Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 44

Business Jet Comparisons
I have raised the inclusion of comparison tables in the Business Jet article, opinions at Talk:Business jet welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Economics
I think I better understood the stir caused by including values in comparisons when I was told in Talk:Business jet they were unexpected in "military aircraft articles, where there are far more enthusiasts". I understand military aircraft articles may have different objectives. There are much less enthusiasts for commercial aircraft, and economics there are more important, where value is an intrinsic property of an aircraft, like weight or wing area. My goal never was to build a buyers guide but to let readers interested in commercial aircraft have the best grasp of their economics, without going too far as if wikipedia was an accountant handbook.

I saw the hiding of prices as if they were taboo. I was surprised by WP:noprices taken literally as "no prices allowed" while it is a sales catalog/shopbot prohibition, not a price prohibition, and values are in almost every commercial aircraft infobox so it was not incongruous to group them.

Well, to go forward and leave this discussion, I won't oppose anymore any deletion of prices. Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not picking sides in that argument, but I will say that WP:noprices could do better to explain under what circumstances exceptions can be made. For example, a justified reason for the mention could mean lots of things. -  ZLEA  Talk \ Contribs 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Failed bids
Probably upset some fans but I just deleted a huge section about failed bids and potential orders at the Eurofighter Typhoon most of this is part of the day to day marketing and selling of aircraft and not that noteworthy, it also takes up a large section of the article so is probably undue weight. I also note some of the other mainly modern "fighter" articles also spend more time on failed bids and possible sales than the actual operation of the aircraft, before I upset anymore people by deleting stuff I am looking for thoughts on this. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a read through what you removed and most of it does seem to be infringing on WP:CRYSTALBALL type of stuff, so doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article. Actual sales should be reported and perhaps even negotiations for sales that don't result in a sale, but many of these were just "marketing" campaigns. It might be worthwhile noting competitions for sales where the aircraft was not a winner and naming which other aircraft was chosen instead, as I think that shows some historically useful info, including when sales dropped off. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, I have added back some of the more noteworthy competitions into Typhoon. Still suggest that potential sales and marketing opportunities need to be looked at and pruned in some of the other articles. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree with that! - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unless of course the sales pitch was/is part of a wider and verifiably significant politico-military development. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 04:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good call MilborneOne, definitely an improvement. - Samf4u (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Just to note that a copy and paste content fork of the original contents has been created as Eurofighter Typhoon procurement and has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Eurofighter Typhoon procurement. MilborneOne (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Typhoon procurement - comments requested
I have been trimming back the forked page a bit. In the light of the AfD decision to keep it, I would appreciate any comments on that at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon procurement &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Business aircraft
Trying to knock Business aircraft into a better shape, I have had a go laying out the sections and adding some content but it needs more work. I feel it needs something on the development of aircraft for business use in the 1930s and some of sections are a bit thin yet. If anybody has some sources to add more than it would be appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion notification
A proposal has been made to merge Aerodyne Jumbe, Aerodyne Shaman, Aerodyne Totem Bi, Aerodyne Yogi into Aerodyne Technologies. Interested editors may participate in the discussion at discussion at Talk:Aerodyne Technologies. - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Version 2 EAD Airframe
I don't know much about the subject. Could someone please look at the history of Version 2 EAD Airframe? Many thanks.

See also: this Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Clearly, they have a conflict of interest if their claims are true, so aren't allowed to edit the articles involved. Hopefully this won't result in a block, but so far they are headed that way if they don't stop editing the article. - BilCat (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * COI editing is not so much forbidden as highly inadvisable for the inexperienced. The guy has declared his interest up front, which is the right thing to do. Like you say, he has to stop the disruptive warring. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ionocraft move discussion
Related to the above, comments are welcome at Talk:Ionocraft. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Typhoon procurement again
Would really, really appreciate more eyes/hands at Eurofighter Typhoon procurement. I started deleting stuff, such as failed bids, but others are now adding them back in, especially Canada, Malaysia and Greece. Should they stay or should the go? Any replies, please post to thread at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon procurement. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Bizjet selling prices
I am not sure that the recent addition of 2018 selling value to most articles on Biz Jets is really relevant and why the 2018 price is more important that say the value in 2000. Just like to ask User:Marc Lacoste what the reasoning behind this as it is not clear to me as we are not in the business of selling aircraft, any other opinions welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been watching those additions as well. We do have a place in the infobox for a price and it is usually just a single new aircraft price. I have concerns about the relevancy of lists of used prices as Wikipedia is not a buyers guide. Also WP:NOPRICES is a Wikipedia policy and it says An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers. Given that policy, I think we would need a very strong justification for keeping these. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, I added second hand values because I stumbled upon an interesting article [] and as the information is quite rare, I decided to WP:MINE it and add it to each type article. As far as aviation media goes, AIN is one of the most authoritative along Flight and AvWeek, especially on its main subject, Business aviation.
 * Is it relevant? Of course it is, it is about the subject, not about something else.
 * Is Wikipedia becoming an aircraft broker handbook? I hope it is clear it is just skimming the subject.
 * WP:NOPRICES is for consumer goods, to avoid growing a newegg-like price engine or a sales catalogue, a remote possibility here.
 * Is it giving it too much WP:Undue weight? I don't think so, one line isn't much and I think some other parts are too prominent in comparison (e.g. the always incomplete operator list with always too much weight given to military operators). As the price new is interesting in the infobox, value retention or degradation is interesting for high value assets like aircraft, and shows the interest or disinterest in a type and its economical cycle. Cheers,--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to explain why this information is really needed in the article, though, why it is of encyclopedic value and not just that it was added because it was available. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Value retention or degradation is interesting for high value assets like aircraft, and shows the interest or disinterest in a type and its economical cycle" falls within encyclopedic content: concerning all subjects, having comprehensive information or knowledge.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whom is that a quote from? - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * wiktionary:encyclopedic--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see the quoted content on the linked page. Besides WP:NOTADICTIONARY so we should not follow its guidelines per se. We are the authority, right here, to build consensus on this matter. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You can easily copy the quote and find it with ctrl-F. WP:NOTADICTIONARY is a content guideline, not a rule forbidding dictionary usage to define a term. In a discussion, to clarify a term, using a dictionary is often a good thing.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details,... WP:NOTEVERYTHING Andrewgprout (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. Depreciation of value is of encyclopedic significance only in specific instances where that significance can be verified via adequate independent reliable sources. That might for example happen when writing up a politically high-profile and well-covered negotiation, but it will not generally be the case. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * AIN is a WP:RS. I don't understand how a 2d hand value would be useful in a political negotiation.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * This WP:NOTEVERYTHING quote end in, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Exactly the case here: summarising an economic asset depreciation over time in one sentence, without going in intricate details only useful to appraisers.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason to remove those would be mainly WP:Undue weight. Is it really the case?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless there is something particularly noteworthy about this particular asset's depreciation (for instance, it's significantly faster or slower than other aircraft of its type), this just seems like a run-of-the-mill fact.  C Thomas3   (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:Notability applies for new articles, not article content where the applicable policy is WP:due weight. To answer your question, yes, some are depreciating significantly faster or slower than others, like a 10 year old Eclipse 500 is 31% of new one (a depreciation of 7% per year) while a 23 year old cessna CJ1/M2 maintains 20% or a 3.5%/year rate (these figures have many limitations but they can give an appreciation of a type popularity).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings Marc. I wasn’t suggesting that topic notability factor in here: I wasn’t trying to policy-bomb you, just mentioning MILL because there are some good points in there that we should keep in mind for content writing as well. Due weight is all well and good, but just because we have a hundred sources for something like new and used car values doesn’t mean we include it for every car model. We have a policy of WP:NOPRICES: (emphasis in original). It’s not enough to just have a source, or even many sources. There must be a compelling, meaningful (I used “noteworthy” above) reason for us discussing it. If for instance we can find a reliable source meaningfully discussing depreciation rates about particular models, (and by meaningfully I mean a lengthy discussion about how a particular model performs against its peers, etc.), then by all means, let’s talk about including a discussion of depreciation on that particular model's page. But we can’t just add 2018 pricing, or even historical pricing, to every article and expect readers to make their own comparisons (or worse, make our own in violation of WP:OR).   C Thomas3   (talk) 09:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think you have hit the crux of the matter, as I was discussing above. To include these we really need a WP:RS that discusses comparative aircraft depreciation, not just a source for random date used aircraft prices. WP policy makes it very clear that those are not to be included in articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, the WP:NOPRICES quote begin by [Wikipedia is not a] Sales catalogues and indeed asset depreciation is more away from that than the price new in the infobox. Many bizjet articles include a used value and competition comparisons, and those which don't are not much more than stubs. I maintain the most apt policy here is WP:due weight.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If we had a source that discussed comparative aircraft depreciation then I would support adding that, but drawing any conclusions from just raw used aircraft prices would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Lacking any kind of depreciation reference, all we have is that a typical used aircraft of X age was selling for $X on this date. That price only applies to certain year, TTAF, engine hours, paint condition and avionics fitted. That information alone is not useful to readers of a general encyclopedia. It is buyer's guide information. So far no one other than you has expressed any support for keeping this information. I am interested in hearing from anyone else who thinks it should be retained. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTHESIS states Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. It is not the case in the articles, I made an example for Cthomas3 up with calculations but it is a the reader discretion, not provided as a referenced statement in articles.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood: as they stand the inclusion of used aircraft prices are not synthesis, but to make them of encyclopedic value would require either a RS that compares them, which we seem to lack, or synthesis. - Ahunt (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, but WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress, we need to start somewhere.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand it is an unusual practice, and being conservative can be a virtue for coherence, but observations were answered : The main objection would be WP:Undue weight, which is the main WP:content policy. I could totally understand stating 2d hand values could be given too much weight in aircraft articles, but no one seems concerned about this point. I wish you all a very happy new year, towards a better Wikipedia each day! cheers,--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RS? it seems to me Aviation International News is a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy;
 * WP:Relevance? it is about the subject, relevant to the topic of the article, not about something else;
 * WP:NOPRICES? it is not growing a sales catalogue;
 * WP:NOTEVERYTHING? it falls within a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject;
 * WP:SYNTHESIS? it does not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.


