the first paragraph at Armenian Air Force#History 3 times now. I checked the 2nd source (NY Times article) for the last part of the paragraph and adjusted some wording. However, I do not have access to the book reference to check the other text. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

DC-4 vs. C-54: how should they be split?

I've just added four major accidents to the list provided in the Douglas DC-4 article. However, several of these were actually Douglas C-54 Skymaster aircraft converted to commercial service. In fact, most DC-4s were converted C-54s; due to the surplus of ex-military C-54s, Douglas only sold a relatively small number of DC-4s to commercial customers. The C-54 article currently covers both military usage of the type and some of its commercial service, but it seems to me that all the C-54's activity in commercial service should instead be covered in the DC-4 article, since that's where most readers would expect to find it. Separating the information based solely on whether the aircraft was directly sold to a commercial customer or happened to have the minor alterations of the military type would seem to be a mistake. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

C-54s should be listed in the C-54 article, DC-4s should be listed in the DC-4 article, regardless of operator. Being sold from the military to civilian life doesn't magically change the aircraft from one type to another. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. While this is strictly true from a classification standpoint, it flies in the face of common usage. Normal people, even normal aircraft enthusiasts, think of "DC-4" in a commercial context and "C-54" in a military context. Similarly for the DC-3 vs. C-47/C-53. Those familiar with the types know the true story, but Wikipedia articles are written for broader audiences. We can specify that most commercial DC-4s were ex-military C-54s while still keeping the commercial service history of the type in a single unified place. If someone wants to know about the commercial history (including commercial operators and accidents in commercial service) of the DC-4 (or DC-3), they'll find it highly inconvenient to jump between and mentally merge two separate articles, but right now that's what we're forcing them to do by focusing so strictly on the classification. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The question is though: should Wikipedia be inaccurate for easier reading? The DC-4/C-54 articles are not split by military/commercial history, they're split by commercial/military designations and models. To include C-54 accidents in the DC-4 article just because "they're civilian therefore they should be in the civilian article where people expect them" is making Wikipedia deliberatly erronious. If somebody wants to learn about C-54 accidents, they'll read about them in the C-54 article, and vice versa. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it wouldn't be hard to handle this while preserving accuracy. Simply include headers at the top of each article. For the DC-4 article, this should read "This article is about the civilian DC-4, as well as the C-54 Skymaster in commercial service. For the C-54 Skymaster in military and government service, see Douglas C-54 Skymaster." Likewise, for the C-54 article it would read "This article is about the C-54 Skymaster in military and government service. For the C-54 Skymaster in commercial service, see Douglas DC-4." Also, in the DC-4 article, C-54s converted for commercial service would be specifically identified as such. Thus there would be no inaccuracy. This is how I imagine most print publications dealing with the DC-4 would handle this issue.

As for "if somebody wants to learn about C-54 accidents, they'll read about them in the C-54 article, and vice versa", this is not simply inconvenient for readers, for most of them it's downright misleading. Most won't be aware of the distinction and wouldn't think to check the other article. As written, neither article gives a hint that other accidents of a closely related aircraft type which was nearly identical in commercial service will be found elsewhere. For a particular case, if the aircraft was in airline service they likely wouldn't know it was a former C-54 rather than a DC-4.

The situation with operators is a little different from the one for accidents. The links for operators in both articles redirect to a single common list. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Except having the DC-4 article covering "as well as the C-54 Skymaster in commercial service" defeats the purpose of having seperate articles on the types entirely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To me the only good reason for having separate articles on the DC-4 and C-54 at all is because combining the aircraft's extensive commercial and military careers into a single article would make that article too long and unwieldy. Going solely by the physical differences between the types, there is little justification for two separate articles, as the technical changes are not very significant. This is even more true when the C-54 article also covers C-54s converted to commercial airliners. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, even if the merged article would get somewhat lengthy, maybe they should just be merged after all? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A C-54 is not a C-54 forever, as any C-54 that entered commercial service would have had to be converted to a DC-4. Military aircraft are not built to a civil standard and it is impossible to get a standard Cerificate of Airworthiness for such an aircraft. The aircraft have to be modified to meet civil airworthiness standards, in which process they become the civil aircraft. As someone who has worked on ex-military versions of both types, the same thing happened to C-121s which became Super Connies and also C-47s that became DC-3s. To use the C-47 as an example, among other things they were built without stainless-steel engine firewalls or engine fire extinguisher systems; to receive civil certification they had to be modified with these to provide the extra level of safety required of a civil aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In which case they really do need to be merged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving the Britten-Norman Islander

Is a list of WP:AIRCRASH non-notable accidents notable? These are light aircraft accidents that all involve non-Wikipedia notable people and there is no indication any resulted in airworthiness directives or other changes in procedures, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect as a work of a probable sockpuppet it may get deleted soon. MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

and to think I ran RefLinks three times to fix it up! - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that the list itself is within guidelines, as it's been stated multiple places that lists can contain incidents and things that are otherwise unnotable. However, as noted, this was more of Ryan's work, and it's going, going, gone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well that is just the way it goes in Wacky Wiki World. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Radio-controlled glider

Would appreciate some eyes and fingers on Radio-controlled glider if you guys have a moment. No particular problem apart from stacks of original research and poor grammar/word repetition. I've cheekily included it in the av project, the model aircraft articles don't have a project/task force and it shows!! The content is mostly accurate but poorly cited, I added some refs a while ago but my books are 10 to 20 years out of date. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Gull Wing Flying Wing

