Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

Deletion of VanGrunsven RV-2
Folks here might like to weigh in on this AfD. If it does go, I'll be sad: I certainly learned something about a Van's design that I didn't know about before! Maybe someone here with more knowledge of this designer could dig out another source or two? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Twin canopy aircraft?
Another new category, Category:Twin canopy aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that this is a defining characteristic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have the same concern and I was already contemplating CfD'ing it. There are numerous past CfD's about various other non-defining aircraft characteristics and how this can lead to absurd category bloat (e.g., Category:Aircraft with red stripes). Carguychris (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is not a defining feature. We might as well have Category:Aircraft with Phillips screws if we're going to keep this. -  ZLEA  T \ C 20:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would inevitably have subjective edge cases too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can think of one. - ZLEA  T \ C 23:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking of that one too. And then there are oddballs like two-seat Spitfire conversions, or the prone Meteor, where even if the category applies, it is only to individual aircraft. And is a glazed nose a pilot sits in a canopy? Depending on your answer, a He 111Z either has two canopies, or none at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was debating that too A-37Dragonfly (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm abivalent but lean towards "no" as a not particularly useful or unambiguous characteristic. Aside: our "characteristic" categories are probably due for an overhaul for consistency! —-Rlandmann (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I’m not in favour of having number of canopies as the basis for categorisation.Dolphin ( t ) 01:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It'd be a little better changing it to "Category:Multiple canopy aircraft" or some other general wording. However, the number involved should still be limited. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We had Category:Nose-mounted intake jet fighter in March. Sorry I didn't write anything after the first post in this thread, it would have been a negative rant! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  08:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely a candidate for CfD. No significance at all. We have far too many such pointless Cats as it is. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion at Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14, the Sea Vixen has one canopy and a sheet of mostly flat perspex over the 'coal hole'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  14:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see the issues with my category, I don't object I guess A-37Dragonfly (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Avia
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Avia that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Albatros C.II
The Albatros C.II article’s text describes a pusher biplane. The picture shows a tractor biplane. The Idflieg no. given in the articles text is C 27/15 however in the book “German Aircraft of the First a World War by Peter Grey and Owen Thetford” (cited in the text) the Idflieg number given for the sole C.II pusher is given as 27/16. Adding to the confusion there were two prototypes from Albatros that shared the C.II designation. It’s not clear to me which aircraft the article is meant to be about. I would request a member of the group with access to sources on WW1 German aircraft reviews the article. As things stand the text and picture combo is a glaring error. --Stivushka (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You could ask the editor who added the pusher text for clarification, there is nothing on the article talk page. Following the article history it looks like the infobox image has been added and removed several times. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This appears to be the aircraft type covered by the article . The aircraft in the infobox is a homebuilt fuselage with Tiger Moth wings, on the French register as a 'C2', various other images describe it as a C.I. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought this also.  The problem is that that the Albatros C.II pusher aircraft has the serial number 27/16 and the article specifies 27/15. The serial number was changed in 2019 by an anonymous user who also changed the configuration from Tractor to Pusher.


 * German WW1 Aircraft are outside my wheelhouse and this one is tricky as historically there was a Albatros pusher prototype built in Germany and a tractor prototype built by Albatros in Austria. Both aircraft were given the C.II designation. It would be best if somebody with a copy of the Albatros C.II specs from a published source checked this over as I suspect the current article may be an amalgamation.Stivushka (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The book that will probably have the answers would be by Jack Herris 978-1935881476, £40 used in the UK. The first version of the article by MilborneOne clearly states it was a pusher aircraft and mentioned the tail configuration (needed for pusher types). Other editors have added their unsourced thoughts, changing the configuration. A lot can be learned by browsing the history. The source linked above (which is not an RS for wiki use) says it was built and flown in 1916, that is where the 16 comes from in the serial number, later in the same source 15 is mentioned, probably an error. If a number value has changed by one it is worth checking the history for vandalism as that is one of their subtle tricks though in this case it looks like a genuine edit. A non-free image could be uploaded, having an image of a pusher aircraft in the infobox might deter the tractor fans. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to me we have two design on our hands, both of which are probably notable enough to describe. I'd suggest we split the article into two main sections, each dealing with one of them, with a short lead explaining the ambiguous designation. Once that has shaped up and confirmed coverage of each, we can then consider splitting the article into two separate ones. The last thing we want is two editorial camps warring against each other's edits. I'd also suggest that temporarily, during this process, we break the usual rule and allow each design its own infobox and specification, on the local consensus that these templates are helpful, while choosing between designs is unhelpful. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)