 * So far there is no consensus to include these, but let's let it run a full week here and see if any other editors support including these. - Ahunt (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to remove them either.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well so far there is a consensus to not have them and including them violates Wikipedia policy, but as I said, let's run this discussion a full week to determine the final consensus, once everyone interested has had a chance to wade in. - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a consensus as this discussion is a sign of disagreement. WP:NOPRICES does not state no prices should be inserted but [Wikipedia is not a] Sales catalogues [or] a price comparison service. Maybe the discussion will be ended in a week but maybe not.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can argue and try to obscure the issue here all you like, but this discussion was precisely started to come to a consensus about whether to include these prices or not. It doesn't matter how many straw man arguments you put up. The discussion is actually close to an end now, but I am being polite by suggesting it should run a full week, in case any regular editors are on holidays over New Year's and would like to wade in upon their return. Otherwise the consensus is very clear so far. You can endlessly argue and try to jump all over everyone's posts here, but there actually is no disagreement. So far only you think these should be included and everyone else doesn't. - Ahunt (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not majority, it's acceptable compromise for everyone. To reach one, I propose to avoid used values when there is no comparison with a competitor. Perhaps a good thing to do would be to ask an outsider what arguments are receivable. What are my straw man arguments? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please also note that what Wikipedia considers consensus is not unanimity. What is required is rough consensus, which means that the dominant argument carries the day. You are correct that this does not simply mean counting heads, but at the end of the day, if a strong majority of contributors to a discussion agree on a particular viewpoint (and that viewpoint does not run afoul of policy), rough consensus has been achieved. Consensus does not require everyone to agree with that viewpoint, or even regard it as an acceptable compromise, especially in a case like this where the decision is somewhat binary (we either include it or we don’t).  C Thomas3   (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that binary: I proposed to avoid them when there is no comparison with a competitor.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with MilborneOne, Ahunt and others that these prices are trivia. Worse, they change regularly and keeping all our pages updated is not a serious possibility. Marc can logic-chop and wikilawyer eternally, typing six words to anybody else's one, but the plain fact is that he is on his own and the five-to-one consensus of reason is already clear: these prices have no place here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Trivia: I don't think so, an aircraft value is one of its core properties.
 * I don't see a need for further updates other than finding other references, there is no regular almanach like Flight's airliner census for that
 * WP:wikilawyering I'm offended: I was asked to explain my edits, and then other editors piled policies claims that I responded. Not being able to defend oneself would be a poor policy. How am I Using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles?
 * Before this edit, I've written 44% of this section, far away from "six words to anybody else's one", and honestly I would prefer avoiding that.
 * "five-to-one consensus": reaching WP:Consensus is not counting people (neither counting arguments length) but editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.
 * I don't understand why "these prices have no place here" but I repeat that there could be a reason they are WP:Undue weight I'm unaware of.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The aircraft project has collectively chosen over the years not to include prices. Searching the archives of this talk page for 'costs' or 'pricing' highlights problems. There has been trouble with editors trying to employ Template:Inflation to prices or using their own calculations (OR) to come up with their own figure. One important point is one of article standards, if a reader sees a price in one article they might well expect to see it in another article, as pricing details are not always readily available it would be very difficult to include it in every aircraft article.
 * My thoughts are along the lines of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we have a similar problem with the specification sections where some editors want to add wheelbase, turning circle, DERD specifications of engine oil, fuel capacity, tyre sizes and pressures etc, etc, ad infinitum. Infobox users/operators are supposed to be limited to three but we see great long lists in what is supposed to be a quick glance summary area of the article. Unfortunately all this has to be controlled by consensus decisions and even more unfortunately the reason for a controlling measure has to be explained every time an editor wants to add facts and figures that are not considered the norm. There are a few aircraft and engine articles with cost information but they are uncommon. thought I'd add that in case an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS case is raised. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  13:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insight. Most commercial aircraft already have their list price in the infobox, often inflation-corrected for older types. As above,WP:NOTEVERYTHING states a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, so a short line is welcome. I agree the intricate specs need to avoid growing too much, but the most specific policy is maybe WP:NOTMANUAL. For WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value), similar examples come from the operators survey of AvWeek's BCA: for the Nextant 400XT, CJ3, Hawker 400, Hawker 750/800XP, Learjet_60XR, Citation Sovereign, Challenger 604, Falcon 2000S, Global 5000, G550... --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At a quick glance the prices shown in those articles are three to four years out of date, some go back to 2006. Why restrict this practise to just Bizjets? Why can't we also know the price of the other 19,000 aircraft that we have articles for? I find it odd that prices don't feature in car articles, at a glance through some Ford articles (including the Ford Fiesta) have no prices listed, must be subject to some wiki-wide guideline. Please be aware that editors from outside the aircraft project occasionally visit to ridicule the way we operate and highlight the guidelines that are being busted, it is painful to receive. Far better to toe the line. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  21:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really a problem is the info is dated, the interesting thing is the depreciation over time. Commercial aircraft do have public prices, mostly mentioned here. Cars are consumer goods not professional assets, their prices are widely variable thus the avoid becoming a sales catalog policy. Never saw a mocking visit.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me add my voice to those opposing the inclusion of these prices as per MilborneOne, Ahunt, Steelpillow and everyone else here so far except Marc Lacosta. Yes Marc, consensus is about more than just counting people, but when everyone else disagrees with you, maybe it is time to consider that consensus is against your position. You say that there is no consesnsus to remove the prices. I think you misread the situation, but regardsless, this is a backwards way of looking at it. Given WP:NOPRICES. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:UNDUE there needs to be a significant reason supported by consensus that including this information improves the encyclopedia. This has not been occurred and in fact consensus is very clearly against it. I think it might be time to cease assulting the deceased equine. - Nick Thorne talk 00:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your participation. Again, WP:Consensus is editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises. I already answered the WP:NOPRICES and WP:NOTEVERYTHING objections, I'm glad you raise WP:UNDUE: could you explain to what too much weight would be given? Thanks. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously, "assulting the deceased equine" means "flogging a dead horse" which means a useless effort which can never succeed. If you continue with this one-sided crusade you will become WP:DISRUPTIVE. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I only respond to queries, I don't WP:DISRUPT any article.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the Undue Weight question is a fair one. The price content I've seen Marc add has been only 2-3 sentences in each article and not truly excessive imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Undue weight is a straw man argument that User:Marc Lacoste brought up early in the discussion and then quickly dismissed. No one else seriously thinks that these one or two line prices additions are UNDUE. The policy we are dealing with is WP:NOPRICES and to some extent WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * How is that a straw man argument? I sincerely believe this policy could be a sensible ground to trim information. No one not dismissed it. I answered many times the WP:NOPRICES objection and WP:TRIVIA is about trivia sections. I'm unsure everyone in the discussion actually reads the policies and the additions discussed.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Insulting other members of this project is probably not a good way to influence people. Since an admin started this discussion, you have put up endless straw man arguments and then dismissed them. Your arguing with everyone who posts here and obscurification, in an attempt to brow-beat everyone, to protect your edits, rather than letting people discuss the issue and finish coming up with a consensus, is being quite disruptive as others have noted above, and is actually working against your edits being discussed here. You are sounding very much like you are not interested in consensus and your contributions read like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and as noted is well into WP:DEADHORSE territory. I would suggest you stop the endless straw man arguments, stop jumping all over everyone's posts here and let this discussion continue, before you get blocked for your disruption here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I offended someone, I was myself often offended in this discussion, and it does not help. I don't try to obfuscate anything: I only reply when I'm asked. Of course I defend my edits, who doesn't? I understand I participate often in the discussion, but I'm called every time (I re-read all the thread before stating that). I'm interested in reaching a consensus and I'm the only one to push a compromise. The best way to avoid my responses is to not adress me nominally.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

With no further discussion in the past two weeks, I think we can bring this to a conclusion and state that the project consensus is that these prices should not be included in the aircraft type articles, except in the sole specific case where there is a reliable source that specifically discusses depreciation for the aircraft type. - Ahunt (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I meant to say that I agree with the prevailing view: including bizjets market valuations for random years seems rather gratuitous and squarely within WP:NOPRICES/Sales catalogues. One case I could think of where this sort of information would be in order is the Airbus Helicopters H225, whose market value has collapsed, following that recent series of gearbox failures (read on Flight), but the 2018 value of a 1970 Citation I? Nah. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that is a good example where we have a reliable source that indicates something has occurred in the market value of the aircraft that is worth noting. Otherwise all seems to agree here. I think in all other cases we can now remove these pricing statements and close this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Aerospecs template
A new template, aerospecs, has been added to the style guide. It appears to be in use on thousands or articles. Now we have three templates in use for the same purpose, apparently indiscriminately. Has a consensus discussion for all this ever been held? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an old one, dating to 2007! As you noted it is still in use, though. As I recall when we developed Template:Aircraft specs in 2009 (was it really ten years ago??) the consensus was that was the one to use for new articles and that it could be put into older articles if and when they needed a spec overhaul. Otherwise both the two older templates still work, just less optimal than Template:Aircraft specs. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The style guide should explain that the other two are now deprecated. Is it OK if I add that information? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is okay with me, perhaps others have some objections, though. - Ahunt (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK to add a note, we should migrate to the later "Aircraft specs" but it would take time and effort. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added links on my userpage to lists of articles that use the old templates. I'll be updating to the current template as I have time. Sario528 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As I recall we were supposed to neck down to two specs, and eventually one, the final product using the best features of the other one. I think that plan fell apart when our resident template guru stopped editing full-time. At this point, we probably have editors who prefer a particular version over the others. It's been awhile since I've added specs, so I can't even remember which one I preferred! Hopefully the old one isn't someone's preferred specs. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Taken a shot at it. A bit surprised to find that the  options invoked a deprecated template, but I guess those options are deprecated too. Any problems? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Broken heading
Even worse, Aerospecs is broken as the bolded armament header is failing to show on a new line), and on 2200 pages - can anyone familiar with template editting fix it? &#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * From looking that the Template:Aerospecs, data must be in the armament1 field for the Armament label to be shown. Do you have an example where this is not working? -Fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * See Agusta A.106 for starters. - BilCat (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I see the format error there but don't understand the template's coding enough to try to fix it. Sorry. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I changed Template:Aerospecs/sandbox so that it's a sandbox instead of a redirect. I also changed Template:Aerospecs/testcases so that sandbox edits can be checked against the live template. I hope that it helps. Sario528 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

✅ Fixed! Sario528 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Empennage?
There has been a discussion on whether to rename the empennage article. It seems to have stalled lately, with a slight consensus for change but none as to what that change might be. Any further contributions may be made at Talk:Empennage. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You get full marks for use of understatement, the last comment was four years ago! - Ahunt (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Can a taildragger have a tailstrike?
I'm not a pilot, so excuse me if this is a daft question. It relates to this edit on the Tailstrike article. The text in question is, "A tailstrike is physically possible only on an aircraft with tricycle landing gear; with a taildragger configuration, the tail is already on the ground." While I understand that a tailwheel configuration would rule out a tailstrike under most conditions, I can think of a few circumstances where it could happen, such as the tailwheel falling off before/during landing. Any thoughts from the pilots and aircraft mechanics among us? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at Talk:Tailstrike. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor Demo Team
Do we really need F-22 Raptor Demo Team? Seems like one short paragraph in the F-22 article,assuming we can find a secondary reliable source, would suffice. - BilCat (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One single demo plane? (and 13 techs to maintain it!). I agree, it can be merged into the main article as a single sentence. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We had quite a long discussion about "solo" aircraft display teams a few months back, but I cannot recall where. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

How to get good images of ancient Russian aircraft?
I've been recently learning about Sikorsky's Russky Vityaz and Ilya Muromets and their importance in the development of large aircraft. The Russky Vityaz was both the first airplane built with more than two engines and the first to have multiple engines whose thrust was not along the aircraft centerline, proving that such a configuration could work. The Ilya Muromets further confirmed the practicality of this approach and also served as the prototype of the heavy bomber, being introduced several years before the big German, British, and Italian machines. So both of these aircraft are important milestones.

