Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 12

Lists: [ Aircraft • Manufacturers | Engines • Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons • Missiles ] Timeline

Use of Templates in Aircraft Designation Sequences
I'd like to raise for discussion the way aircraft sequences are presented on aircraft pages. The standard format is: n-3 - n-2 - n-1 - n - n+1 - n+2 - n+3. However, Boeing airliners have all moved to using a navigation template (Template:Boeing7x7) in place of the standard sequence format, while Airbus aircraft have both the sequence format and a navigation template (Template:Airbus aircraft), as do X-Planes (Template:X-planes). I have just created a similar template for Douglas and McDonnell Douglas airliners (Template:Douglas airliners), and placed it in articles in the same format as has been used on the Boeing articles - that is, replacing the standard sequence format. ericg raised the question in the talk for the Boeing template, asked whether such a template should even be used at all, or whether the sequencing format would suffice. As I noted there, I believe the templates are worthwhile, and it would be unfortunate to lose them.

I think we should look at getting a standard format worked out here, so that we don't have this confusion of what should be put where. I guess there are five options available here:
 * 1) Delete the templates, and retain the sequence format.
 * 2) Retain the sequencing, and place the templates at the end of the article (as is done with Airbus aircraft)
 * 3) Replace the sequencing with templates (as is done with Boeing jet airliners, and as I have just done for MD airliners based on the Boeing format)
 * 4) Remove the designation sequence section altogether, and place the templates at the end of the article.
 * 5) Don't standardise the format - keep the existing templates, but make no specific move towards implementing new ones.

I don't see a need to retain the sequence format if we are providing a navigation template which would make the sequencing obvious. However, I think the templates would look better if placed at the bottom, as they are in the Airbus articles, rather than above some related information, as they are in the Boeing articles. As such, I'd support the fourth option. Nick Moss 06:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that where a template presents the information in auseful fashion keep the template and dispense with the sequence, otherwise retain the sequence. Sometimes sequence and template can co-exist eg all the X-planes can be seen as a block but equally each forms part of a sequence within a company. GraemeLeggett 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If I could, I would delete that godawful x-planes template immediately. It makes my eyes bleed. ericg &#9992; 03:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just made it significanntly more pretty, but I still think that it needs to go because of its content. Ingoolemo talk 03:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the navigational templates should be used at all. I would like to cite some criticisms I have of the templates listed above:
 * : this template completely ignores the fact that the earlier part of its spectrum was caused by plain coincidence. It attempts to shoehorn more recent Boeing planes into the 7x7 format, resulting in several different oddities, including: the 717 is placed near the beginning of the list, even though it entered service in 1999.  This ordering was meant to force it to conform with the 7x7 scheme; in contrast, the 2707 and the 2717 are placed into the list in chronological order.  Furthermore, there are at least a half-dozen other planes that have in-between values like 723 and 741, which are completely glossed over in interest of the system.  I'm not surprised that this template exists, but it's so arbitrary that it should NEVER replace the standard designation sequence.
 * : Not only is this template redundant with the designation sequence section, but it could be&mdash;and should be&mdash;replaced with a category without any loss of data or ease of navigation. Ditto for
 * : I agree with Eric: is this really necessary? In addition to being redundant with a potential category, it is redundant with existing lists as well.
 * Ingoolemo talk 03:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Motion to deprecate said templates
On the grounds of my arguments above, (IBNLT redundancy), I would like to propose that we deprecate these templates as a whole. I would also like to make separate motions to kill the 'X-planes' template, on the grounds that it's redundant with the existing category, the existing list, and the 'sequence' section of, and to kill the 7x7 Template, on the grounds that it does not accurately reflect Boeing's designation sequence. Ingoolemo talk 22:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories and clasees
I believe we should follow FAA-style formating for at least civillian aircraft, I also added role section which could be universal with perhaps slight modification

Categories
FAR (Federal Air Regulations) 1-3 Categories (Certification of Aircraft):
 * 1-Transport
 * 2-Normal (utlity, acrobatic)
 * 3-Limited
 * 4-Restricted
 * 5-Provisional

FAR 1-4 Categories of Rotorcraft:
 * A-Transport Category Rotorcraft, means multiengine rotorcraft designed to meet PART 29
 * B-Single Engine Transport Rotorcraft or multiengine rotocraft not meeting PART 29