Any thoughts on this article? It was just started yesterday. Originally it had one ref, an WP:SPS ref written by the same person who started the article, so it looked pretty self-promotional, until I removed the ref and tagged it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO this is clearly little more than one researcher's log of their recent activities. The design analysis is not rigorous, not referencable and some of the anecdotes are not relevant to the aerodynamic form. Even the name of the configuration is not (to my knowledge) referencable. It is not encyclopedic and should simply be deleted - the author might be advised to start a blog elsewhere. [Edit: oh, I see they already have] — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It certainly needs a (one) ref to stay. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Okay with no further input I will send this to WP:PROD. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

PROD successful, article deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Georgian drone

New article Georgian drone, has me confused as it uses an image of a Hermes 450! MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It now has a different picture, but it desperatly needs a new title! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't even have a name! Hmm. bobrayner (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I just did a quick search of DID, Janes, and Flightglobal. Didn't find any mention of a "Georgian" UAV on the first two (though there was coverage of Georgian use of the Hermes 450, built elsewhere of course, and they might not have paid the bill). Flightglobal has [5] which still doesn't give us a name - I suspect it's based on the same press release as the source already in the article. bobrayner (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And finally... the image is the same as the one used in the FlightGlobal article but the uploader claims it was a free photo from a friend; they're now blocked. bobrayner (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup...this wasn't his first rodeo at the Image Copyright Violation Corral. [6]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wing configuration - time for a split?

Hi, would appreciate your comments at Talk:Wing configuration#Time for a split? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Commonality

Doesnt appear in the normal list as it has no project tags but just for information I have proposed Commonality for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a commonly used term in the aviation industry. Perhaps the article could be improved. Also, the page creator put some references of this term being used on the talk page. —Compdude¹²³ 21:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The current content is very weak but this is a crucial concept in the industry. If you stick to retail media like flightglobal you'll see plenty of mentions of specific examples of commonality which might be too superficial to build an article on, but digging a little deeper there are certainly solid sources that address commonality in depth - for instance [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] or for a more abstract approach [12] and various stuff from business journals / operational theory etc. I wouldn't really mind the article as it stands getting deleted, but there's definitely potential for somebody to build something bigger & better in future. Bear in mind that commonality affects more than just airlines. bobrayner (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust a.net forum chat on this topic, except in cases where somebody's copy & pasted from another source, in which case we can just use the original source (and we shouldn't link to copyvio). bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that commonality is a concept widely applicable, even crucial, across many disciplines - including way beyond the confines of mere technology. It surely merits inclusion in any dictionary. But in an encyclopedia? Nah. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is a dictionary topic not an encyclopedia topic. - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User parameter in aircraft type infoboxes

G'day all, earlier I changed the Boeing 747 infobox list of users to show those airlines that bought the most airframes. My edit was promptly reverted with the comment 'list is current user'. Obviously this approach cannot be taken for many types that are no longer in service or in service in only small numbers. Is there a guideline or consensus for this, is it just a matter of opinion, or something that gets treated on a case-by-case basis? YSSYguy (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The info box documentation doesn't give any guidance on this. Was there a discussion consensus somewhere? - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that I can see or remember. There was a related question asked in 2007 at the earlier template (Template talk:Infobox aircraft/doc) but nobody replied. 'Current users' would obviously not work for retired types. The parameter may need more guidance notes writing after discussion, I would tend to agree with YSSYguy's understanding. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Most in-service airliners have allways listed current users in the primary user field, normally by size of current fleet, this is changed to a historic list when the type is retired, not sure it was actually agreed anywhere but it has been like that for a long time. That doesnt mean it cant be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's unreasonable to focus only on the current day. This is an encyclopædia; it's not just a snapshot of the world today, it should also cover what's happened before too. (Though some of our history coverage is woeful). If JAL bought the most 747s then it seems odd, to me, that they can't be listed among other users in the infobox. bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's common practice here in en wiki to use the infobox section for current operators, all other could be mentioned in text or in the operators subsection of the article. --Denniss (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps for cases like the 747 in which the aircraft has been around long enough that former major users have ceased to exist or have abandoned the type, it would be best to modify the infobox to make it clearer to the reader whether the major users listed are current ones or historical ones. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds (to me) like it could be a good solution. bobrayner (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

List of personal aircraft

A very odd, random list of a few aircraft. Does anyone think this serves any purpose or can be salvaged? - Ahunt (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a term I have seen before in this way, I suspect it is all original research so you really need to find a reliable reference to "Personal aircraft" being a know term and that it relates to un-seated single person aircraft rather than any aircraft owned by a person. MilborneOne (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "personal aircraft" has been used at times, but it is not defined and often just means a "privately owned aircraft". The whole thing looks like WP:OR to me. - Ahunt (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur, and prodded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You beat me to it! - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for April - Westland Sea King

Hello WP:Aviation.

I've found myself enveloped in a heavy rewriting of another article in need of care, the classic Sea King, specifically the licensed Westland variants. Personally, I've seen these aircraft flying around my home county all of my life, and it is an honour to get stuck into overhauling the article dedicated to them. Particular weaknesses of the article as it stands is the Operational History, which pretty much neglects all operators except for Britain, which doesn't really do justice for anyone - I've started off a pretty neat little section on India, bet there is plenty to be created from scratch still. In addition, much of the article is uncited, such as the aforementioned large British operational history. I've made a good start on the work, and some other editors have already joined in to help push it along, I feel that in a mere ten days time the article will be standing substancially differently to how it is today. Other tasks/lacking areas include adding citations for the extensive variants list, finding more images with sufficient copyright status to upload into WikiCommons and illustrate the article with, and possibly the development of a dedicated Design section. I'll be trying to make the Operational History into something more respectable and up to the task that it should be fulfilling. Anyone who wants to join in is very welcome, and I look forward to working with you. Thank you in advance. Kyteto (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