Considering their importance, the imagery we have for these machines is pretty sad. I've tried to find additional photos from old magazines and books, and I achieved a bit of success with the Russky Vityaz, but the Ilya Muromets is more difficult, since there was a war on. :) Of course, I can find some nice photos online, such as one from airwar.ru (compare with our version), as well as three-view drawings like this one. My understanding was that sites like airwar.ru are verboten due to links to potential copyright infringement; yet when I checked Commons today, I found quite a few files that gave airwar.ru as the source. Was I mistaken? Are there circumstances where such sites can be used as image sources, such as for material too old to still be under copyright, or drawings which don't meet the U.S. threshhold of originality? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There's a note on P.VIII of Gunston's "Russian Aircraft" about images. He got many from a Charity (no. 1000748) called the Russian Aviation Research Trust and gives its address: The Fox, Bombers Green, Tukely, Bishop's Stortford, Herts, CM22 6PB, UK. He does not mention copyright issues, but they might be worth contacting if you've not done so already.TSRL (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Teal Group
In what appears to be a bit of promotional spamming of links to the Teal Group and in particular to Richard Aboulafia a so called analyst in the main body of the text. I have been reverted all over the place so need a bit of a sanity check please. Does the Teal Group external link actually add anything to the article, and is Richard Aboulafia name important that his opinion and name have to been on multiple aircraft articles. As far as I remember we dont particulary name analyst by name but sometimes the sources. Thanks.

User:Marc Lacoste thinks that "aboulafia is an interesting analyst" like to ask him why he needs his name apparently spammed on multiple articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to note that I have nominated the Teal Group for deletion Articles for deletion/Teal Group. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that Richard Aboulafia also be AfD'ed. I note that some civil aircraft articles have a horrendous amount of "he said, she said" type market discussion. Setting aside the sanity of including such content, most of the punters do not have bios here, I don't see why this one should.&mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Commercial promotion would need to come from the linked party, this is not the case. Aboulafia is often quoted in commercial aviation publications, and it also ends up here as Wikipedia is a tertiary source, feeding itself from secondary reports. Having a bio/company stub explains who is who. Naming commentators avoids WP:WEASEL. Other people often quoted can include Steven F. Udvar-Házy, Leeham News' Scott Hamilton, ex Airbus' sales John Leahy (executive), ex-Flight/CNN/WSJ Jon Ostrower, etc.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I clearly do not agree, naming random hacks is not something we regularly do, we certainly name the source but rarely the individual. We seem to have a lot of opinion from this gentleman in the form "Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group says" which all appear to have been dropped into flowing text and clearly looks promotional to get a name check in as many articles as possible to enhance position and promote his business. The same with adding Teal Group external links on pages that clearly do not add anything to the article but promote the group. Perhaps we need to look at why we are giving prominence to other commentators when clearly it is not needed in most cases. It is far more common to name the source publication rather than the commentator in the small number of situations when it is required. I am not actaully convinced that random opinions from so called "experts" are actually encyclopedic, I dont see Abouafia as an expert on much more than promoting his business and providing random commentary. MilborneOne (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sometimes opinions are interesting but are not facts, so it needs attribution. e.g. in A380#Market#Production, the over optimistic Airbus market forecast is balanced by Aboulafia's predicting a 2020 final delivery, with unpleasant losses due to "hubris, shoddy market analysis, nationalism and simple wishful thinking" (pretty spot-on IMO). Removing the origin of the opinion would let it appear as a fact, but that's not the case (Avoid stating opinions as facts). It's the option taken by the press, be it AvWeek or Flight, and it's not the publication's opinion. That said, if you think he does not deserve a short bio in wikipedia, I understand.

Deletion request of an airshow model photo
It would give a dangerous precedent if it is going to be deleted. I replied ''A photo of a model shown to the public, within a public airshow. The model may be the property of a company, but the photograph copyright belongs to the photographer, who can claim it's his own and put it in wikimedia if he wants. No photo interdiction in Airshows at my knowledge. Would lower drastically the attendance if it was forbidden.'' --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A5246).jpg: The photograph is of a model to which the photographer is unlikely to have copyright permission. The photograph was taken of a temporary installation.The source is given as "Own Work" while the focus of the photograph is the model, which is unlikely to be the photographers work.


 * If it gets deleted from commons it could be uploaded to wikipedia with a non free rationale if it depicts an aircraft that doesnt exist yet. MilborneOne (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It would be removed once the aircraft exists, losing some illustrations for the design process part of its history.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

They are in wikipedia, too.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If they're claimed to be copyrighted, can't we use them under fair use? You'll eed to add fair-use rationales to the photos on their Wikipedia pages though. In fact, that's probably what we need to do for all of the photos of models we use. - BilCat (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

AEA Silver Dart - powerplant description rendered poorly
Today's (February 23, 2019) Wikipedia Main Page "On This Day" section has a link to AEA Silver Dart. In the specifications, the powerplant description is rendered poorly: "Powerplant: 1 × Curtiss 50hp V-8 V-8 air-cooled piston engine, 50 hp (37 kW)"  -- i.e., "V-8" is repeated, and "50hp" appears twice, apparently due to how the template fields (engine name, type and hp) were concatenated. I'm not sure how to fix this use of the Aircraft Specifications template. Harris7 (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Harris7 appreciate the notice, I just removed the duplicate V-8 for now so it doesnt look stupid. MilborneOne (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pink aircraft with six wheels
Having just chocked on my drink as the Dart Herald has been categorised as Category:Four-engined piston aircraft which has been created by User:Uli Elch I am pretty sure we discussed these expanding and duplicate categories and decided not to do it as they were all in "Four-engined tractor aircraft" and similar, anybody have any comments about duplicated category trees. MilborneOne (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So what about Category:Four-engined turboprop aircraft, which has been in place for almost a year, apparently undisputed?The same applies to Category:Quadjets
 * The criticized cat is just an exact parallel category.
 * And what about Category:Twin-engined tractor aircraft vs. Category:Twin-engined turboprop aircraft ? Once again, exactly the same system here.
 * Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to rule out just one single category which is 100% in line with the existing system being used for turboprops. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point the tractor aircraft does includes all engine types, I accept that it is a missing category. (Although dont you hate Quadjets rather than "four-engined jet aircraft" does anybody really use that term). MilborneOne (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I also hate "Quadjets", never heard it outside WP, even though I've driven them for 14 years (B707, B747-200 and -400). "Four-engined jet aircraft" sounds much better. The terms Trijets and Twinjets appear to be more popular and understandable. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * See Quadjet. Ugh. - BilCat (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not any more, it's now a redirect per WP:BOLD. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I just added a 90 day page page view history graph for this cat at Category talk:Four-engined piston aircraft. As you can see the maximum number of views has been 12 per day and that was just after it was created, so mostly page monitors, I would suspect. Otherwise only 2-6 views per day. This kind of backs up what I found in researching page views for categories a few years back: readers don't use them. The main take-way I got from that is that categories aren't worth wasting editing time on. - Ahunt (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, then why has the Category:Four-engined tractor aircraft been in place for 6 years undisputedly? Its definition clearly states "... that are powered by four piston engines, turboprop engines, or electric motors ...". The same applies to "Twin-engined tractor aircraft". I am very hesitant to accept sudden illogical breaks in the category system, which has existed for many years. Besides, nobody forces you to spend time on that, and you don't have to be worried about my preferred ways of wasting tine. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the focus of my last post wasn't clear. What I was trying to express was that since readers don't make any significant use of categories, then it is not worth wasting time here discussing them. If any editor wants to spend time creating and populating them, than that is fine with me, as long as you have no illusions that they are being used. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Good morning MilborneOne. Maybe you better prepare your next drink since I'm just starting another one ... Best regards --Uli Elch (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Dont have an issue with that, only about 800 ish would be in the category. MilborneOne (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Quadjets
There are a large number of entries in this category. Should it be renamed to Category:Four-engined jet aircraft, for the same reason that the quadjet article was renamed? OK we have Category:Twinjets and Category:Trijets but we also have Category:Single-engined jet aircraft. Nobody ever talks about "monojets" and not many RS talk about quadjets either. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My main issue with the category name is that it is a term that is not used in aviation. Four-engined jet aircraft is better. - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair it is used occasionally, see my original post in the main thread above here. But I agree wholeheartedly in principle, it is not exactly mainstream. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)
 * I would agree to be consistent they sould be Foo-engined jet aircraft categorries. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think consistency would be a good thing, at least less confusing for readers. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that "twinjet" and "trijet" are very commonly used. Surely we should follow our WP:COMMONNAME policy and stick with real-world usage. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with MilborneOne and Ahunt, consistency would be less confusing for readers. - ZLEA  Talk \ Contribs 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, at least "Twin-engined aircraft" and "Three-engined aircraft" are well-enough worn phrases. There are also six- and even up to twelve-engined types. May I suggest that we move the whole category shebang over to that convention, before we get inundated with "octojets" and "dodecamotors" and such rubbish? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Twin-engined tractor aircraft with unicorn sprinkles ?

 * Moved across from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation.

Despite not being a fan of these multiplying categorisations, can we at least go as far as combining Category:Twin-engined tractor aircraft and Category:Twin-engined piston aircraft into Category:Twin piston-engined tractor aircraft (or some rational variant thereof).

Otherwise we're unable to sensibly categorise what's probably the second most common aircraft configuration in a single-step and we'll see an unending series of edits like this, which is 'correct', but an awfully long-winded approach to such an obvious goal.

Or else burn the lot (I really don't care). But this multiplication of the trivial is ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * 1.) Please note the difference: Not every "Twin-engined piston aircraft" is a "Twin-engined tractor aircraft", there are also many "Twin-engined pusher aircraft". The same is true vice versa. So your attack "this multiplication of the trivial is ridiculous" appears to be based on a lack of basic knowledge of aircraft configurations.
 * 2.) You should have read the discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, which would have saved us from this one here. --Uli Elch (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh do get over yourself. This was no "attack", merely a recognition that your edit was doing the best that it could within the mess of the category structure.
 * And if a problem can generate two threads with titles like, "Pink aircraft with six wheels" and "Twin-engined tractor aircraft with unicorn sprinkles" then something is going very wrong! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Enough tractors, already
Not all our readers live in Gloucestershire (local joke). What I mean is, "tractor" this and "tractor" that are pretty much superfluous. It should be sufficient to have Category:Flying pigs, Category:Jet flying pigs, Category:Pusher-driven flying pigs, Category:Piston-engined flying pigs, maybe Category:Electric flying pigs, but we really do not need Category:Piston-engined flying pigs with tractor propellers as nobody in the real world ever does it like that. WP:NOTANOBSESSIVECOMPULSIVEPLAYGROUND or something. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The usual solution to this (in sensible categorisation schemes) is to have "Twin-engined piston aircraft", where tractors and propellers are both implicit (and this is not a supercategory). Obviously there's a "Twin-engined turboprop aircraft" sibling too. We then have far smaller categories for "Twin-engined pusher propeller aircraft", as the exceptional case. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Or use general categories, e.g. for a P.180 : Category:Turboprop aircraft, Category:Twin-engined aircraft, Category:Pusher aircraft, etc., and make a subset with petscan as you wish to obtain [twin turboprops pusher aircraft.--[[User:Marc Lacoste|Marc Lacoste]] (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting there for twin-engined piston tractors? Three categories (and applying obscure tools to find the intersection) or (as I'm advocating) just one category for the massively common intersections?  I see this as far better, because it reduces the category list bloat at the foot of articles, for the common situations.
 * I've a much less strong opinion on the rarer cases, such as pushers. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would suggest twin piston tractor aircraft (171). I don't really care about obsessively detailed categories because base categories are still in the hierarchy. I was only suggesting a tool to find specific subsets. If I want to refine the results with high wing aircraft only, I can (38).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that there is at least one model of aircraft that is twin engined and both a tractor and pusher. How are we going to categorize that one? Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Push-pull configuration, Category:Twin-engined push-pull aircraft ? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

35 articles
Hello!