Class
FAR 1-4 Class (Certification Of Aircraft)
 * 1-Airplane land
 * 2-Airplane sea
 * 3-Rotorcraft
 * 4-Glider
 * 5-Balloon

Powering

 * 1-Reciprocating
 * 2-Turboprop p.s. not a jet
 * 3-Jet
 * 4-Not Powered (like gliders)
 * 5-Other

Role

 * 1-Interceptor
 * 2-Bomber
 * 3-Military Transport (ex:C-130)
 * 4-Civillian Transport (ex:A380-f )
 * 5-Airliner (ex:A380)
 * 6-Trainer (ex:Cessna 172)
 * 7-Personal (ex:Cessna 172)
 * 8-Shows and competition (Pitts S-2-A)

Its clear that the roles can overlap expecially since multiroles are becoming more popular

Explanation and Example

 * Piper Cherokee is under category normal and utility under certain loading, it is under class landplane and airplane powered by a Reciprocating engine, it is most populuar as a trainer and a personal airplane.
 * Normal
 * Airplane (land)
 * Reciprocating
 * Trainer


 * Normal
 * Airplane (land)
 * Reciprocating
 * Personal


 * Extra 300 is under category normal, utility and aerobatic under certain loading, it is under class landplane and airplane powered by a Reciprocating engine, it is most populuar as a aerobatic-trainer(2-seat) and a competition-aerobatic airplane.


 * Normal
 * Airplane (land)
 * Reciprocating
 * Trainer


 * Normal
 * Airplane (land)
 * Reciprocating
 * Shows and competition


 * Airbus A380 is under category Transport, it is under class landplane and airplane powered by 4 Jet engines, it is most populuar as an Airliner and a Freight airplane.


 * Transport
 * Airplane (land)
 * Jet
 * Airline


 * Transport
 * Airplane (land)
 * Jet
 * Civilian Transport

Since most countries have model their local CARs partly or wholly under the same categories and classes this should be universally acceptable.

This will create overlapping but will be the most user-friendly, I believe. Also we could add surveillance and I believe no more than 2 will be for each plane. --raraa 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Help
Hi guys! we are translating article LAPA flight 3142 from Spanish into English and we're having a hard time finding some word in English. Could someone with technical knowledge give us a hand with the technical stuff? Please, take a look at the questions in Talk:LAPA flight 3142/Translation, and maybe keep it in your watchlist for future dubts. Thanks a bunch. Mariano (t/c) 10:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Making unit formats consistent
I am interested in making units consistent and have taken part in discussions here. I have created a simple tool that makes the task quicker. If you want to use it, feel free. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'units' tab to press in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Does 'winc' work in the Classic skin? Ingoolemo talk 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No. bobblewik 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Update
I've had a 'go' at Junkers Ju52, Hawfer Hunter & Gloster Gladiator. Cheers - Ballista 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

MH-6 Little Bird and Hughes H-6
Do we need to have two articles for almost identical machines, the MH-6 as a subversion of the H-6 ? --Denniss 19:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a common problem that I've seen as well. Perhaps you could recommend a page merge, by adding  to one of the articles?  Ingoolemo talk 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, let's see what others think. The MH-6 is not really an important subversion to have it's own article. --Denniss 13:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would only say that the two are the same if you count the ARH-70 and the OH-58D, or the Bell 206 and the Bell 407 as the same. Like the ARH-70 and Kiowa Warrior, the OH-6 and MH-6 share a common lineage, but are based on two separate models, no matter how similar they may seem. The MH-6 has a 5-bladed rotor system and T-tail which is distinctive from the OH-6's 4-bladed system and V-tail, different engines, different avionics, different missions and different tactics differentiate each airframe from the other. The OH-6 was born as the Hughes 369 and the MH-6 is born out of the Hughes 500 family. Related, but not directly.


 * The OH-6/Hughes 369 history begins in 1965 and other than the continued operation of those models produced up to that point, essentially ends with the birth of the Hughes 500 in 1977. And the MH-6 picks up nearly a decade later. This is a problem that was also continued with the OH-58D. Other than the airframe, there isn't much about the OH-58D that resembles the OH-58A/C.