An update: The work has gone splendidly, we've had a really good turnout of editors chipping away, the content is considerably more thorough and well-cited. As things have gone so well, I'm going to try and log some time in on some edits to the Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King article, which is now looking quite neglected next to the Westland spinoff. I'm still considering if I can patch up the few remaining cite gaps in the Westland article, if that can be done, the GAN process is the next logical step. Kyteto (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As all the cite issues have now been cleared, I've passed the article over to the GA project to evaluate its quality and produce recommendations for further improvement. Thanks for the effort everyone. Kyteto (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've been working some on the SH-3 article; mainly citing existing text. It would be good if others with better sources could expand the article in places. I don't have anything that really gets into its service history. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Boeing Vertol CH-113 Labrador into Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight

Hi WP:Aviation. I've recently proposed a merger of the CH-113 article into the parent CH-46, see the discussion and feel free to participate at: CH-46 Sea Knight talkpage Kyteto (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has been detailed so far but it could do with a few more voices; if you have the time can you stop by and give an opinion please? Kyteto (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the dicussion has generated one Oppose and two Support votes (in addition to my own as the proposer); I'd prefer not to merge on a consensus so weak it could be swung either way by a single vote. If a few more opinions emerge in favour, I'd be happier to proceed with the merge (and naturally if Oppose votes increase, to not go ahead with the motion). Kyteto (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

With the current consensus, I intend to close the proposal as accepted in the next 24 hours. Kyteto (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is now merged. Thank you all for your input on this decision. Kyteto (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

RQ-20 Puma

Recently, there have been things happening with the RQ-20 Puma UAV. Right now, there is no Wikipedia page on it. Could someone make one? Links for info:AeroVironment, Defenseindustrydaily, sUASNews (America789 (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC))

It needs more work but try AeroVironment RQ-20 Puma. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Kyteto's focus article for May: Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard

Hello WP:Aviation, Some months ago, I observed a heated discussion regarding the condition of the aircraft articles manufactured by Dassault; and that allegedly Dassault aircraft have been sidelined by article writers in favour of other manufacturers. Speaking personally, I haven't really worked on many French aircraft for the rather simple reason that I can't understand the French language, making most of the source material that is available sort of impossible for me to make use of. However, a bright idea dide arise just two days ago; what if the aircraft selected was one with considerable fame in the English-speaking world? As such, I have picked the Super Étendard: it was exactly 30 years ago that the Falklands War was being waged in the South Atlantic, thus it feels fitting to sharpen up the article and to do the subject justice at this time. All editors are invited to join in on this month's overhaul project, I look forward to your contributions. Kyteto (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If francophone sources are ever an obstacle for you, just shout - I'd be happy to help on that front. bobrayner (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"See also" consensus?

Hi all, the previous discussion on aircraft "see also" sections, attempting to address FAC concerns that they conflict with the MoS, was archived with no consensus. As there are several potential FA aircraft articles in preparation, perhaps the project can revisit the issue? Here is the relevant MoS section, with the conflicting rule emphasized:

See also section (WP:MOS)

Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. {{Portal}} and {{Wikipedia-Books}} links are usually placed in this section.

Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:

• Related person—made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005
• Ischemia—restriction in blood supply

Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable quantity. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section.

The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages.

WikiProject Aviation's WP:AVIMOS follows the MoS ("Links that are already used in the body of the article or in an infobox should not be replicated in [see also] sections").

WikiProject Aircraft's WP:AIRMOS says the following:

See also (WP:AIRMOS)

This section contains links to other aircraft-related material in Wikipedia. There is a template available, {{Aircontent}} , with parameters for the below sections as well as external links. It no longer includes the {{Aviation lists}} template described below.

By convention, this section includes:

See also: Links to other related articles not already linked.

Related development: are those that this aircraft were developed from, or which were developed from it. Many aircraft will be stand-alone developments with no relatives, in which case this line should not be used.

e.g.: For the P-51 Mustang, "Related development" would include at least the F-82 Twin Mustang, CAC Kangaroo, Cavalier Mustang and Piper Enforcer.

Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate.

e.g.: aircraft comparable to the Boeing 707 include the Convair 880 and Douglas DC-8

Lists: relevant lists that this aircraft appears in

e.g. the Saab Viggen is listed in the List of military aircraft of Sweden

Problem #1: "Related development" and "Comparable aircraft" inevitably repeat links, contradicting WP:MOS, WP:AVIMOS, and WP:AIRMOS rules.

Problem #2: "Comparable aircraft" (the Aircontent template uses "Comparable role, configuration and era") is often unreferenced and subjective per FAC.

Examples of this include de Havilland Comet#See also and Vickers_VC10#See also. It would be great if the project can come up with some consensus on the matter, preserving the utility of these lists, while addressing MoS concerns. Some potential solutions:

1. Move the "Related" and "Comparable" lists out of the "see also" section.
2. Move "Related" and "Comparable" to a separate navbox.
3. Rename "Comparable role, configuration and era" to more specific "Competing aircraft", which can be easily referenced.