I have recently reviewed 35 articles submitted by the same user, mostly stubs, regarding aircraft. I have tagged them as stubs. I do not know whether they all meet notability guidelines so I am leaving a message here to notify members in case anyone wants to take a second look. The list can be found at Special:Diff/885808590.

Many thanks,

 SITH   (talk)   13:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the aircraft type articles are notable per WikiProject Aircraft/Notability. The G Elias & Brother probably isn't notable per Notability (organizations and companies). -  ZLEA  Talk \ Contribs 01:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments: 1978 Finnish Air Force DC-3 crash
I have started a request for comments on the choice of images used in the article 1978 Finnish Air Force DC-3 crash. Participants of this project may be interested in the discussion and are invited to offer their opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Aircraft specifications
I recently claimed at Template Talk:Aircraft specifications was deprecated and they should use Template:Aircraft specs for new articles or ones with an issue. I have now been asked to prove that the template is deprecated, pretty sure this has been discussed here in the past. "Aircraft Specifications" is still used on 2691 articles ("Aircraft specs" on 6459). Can somebody refresh my memory on this and why we cant add a Template Deprecated tag, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Project page/section on page content § Aircraft specifications is probably what you are looking for. I am not sure what a Template Deprecated tag is but adding it sounds like a good idea to me. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added Template:Aerospecs to the deprecation discussion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Deprecated template just adds a notice at the top that says use foo template instead. MilborneOne (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Surely an admin such as your good self can add that tag though? AFAIK the only thing stopping the rest of us is the mechanical one of page protection. I suggested some code in the linked discussion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

How to use the Template:Aircraft specifications
I added a weight with a reference but the figure just disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.192.31 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did you see this problem? - Ahunt (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are known and unknown bugs with this template. You would do much better to use Template:Aircraft specs instead. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis
For information I just proposed deletion of 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis as it clearly not a crisis but something that can be dealt with on the MAX and accidents pages. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree, this will dominate the aviation industry news for a long time, similar to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner battery problems that affected that aircraft and manufacturer for a long time. The situation with the aircraft and the end result of two major air disasters can not be properly covered in the disaster pages. --Bohbye (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes per WP:NOTNEWS. This is redundant with accident articles and the main 737 Max article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I also disagree, per . Was listening to the UK national news a few minutes ago and it is clearly one for the bigtime. The article was probably created WP:TOOSOON, but by the time we finish discussing it there will be reliable sources aplenty. Even if I am wrong, it is too soon to think of summarily deleting it. I shall take the liberty of removing the deletion notice and I ask that if anybody reinstates the deletion proposal, they go the full WP:AfD route. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Specifically, an experienced pilot claimed on BBC Radio 4 national news that Boeing had slid the type through on the grounds that it was the "same" aircraft as before and he had received less than an hour's training on it. However its handling was sufficiently different that a stall-warning system had been introduced and it handled effectively like a new design. Moreover, thanks to Boeing's arguments, he had not been trained in the stall-warning system and especially in how to disable it when necessary. Boeing's argument had been that they did not want to overwhelm inexperienced pilots with excessive amounts of information and the counter-argument, that these pilots were experienced and they needed to know, was ignored. The implication was that this might be a contributory factor in both crashes. I can't speak for the truth of the matter, but such allegations broadcast on a globally respected news programme are bound to create a notable furore. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a lot worse than the 787 battery problems; just look at the consequences so far. This is looking more like the DC-10's unfortunate early history, or the situation with the De Havilland Comet. Two brand new cutting-edge jetliners have crashed at speed with no survivors in a matter of months during the same phase of flight. And Ethiopian Airlines is a much more established airline than Lion Air. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Do we have articles on the DC-10 and Comet "crisis" ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Point taken. :) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There was no internet and instant-news culture back then, or I'm sure we would have had those articles. In truth, the 787 battery propblemw has never been necessary, as people still add information to that section in the main article, and that section is still nearly as long as the battery article itself. It's easy to predict the same thing will happen with the Max article and this new "crisis" page. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that "crisis" is not a sensible title, but a page move is a long way from a page delete. On the 787 batteries, I'd say that the section in the parent article is about half the size of the dedicated article and could benefit from trimming back further (the battle against obsessive fanbois never ends). But WP:OTHER is, as usual, a bit of a red herring here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: OTHER, others mentioned the 787 as a justification for a Max crisis article, and I was simply pointing out that not everyone agrees with that article's existence, now or when it was created. But yeah, "crisis" is too sensational, but most news nowadays is. - BilCat (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Definitely redundant for the time being and WP:TOOSOON. As things stand today I'd support an AfD; only time will tell whether a separate article is really necessary, but in the meantime it would have been better to concentrate on the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 article, where all the information belongs IMO, rather than dividing and/or duplicating efforts with the "crisis" article. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's now at AFD: Articles for deletion/2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis. And in related news, see Talk:Boeing 737 MAX, the outcome of which may also affect other aircraft article titles. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we have to go with the reliable sources and not connect these two accidents, at least now: With much still to be learned about the Ethiopia disaster, safety experts are warning about drawing conclusions about the loss of the plane delivered to the airline in November. The jet’s last maintenance was on Feb. 4, and it had flown just 1,200 hours. There is no indication the anti-stall device was at fault in Sunday’s crash; the Ethiopian Airlines plane had passed all safety tests, whereas Lion Air pilots had previously reported problems with how that plane was responding to certain commands. National Post - Ahunt (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Article has survived an AfD but it is turning into a pile of the proverbial, including maps, flags and fleet numers as well as other trivia. At least it is not a crisis anymore and it is keeping people busy who dont have a clear idea between a tabloid and an encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sigh ... If it keeps the unwashed masses away from the aircraft articles for a week, perhaps that will be a good thing. Once the dust settles in a week or two it can be properly edited to be less like the National Enquirer. - Ahunt (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comments: List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s
I have started a request for comments on the inclusion of certain surviving airframes in the article List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Participants of this project may be interested in the discussion and are invited to offer their opinion. –Noha307 (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

GAR notice
CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:WWIIUSAircraft
For information the unused template Template:WWIIUSAircraft is up for deletion at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_13. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Israel F-16 Crash
Israel F-16 Crash was recently created, and needs a lot of work. The title is vague, and we may have another article on the incident somewhere else already, but I don't know. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've moved it to Draft:Israel F-16 Crash. - BilCat (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Text on that was added to General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon also. This does not seem to warrant a separate article to me [but I've been wrong on these things before]. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance, this appears to be the same event as February 2018 Israel–Syria incident mentioned in the preceding paragraph in General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think so, but it's really hard to tell. :) - BilCat (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The creator moved it back to mainspace, so I've sent it to AFD at Articles for deletion/Israel F-16 Crash. Bad case of IDHT. - BilCat (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Name of 737 MAX or Max article
There's a vote at Talk:Boeing_737_MAX on whether to move the article from 737 MAX to 737 Max, on the basis of general article naming policy preferring Max. I think that the applicable more specific policy at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) is to use the MAX form. Please consider doing one or more of these things: Thanks. Jamesday (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * adding further capitalisation examples and an explicit capitalisation statement to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)
 * adding relevant votes and corrections, perhaps to my own understanding of the policy intent, at Talk:Boeing_737_MAX
 * Was closed as no consensus Bohbye (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Updates to the Northrop Grumman Article
Hello, I'm Jan, an employee of Northrop Grumman, and I am interested in helping the Wikipedia community to make relevant updates and improvements to the Northrop Grumman article. I will not be making direct edits, only posting to discussion pages. Is there an editor with an interest in aircraft that would be willing to take a look at my requested updates on the Northrop Grumman Talk page and put them into effect? If you have any questions, feedback, or comments, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you! JanAtNorthropGrumman (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

✅ Thank you. JanAtNorthropGrumman (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Aircraft specification templates
These have been a perpetual nightmare. There is now a TfD discussion to which you are invited to contribute. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Aerocon Dash 1.6 wingship
There is a rejected draft at Draft:Aerocon Dash 1.6 wingship that is almost ready for mainspace. Any help on getting it ready would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

SST vandalism again
There a IPer adding Supersonic Transport fiction to some articles (Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Boeing 777 and maybe others). I'll need to drop off for bed before long. Please help with these edits. Thanks, -Fnlayson (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:BilCat has been helping a lot, thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Now she's vandalizing the RFP page. What a dork. - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Would those pages be eligible for PC protection? - ZLEA  Talk \ Contribs 16:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Not at this time. But the developers are working on a solution, that, if approved for use on English Wikipedia by its community, will greatly help in fighting this particular vandal. - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Mitsubishi F-3
Is it too soon for Mitsubishi F-3. Most of the information is speculative, and I'm not sure this is a program of record at this point. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it should stay in article space or be moved to draft. It does appear to heavily rely on a few sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it is too soon. The development prototype is the Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin, which is flying and has its own article. The F-3 belongs there unless and until it becomes a reality. I'd suggest merging across anything worth keeping and making the F-3 article a redirect. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 23:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I support Steelpillow's idea. - ZLEA  Talk \ Contribs 00:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Now at Articles for deletion/Mitsubishi F-3, as creator seems blissfully unaware of the issues involved. - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of Annotated Links in See Also sections
The advent of Short descriptions has also brought Annotated links. I have never liked annotating links in "See also" sections except under very limited circumstances, so I'm not a fan of the new tag at all, as they aren't very informative, and look awful, in my opinion. I've heard from several other WPAIR members who don't like them either.

From Short description:
 * "The template Annotated link can be used to automatically annotate a link in a list using the associated short description. This can be used in outline and index lists, and in shorter lists in articles such as "see also" sections, which will be automatically populated with annotations using the associated short descriptions. These will remain up to date when the short description is edited. Annotated link does not work via redirects, so if the link is to a redirect, check if it is a redirect with possibility of becoming a full article. If so, add an appropriate short description to the redirect page – this will also help when someone wants to make it into an article – or change the link to a direct link. Both of these options can be appropriate, and it is a matter of judgement which is better in a specific case. (Bold-Revert-Discuss applies)"

So, as a project, are annotations in See also sections something we want to endorse, forbid, encourage, or be ambivalent about? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is ugly and discourages participation, I say "not". - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the wider community's contempt for wikiprojects and their editors, there is nothing we can do, particularly as this is a WMF-backed initiative. If we object to it we will be overruled.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As most of the short descriptions are crap (and change regularly) and they make no sense in the see also section, which should relate to why they are related not that it is a big aircraft used by the Americans. I cant see why we need to use them in see also if they dont make sense. It doesnt stop them being used in "outline and index lists". We could improve the short descriptions and make them consistent but not while there are being changed every other day. MilborneOne (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we need to find a more standardised form of words for the short descriptions, some are mixture of who has built the aircraft or who operates the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a very good idea! I have been starting a lot of new articles on sailboat types recently and use a stock short description on each one . Perhaps something similar for aircraft could be decided upon? - Ahunt (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * having another think about it and the problem is with our "aircontent" template we add into see also, as we use sub headings and it is in those that the links dont make sense rather than the general see also. Perhaps we need to move the "related" and "similar" out of "see also" to resolve the problem. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would respond that if you don't like the short description, that you correct them. I feel like this is something that can help clarify the links so the reader can understand what the linked aircraft are.  --rogerd (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can somebody link to an example or two? I haven't come across the things yet. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick look, I have found it used on Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, but I can remember seeing someone add them to a few pages on my watchlist some time ago. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also on: Airbus A400M Atlas, Antonov An-22, Kawasaki C-2, Antonov An-70 and Lockheed C-5 Galaxy. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can see that some readers will find some of them useful some of the time, others will not. To some extent their function overlaps the provision of various subsections in Template:Aircontent. Perhaps we could take this back to the wider community and suggest that for certain projects, tailored measures such as our template offer a better solution. Maybe a compromise, where aircraft types get our template but other links get the community one. Or, we could as a Project just make that consensus here and see if anybody takes us to task. I think I like that approach, it puts the burden of faffing about onto the faffers who foisted this on us.
 * In passing, listing all these short descriptions together like this doesn't half highlight how bloody awful a lot of them are. I can see fanbois adding more and more to them ad nauseam. Sometimes I think that Wikipedia is becoming too complicated for its own good. I really think that our developers have better things to do with their time than go round annoying Wikiprojects. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You make some good points, Steel, especially about WMF and the developers. I've had major issues with how Short Descriptions were foisted on Wikipedia, and feel much the same way about these annotations and WP:AIR. Fortunately for us, as currently written, the MOS states annotated links are optional. Per BRD, if the person adding them is reverted, it's up to them to get support on each article's talk page. If as a project we decide not to use annotations, then a person supporting them on a specific page can still argue for their inclusion on each article. What I didn't want to do was to unilaterally remove them, only to find out that the majority of the project wants them. Hence this discussion.