 * The merge of the two articles (Hughes H-6 and MH-6) has turned the resultant article into a jumbled mess, not to mention the mixing in of the civilian derivatives. Anyone who relies on it will walk away with a confused understanding of the helicopters' development and differences. The addition of the NOTAR reference at the end of the article is especially disconcerting since there are NO H-6 NOTARs. That subject needs to be treated seperately as the MD520N, MD600N, and MD900N aircraft. However, the MH-90 could be treated as part of the MD900N since it is an unofficial designation given by the US Coast Guard to the leased MD900N used for its evaluation purposes.


 * Realistically, it could be argued that there should legitimately be 4 separate articles (Hughes OH-6, Hughes MH-6, Hughes 369, and Hughes 500) to treat the military aircraft separate from the civilian ones, just as there are separate articles for the Bell 206, the OH-58 Kiowa, the Bell 407 and the ARH-70 (Not to mention the C-47 Skytrain and the DC-3). In fact, it should also be argued that a separate article should exist for the OH-58D separate from the OH-58. Thoroughly researched, each aircraft has a unique developmental and operational history all their own. (Born2flie 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

Little brouhaha at Talk:F-14 Tomcat
I've got a little tiff going on at Talk:F-14 Tomcat that I'd like some more eyes on. Brief summary: There is dispute over whether the swing-wings on the Tomcat were motivated by the dash/carrier land profile or maneuverability concerns. User:Wiarthurhu argues for the latter and goes as far as to say that maneuverability was the most important of the F-14's design considerations, based on his recollection of sources. All of the reliable online sources contradict him. --Mmx1 07:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The variable geometry wing was required to meet requirements for both slow carrier landing speed and high cruise/dash speed. It's got nothing to do with maneuverability. ericg &#9992; 09:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ack, it's getting worse. Could somebody drop a word on his talk page asking him to please step back and read the sources he's citing? He's spread his misinformed crap to Air superiority fighter with the following edit [], which is both poorly written ("In WWI, WWII and the Korean Conflict, air superiority went to the most experience pilots, and the planes that could not only fly the fastest, but were the most agile, with good visual visibility and survivability. Such fighters would include the Spad, ME-109, Spitfire, Hellcat, Mig-15, and F-86."), factually inaccurate, and factually wrong. E.g. he makes the assertion that the teen series was developed as "air superiority fighters"; the RAND link he cites states only that the F-15 was designed as an "air superiority fighter", and explicitly that the Navy did not want the VFX (later the F-14) to be compromised to fill the "air superiority" role.
 * He is apparently also under the impression that the F/A-18E is a "lighter" fighter than the F-14. "The F-16 Falcon and F-18 would be adopted as smaller, less expensive fighters which could handle daylight and ground attack missions as part of a Hi-lo mix, though the F/A-18E/F would eventually replace the F-14. These lighter fighters can also fufill the role typically tasked to the heavier fighters, as the F-18E has replaced the F-14." At this point I've given up assuming good faith and have concluded that he just doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. I don't blame him for his ignorance (we all have to start somewhere), but his insistence on his POV and his deliberate or misguided misreading of sources is starting to piss me off. He's citing reports that directly contradict what he's writing.--Mmx1 19:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The F/A-18 is a part of the 'hi-lo mix'; the old one as a 'lo', the new one as the 'hi'.

To me it seems as though he intertwined the old F-18 and the new one in one sentence. The F-18 is lighter in that it's less heavy and smaller than the F-14, though it's capable of performing the same role (some say not, that argument has no place on Wikipedia however). I think it just needs a little cleanup in order to clear up that confusion. Joffeloff 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Another gem:to the Robert McNamara page "the decisive factor in all previous air battles, maneuverability", which is a gross simplification of the facts. I called him out on it on his talk page, and he proceeded to boast of his credentials, including as a "published aerospace writer". He's yet to retract that statement or acknowledge it as a mistake. That's the general problem. He's providing edits that are generally rooted in some element of truth but horribly twisted to suit his revisionist pov. I got sidetracked with the air superiority fighter article which I honestly didn't want to touch with a ten foot pole because of the semantics of "mission" versus "classification", but the roots of the dispute are:

--Mmx1 07:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * what were the principal design goals of the F-14 (and did they include maneuverability/BVR/however you wish to word it).
 * was the TFX killed mainly because it wasn't maneuverable enough?