Thanks for any suggestions! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem replicating links, as the general MOS itself does not help navigation, since if you missed the link in the text of the article, you'll never get to a related article, especially when links are usually only linked at the first instance, meaning if you skipped to a section you wanted to read, and it occurred in another section, you'd never see it. Wikipedia seems to be bureaucratically unhelpful when linking to associated topics, as if readers were spider bots or something, cataloguing all links on a page somewhere in memory. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It definitely is more convenient to have an accessible list of links for related aircraft articles, instead having to find them buried in the text. The MoS does allow for links to be repeated once after the lead. Perhaps a way can be found to satisfy MoS rules and still provide the links that the project desires, such as only putting previous unlinked articles in "See also" and moving the related/comparable to their own section. Does anyone have any opinion about the already suggested solutions, or other ideas of their own? Thanks in advance. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is wiggle room for this in the MoS, but it would be better to move the related and comparable list to a generic navbox. This has been discussed here before, but nothing seems to have been done yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Refer to discussion below about comparable aircraft, it may be that we should deprecate the Template:aircontent and apply the normal see also rules. Most stuff is already in navboxes but we may need to look at how to deal with the related/family links. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Per the discussion below:

• "Comparable" category may be on the way out as a dedicated list (instead comparable planes can be mentioned in the text); this has the benefit of avoiding edit wars.
• "Related" aircraft—could this be moved into the aircraft infobox, perhaps as a "Related development" parameter below "Variants"?
• "Lists" and "cooperating aircraft" remain in the section, if not mentioned above.

Or perhaps a separate generic navbox be created? One supposes that would require creating a basic template...and to decide what form it would take, and where it would be placed. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC))

You could just use a "|related=" , "|comparable=" in the navbox, etc, and use {{flatlist}} in conjunction with regular list bulleting. So it could be 1-to-1 conversion (just modify the existing template to include a navbox). 70.49.124.225 (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! There are similar navboxes being tested just below, in the following discussion section. The navboxes being tested move the related, competing, etc. aircraft from the list into the box. SynergyStar (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparable aircraft (again)

The comparable aircraft list has been removed from KAI T-50 Golden Eagle for the usual reasons but an editor keeps re-adding it. Latest comment is that we would not dare remove it from a GA article like F-16 so why the T-50. So before I remove it from F-16 anybody have any comments? MilborneOne (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering the absurd amount of silly "my plane is better than your plane" edit warring that goes on in the F-16 See also section, together with the general concerns from FAC etc about See also sections and comparible aircraft in particular, I'd have no problem removing it.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I support the removal. The nationalist edit-warring is pointless. If mentions of the planse didn't come up naturally in the prose of the article, a constantly-in-dispute, distracting, and arguement-fuelling See Also section should be swept out. Its removal would make the project more consistant with the stance coming down from FAC-quality levels; and that is something I see a very positive thing. Less arguements and less nationalism while being more consistant with Wikipedia policy. And the KAI T-50's See Also section is a bloated eye-sore, additionally User:Desagwan is quite prone to reverting editors and appears to be taking a course pretty close to a WP:Own stance on the article. Kyteto (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, they cause more trouble than benefit - let's get rid of them once and for all. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you all. See also sections should only have 1–2 links not like 10 which some aircraft articles have. —Compdude¹²³ 15:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree as well. If an aircraft is actually comparable to the one in the article, most likely, it would already be mentioned in the body in the "history" or "export" sections for example. No need to add a list at the end, especially since it is edit-war prone.--McSly (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that a "comparable" aircraft would likely be mentioned in the body of the article, such as the "Development" or "Variants" sections--with the benefit of being referenced with supporting rationale as to why it's comparable (a competitor most often), rather than just listed without much explanation.

On a related note, after discussion at Wikiproject:Automobiles, the "similar" infobox field was removed some time ago--it generated way too many edit wars among editors who disagreed on what constituted a "similar" car. In the same vein, what is a "comparable" aircraft can lead to interminable debate. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) So do we get rid of Comparable aircraft completely, in which case the best bet is to get rid of the field in the template, or just for articles where its problematical? There are some articles (Nieuport Nighthawk for example, where Comparible aircraft consists of contemporary single seat fighter aircraft powered by the same engine, must of which were built to the same specification) where, correctly used, the field does add to the article, but if necessary other ways may have to be found to deal with these.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be better to apply any changes consistently throughout WP:AIRCRAFT articles, rather than a patchwork case-by-case basis. As mentioned above, "comparable" lists can develop problems. Now, the Nieuport Nighthawk "comparable" example, which I'm not familiar with, apparently has more specific criteria (sharing the same engine). Most "comparable" lists don't do that. Maybe there is a way to add it in (at minimum I think it could be mentioned in the text, e.g. "the same engine was used in x, y, z, most of which were built..."). Regards SynergyStar (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont think it would be hard to use a navbox for related types which could also deal with Nigel's Nighthawk example. Still nothing wrong with listing them in the standard see also section if required then we can withdraw the aircontent template. The template was designed before we had developed the navboxes for example the manufacturers series was in the template not that long ago before it was moved to a navbox. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to visualise what such a navbox would look like...where is the manufacturer series navbox parameter located? Thx. SynergyStar (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Probably the top navbox in the stack of navboxes. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Very simple version MilborneOne (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks promising, from the organization/layout/MoS front. However would a new template need to be created for each article? If a generic navbox or template is available that would be great...also if there's room for citations too... Regards SynergyStar (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

These would have to be individually created but that is not a big issue we wouldnt need to change them all overnight. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A generic template seems easier, but either way has advantages. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, using those examples as the basis could work. Such would likely deprecate the aircontent template "related" parameter. As for "comparable" or "same engined"...? Regards SynergyStar (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added these "test templates" to the Nimrod and Hawk articles so they can be seen in situ, no reason why it couldnt have other "groups" like prototypes and ones built to the same specification or competition but one to avoid at any cost is comparable! MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the following two examples do just that:

Although navboxes don't have referencing, the types included are generally referenced elsewhere. However, the Tu-204 example in 757--it's kinda hard to shoehorn a reference in elsewhere, despite the Tu-204 being aimed at the 757 according to the "see also" section citation.

