Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 6

Old talk archived at:
 * Pre Mar 04 talk archived thematically
 * /General
 * /Strategy
 * /Table History
 * /Aircraft lists
 * /Data Table Standards
 * /Other Tables
 * /Footer
 * Airbox
 * Series


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 1 (Mar 04-Aug 04)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 2 (Aug 04)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 3 (Mar 05)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 4 (May 05)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 5 (Aug 05)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 6 (Oct 05)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

"Related content" template
I've put together a simple template for the related content section - it's pretty nonstandard, and the old one is a huge black table. This combines the newer format we decided on a while ago with the ability to change everything at once. Also, it includes the Aviation lists template. Commons templates are best placed directly under the Related content header. The template isn't meant for everything, as it includes designation sequence, but oftentimes we leave that blank anyway. It's only been added to a dozen or so articles (Airbus and DHC), so if any changes are requested (like the option to disable designation series as well as links) then either mention it or do it soon! -eric &#9992; 00:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to support Eric's idea. To help implement it, I am proposing an update to Template:Airfooter that works around the framework of Eric's template.  You can view the difference here.   Ingoolemo   talk  21:28, 2005 August 2 (UTC)


 * I've updated the original template to include toggles for everything but 'similar aircraft', and Ingoolemo added fields for related list and 'see also' sections. It's easy to use, easy to update, and I'm going to be using it in any articles I update or create from here on out. Just an FYI ;]. Anyway, I don't see why we can't have two versions - Aircontent and Airfooter - with slightly different layouts cooexisting. As long as we get rid of that black box, I think most of us will be happier, and if the specifics are slightly different, well at least they can both be update-able templates! -eric &#9992; 22:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Transport Aircraft article?
Anyone know what happened to this? It seems to have disappeared, and only one edit remains from 2003 (4), which has no content. Admittedly it might be better placed under "Cargo Aircraft", but that's missing too!

Maury 13:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's extremely bizarre. Maybe it got eaten last 'pedia upgrade? I could have sworn I've linked to it in blue for a while, but that's possibly because it redirects. -eric &#9992; 20:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with what was there before, but its disappearance is weird. I've checked the deletion log and a few other admin tools with no luck. Perhaps this should be brought to the attention of a developer? -Lommer | talk 04:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote count
Remember to throw out the votes cast by ineligible voters! Gene Nygaard 12:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

New specs template
I have created a specifications template at User:Ingoolemo/Airspec-imp that should work for almost every aircraft we have. At User:Ingoolemo/Airspec demo, I have used it to make the specs for the Boeing 787, a jet-powered airliner; the Convair B-36, a heavily armed bomber powered by both jets and props; and the CH-47 Chinook, a cargo helicopter. Despite the very different planes involved, I was able to successfully create a template that could be adjusted to suit the specs of each one. This is an extremely flexible template.

By the way, I intend to rename the parametres to maximise clarity for new editors. It will be tough to type the template out from memory, so I created User:Ingoolemo/Airspec-imp-help, that can be substituted to provide a framework for use of the template.

Thoughts, comments, questions, capuccino? Ingoolemo  talk  07:02, 2005 August 3 (UTC)


 * Drop the use of bold text - save it for emphasis. GraemeLeggett 07:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel the bold usefully separates the parameter from the data. Nice work, I hadn't been able to get mine working with helicopters! :) I would consider revising the mixmaster powerplant line like so - slightly more space used, but less awkward with the (jet) and (prop):


 * Powerplant:
 * 6× Pratt & Whitney R-4360-53 'Wasp Major' radial engines
 * 4× General Electric J47 turbojets
 * again, great work. -eric &#9992; 07:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have implemented Eric's suggestion, mainly for &aelig;sthetic r&aelig;sons. Because very few planes are powered by both jets and props, the difference won't be very visible.

The original table had a line for 'Avionics', which we dropped because it was almost never used, and just left a big blank space in the table. In my proposed template, the 'Avionics' line could be toggled on and off, so if it wasn't used it would be invisible rather than blank. Is anyone opposed to reinserting it.

In reply to Graeme (comment above regarding boldface): the template I'm proposing follows the current/future standard as closely as possible. I don't want to tweak the standards until a discussion takes place.

I am going to add hidden comments that will tell editors how to answer. This will make it easier for newcomers to understand what's going on with the template. Clarity is paramount.