Update: Request for Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed Requests_for_mediation, and editors are invited to participate.

--Mmx1 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually spreading. Wiathuru has attacked you personally in the RAH-66 talk page. Claiming you have no credentials, and other fun little insults. LWF 00:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen it. I would have been content to let the two of us stew over it for a while, but the same questionable content (verbatim), too, has been posted in three articles now (F-111 and Robert McNamara), as well referred to on the Wikipedia article. Might as well go ahead and get this situation resolved. His user page contains an...interesting.... list of his credentials.--Mmx1 00:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - this strange user should be closely monitored. Starts to modify the F-15 Eagle article to reflect his own view. If he continues with his personal attacks some admins should look at him. --Denniss 01:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Stranger still, he has posted a few insults towards Mmx1 on my talk page, and is thanking me for edits that have nothing to do with him, and talking about how he is removing any mention of F-14 in air superiority. I personally am a little wary of him. I think he may be trying to get supporters againt Mmx1. Call it a hunch. LWF 03:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we move to get a consenus to halt his editing while we sort out the whole VFAX/VFX/FX development story? He's pushing his personal opinion, based on selective use and quotation of sources (including usenet and forum posts - when I pointed this out to him, his reply was "sources are sources"). I've stopped edit warring with him (which you can see in the edit history of F-14, and the talk page), and requested mediation Requests_for_mediation (which he's rewritten into an attack on me). The user has some serious misconceptions and some bizarre ideas (consult the bottom of the F-14 talk page) and we should sort them out. --Mmx1 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A cease-fire mandated by WP:Air, do you mean? I like the idea, but there's absolutely no precedent for it.  However, before we discuss this further, I strongly recommend that we remove all of the above discussions about this dispute from this talkpage.  If a cease-fire measure is approved by enough people, the fellow will probably find his way to this talkpage, and if he sees what's been said behind his back it might make things difficult for you.  Ingoolemo talk 00:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't asking for a WP:Air-mandated action per se, but more of an active voice from editors in supporting mediation. So far, the editor's taken the collective unwillingness to edit war as implicit approval of his edits. There's nothing to hide, I haven't said anything here I haven't also brought up at the Wikiproject Military History page which he's participated in, or directly on his talk page. --Mmx1 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hiding it won't help at all. ericg &#9992; 06:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Update 2 - RfC
With Mediation at an impasse, I have filed a Request for Comment on Wiarthurhu Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu. as the next step to resolving the issues on the F-14 Tomcat page. Your input is requested. --Mmx1 05:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

navigation template absurdity
I might be the only one, but I think there are some editors going overboard with the nav templates. Check out C-130 Hercules for a particularly horrendous example. In my opinion all of these templates, other than airnav, should be converted into lists (or replaced with categories) and linked from the related content section. Having six 'active xx' templates is confusing, a waste of space, ugly, and of very limited use to most readers. ericg &#9992; 21:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see their utility of course, but I agree that this is going overboard. Converting them to a list seems like a good idea, especially because a category would work just as well for every single one of those templates.  Ingoolemo talk 04:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've created a list of active Canadian military aircraft by moving the previous template and editing the transclusions. They're now included in category:active Canadian military aircraft, which is itself a redirect to the list article. I'm going to do the same thing with the UK and US templates, and something similar with the Lockheed one. Anyone willing to lend a hand can chip in. The reason I moved more or less unilaterally on this was that the placement of the templates followed the same system - someone thought it was a good idea, and then dumped four in a single article.


 * If we have nav templates for two air forces, and the type is in use by fifteen, it doesn't make sense to only highlight one or two users. The current system could possibly even be seen as some form of POV, where 'western' users are being emphasized. Anyway, it should be all or none, and none makes more sense. ericg &#9992; 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Eric makes valid points, but the most important one (in my opinion) is footer bloat. Four enormous nav templates at the bottom of the C-130 aircraft takes up a lot of space and is fairly ungainly.  Ingoolemo talk 23:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Move deletion discussions here
Something I've considered suggesting for some time, but never got around to, is holding deletion discussions here (on this talkpage). For example, another option for Eric would have been to nominate those templates for deletion on WP:TFD. There are a number of problems with this: firstly, my experience on TFD suggests that proposing the death of navigational templates almost never succeeds, even when such templates conflict with existing WikiProject standards; secondly, when deletion requests are posted on the standard pages, it's almost guaranteed that WP:Air members won't see it.