Similarly, the De Havilland Comet#See also section is more complicated as it has a longer list of "comparable" aircraft, some of which were competitors (Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8), but others perhaps less so (Convair 880?). Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks okay to me as long as editors keep a watch on the boxes for people adding tons of extra stuff there instead! - Ahunt (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Still wary of adding comparable aircraft which is the one causing problems on fighter articles. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm worried about the Competitors/Comparables as well, there's no reliable standards behind their inclusion; while rational users may find agreement and easy consensus on what is an effective competitor, the nationalists will hammer their favourite as hard as they can. These nav boxes are a big improvement as we can use the same boxes on many pages, thus significantly reducing the number of sections previously covered by the See Also section that'll be attacked by POV-pushers. Competitors, however, feels too close to the same situation in principle as that which the nationalists will hop all over and argue with until the cows come home (and then argue some more afterwards!). Something that would make the arguements slightly less futile, if we do choose to include a Competitors subsection, could be the composition and establishment of a set of principles and rules to hammer down exactly what is and isn't comparable - a nightmare of a legislation but a lesser evil than the legion of POVvers we've faced for years without any end in sight. Kyteto (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, competitors can get contentious; in the above 767 case the list was previously modified to "Direct competitors" with each instance cited; that method apparently cannot be implemented in a navbox and is a drawback of the format. References could be more easily added to mentions of competitors in article text. We could consider removing the competitor list; however maybe the navbox format will attract fewer editors though. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I really like these navbox-style links to related articles. Perhaps we would need to create a new template and deprecate the {{Aircraft-content}} template. —Compdude¹²³ 17:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be a snazzy way of presenting similar information but in a MoS compliant and consistent format! If you are referring to the {{aircontent}} template, it seems the "related development" and "comparable size..." parameters at least can be removed. Many articles still use the template for "related lists"...modifying the template would hide "related/comparable" entries but leave the lists intact, thus minimising disruption to aircraft articles; navboxes can be added eventually. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please consider that 'aircontent' is also used for engine articles where there are no problems with the comparable field and entries. This template idea seems to be a lot of work and is moving the problem to a different part of the page, a tighter guideline similar to the engine one is all that is needed. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point about engines I dont see a reason to change engine articles. The related lists could still be added to the standard see also section so the aircontent template could be withdrawn for new aircraft articles, I would like to think that we have:

• Not to use the aircontent template in the future for aircraft articles
• Related to move into the related navbox
• Similar aircraft no longer to be used and removed (but see limited use in related navbox)
• Lists to be moved to the standard see also section if not already included in Aviation lists template
• Create a guide to the new related navbox to include allowable sections.
  • Related - designs which were developed into or from this aircraft, no reason why more specific terms like prototypes could not be used if needed.
  • Variants - variants of the type with stand-alone articles.
  • Similar - We would also need something to cover aircraft built to the same specification (like air min specs) which would cover the same engine and other cases like competitors in procurement competitions, it would not include fanboy comparable aircraft per previous discussion, some could be just added to the see also with appropriate annotation.

I would suggest that we dont need to convert or change every article straight away but the more high profile and "quality" articles could be done first and any newly created articles. Not in a rush others could be done as they are improved or promoted. This I believe would keep the featured article guys happy and gave us a structured approach moving forward. Comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, related/variants moved into the navbox...however "similar" reminds me of the earlier WikiProject Automobiles example, that parameter was removed from the lead infobox precisely because of edit warring over what constitutes a "similar" vehicle. If it was more specifically defined such as "direct competitors" or "shared engines" or "from the same manufacturer" something that could cut down on the disputes. Alternatively, per above suggestions, removing the competitor category might be possible. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We risk digging ourselves into a big hole here with the navboxes. They are still going to attract the same nationalistic/fanboy editing as the existing arrangements, will still get criticised for OR etc at FAC etc - we would probably have to cite every entry in the template - which would be silly, and we would be expending a large amount of effort making templates that will only be used in one or two articles each which will be liable to deletion at TfD. The big point is that the "broader community" or at least that part oif it that makes and enforces decisions about these things (i.e. the people at WP:MOS and FAC) think that any sort of "see also" bits are evil - moving it around and disguising it won't help.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

In looking at this I tend to agree with Nigel, that this just shifts the problem to the nav boxes and is thus just going to make more to watch. While neat, I am not sure it solves the problem. Perhaps we can use the existing boxes as a sort of "trial" and see if they get attacked by the fan-boys. - Ahunt (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Understand what you are saying but we should at least use this topic as consensus to remove the comparable aircraft bits from fanboy attracted articles. If anything is really notable to the article then it could be just added and referenced in the see also section without having to use the aircontent template. MilborneOne (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that! That move should mostly solve the problem. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(updated response to above) We generally have most agreeing that "comparable" is not to be used. That is the main OR concern, and as long as they are not included in either see also or the boxes, the main content issue is avoided. Variants and derivatives are more often cited and more defensible. Moving them to an infobox removes the conflict with MoS...In my past FAC experiences the navboxes do not require citations and are not scrutinized to the extent see also has been--one is in the article body and needs justification as content, while the other is simply a browsing aid. As a trial boxes are now in the above example box articles, and will likely be in said articles plus others in forthcoming FAC reviews. The navbox idea deserves a tryout IMO. SynergyStar (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(earlier response) [if] no infoboxes (?), and not violating the "broader community" consensus and MoS view on "see also"...plus we have apparent consensus here to remove comparable aircraft lists (and not using aircontent template for aircraft articles--at least removing the comparable parameter from it). Other notable lists, e.g. developmentally related aircraft, might be added to "see also" with proper refs, provided they are not repeat mentions of articles already linked elsewhere...but we would need a clear guideline on what aircraft lists are allowed there, and how to reference them (especially to avoid additions of comparable aircraft; plus method of referencing, with a blurb perhaps in lieu of aircontent headings). Variants are almost always in the lead infobox, so there wouldn't seem to be a need to repeat them in "see also." Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your last point does not consider how different readers navigate articles, I know that I will currently find variants in the 'see also' section and will jump straight to it from the table of contents. Variants have a place in the 'see also' section as they come under 'helping the reader to find related subjects and read all there is about a topic'. We worry too much about overlinking and are misinterpreting the guideline (it's more to do with the amount of text between the links and the value of the link), in a typical aircraft article a variant may well appear linked in the lead, in the infobox, in the variants section, in a photo caption (encouraged) and in the 'see also' section. Four repeated links but not considered overlinking.