 * As to having related and similar links in the See also section, that is very much a compromise forced on us years ago. Template:Aircontent used to be part of a navbox at the bottom of the page, and dated back to Wikipedia's early years before these bottom sections were standardized by the MOS wonks. The compromise resulted in removing the navbox portion, and moving Aircontent to the See also section. We're still somewhat grandfathered, as now links used in articles are not supposed to be in the See also section, but those in the Related and Similar fields can repeat links. As long as that comprise remains unchallenged, I think the See also section is the best place for it. If that comprise is overturned, which will probably happen eventually, the we'd need a new solution.


 * Several options have been discussed in the past, including a specialized navbox of some sort, perhaps as an infobox that looks like a navbox, but we've never come up with a workable solution. It's possible we could add these to Infobox Aircraft stack as a separate module, which would be fairly easy to do as Template:Infobox Aircraft Aircontent. However, I'd rather have them near the bottom of the page. Another option might be to add Aircontent's functions into the bottom of the Specifications template, as it's usually the last section before See also. We are merging the three specs templates anyway, so adding Aircontent in might be a way to kill two birds with one stone. - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:SEEALSO says that "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent." The "Annotated links" template is just a way to semi-automate that. I think that gives us carte blanche to suppress it wherever we deem the relevance to be readily apparent, whether via aircontent or any other route. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but the general annotated text probably won't explain why it is linked in the See also section for another article, e.g. related designs. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's right. So where Template:Aircontent provides that context, the annotation should not be invoked. It's all in that "...when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" (my bold). And if a different annotation would make the relevance clearer than the auto jobbie would, then that can continue to be written directly into the article section as it always has been. So where we get spammed with inappropriate templating, we should just follow WP:BRD as recommended until the spammer learns better. It will be an annoyance but, having found that MOS guideline, I think that already gives us what we need to deal with it. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as the "short description" template issue goes, my approach has been to add these to new articles that I write and fix ones that are added to articles I am watching. I think for indexing and accessibility reasons they are here to stay, so they might as well be accurate and short! If editors who start articles would add them at the top, it would make "short work" of that issue and interdict some of the odd or inaccurate descriptions we are seeing. - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

D-EWOH
Just for information I have proposed deletion of the article about Zlin D-EWOH, only four page watchers and little activity in the last ten years. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not even been an hour since I put the project banner on its talk page. I suggest redirecting it to Berlin Wall. -  ZLEA  T \ C 17:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did think about that but as the aircraft was not actually registered D-EWOH at the time of the defection I felt is was an unlikely search term. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So merge and redirect to the aircraft type article (Zlín Z 42) then maybe? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Fnlayson, merge and redirect to Zlín Z 42. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a better idea, merge and redirect to Zlin Z 42. - ZLEA  T \ C 18:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have redirects for every tail number, however insignificant? I do not see this as worth even a redirect. It should be deleted per the OP. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

YouTube links
Do we ever add external links to YouTube videos? An IP editor added this one to the Hugo Wolf F/A-18C simulator but some bot reverted it. The editor was unimpressed by such a bot exercising its mandate and restored it. I gave a kneejerk support to the bot but am now wondering if I did the right thing? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In general "not", unless there is a very good reason to. Many of these additions are just self-promotional, trying to drive traffic to YouTube to make advertising money from video "views". The other issue is that once there is one link to YouTube, people think it is okay to add more and more of them. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Regular refs also drive some traffic to commercial websites, but if they are good refs it seems ok to me. Video links selection is like regular webpages selection: there good things to keep an bad things to trim.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I do like your presentation! if the video is interesting, why not? I did that before. I even used a video as a ref and there is a Template:cite video.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC) Flight is OK with some video.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the video it doesnt add anything to this article per WP:ELNO MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, if not it would be a reference for a statement. It's just an illustration, like a picture, but with a process. A worthy illustration IMO (difficult and perhaps improductive to describe in words). Wikipedia is lucky enough to be an encyclopedia in an age where short films are readily available, we should enjoy it.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:YOUTUBE, there is no blanket ban on YouTube videos, and many of them can be as reliable and worthy of inclusion (at least in the EL section) as any RS (there is even a dedicated template, YouTube. For the Hugo Wolf F/A-18C simulator, an official documentary by the Swiss Air Force (or such it seems) that illustrates the device in question in a way that a written article will never be able to do, I don't see why it should not be linked. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * In this particular case it is an "official video", so I don't see an issue including a link to it, but watch out for WP:COPYLINK videos. - Ahunt (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The same rigor as for written links (but easier to verify, with the video uploader).--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy regarding including aircraft manufacturers in articles
A while ago their was a discussion regarding adding the manufacturer to aircraft names in articles such as adding Bristol to a inline link which says "F.2 Fighter" and adding Douglas to "C-54 Skymaster" in the first instance.

I've checked the archive I can't find it, any ideas? Gavbadger (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the infobox title or just generally in the text of the article? - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion at WT:WikiProject Military history indicates this is about listing manufacturer in article text. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I cant see any reason not to use the full name of an aircraft on first use in an article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For instance on the Vandegrift Combat Base having "On 9 April 1969 a Marine Sikorsky CH-53A Sea Stallion helicopter " instead of "On 9 April 1969 a Marine CH-53A helicopter". Gavbadger (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with Sikorsky CH-53A Sea Stallion if this is the first mention, as far as I know we dont have an exception for US Military designations. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As ever, WP:COMMONSENSE needs to apply. For example if one was giving a short inline list such as "Compared to the earlier CH-34, CH-37 and CH-46, the CH-53 had pink rotor blades" or whatever, then giving the full names would disrupt the reader and would be seen as nothing but obnoxious pedantry. These redirects are frequently linked to, and there are reasons for that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out on the Milhist project page, Gavbadger has been adding manufacturer and model names to numerous Vietnam war base articles that mention the relevant aircraft (usually crashing at the base) such as here:, I regard that as redundant as they are always wikilinked. Mztourist (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of ANTLE for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ANTLE is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ANTLE until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BilCat (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Pic farm
Any chance we can convert Military transport aircraft from a gallery page to an actual article? The huge galleries are bad enough, do we also need those tiny thumbnails in the tables? (I'm no good at editing tables, or I'd strip them out myself.) Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yuk, we can probably just ditch the comparison tables in toto. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have done a massive cleanup, left the chopper pix for now as they do not overpower. Will surely need some firm policing to make it stick, though. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

List of military transport aircraft
The List of military transport aircraft is a non-standard list table with rather a lot of columns. I have proposed removing some of them in this discussion. Comments welcome. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

FFA P-16
A "new" user User:Gordon Bloed has re-created: and Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23 which all appear to be related to the interests of blocked user User:FFA P-16. Please keep an eye on these, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Super-Puma Display Team - which I have redirected to Swiss Air Force
 * F/A-18 Hornet Display Team - which I have redirected to Swiss Air Force


 * Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23 now redirected to the Learjet article, which already covers the salient aspects of its initial conception. Same caveat applies. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Also worth keeping an eye on the user's subpages via :  &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The poor quality of English and pre-built pages full of fan trivia look suspiciously reminiscent of our old friend. Should we ask for a sockpuppet check yet? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed the remaining content from Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23 and redirected it to the more specific page Learjet 23. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Time for WP:SOCK action there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Decade categories at CfD
See here. The nominator doesn't seem to be aware of how many categories are in this format (hundreds?). I suggested discussion here if it is intended to rename all of them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  19:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For centralized discussion, please discuss at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 19.
 * Hundreds of categories is trivial, both in execution (semi/fully-automated) and compared to the abundance of decadal categories following the rename's format.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Interestingly but I remember not that long ago that the MOS enthusiasts made us change to the Foo aircraft 19XX-19XX format because we had the wrong dash and nobody claimed the general format was wrong, presume the backroom "rules" have changed again. MilborneOne (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia is built on shifting sand. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (numbers and dates) has advocated "1970s" decade formatting since 2005. A simpler explanation is that the categories were made in error, many of them ~2011 +/- a few years (spot-checked), and no one was willing to address it.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

American category naming
One of the things you notice as your watchlist fills up with the category changes is that we use for example Category:2010s United States military aircraft rather than Category:2010s American military aircraft nearly all the others use British/French/Swiss etc. Another oddity is some but not all of the Taiwanese category use Republic of China rather than Taiwanese. Anybody know why these two should be an exception, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot really speak for the shifting sands of Wikipedia policy, but "America" is a geographical continent of which only part is governed as the US(A). Similarly, the political state nowadays named the Republic of China inhabits the geographical island of Taiwan. The new approved WikiSpeak appears to focus on current political correctness rather than any old Western-centric habits. I suppose. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as ROC/Taiwan the article on the country is at Taiwan so we should be using Taiwanese. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! Can't answer that. On the other hand we have the Republic of China Air Force not Taiwanese. I am definitely not getting involved any further, let the PC police do as they will. You could always wind them up about it though. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The adjective form of "United States" is "American", not "United Statesian". It is similar to the adjective for "United Kingdom", which is "British", not "United Kingdomish". Don't ever tell us Canadians that we are "Americans". - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * And don't ever tell us United Statesians Americans that Canadians are Americans too! I actually deal with this issue on articles such as North America, Americas, Americans, etc., so I have good feel for how it's generally handled on Wikipedia. Per common name in English, "American" is the correct denonym for people of the United States, and can be used in most articles without qualification if it's clear in the context. For example, we can say "So and so is an American actor", or "Foo-18 is an American aircraft". "United States" is generally used in reference to the federal government, not "American government", so there is some overlap of the two terms. This really isn't a PC issue as such, but is regularly pushed by some activists, especially some Latin Americans users who believe "We're all Americans too!", on the types of pages I mentioned. It may come to the point eventually where it does become a big PC issue, but we aren't there yet on Wikipedia. Back to the main question, because "United States military aircraft" refers to government aircraft, it's probably appropriate to use that there. - BilCat (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Bill's answer is one thing even we Canadians can agree with! What about commercial aircraft made in the US of A? - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would use American in those situations, but I usually don't deal with categories at all, so I'm not sure what is done with those. The people who do deal with categories on a regular basis may follow their own "guidelines", as we've often seen. Btw, MOS:CHINA deals with some of the China/Taiwan issues. On "American", one thing to remember about our Latin American friends, especially Spanish speakers, is that their main exposure to English is from United Statesian media. They have no real concept that the rest of the world, especially in English, considers "America" to equal "United States". To them, the fact that people from the United States call themselves "Americans" is an arrogant appropriation of the word. Also, in Spanish, "America" is a continent, and North, Central and South America are regions or subcontinents, so this adds to the confusion. One question I usually ask of them is, when an Iranian mullah yells "Death to America!", do they think he's talking about Mexico or Argentina too? I've never gotten a response! - BilCat (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bill, I appreciate your understanding of the subject. My understanding is that in the case of Spanish-speakers in Central and South America, since they are really Americans, then they can just move to the US any time they like, but that is another issue. - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * And a BIG can of worms I'm not going to open here! :) But I guarantee you the reverse is not true: You or I can't go to Mexico or Colombia anytime we want to: It's illegal there, and they'll put us in jail! - BilCat (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