The primary solutions for this problem:
 * Transclude TFD, CFD, and AFD subpages to this talkpage, or create a new project subpage to prevent cluttering this one. An obvious problem is the rabid inclusionists who won't delete anything, even if members of this project don't want it.
 * Hold discussions here and do not hold them on the official pages. The obvious problem is that there could be significant backlash from the rest of the project if we bypass standard procedures.

I really hope that there will be some comments on my thoughts, because I consider them to be a fairly important suggestion. WP:Air has 75 members, and its really not fair to everyone else when policy gets implemented based on input from Eric, Emt, and me. Ingoolemo talk 23:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it probably would have been wise to wait. Still, the 'active US aircraft' navbox creator understands the reasoning behind the change and supports it. ericg &#9992; 03:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Yes, you did jump the gun a bit, but seeing that there are no objections so far, it's no big deal.  Actually, the final paragraph in my previous post was mainly to urge feedback on my proposed system, not your proposed deletions.  Ingoolemo talk 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mirage-2000 Page
The Mirage 2000 article was having less technical, I added much of then info and some images int that article if any small corrections please make it.

Air Crashes
I was just wondering, which Wiki Group covers air crashes, and related materiel? I know that there are templates out there, but I didn't know if there was anyone controling them. This issue came up when I noticed Oceanic Flight 815, being the air crash from the TV series Lost sporting an official looking air crash template. Personally, I feel that fictional crashes should not be published with that template included. Since there is no one I can go to for an official opinion, I am posting here. Any input will be appreciated. --KPWM_Spotter 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

thats really funny, true there need not be that much attention to a fictional air crash on TV. There are much more investigations to be done on the Real air crashes. --Ajay ijn 04:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

a suggestion...
Just a random idea that I thought might be worth putting up for discussion - how about setting up either a sub-project or a sister project to concentrate on the flight technology aspects? I'm a university student from the UK studying Aerospace Engineering, and it seems that a lot of the flight tech articles could use some work. Opinions on this idea (for and against) would be most welcome. Chrisd87 14:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was quite shocked at the quality and accuracy of some of the articles on aerospace engineering topics when I was er, using Wikipedia to cram for my exam in it, and I'd happily lend a hand to any project to improve those articles. ZoFreX 16:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthering this idea, I have created a project proposal, which you can view here. --Chrisd87 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't pan out, I think all of us at WP:Air would gladly allow you to come up with some standards and some suggestions. I fully support the idea, however.  Ingoolemo talk 02:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Joining in WP:1.0
I believe (and I am going to make this proposal at each aviation related WikiProject) that this wikiproject should get in on Wikipedia:Vesion 1.0. Specifically the aricle assesment by WikiProjects part. I have three reasons for proposing this.
 * 1) There are a lot of articles that need attention, in every facet of aviation, whether that be aircraft, airports, etc. No system is in place at the WikiProject level to let people know the current status of aviation pages.
 * 2) We need to bring aviation to the masses. Right now it feels like aviation/aircraft/airport articles have their own editors, forming a clique that is seperate and isolated from the rest of Wikipedia. It's almost on the verge of becoming fancruft!
 * 3) This one is why I am proposing this specific couse of action - Aviation related articles need a presence at WP:1.0, and right now it takes a lot of work to find an aviation article on any list anywhere in regards to 1.0, print versions, etc.

This will accomplish the following:
 * 1) Eliminate the under-maintained and badly formatted "Pages needing attention" section at each project (updated by a bot (not very well) and created by Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal).
 * 2) Create a centralized list of articles, ordered by quality and perfectly indicating what work needs done, and where.
 * 3) Completed work can be transfered to Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects and Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPTechnology for inclusion in the future WP:1.0.