Editors are free to use good judgement in the 'see also' section, even repeating important links that have been used in the text. Nominators will often get bullied at FAC and have the MoS waved at them, sometimes you have to stand your ground, of three articles that I have nominated for FAC two were successful and the third ended in a stalemate as I refused to see it changed in to something that it wasn't (they wanted important relevant and cited content taken out). The MoS itself is worded with lots of 'generally's and should be's', it's not the gospel that some would have you believe, I try to stick to the spirit of it and if that's not good enough then tough!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement; the relevant MoS section above has an "editorial judgment and common sense" clause which refers to the inclusion of possibly tangentially related links, but this does not contradict the subsequent "do not repeat links" dictum in WP:MOS, WP:AVIMOS, and WP:AIRMOS (links not in body). Preserving convenience links in see also sections seems to be an uphill battle at FAC. Accordingly some solutions have been formulated here. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know which is the next aircraft article headed to FAC? Let me know if I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Assistance would be appreciated! de Havilland Comet just passed WP:MILHIST A-class review today, a number of us are working to improve that article and it looks to be approaching FAC in the near future. I have also prepped Boeing 757 for A-class review and possible FAC. It seems most agree that comparable aircraft should not be listed, while variants and derivatives can; in lieu of see also the infobox has been proposed to preserve convenience links. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Placement of design info in article

If an aircraft's prototypes are significantly different from its production examples, does the information regarding the prototype's designs be placed under "Development", or "Design"? I would've thought the former, and that only the most up to date design or important aspects should be included in the latter section. Nevertheless, clarifications are needed. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of my personal editing experience, it depends on the tone and delivery of that information. Development is more typical, but if the information is stylised as "differs from the prototype in the following aspects" or some such construction, it can fit in the Design section as well. Kyteto (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content in many cases these two sections can be combined into Design and development if they aren't too long. Also, in quite a number of cases, the prototype can even have its own article if the refs are available and it will be long enough to support an article. An example of this is Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and its prototype Lockheed Martin X-35. Just a few other options on how to handle this! - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

When first entering the Wikiwacky wonderland, I grappled with the problem of how to describe the initial stages of design and development of an aircraft type and it came down to how much detail or background was available on an individual aircraft. In most cases, a combination of the two elements was possible, hence, the ubiquitous "Design and development" title. I cannot trace its first use as a title heading but it may have been about 2006. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Armstrong Whitworth F.K.3 - possible Bulgarian use?

An IP editor added a claim to the Armstrong Whitworth F.K.3 article that one FK3 was captured by the Bulgarians and operated by them against the British. I removed the claim because it was unsourced, and after discussion on the talk page the ip came up with three web pages which seem to indicate that an FK3 may have been captured by the Bulgarians, and at least painted in Bulgarian markings. While the story is credible, could people pop by to Talk:Armstrong Whitworth F.K.3 to help evaluate whether the sources provided meet WP:RS and are sufficient to back up the story.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge

Hi, a proposal to merge Sukhoi Su-30MKM into Sukhoi Su-30MKI has been forwarded. Comments are required at Talk:Sukhoi Su-30MKM. Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hi everyone! I would like to ask all of you to express your opinion on the article List of Bombardier CSeries orders in its talk page. The above mentioned article is pending till the 26th of May as per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion rules. Thanks and a good day to everyone from a rainy Turin, CeruttiPaolo (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggested on that talk page to bring the conversation to here, as the prod nominator's rationale have sitewide ramifications on other articles. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia, and especially the English Wikipedia, is very often referred in many aviation websites as a reference for aircraft backlogs and deliveries of aircrafts. Such articles, like the list I created, recap the whole "history of orders" (and also deliveries as soon as they start) with well verifiable references (like the manufacturer's Press Releases, well established aviation news websites or airline Press Releases) acting like an "index" (and there comes the list) sourcing all individual references. IMO articles like this shall be created for each family of aircraft (but many already exist). --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Future operators?