XJet / X-Jet
The redirects and, currently targeting Expressjet and Williams X-Jet have been nominated at RfD. You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17 and Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

~600 categories missing navigation
• # Category:1900s Austro-Hungarian experimental aircraft

• # Category:1900s French helicopters

• # Category:1900s French military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1900s Swiss aircraft

• # Category:1900s United States sport aircraft

• # Category:1900s helicopters

• # Category:1910s Australian experimental aircraft

• # Category:1910s Austro-Hungarian fighter aircraft

• # Category:1910s Austro-Hungarian military aircraft

• # Category:1910s Austro-Hungarian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1910s Belgian experimental aircraft

• # Category:1910s Danish aircraft

• # Category:1910s Danish experimental aircraft

• # Category:1910s Danish helicopters

• # Category:1910s Danish military aircraft

• # Category:1910s Dutch military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1910s French military utility aircraft

• # Category:1910s French patrol aircraft

• # Category:1910s Italian civil aircraft

• # Category:1910s Italian sport aircraft

• # Category:1910s Norwegian aircraft

• # Category:1910s Norwegian military aircraft

• # Category:1910s Norwegian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1910s Polish experimental aircraft

• # Category:1910s Russian military aircraft

• # Category:1910s Russian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1910s Spanish fighter aircraft

• # Category:1910s Spanish military aircraft

• # Category:1910s Swedish fighter aircraft

• # Category:1910s Swedish military aircraft

• # Category:1910s Swedish military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1910s Swiss fighter aircraft

• # Category:1910s Swiss military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1910s helicopters

• # Category:1920s Australian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1920s Austrian airliners

• # Category:1920s Austrian civil aircraft

• # Category:1920s Austrian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1920s Belgian airliners

• # Category:1920s Belgian civil aircraft

• # Category:1920s Belgian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1920s Belgian sport aircraft

• # Category:1920s British helicopters

• # Category:1920s Bulgarian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1920s Canadian civil aircraft

• # Category:1920s Chinese military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1920s Czechoslovakian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1920s Czechoslovakian special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1920s Dutch airliners

• # Category:1920s Dutch cargo aircraft

• # Category:1920s Dutch civil aircraft

• # Category:1920s Dutch military aircraft

• # Category:1920s Dutch military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1920s Dutch sport aircraft

• # Category:1920s Finnish experimental aircraft

• # Category:1920s Finnish fighter aircraft

• # Category:1920s Finnish military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1920s French civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1920s German agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1920s Italian bomber aircraft

• # Category:1920s Italian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1920s Italian sailplanes

• # Category:1920s Italian special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1920s Lithuanian civil aircraft

• # Category:1920s Lithuanian fighter aircraft

• # Category:1920s Lithuanian military aircraft

• # Category:1920s Lithuanian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1920s Lithuanian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1920s Lithuanian sport aircraft

• # Category:1920s Mexican bomber aircraft

• # Category:1920s Mexican military aircraft

• # Category:1920s Norwegian aircraft

• # Category:1920s Norwegian fighter aircraft

• # Category:1920s Norwegian military aircraft

• # Category:1920s Norwegian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1920s Norwegian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1920s Soviet and Russian civil aircraft

• # Category:1920s Soviet and Russian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1920s Spanish experimental aircraft

• # Category:1920s Spanish helicopters

• # Category:1920s Spanish military aircraft

• # Category:1920s Spanish military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1920s Swedish military aircraft

• # Category:1920s Swiss fighter aircraft

• # Category:1920s Thai military aircraft

• # Category:1920s Yugoslav military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1920s agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1920s helicopters

• # Category:1930s Argentine airliners

• # Category:1930s Argentine bomber aircraft

• # Category:1930s Australian airliners

• # Category:1930s Australian civil aircraft

• # Category:1930s Austrian civil aircraft

• # Category:1930s Austrian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1930s Belgian airliners

• # Category:1930s Belgian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1930s Belgian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1930s Belgian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s Brazilian civil aircraft

• # Category:1930s Brazilian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s Brazilian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s British special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1930s Bulgarian airliners

• # Category:1930s Bulgarian civil aircraft

• # Category:1930s Bulgarian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s Canadian airliners

• # Category:1930s Canadian cargo aircraft

• # Category:1930s Canadian civil aircraft

• # Category:1930s Chinese fighter aircraft

• # Category:1930s Danish aircraft

• # Category:1930s Danish sport aircraft

• # Category:1930s Dutch airliners

• # Category:1930s Dutch cargo aircraft

• # Category:1930s Dutch civil aircraft

• # Category:1930s Dutch civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s Dutch civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1930s Dutch military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1930s Dutch military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s Dutch special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1930s Dutch sport aircraft

• # Category:1930s French civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s French helicopters

• # Category:1930s German helicopters

• # Category:1930s Hungarian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1930s Indonesian aircraft

• # Category:1930s Indonesian civil aircraft

• # Category:1930s Indonesian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1930s Italian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s Italian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1930s Italian military utility aircraft

• # Category:1930s Lithuanian bomber aircraft

• # Category:1930s Lithuanian military aircraft

• # Category:1930s Lithuanian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1930s Lithuanian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s New Zealand sport aircraft

• # Category:1930s Norwegian aircraft

• # Category:1930s Norwegian military aircraft

• # Category:1930s Norwegian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1930s Norwegian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s Romanian civil aircraft

• # Category:1930s Romanian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1930s Soviet civil aircraft

• # Category:1930s Soviet civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1930s Soviet military utility aircraft

• # Category:1930s Soviet sailplanes

• # Category:1930s Swedish civil aircraft

• # Category:1930s Swedish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1930s Swedish military aircraft

• # Category:1930s Swedish military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s Swiss military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1930s Turkish aircraft

• # Category:1930s Turkish military aircraft

• # Category:1930s Turkish military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1930s United States special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1930s helicopters

• # Category:1940s Argentine bomber aircraft

• # Category:1940s Argentine civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s Argentine military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s Argentine military transport aircraft

• # Category:1940s Australian airliners

• # Category:1940s Australian bomber aircraft

• # Category:1940s Australian civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s Austrian aircraft

• # Category:1940s Austrian experimental aircraft

• # Category:1940s Austrian helicopters

• # Category:1940s Belgian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1940s Belgian sport aircraft

• # Category:1940s Brazilian civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s Brazilian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s Brazilian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1940s Brazilian military aircraft

• # Category:1940s Brazilian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s Brazilian sailplanes

• # Category:1940s British helicopters

• # Category:1940s British special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1940s Bulgarian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s Canadian sailplanes

• # Category:1940s Chinese aircraft

• # Category:1940s Chinese experimental aircraft

• # Category:1940s Chinese fighter aircraft

• # Category:1940s Czechoslovakian sailplanes

• # Category:1940s Czechoslovakian sport aircraft

• # Category:1940s Danish sport aircraft

• # Category:1940s Dutch airliners

• # Category:1940s Dutch civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s Dutch civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1940s Dutch military aircraft

• # Category:1940s Dutch military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s Finnish civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s Finnish sailplanes

• # Category:1940s French civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s French experimental aircraft

• # Category:1940s French helicopters

• # Category:1940s French military utility aircraft

• # Category:1940s French sailplanes

• # Category:1940s German civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s German civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s German helicopters

• # Category:1940s Italian airliners

• # Category:1940s Italian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1940s Italian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s Italian military transport aircraft

• # Category:1940s Italian military utility aircraft

• # Category:1940s Italian patrol aircraft

• # Category:1940s Japanese civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s Japanese civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s Norwegian airliners

• # Category:1940s Norwegian civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s Peruvian airliners

• # Category:1940s Peruvian civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s Republic of China aircraft

• # Category:1940s Republic of China helicopters

• # Category:1940s Soviet helicopters

• # Category:1940s Soviet sailplanes

• # Category:1940s Spanish bomber aircraft

• # Category:1940s Spanish civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s Spanish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1940s Spanish military aircraft

• # Category:1940s Spanish military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s Spanish military transport aircraft

• # Category:1940s Swedish civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s Swedish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1940s Turkish aircraft

• # Category:1940s Turkish civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s Turkish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1940s Turkish military aircraft

• # Category:1940s Turkish military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1940s United States helicopters

• # Category:1940s United States special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1940s Yugoslav civil aircraft

• # Category:1940s helicopters

• # Category:1950s Argentine agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1950s Argentine military utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Argentine sailplanes

• # Category:1950s Australian agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1950s Australian civil aircraft

• # Category:1950s Australian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Australian sailplanes

• # Category:1950s Australian special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1950s Austrian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Austrian sailplanes

• # Category:1950s Belgian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Brazilian civil aircraft

• # Category:1950s Brazilian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Brazilian helicopters

• # Category:1950s Brazilian sailplanes

• # Category:1950s British helicopters

• # Category:1950s British military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1950s Canadian cargo aircraft

• # Category:1950s Canadian experimental aircraft

• # Category:1950s Canadian sailplanes

• # Category:1950s Chinese civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Chinese helicopters

• # Category:1950s Czechoslovakian helicopters

• # Category:1950s Czechoslovakian sailplanes

• # Category:1950s Danish aircraft

• # Category:1950s Danish military aircraft

• # Category:1950s Danish military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1950s Dutch helicopters

• # Category:1950s Dutch military aircraft

• # Category:1950s Dutch military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1950s Finnish civil aircraft

• # Category:1950s Finnish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Finnish military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1950s Finnish sailplanes

• # Category:1950s Finnish sport aircraft

• # Category:1950s French civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1950s French helicopters

• # Category:1950s German helicopters

• # Category:1950s Indian sailplanes

• # Category:1950s Indonesian attack aircraft

• # Category:1950s Indonesian civil aircraft

• # Category:1950s Indonesian military aircraft

• # Category:1950s Indonesian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1950s Indonesian sport aircraft

• # Category:1950s Italian airliners

• # Category:1950s Italian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1950s Italian helicopters

• # Category:1950s Italian military transport aircraft

• # Category:1950s Italian sailplanes

• # Category:1950s New Zealand agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1950s New Zealand civil aircraft

• # Category:1950s Polish helicopters

• # Category:1950s Republic of China aircraft

• # Category:1950s Republic of China helicopters

• # Category:1950s Romanian civil aircraft

• # Category:1950s Romanian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1950s Soviet and Russian special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1950s Soviet helicopters