I'm going to go ahead and create any required subpages and templates and leave instructions for everyone on the project page. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft registration template
I have created a template for automatic processing of civil aircraft registrations. At best (eg. the FAA), this provides an abbreviation for the authority and hot-links directly into their search engine. Otherwise, it uses airfleets.net. To check it out, please see. Example usage is at Boeing 777, Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne, Scaled Composites White Knight, and Gimli Glider. It's just a start, and a lot needs to be added to it. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but where on a page would we use the above template? Should it be added to any general format, or should it just be placed wherever there is a reg. number mentioned within an article? --KPWM_Spotter 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I intended for it to be used where ever there are registration numbers. Look at some of the pages where it is already in use for examples of such. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can figure out a better way to link into Airdisasters.com's registry search engine, I would appreciate it. An alternative would be another disaster information site. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I half-assed it and gave us at least some functionality. The problem is, to bring a specific entry up directly requires that you supply a date and airline. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of using AirDisasters, would it be possible to tie into the NTSB database? (I know that it wouldn't work on all international crashes and whatnot, but it would be a more official looking source. ) --KPWM_Spotter 19:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe more detailed...
Maybe an aircraft is something more complicated than a movie, and more details should be useful 12:02, 12 July (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surcouf (talk • contribs)


 * What does this mean? ericg &#9992; 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Or to put it another way: can you explain in more detail what problems you see? What specific things need more attention?  Which need less?  Which articles need more attention?  But thanks for voicing your opinion.  Ingoolemo talk 00:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:RAF WWII Strategic Bombing
Another nav template that doesn't fit into articles very well. I was trying to figure out what to do with it when the answer finally occurred to me: make it into a Portal. If there are no objections, I will be doing that at some point in the future when I get around to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ingoolemo (talk • contribs)


 * I really don't understand the need for nav templates fitting every possible subject. It's kind of mind-boggling. ericg &#9992; 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for. Ingoolemo talk 00:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have moved the above-mentioned pages to similar pages in the portal namespace. If anyone has any better ideas about how to format them, please feel free to put those into motion. The fact is, they're simply too big to work as nav templates and I don't know where else to put them. Ingoolemo talk 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Over-categorizing
I have CfD'd the subcategories of Category:AWACS aircraft. There is now a discussion if the CfD should be expanded to other types of aircraft. You guys might want to be a part of the discussion here. - Dammit 06:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A revision of our categorisation system was proposed some time ago, but nothing was done. Here is my suggestion: Currently, articles are tagged with an NTD category (nation, type, decade).  I would like to propose that they be tagged with an NT category and possibly a TD category; ND categories won't be nearly as useful as the other two.


 * I think this is a high-priority issue, so can we PLEASE have some comments? Ingoolemo talk 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree there are too many sub-categories, and I'd be happy with just Type and Nation categories. I don't believe there are any instances where a decade category holds more than 1 or 2 articles, I say get rid of all of them - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Give me a few days, and I'll try to draw up a more cogent proposal to replace our category system. It needs quite a bit more polishing.  Ingoolemo talk 21:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Editbuttons
On a lighter note, I have uploaded Image:Editbutton aircraft.gif, which will provides an aircraft image. By copying User:MarkS/Extra edit buttons, we can create editbuttons for one-click insertion of major aircraft templates. Ingoolemo talk 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
I have just thrown together the above userbox for WikiProject aircraft. It is currently located at User:KPWM_Spotter/WPAir_Userbox, you can link to it on your userpage using the template  . I haven't uploaded this to it's own mainspace page yet, due to the current controversy over userboxes, but if anyone else feels like it, go ahead and put it there. Enjoy! --KPWM_Spotter 17:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great, but I'd find a different pic before the image patrollers find it being used beyond its licence. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, take two. I had mis-read the liscence for screenshots when I first uploaded.   Now replaced with a public domain image I found on the Aviation portal. Now at     --KPWM_Spotter 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been using this (at right) userbox for a while, although I was using it with some 'i'm a pilot' content. That standard beige doesn't really look very aviation-y to me. ericg &#9992; 21:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote
Could we get some opinions towards which userbox to adopt as official? (Or, we could just keep all of them?)


 * Well, before we even have a vote, how many people will actually be using a userbox? Userboxen don't fit into the layout of my userpage, and I very deliberately do not use them.  Ingoolemo talk 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that the answer is...no one... I'll just leave them on my namespace for anyone who wants them to use. Other than that, I guess there's no need to formally adopt them or anything...--KPWM_Spotter 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

#1: 747 Picture, Blue and Beige coloring.