Should we allow a "Future operators" section to be created in the "Operators" list, as has been done at Pilatus PC-7? Someone added India on the strength of an order contract that was signed today. IMHO it falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL because cancellations are rather too common in military sales. I think an operator should only be listed once the aircraft is in service, or at least delivered into the buyers' posession. The details of the order are adequately covered in a prose paragraph elsewhere in the article. Roger (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree - anticipated orders should go in text in the body of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please revert it? I don't want to create the impression that I have a personal "vendetta" against this addition by reverting it twice in one day. Roger (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea to mention orders, plans, projects &c as long as we frame them properly; but to make a factual statement (in wikipedia's voice) about India being a "future operator" is to ignore the reality of Indian military procurement. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The long saga of the order is fairly well summarised in the article, what I object to specifically is the addition of a "Future operators" subsection within the "Operators" list. An entry in a list is IMHO a far more definitive statement than a paragraph explaining all the details, maybes, ifs and buts. However we shouldn't be staring at only this one instance - we should rather establish a general principle for aircraft articles. Roger (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that a section on "Future operators" sounds far to definite. What is meant is placed orders. And the issue of whether or not they might come to pass is not limited to military procurement: an airline, or leasing company could go bankrupt, the manufacturer's factory could burn to the ground, an embargo be placed on a country... GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we have consensus - would someone (other than me) please do the necessary in the PC-7 article.

If I recall correctly, in the past we have accepted that any country that has paid for or signed the cpontract the aircraft can be listed in the "Operators" sectionas being on order, though of course such deals have fallen through, or been revoked. We usually didn't have a separate section for these "future oerators". - BilCat (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

^Yes. There should be no problem listing future operators that have signed orders for the aircraft with references to back it up. Operators that are negotiating an order should not be listed. The later should be covered in the text as noted at WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS states. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

But they should not be listed together with Current operators. If they are to be listed at all it should be under an "Orders" heading to clearly mark the distinction. However I believe that orders don't need to be listed, discussing orders in text is sufficient. Roger (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the type of aircraft. Airliners usually have an orders section, or even a sub-page for large orders, while for military aircraft, we generally include the confirmed orders in the Current operators section, as WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS states. FOr the PC-7 and India, this is pretty much a done-deal, as much as that is ever true with India! - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on a template please

An IP has been removing the SR-71 from {{USAF bomber aircraft}}, which is a valid "see also" as it's designated in the bomber sequence. Eyes on it would be appreciated, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

General H.H. Arnold Special

Just redirected a new article on General H.H. Arnold Special to the B-29 page as not-notable for a stand-alone article. Suspect I might get reverted if the creator things it is worthy but it was just one of a number of soviet-captured B-29s, just looking for a sanity check. MilborneOne (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly sensible - you are as sane as I am as sane as necessary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Eyes required

It is an interesting coincidence that at the same time that the Canadian government is moving to shut down all debate on the country's F-35 purchase that an IP editor from Calgary shows up claiming that Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II are biased while introducing misleading and inaccurate text that attempts to blame the opposition for the ongoing purchase scandal. There is also some discussion here but it hasn't added up to much yet except accusations that the article is biased because it deals with the purchase scandal. I expect this will excalate in the next while. Some eyes on these articles would probably be a good idea. - Ahunt (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Synergy Aircraft Synergy

This article seems to be suffering from a COI problem as a run through the history will show. We have a COI editor who keeps adding some very opinionated text, citing forums as sources, among other problems. They seem to see Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle for their Kickstarter campaign (in motion now). Given all of this and the fact that it is a new design from a new manufacturer who has never built any previous aircraft and may never build and fly this one, it really doesn't look as if it should have an article yet, as per Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft). I would like some second and third (etc) opinions. Should it just be deleted rather than wrestle with the ongoing COI problem? - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The article looks in reasonable shape now but I can see that there has been some fun. The EAA is a good source I would have thought. On notability we do have articles on aircraft and engines that were never built, it's borderline but I would err on keeping it, bearing in mind that if it fails that will be recorded as well. Perhaps the COI editor needs some guidance from an admin to ease your workload. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources and article look good to me now, except for the very end with the Kickstarter link, which I've removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey great participation from everyone. I would ask that everyone add it to their watch list as I expect further COI edits in the near future. - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review needed?

Somebody with time on their hands might want to check the contributions of this IP editor. I noticed their edits to Cubana de Aviación Flight 1216 - which removed references, information, and the portalbox. I reverted and then went to give a IP-vandal-welcome, but saw they've been making lots of edits to Cubana de Aviación-related pages... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I went through his or her edits to Cubana de Aviación , History of Cubana de Aviación and List of Cubana de Aviación accidents and incidents and the edits look okay to me. They seem knowledgeable and well written and generally not biased, although no refs are ever cited for text added, but then all these articles are lacking citations anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. We have to check up on these IP edits, but sometimes they are actually doing more good than harm! - Ahunt (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hamilton?

The brief English summer brought out over the East Midlands a Rockwell Commander 112/4 with faint side reg markings and none under wings. Instead, each wing carried HAMILTON large and bold, same orientation. Anyone know it?TSRL (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of an aircraft

G'day all, there is a new article, Airbus G-EUPC, about a BA A319 apparently being used to carry the Olympic Flame. Any thoughts on notability? My opinion is that a mention in the article about the Torch Relay would be sufficient. YSSYguy (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would merge it to the torch relay article. 2012 Summer Olympics torch relay -- WP:ONEEVENT seems like a good analogue for this issue. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge it to the torch relay and {{trout}} the article creator I say. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

^ Second that. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, not notable for a stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree lots of aircraft have special paint schemes unlikely any are particularly notable for an article - strange but true but I saw G-EUPC today flying over Windsor on approach to LHR while I was awaiting for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Flypast of seventy-odd aircraft, good stuff, sorry I digress. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, like everyone said. ("Ditto": Sam Wheat, Now what was the movie??) Bzuk (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airbus G-EUPC. - BilCat (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As the article creator, {{trout}} accepted! Perhaps userification is an appropriate course of action.--Lidos (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Article was deleted today. Content moved to User:Lidos/Airbus G-EUPC so code is not lost (userification).--Lidos (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• A mention of this in the A320 article may be in order also. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image revert war