Again, please comment on the addition of an avionics field. Ingoolemo  talk  22:09, 2005 August 4 (UTC)


 * Another thing: when and if this template is accepted as the standard, I think it's history should be merged with Template:Airspec-imp. Originally, I intended to do the test on that template, so they're probably pretty much the same template.   Ingoolemo   talk  22:40, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Archiving
This talkpage is now 94 kilobytes long. I think it's time to archive everything up to the == Related content template == section. Ingoolemo  talk  22:40, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Improvement drive
The article on Transportation is currently nominated on This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

recent infobox additions to Boeing series?
User:Dbinder has recently added a "civil aircraft infobox" to the Boeing 787 as well as some others like the 767 and 707. It initially completely duplicated the old infoboxes, in addition to the list at the bottom, and he has apparently not checked in with the project at all despite my request for him to do so. I removed the infobox from the 787 and 767 articles, citing page layout reasons in this case, and it was reinstalled by an anonymous user — who claimed i had vandalized the 787 article — and User:Deniss, respectively.

This is a parallel set of users, it seems, focusing on airliners, and Dbinder hasn't replied to my comments in any way. If someone else would like to try and work this out, that would be great, as apparently my thousand or so aircraft edits don't lend my reasons or pleas any credence. Or maybe I'm coming off as an asshole. Either way, would someone be willing to lend a hand? I'm not going to revert these articles, instead pointing to WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content on the talk pages, and hope that they'll see reason. Also, that color of green - what the hell? -eric &#9992; 00:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see you have chosen to attack me here as well. I'm sorry, Your Majesty, that I didn't respond to your comments quickly enough to please you. I've spent most of my time on WikiProject Airlines and haven't really participated in the aircraft one. I happened upon the 767 article while updating the United Airlines article, and thought a summary infobox could be useful. If you're pissed off that someone called you a vandal, take it up with them. I made no attempt to restore the infobox after its removal. Dbinder 14:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I also didn't remove the infobox after its restoration, and I apologize if I've come off as an asshole. Good to see I'm some kind of evil wikiproject monarch, though. I thought that would take longer. See User talk:Dbinder for my actual reply. -eric &#9992; 16:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Amen. The conflict has been more-or-less resolved. Dbinder 17:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Air* templates
I notice there is a great deal of new work being done on air templates of one kind or another. I'd like to put my expertise in service here, but I'm not entirely sure what the participants here want to do and why. I'm pretty sure your goals can be achieved using methods more consonant with the larger Project.

Talk to me. Thank You! &mdash; Xiong&#29066; talk* 16:07, 2005 August 17 (UTC)


 * Longer discussion can be found at /Template.  Ingoolemo   talk  19:46, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Solution to PS/kgf issues
The specs survey seems to indicate opposition to the inclusion of measurements in PS (Pferdest&auml;rke) and kgf (kilogram-force). For those of you who don't remember, these are the measurements used by Germany and the Soviet Union, respectively, when testing engines.

Though I don't think they should be included in the standard list, I believe it is possible to reference the original measurements (PS and kgf) by using &#123;{Ref}} and &#123;{Note}}. For the engine power of applicable aircraft (older Soviet and German planes), we include a footnote, which says 'Originally measured as 1,200 PS' or something like that.

Comments? Ingoolemo  talk  18:27, 2005 August 19 (UTC)


 * I think that idea is brilliant &mdash; can't believe I didn't think of it myself. :-) -Lommer | talk 22:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Objection. There was no consensus on either of those issues.
 * That vote was also presented as a preliminary vote for narrowing our focus.
 * What ever happened to the analysis of the voting which we were promised? Gene Nygaard 10:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Gene, no need to get your panties in a knot - Ingoolemo was merely floating an idea for a solution to what was clearly a contentious issue. If you don't like it, explain why so that we can move forward constructively. That survey was useful, and I too would be interested in seeing the results so that we can move forward on those issues that were agreed upon, but it doesn't mean we can't entertain new solutions in the meantime. -Lommer | talk 22:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * To Gene: So far as I understand it, the debate over the inclusion of PS and kgf measurements centred around whether and when they should be included in the standard specs, which would probably look something like this: nnnn kgf (xxxx kN, zzzz lbf) . Such a format did not succeed (see survey results).  However, the footnote solution I propose above should offend no one.  Footnotes are meant primarily to provide information about the sources of our information.  In the case of Soviet jets and German props, the primary source documents would use kgf and PS, which should be noted with a footnote.  An example of the footnote format is thus: xxxx kN [#endnote_units]  (zzzz lbf)   Ingoolemo   talk  01:05, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

Notes
 * 1) ^  Originally measured as zzzz kgf.