#2: Generic Aircraft Picture, Blue Coloring

#3: 747 Picture from #1, Blue coloring from #2



Military Aviation Questions

 * 1) Does WP:Air have a subset of standards for military aircraft?
 * 2) What determines whether an aircraft should or shouldn't have its own page? For instance, the Supermarine Spitfire has something like 15-18 British variants alone, but the history is pretty fluid. However, the OH-58A and OH-58D are practically different machines other than the similarity of their airframe shape. True, they do share the airframe, although a portion of the OH-58Ds were built from "scratch". Similarly, the OH-6 and the MH-6 are related to different models of the Hughes line (don't get me started on that company's history with its name) with entirely different airframes, despite their similar appearance. I'd like to know, or is it simply left up to democratic opinion that may be less than educated as to the differences? (Born2flie 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC))


 * No
 * WP:Air/PC has some standards, but they are fairly vague. I don't believe that much effort has been made to define our opinions on those issues.  Ingoolemo talk 21:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Scaled Composites / Burt Rutan project
I'm slowly working on documenting all of Burt Rutan's aircraft with articles, and would like to find an editor or two to help with a second set of eyes and copyedit my articles. Anyone interested? Akradecki 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be willing to look over anything you're working on. If you could post an overview of what you're doing, and what pages you're working on, I'll take a look at what you have right away.   --KPWM_Spotter 19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, KPWM Spotter! So far I've created these new pages: Scaled Composites ATTT, Toyota TAA-1, NASA AD-1, and added or edited these to a fair degree: Rutan VariViggen, Rutan VariEze, Rutan Defiant. One the Scaled Composites page itself, I've added more of their aircraft, and started adding to the page content. I've got a ton of material, and really need to sit down and write a thorough history of both RAF and Scaled. I'll drop you a note on your talk page, too, and let you know as I do more. Thanks! Akradecki 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice work so far, Akradecki. I did a bit of cleanup on the Defiant article - all I'd recommend is giving the WikiProject's page content article a once-over as far as sections go. Glad to see another Rutan afficionado working on the 'pedia! ericg &#9992; 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

When we did our specifications survey a while back, some respondents complained that abbreviations such as mi (for statute mile) and nm (for nautical mile) were not clear in meaning. Ericg suggested using tooltips to prvent disambiguation. For example, nm generates the text 'nautical mile' when you hover over the link: 180 nm. However, others saw some problems with this approach. For example, Special:Whatlinkshere/Nautical mile would include just about every aircraft article. Myself, I find the colouration visually distracting.

I think I have found a solution:. Rather than a hyperlink, it uses the  attribute of the   element to generate a tooltip. It is also much less visually obtrusive: 180 nm. Ingoolemo talk 02:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Another solution that I would like to mention is linking to a key, such as at User:Rlandmann/Specs units. An easy way to do this would be to add the following text to : For an explanation of the units and abbreviations in this table, please see WikiProject Aircraft/Units.

Which generates:

For an explanation of the units and abbreviations in this table, please see WikiProject Aircraft/Units key.

Ingoolemo talk 02:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gotta say, that I had done that previous tip on one or two articles, but can see how that would overwhelm anyone looking for related articles on nm. So, I think I'm gonna use the thing from now on. (Born2flie 04:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC))

Here are some thoughts I've had since my original post: we should only use this template for those units that may be fairly obscure. My current list is:
 * lbf
 * kN
 * 1) mi (not really obscure, but to make it clear that it's a statute mile and not anything else)
 * nm
 * 1) knots
 * PS
 * kgf

Any comments on this list? This way, we can convert them all en masse using a bot.

Also, I will be bold by adding the link to our unit key to. I also invite others to be bold and remove it, and to improve the current WikiProject Aircraft/Units key page. Ingoolemo talk 20:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Importance
I think the use of the Importance scale is bogus. I just noticed some controversy over the "top" rating assigned to SS1. Someone else changed it to "high," arguing that it wasn't as important as WWII fighters.