At Sukhoi Superjet 100. It could use some level-headed adults there! - BilCat (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. - Ahunt (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Stabilizer (aircraft)

Hi,

I am disagreeing with Stodieck (talk) again, this time over changes to Stabilizer (aircraft). Please could you contribute to the discussion and help reach consensus? This affects many parts of the article so needs resolving quickly. Many thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: The dreadful ping-pong match continues at Stabilizer (aircraft) and Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft). I would really appreciate a few more voices here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Night flight in the UK

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night flight in the UK. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Aerobatics

A user has removed the standard aviation lists template and replaced it with Template:Aerobatics on a number of modern aerobatic aircraft. Obviously we need put the aviation list one back but does anybody have a view on the aerobatics navbox. Initially thought it was a bit to recentism and if it was to cover all of aerobatics then it would need to expand to three or four times as big or even larger if it was to include every aircraft that has been in aerobatic competition, just looking for opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Neelix notified MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The aviation lists template should not be put back. Our navigation template guidelines state that navigation templates are "are boxes containing links to a group of related articles". Navboxes should only exist on those articles to which the navbox links, or else "the articles are loosely-related" and the navbox is therefore inappropriate. Neelix (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I think if there is a more specific aviation related navbox that can go at the bottom of an aviation article than the standard lists then it is worth considering. That said, specifically, the template in question does appear to suffer unduly from recentism and an attempt to crowd in specific articles when "list of ..." articles would be more appropriate. To add a pilot when their acrobatic capability is a small uncited mention on their article page but to omit general topics such as Barnstorming seems perverse. So - in summary - I see room for more discussion about how aviation templates fit together but that aerobatics one needs a lot of work yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that 'Aviation lists' is used on every aviation related article per its documentation page Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)#Navboxes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We have a long-standing consensus to use the "Aviation lists" nav box on all aviation pages, so naturally that overrules any other guidlelines, like the one cited above. Otherwise this new nav box is troubling. If properly completed with names of all aerobatic aircraft (there are at least a couple of thousand types) and pilots (tens of thousands), maneuvers (hundreds) competitions (hundreds) it would be huge, far too large to even be an article. I am thinking the nav box should be deleted and replaced with a category, which we actually already have: Category:Aerobatics. - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus within a particular WikiProject does not overrule consensus that is Wikipedia-wide, which the guidelines are. There is no reason to make an exception in the case of the aviation lists template and it should be removed from the vast majority of articles that currently include it. Neelix (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that, guidelines, and and not policy. They are non-mandatory and can be ignored by consensus, as this one has been. If you want to remove all those aviation lists nav boxes then you will need to gain a new consensus to do that here. So far I am not seeing any support for your proposal. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Aerobatics has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Aerobatics comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

XBT-19 (modified Vultee BT-15)

I have come across reference to the XBT-19 in an article. It was described as being the modified Vultee BT-15 referred to in the report "Moulded glass Fiber Sandwich Fuselages for BT-15 Airplane, Army Air Force Technical Report 5159, 8 November 1944". Is anyone able to confirm this as the highest numbered XBT designated craft I can find in the literature I have access to is the XBT-18. NealeFamily (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Three sources are given in the Fibre-reinforced plastic article, or is that where you saw the mention? YSSYguy (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a typo the XBT-16 is already mentioned in the Vultee BT-13 Valiant article. As far as I know BT-17 was highest BT. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The first reference is here and it makes no mention of an XBT-19 - only that it was a G(F)RP BT-15. The second source doesn't appear to be online (but refers to it as BT-15 in the title) and the third is here and calls it a BT-19, without the X. I think it should read XBT-16 (whose serial was 41-9777). Neither Aerofiles nor Google has anything for XBT-19 (or XPT-19, which was skipped) however there are lots of hits for XBT-16. joebaugher.com does not have a serial for an XBT-19 either though if it was modified to or from a standard configuration it could have been missed. NiD.29 (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Andrade's US military designations and serial has an entry for the XBT-16 as a BT-13A rebuilt by Vidal in 1942 with an all-plastic fuselage, although unusually it doesnt give a serial. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your assistance. It seems to confirm my thinking that mention of the XBT-19 is most likely a typing mistake and a bit of sloopy research. I think it should have been the XBT-16. The modified BT-13A.

The books that mention the XBT-19 were either:

• Accelerating utilization of new materials, National Research Council (U.S.) Committee on Accelerated Utilization of New Materials, Washington, National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering, Springfield, Va, 1971, pages 56-57 by W P Conrardy
• Reinforced plastics handbook; Donald V. Rosato, Dominick V. Rosato, and John Murphy; Elsevier; 2004; page 586

Reference was made in one of these to Moulded glass Fiber Sandwich Fuselages for BT-15 Airplane, Army Air Force Technical Report 5159, 8 November 1944

I don't have access to this report, which would put the subject to rest. NealeFamily (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Airco article at WikiProject Aviation

The article on Airco has (had?) a thumbnail simulating a 1918 Airco advertisement. The propriety of the thumbnail, and whether it should be kept or deleted, is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Recreation of 1918 advertisement in Airco article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Boeing 757 FAC

May 2012 ACR

The A-class review for Boeing 757 is now open at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 757. Thanks in advance for any input! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: the review is proceeding, we could use at least one more contributor however. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions everyone; per WP:AVI/A the review appears ready to be closed. Would a WikiProject coordinator please verify this? Thanks. SynergyStar (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Update, review is closed as passed. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012 FAC

The Featured Article candidacy for Boeing 757 is now open at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 757/archive1. Any input is welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to contributors, review is closed and passed. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)