• # Category:1950s Soviet sailplanes

• # Category:1950s Spanish civil aircraft

• # Category:1950s Spanish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Spanish fighter aircraft

• # Category:1950s Spanish helicopters

• # Category:1950s Spanish military aircraft

• # Category:1950s Spanish military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1950s Spanish military utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Swedish civil aircraft

• # Category:1950s Swedish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Swedish experimental aircraft

• # Category:1950s Swiss fighter aircraft

• # Category:1950s Turkish aircraft

• # Category:1950s Turkish military aircraft

• # Category:1950s Turkish military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1950s Turkish military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1950s United States helicopters

• # Category:1950s Yugoslav civil aircraft

• # Category:1950s Yugoslav civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1950s Yugoslav experimental aircraft

• # Category:1950s helicopters

• # Category:1960s Argentine agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1960s Argentine experimental aircraft

• # Category:1960s Argentine military transport aircraft

• # Category:1960s Australian agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1960s Australian civil aircraft

• # Category:1960s Australian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1960s Australian sailplanes

• # Category:1960s Austrian civil aircraft

• # Category:1960s Austrian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1960s Brazilian agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1960s Brazilian civil aircraft

• # Category:1960s Brazilian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1960s Brazilian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1960s Brazilian sport aircraft

• # Category:1960s British helicopters

• # Category:1960s British military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1960s Canadian helicopters

• # Category:1960s Chinese helicopters

• # Category:1960s Czechoslovakian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1960s Czechoslovakian sailplanes

• # Category:1960s Dutch sailplanes

• # Category:1960s Egyptian military aircraft

• # Category:1960s Finnish sailplanes

• # Category:1960s Finnish special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1960s French helicopters

• # Category:1960s German helicopters

• # Category:1960s Israeli military transport aircraft

• # Category:1960s Italian anti-submarine aircraft

• # Category:1960s Italian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1960s Italian helicopters

• # Category:1960s Italian military transport aircraft

• # Category:1960s Italian sailplanes

• # Category:1960s Japanese helicopters

• # Category:1960s Mexican agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1960s Mexican civil aircraft

• # Category:1960s New Zealand agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1960s New Zealand civil aircraft

• # Category:1960s Polish helicopters

• # Category:1960s Romanian agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1960s Romanian civil aircraft

• # Category:1960s Soviet helicopters

• # Category:1960s Soviet sailplanes

• # Category:1960s Soviet special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1960s Swedish civil aircraft

• # Category:1960s Swedish sport aircraft

• # Category:1960s United States helicopters

• # Category:1960s Yugoslav agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1960s Yugoslav civil aircraft

• # Category:1960s helicopters

• # Category:1970s Argentine agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1970s Argentine helicopters

• # Category:1970s Argentine military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1970s Argentine sailplanes

• # Category:1970s Australian civil aircraft

• # Category:1970s Australian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1970s Australian helicopters

• # Category:1970s Austrian civil aircraft

• # Category:1970s Austrian sailplanes

• # Category:1970s Brazilian civil aircraft

• # Category:1970s Brazilian sailplanes

• # Category:1970s British helicopters

• # Category:1970s Canadian sailplanes

• # Category:1970s Chinese aircraft

• # Category:1970s Chinese bomber aircraft

• # Category:1970s Chinese civil aircraft

• # Category:1970s Chinese civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1970s Czechoslovakian sailplanes

• # Category:1970s Finnish civil aircraft

• # Category:1970s Finnish sailplanes

• # Category:1970s French civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1970s French helicopters

• # Category:1970s German helicopters

• # Category:1970s Indian agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1970s Indian sailplanes

• # Category:1970s Israeli military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1970s Italian helicopters

• # Category:1970s Japanese helicopters

• # Category:1970s New Zealand agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1970s New Zealand civil aircraft

• # Category:1970s Polish helicopters

• # Category:1970s Republic of China aircraft

• # Category:1970s Republic of China airliners

• # Category:1970s Republic of China military aircraft

• # Category:1970s Republic of China military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1970s Romanian agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1970s Romanian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1970s Romanian helicopters

• # Category:1970s South African experimental aircraft

• # Category:1970s Soviet helicopters

• # Category:1970s Soviet sailplanes

• # Category:1970s Swedish civil aircraft

• # Category:1970s Swedish military aircraft

• # Category:1970s Swedish military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1970s Swedish sport aircraft

• # Category:1970s Swiss civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1970s Swiss sailplanes

• # Category:1970s United States helicopters

• # Category:1970s United States special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1970s helicopters

• # Category:1980s Australian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1980s Brazilian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1980s British business aircraft

• # Category:1980s British military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1980s Canadian helicopters

• # Category:1980s Canadian sailplanes

• # Category:1980s Chilean military aircraft

• # Category:1980s Chilean military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1980s Czechoslovakian civil aircraft

• # Category:1980s Czechoslovakian sailplanes

• # Category:1980s Finnish civil aircraft

• # Category:1980s Finnish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1980s French helicopters

• # Category:1980s French military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1980s French sailplanes

• # Category:1980s Iranian military utility aircraft

• # Category:1980s Israeli military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1980s Italian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1980s Italian helicopters

• # Category:1980s Italian military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1980s Italian sailplanes

• # Category:1980s Italian sport aircraft

• # Category:1980s Lithuanian agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1980s New Zealand civil aircraft

• # Category:1980s Peruvian sport aircraft

• # Category:1980s Republic of China aircraft

• # Category:1980s Republic of China fighter aircraft

• # Category:1980s Republic of China military aircraft

• # Category:1980s Republic of China military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1980s South African experimental aircraft

• # Category:1980s South African helicopters

• # Category:1980s South African sailplanes

• # Category:1980s Soviet civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1980s Soviet helicopters

• # Category:1980s Soviet patrol aircraft

• # Category:1980s Soviet special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1980s Spanish civil aircraft

• # Category:1980s Spanish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1980s Swedish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1980s Swedish sailplanes

• # Category:1980s Swiss civil aircraft

• # Category:1980s Swiss civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1980s United States agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1980s United States helicopters

• # Category:1980s United States special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:1980s Yugoslav military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1980s Yugoslav sport aircraft

• # Category:1980s Yugoslav ultralight aircraft

• # Category:1980s helicopters

• # Category:1990s Algerian aircraft

• # Category:1990s Argentine experimental aircraft

• # Category:1990s Australian agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1990s Australian sailplanes

• # Category:1990s Belgian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1990s Belgian sport aircraft

• # Category:1990s Belgian ultralight aircraft

• # Category:1990s British helicopters

• # Category:1990s Canadian experimental aircraft

• # Category:1990s Canadian helicopters

• # Category:1990s Chinese helicopters

• # Category:1990s Colombian aircraft

• # Category:1990s Colombian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1990s Czech and Czechoslovakian sailplanes

• # Category:1990s French helicopters

• # Category:1990s French sailplanes

• # Category:1990s German experimental aircraft

• # Category:1990s German helicopters

• # Category:1990s Indian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1990s Indian helicopters

• # Category:1990s Indian sport aircraft

• # Category:1990s Indian ultralight aircraft

• # Category:1990s Iranian helicopters

• # Category:1990s Italian experimental aircraft

• # Category:1990s Italian helicopters

• # Category:1990s Italian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:1990s Italian sailplanes

• # Category:1990s Italian sport aircraft

• # Category:1990s Japanese helicopters

• # Category:1990s Polish agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1990s Polish helicopters

• # Category:1990s Romanian civil trainer aircraft

• # Category:1990s Russian sailplanes

• # Category:1990s Serbian ultralight aircraft

• # Category:1990s South African helicopters

• # Category:1990s South Korean military trainer aircraft

• # Category:1990s Soviet and Russian helicopters

• # Category:1990s Soviet and Russian military utility aircraft

• # Category:1990s Spanish civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1990s Spanish ultralight aircraft

• # Category:1990s Ukrainian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:1990s Ukrainian sport aircraft

• # Category:1990s United States agricultural aircraft

• # Category:1990s United States helicopters

• # Category:1990s helicopters

• # Category:2000s Argentine helicopters

• # Category:2000s Australian helicopters

• # Category:2000s Austrian aircraft

• # Category:2000s Austrian helicopters

• # Category:2000s Austrian ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2000s Belgian helicopters

• # Category:2000s Belgian sport aircraft

• # Category:2000s Brazilian sailplanes

• # Category:2000s Brazilian sport aircraft

• # Category:2000s British helicopters

• # Category:2000s Bulgarian sport aircraft

• # Category:2000s Canadian experimental aircraft

• # Category:2000s Canadian helicopters

• # Category:2000s Chinese civil utility aircraft

• # Category:2000s Chinese helicopters

• # Category:2000s Chinese sport aircraft

• # Category:2000s Chinese ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2000s Colombian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:2000s Czech military aircraft

• # Category:2000s Czech military trainer aircraft

• # Category:2000s French helicopters

• # Category:2000s French military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:2000s French sailplanes

• # Category:2000s Indian helicopters

• # Category:2000s Indian sport aircraft

• # Category:2000s Indian ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2000s Iranian helicopters

• # Category:2000s Israeli attack aircraft

• # Category:2000s Israeli military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:2000s Italian experimental aircraft

• # Category:2000s Italian helicopters

• # Category:2000s Italian military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:2000s Italian sailplanes

• # Category:2000s Japanese helicopters

• # Category:2000s Mexican military aircraft

• # Category:2000s Mexican military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:2000s New Zealand civil aircraft

• # Category:2000s New Zealand civil utility aircraft

• # Category:2000s Pakistani military reconnaissance aircraft

• # Category:2000s Polish sport aircraft

• # Category:2000s Portuguese ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2000s Republic of China cargo aircraft

• # Category:2000s Russian helicopters

• # Category:2000s Russian sailplanes

• # Category:2000s Russian special-purpose aircraft

• # Category:2000s Russian sport aircraft

• # Category:2000s Slovakian sport aircraft

• # Category:2000s Slovakian ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2000s Slovenian civil aircraft

• # Category:2000s Slovenian sailplanes

• # Category:2000s South Korean military trainer aircraft

• # Category:2000s Spanish helicopters

• # Category:2000s Spanish military aircraft

• # Category:2000s Spanish military transport aircraft

• # Category:2000s Spanish ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2000s Swedish sport aircraft

• # Category:2000s Turkish military aircraft

• # Category:2000s Ukrainian helicopters

• # Category:2000s Ukrainian sailplanes

• # Category:2000s United Arab Emirates ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2000s United States helicopters

• # Category:2000s helicopters

• # Category:2010s Austrian sport aircraft

• # Category:2010s Belgian ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2010s Canadian experimental aircraft

• # Category:2010s Canadian helicopters

• # Category:2010s Chinese aircraft

• # Category:2010s Chinese attack aircraft

• # Category:2010s Chinese civil aircraft

• # Category:2010s Chinese civil utility aircraft

• # Category:2010s Chinese helicopters

• # Category:2010s Chinese sport aircraft

• # Category:2010s Chinese ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2010s Czech sailplanes

• # Category:2010s Finnish ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2010s French helicopters

• # Category:2010s Indian helicopters

• # Category:2010s Italian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:2010s Italian experimental aircraft

• # Category:2010s Italian helicopters

• # Category:2010s Italian sailplanes

• # Category:2010s New Zealand helicopters

• # Category:2010s Portuguese gliders

• # Category:2010s Portuguese ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2010s Slovenian sailplanes