I believe that, at best, this is a difficult thing for us to ascertain, and at worst, PoV. While I agree that some of the WWII fighters were crucial, and changed history in significant ways, who is to say that SS1 won't change history by ushering in a new era? I'm not poking at just this instance...but using it as an example of why I think the ratings scale is bogus. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 11:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with what your saying, but it's important to remember that the ratings scale is nothing more than meta-data. Its sole purpose is to help us budget our efforts as we work to improve articles—nothing more, nothing less.  If people want to waste their time in a pissing war over this, that's their loss.  The highest priority is always article quality.  Ingoolemo talk 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

specs template
Im fairly new to editing the templates used on en, and the airspec-imp suggested this page. Could someone take a look at the spec table in P-26 Peashooter, please? --AndersL 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your involvement in the project. As a kind of stopgap tutorial, you can see what I did to complete your edits at .  In the meantime, I think I'll have to write a tutorial for .  Ingoolemo talk 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated category scheme
I have not fully written up my proposal yet, and I don't intend to invite formal discussion until I have a list of specific changes, but a working draft of a new category scheme has been posted at WikiProject Aircraft/Categories/Proposed update. Ingoolemo talk 04:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about Manufacturer ID Naming Convention
Hello! I am looking at helping out with the HAL Tejas article and have a rather unique challenge: While the Tejas is almost universally identified as a product of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), this is technically incorrect. Rather, it is the product of a consortium known as the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). HAL is the ADA member responsible for the design, integration and manufacture of the Tejas. I plan to explain this in the Introduction, but I’m wondering whether the page name should be changed to “ADA Tejas” or remain the same, with a redirect for the alternative(s). Furthermore, should the manufacturer’s name be fully written out here? Appreciatively, Mark. Askari Mark | Talk 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The general rule of thumb is to name it the way it's most commonly named, so it seems that HAL would be the correct method. I'd suggest mentioning this aspect in the article, and possibly even setting up a redirect page from ADA Tejas. Akradecki 19:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Akradecki! Those were my plans. I just needed to know if I should rename the article first.Askari Mark | Talk

An independent aircraft-dedicated Wikipedia?
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I see little reason why there can't be a spin-off WikiWiki project dedicated to aircraft. After all, if Star Trek and Pokemon can have their own Wikis, why can't avaition, which has a very vast and strong enthusiast base?

Maybe a few of us could get together and register a new WikiMedia project. I suppose I could start it up, but frankly I don't have the resources to. There are quite a few aviation experts here that I feel would be quite capable of doing so, however. 24.9.10.235 03:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My question is what would be the value of it -- if its split off of Wikipedia what can be brought to a WikiAircraft that cannot be brought to Wikipedia? I think the Star Trek and Pokemon (wrong URL?) wikis work because they provide some theming etc. But if the WikiAicraft gets forked do the Wikipedia articles get shortchanged in revisions and become outdated? I'm not trying to kill the idea just make sure that its sound and makes sense to put resources behind... --Cliffb 05:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fiction wiki's are there because there's too much fan activity and too much unencyclopedic content that would otherwise clog up wiki. That's not the case here and I see little additional content that would not deserve to be on wikipedia itself. --Mmx1 05:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As Mmx said, almost all aircraft-related information is encyclopedic, which means that we don't have to fight any battles over whether our articles can be included or not. Forking the content would not free us from any constraints in the same way that the Star Trek forks did.


 * Perhaps there is a way to better advertise WP:Air on other sites? I'm sure that many aerogeeks would gladly contribute to an aviation wiki, not realising that one already exists within Wikipedia itself.  Ingoolemo talk 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea -- we do have the Aviation portal as a starting place. --Cliffb 05:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, an aircraft wiki already exists: aircraft.wikia.com. I don't see how it's any different than our own WikiProject, though. Ingoolemo talk 04:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm new here, so please excuse any misuse of the "lingo" here, but I'd like to offer a modest proposal. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it would seem reasonable to me to keep the historical and technical Aviation-related material here. After all, history is rather "static" and what changes here is the attempts to best "capture" it. However, there is other material being collected here that is more "dynamic" -- such as the "simulator" and "popular culture" sections -- which really pertain more to entertainment.


 * I would suggest that there needs to be a separate Wiki product focusing on "Wikitainment" which captures such dynamic and "fandom" material. The articles here could then have a simple boilerplate section directing interested readers to the relevant sites "forked" forked over to the "Wikitainment" product. --Askari Mark | Talk 01:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)