• # Category:2010s Slovenian ultralight aircraft

• # Category:2010s Swiss helicopters

• # Category:2010s Turkish aircraft

• # Category:2010s Turkish military aircraft

• # Category:2010s Ukrainian civil utility aircraft

• # Category:2010s Ukrainian helicopters

• # Category:2010s Ukrainian sport aircraft

• # Category:2010s United States helicopters

• # Category:2010s helicopters

~600 categories missing navigation discussion
I found these, but it's not immediately clear to me exactly which nav template in Aircraft navigation see also is the best choice for each one. If I could get some guidance on what-should-be-used-where, I could easily do the minutiae of placing the appropriate ones via AWB. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Tom.Reding as we normally do these by hand we just look at a similar category and copy the format! not much help but these navigation things are very old and not well maintained. MilborneOne (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅. These templates are quite useful, since they can quickly & easily produce a consistent category structure in addition to navigation, and even more useful now with the new tracking categories:


 * Speaking of which, there are currently 18 of these categories missing a parent, mostly due to missing Republic of China, Slovakian, and Austro-Hungarian category structure. I've done my best, but I'll leave it to the more experience editors here to take care of these special cases.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Tom.Reding thanks for your efforts with these changes. MilborneOne (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Slovakia errors are caused by using both "Slovak" and "Slovakian" only "Slovak" resolves in the templates properly, anybody know which is the correct one to use ? MilborneOne (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Tried to tweak the ROC/Taiwan issues but something in the Templates change Taiwan to China as in PRC - not good. MilborneOne (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Slovak" is the correct country adjectival, while "Slovakian" is the demonym. I saw this also with "United Arab Emirates aircraft" being used instead of "Emirati airraft" and corrected 3~4 categories. Can do this again for the handful of should-be-Slovak cats.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Swisspedia
Another month another article with a slightly different name: Both as usual re-directed to Swiss Air Force, suspected block evasion as the user has no other edits except to create and keep copies of these two article in user space. Appreciate others keeping an eye on this. MilborneOne (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * F/A-18 Hornet Display-Team
 * Super Puma Display-Team
 * Looks like block evasion to me. This one looks similar: Special:Contributions/Alpha_Eco - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

See also section
I've been ill for the past week and editing only sporadically, so if I missed something major, forgive me. Today,I reverted User:Petebutt's unexplained removal of the See also section from Aermacchi M-345. I was reverted here with edit summary "the S.211 is already referenced in the text and infobox, apart from that the see also section is irrelevant and no longer used see Template:WPAVIATION creator".

I have no idea what the second part of his summary is talking about. As to the fisrt part, WPAIR have always placed related and comparable links in the See also section, regardless of whether or not they are used in the article. This was basically grandfathered in when we were forced to re-do Template:Aircontent, and has never been successfully challenged. So again, I have no idea what Pete is going on about this time. - BilCat (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any change since we had the bun fight about aircontent many moons ago. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I also have no idea what he is talking about!! Have you asked him to come here and explain? - Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I pinged him above, but am not in enough control of my emotions at the moment to leave a civil message on his page. - BilCat (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If it is mandatory, why is it not included in the new aircraft article template??--Petebutt (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not mandatory, but recommended by the WP:AIR/SG style guide. I've never used the article creator, as I already know how to create an article manually. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In your own words it was forced on us, so is it necessary at all or is it not?--Petebutt (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What was forced on us (WPAIR) was a series of changes that separated Aircontent and Template:Aviation lists, and made us change a "Related content" section to be more inline with WP:SEEALSO guidelines. We were permitted to repeat links in the Aircontent fields that are unique to us (related and similar/comparable). But again, you've given no substantial reason for removing the section entirely simply because it had only one link, which is fairly normal. (It now has 5 links, btw.)  - BilCat (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * So it seems it is optional and not required, but if it is in an article you would need a pretty good reason and talk page consensus to remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Exactly my contention here. - BilCat (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd still like to see redundant links removed from See also.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's been discussed, but we don't really have a great alternative to listing those types of links (Related and Similar), which many editors believe are useful in aircraft articles. We have always thought putting them in the top infobox was too much temptation for drive-by users to load up on links. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It would not be a great loss if "similar" dissapeared ! MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The "Related aircraft" and "Similar/comparable aircraft" links where already there in August 2006 when I joined Wikipedia, so they are well entrenched in aircraft articles, and probably expected from our regular readers. Even so, I'm open to discussions about whether.they are really needed or not. They do tend to be magnets for fanpersons, and especially nationalist POV pushers, so dumping them would have some benefits. - BilCat (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The main benefits of the "similar" section seems to be avoiding "orphan" tags. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mind similar or related links too much, although there's always fussing about the exact aircraft so characterized. What shouldn't be there are redundant links because they violate MOS:OVERLINK, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It depends on which specific links are redundant, and that's where the "grandfathering" comes in. For example, on the F/A-18 article, both the YF-17 and and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are mentioned in the article and . Per WP:SEEALSO, they should not be in the See also section, but they are both there in the "Related development" field, as they are related types. However, Multirole combat aircraft is also linked in the article and the infobox, but it isn't another aircraft article, so it's not in the see also section. - BilCat (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:BilCat there. There are rules on overlinking, but we also have to do what will serve the readers best, first and foremost. Leaving out an aircraft that is related in development, just because it was mentioned in the text and thus serving up an incomplete list, isn't serving the readers. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My two penn'orth. As I understand it, many moons ago our old practices were disapproved of and we were mandated to cease. If has found some element of those old guidelines still in place, than a more detailed link and directions to their whereabouts would be much appreciated. Otherwise, we have no alternative but to assume that such claims of ongoing applicability are mistaken. But that was a negative mandate to stop doing something, no positive alternative was mandated. We fell back on the "See also" section as an option available when needed, especially for short lists of related and similar types. While these lists can attract flies, they have also proved useful and durable. They do help the reader and Wikipedia is not about favouring its editors over its readers.
 * But they were never what "See also" was intended for and are not really compatible with its guidelines: we are not supposed to duplicate any links from the article in See also, but we do. So the debate really boils down to this; what is the best way, from here on in, to present the related and similar types?
 * A more freely-floating infobox could be used, but where would it be placed? I do not think that under the lead infobox is a good place, as it is more a supplement to than a summary of the main topic. The only reliably-placed spot near the end for it would be just above the stack of link templates that tends to accumulate (oops, stay on topic, Sir!). Alternatively, the lists could go in a dedicated text section just above the See also. Both these solutions would creates a clean break between Sitewide mandates and Project requirements, which I would like to see, but I am not sure which of the two I prefer. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My original contention was that the only link in the See also section was well covered in the text and infobox, so seemed superfluous. I feel that the section can be useful but cetainly not mandatory, where links that are not used in the article could be displayed. Sub-sets like "Lists of", however, are really not needed.--Petebutt (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. I agree that it is a bad place for mini-lists, though I think the lists in question need moving elsewhere rather than deleting. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cant we just add them to the list of sections that can be in the article body, related development for example could either be a commented list or prose as required. Similar aircraft may be harder as a rule we dont do comparisons and this may just create another fanperson dumping ground. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe the less prescriptive we are the better. For example if a type was offered to some military specification, then are the other designs to that specification, from other manufacturers, "related" or "similar"? Can anybody recall the original rationale for having the two descriptors? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Related designs are derivative-type designs usually by the same manufacturer or manufacturing team. Similar aircraft are ones with "of comparable role, configuration and era" per Template:Aircontent and WP:Air/PC. Similar aircraft are generally competitors, while related designs are usually not. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that makes sense. I agree with about the fanspam problem with "similar", but I guess its a cross we have to bear. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have proposed some changes to the Layout guideline at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) comment welcome. thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: There is now a revised proposal and a new sub-thread on listing lists there. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to note following discussion the guide has been changed, the main change is that the template:aircontent is no longer used, MilborneOne (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Maintenance update to Template:Avilisthead proposed
Proposal to create some maintenance categories here. it would not affect the list display. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

New maintenance categories
Category:Aviation maintenance categories‎‎ now contains subcategories tracking usage of the various Template:Avilisthead options in lists of aircraft. Almost 50 articles currently use them. I hope it all proves useful. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

UAV: Unmanned or uncrewed?
I've been seeing a major effort recently to change "unmanned" to "uncrewed" on spacecraft-related articles, as NASA appears to be retroactively changing its usage of the terms, and it's now happening on Wikipedia also. So I've been expecting this to happen to the Unmanned aerial vehicle article at any moment.

Well, it just happened: User:Beland changed all mentions of "unmanned" to "uncrewed" in the article, with this edit summary: "unmanned -> uncrewed in appropriate places, for gender-neutral language MOS:S/HE (both terms seems to be in use to expand UAV)". I reverted with the edit summary "a major change to the lead title and usage needs to discussed beforehand on the talk page, and a consensus reached - I've know objection to listing it as an alternative name,suitably sourced, which this change wasn't, but most defense industry sources still use "unmanned", so this is not a simple change - common name still applies, and a change to that needs discussion"

I did a quick Google search on "unmanned aerial vehicle" and "uncrewed aerial vehicle", and found the former had 4 million ghits, as compared to 2 thousand for the latter! This clearly establishes "unmanned aerial vehicle" as the common name, which is my sole objection to the changes.

I expect this to be a major issue that may drag on for some time, and it will probably be fought somewhere else besides here or Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle. - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly and intentionally didn't change all mentioned of "unmanned" on that article, as in some cases it's appropriate. I've started a discussion on Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle. -- Beland (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * My apologies for misstating your changes. I have replied on the article's talk page. - BilCat (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For a while, some air forces were using "uninhabited aerial vehicles" (38 thousand hits) as well. Loopy30 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be worse and use "Unpersoned aerial vehicle". Interestingly none of the dictionary definitions consider Unmanned to be "Gendered" MilborneOne (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Manned" is certainly considered by dictionaries to be sometimes intended in a gendered way. -- Beland (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The only reference to a gendered interpretation that I can find via that wiktionary link is from a style guide which suggests avoiding the word manned. But that doesn't imply that "manned" is ever intended in a gendered way, just that it can sometimes be interpreted in a gendered way, and should therefore be avoided just in case it is misinterpreted. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not unpiloted? That gets rid of the awkward gender issue, while not creating an awkward grammatical issue, and I am sure it has been used.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Some UAVs are remotely piloted vehicles (RPV). But really, there is no "awkward grammatical issue", only a gender-bias issue in the eyes of those who choose to read "man" as unambiguously male. IMHO it is ludicrous to seek different grammatical solutions to this issue for man-powered aircraft in "human-powered" and for unmanned aircraft in "uncrewed". It's bad enough having "aircraft" replaced by "air vehicle" for the sake of a fashionable TLA (three-letter acronym). There is actually a strong policy argument that we should abandon all this WP:OFFICIAL jargon, go for their WP:COMMONNAME and call them drones. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Drones is an even better solution, particularly when some can still be manned, but normally are not, and it gets away from the American desire for everything to be acronyms.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

"Man" does not unambibuously mean "male", in this case, it is a different word for "human". Interestingly, the German word for human, "Mensch", can also refer to "girl" as opposed to "boy". But that does not render all "Menschen" female. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Old English had three forms of the word - we use the neutral (mann) and feminine (originally wif-mann) but have lost the original masculine (wer-mann) form.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)