Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content/Archive 3

Appendices
I recently corrected the level of the appendix section headings from level 3 headings (===References===) to level 2 headings (==References==) to comply with WP:LAYOUT at Messerschmitt Bf 109 reverted it with the edit summary that the section headings complied with this project page.

Does this project intend to contradict the general style guidelines on this point? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The guideline actually doesnt lay out the format for the Notes, Footnotes, or References section as it says it depends on which citation style you use and also note from the guide you qoute It is inappropriate to change an article from one defined citation style to another unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And "compliance with a Wikipedia-wide guideline" is 'mere choice of style'? Note that I've not changed the style of the citations (from, for example, inline refs to Harvard), just how they are listed in the table of contents.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly how I read WP:Layout (although it may have changed) the current setup complies with LAYOUT on standard appendices (i.e. L2 headings for "See also", "Notes and References" (or whatever you wany to call it) and "External links", with the notes, bibliography etc bits as PART of the "Notes and references section".Nigel Ish (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. References, notes, footnotes are all lumped in one group of "references". -Fnlayson (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The only point of deviation I can see is that the general guideline now calls for "Further reading" to be an L2 and separate from the referencing section. This would be because the guideline here has not kept in sync with changes from upstream. I'll update our copy here, and do the same in the Me 109 article.
 * As for the rest of what's in the Me 109 article, it's neither mandated here nor disallowed by the general guideline, as far as I can see. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to all that User:WhatamIdoing has moved the discussion over here. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

List of online resources
A few weeks ago I saw a reference to a WP list of free online aviation resources - but can I find it now? Would someone please tell me where I saw it? Many thanks! --TraceyR (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be this at the bottom of the 'notability' page? I was in there last night. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    11:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also maintain a cryptically-coded list of shortcuts at the bottom of my user page that others may find useful :) --Rlandmann (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both! Yes, I thinks that the notability page list was what I had seen. My reason for asking was w.r.t. an email I received from Flightglobal, since I had asked them about the copyright situation of early issues of Flight maintained in their amazing PDF archive. This is such a useful resource and one which ought to be in the list too. As far as I can tell, there is no direct WP reference to the archives (there is also a database of photos right back to the early days) anywhere, although of course many articles use and cite the flightglobal archives.
 * It seems that a WP article was created for Flightglobal.com, but which was soon deleted. I have suggested adding a paragraph about the archives to the Flight International article. Any thoughts? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What did the email say? Anything published prior to 1923 can be uploaded to en.wikipedia, since it is in the public domain in the United States, where the servers are located (and should be tagged PD-US. However, nothing from the archive should be uploaded to wikimedia commons, since to be eligible there, it has to be out of copyright everywhere in the world, which will not generally be the case for material from early issues of Flight. --Rlandmann (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor, Barbara Cockburn, will be posting on the (aviation?) project talk page soon, so a discussion can follow on from that. --TraceyR (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to get their blessing, I use old Flight images, often the only source, all tagged 'non-free fair use' and used only once in their parent articles and have not had a problem (so far!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    12:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to locate a record of the deletion of e.g. Flightglobal.com - are such logs held anywhere? It seems that Flightglobal.com is not Flight International's website (as the article currently states) but is an entity within Reed Business Information Ltd (or similar), separate from but also encompassing Flight International's PDF archive. The copyright issue was the original reason for my email to Flightglobal; the reply today was more about Flightglobal and its article on WP. Once contact has been established with the project, we can ask about other issues. Flightglobal is very keen to make itself and its resources known to aviation buffs and the general public. --TraceyR (talk)


 * Flightglobal.com and Flight International are directly connected or owned by the same parent company. Some articles on the site, along with archives and subscriptions pages are labeled Flight International. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this reply to my original email will serve to indicate the approach adopted by Flightglobal:"'Thanks for the email regarding our unique 100-year PDF archive. The images within the pages of Flight are indeed still covered by the standard Flight Copyright agreements and are licensed for reuse only with our permission. However our intention when we undertook the project to scan and upload this unique record of aviation history was to provide an open-access resource for everyone interested in aviation. The only exception would be if the Flight Archive were being exploited for obvious commercial benefit, in which case we retain the right to refuse the reuse of archive material by any third party. In the case of Wikipedia I would be happy for the Flight Archive content to be used to support historical and current information as long as the Flightglobal Archives are credited and linked to. In fact I wonder whether there is an opportunity to make more use of our images and PDFs. I’m thinking particularly of historical aircraft types, events and famous aviators and people involved in aviation. If it would help I’m happy to coordinate the classification of our content to enable you to more easily find supporting material for wikipedia entries. Please let me know if you wish to further explore this potential avenue.'"Obviously with WP there is no one person or entity which can commit the whole of WP or the project, but there does seem to be a genuine wish to see the Flightglobal resource used as widely as possible. Can photos etc be uploaded into article namespace without Flightglobal losing its copyright for other, commercial, uses? --TraceyR (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the faces of the Flightglobal editorial team after collecting some gongs. --TraceyR (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They look like they enjoy their jobs and what a great attitude, a breath of fresh air. We are meeting their wishes already as you say, nice to know that they support the intent of Wikipedia. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Their attitude is very encouraging! The problem, unfortunately, is that Wikipedia can't accept their "no commercial use" stipulation. Every image that we host has to be free for anyone to take from Wikipedia and reuse for any purpose (subject to their local laws). Their other stipulation (that Flightglobal be credited as the source) is no problem; it's a requirement of our GFDL anyway.

This is perhaps an opportune moment to point out the difference between copyright and licensing. The person (or company) that owns the copyright to a piece of work gets to say who reproduces that work and under what circumstances: that is, they licence the work to somebody else. If I take a photo and somebody wants to put it on a postcard, I might agree to licence them to do that (in return for a certain amount of money, and under the condition that they only have this permission for 18 months and only to sell those postcards within the European Union, because I want to licence the material to somebody else to sell within the United States).

When we contribute our own text or images to Wikipedia, we retain the copyright to the piece of work, but we publish it (via Wikipedia) under a licence (the GFDL) that says that we are happy for anyone else to take that material and republish it anywhere for any purpose whatsoever. The only right that we reserve is the right to be acknowledged as the creator of the work, which is why the arrangement suggested above (which amounts to licencing Wikipedia to use the material and licencing third parties to reuse it for non-commercial purposes) is incompatible with our licencing.

As far as "fair use" goes; current Wikipedia policy allows Wikipedia editors to reuse other people's copyright work without seeking that person's permission under a set of very limited circumstances, in the belief that this is compatible with the "fair use" provisions of US copyright law. I personally have two misgivings about doing so.

First, in any circumstance where the image is not specifically a publicity image, it seems to show very little respect for the intellectual property of others ("we'll use your image whether you like it or not, without even asking your permission, because we feel we can get away with it legally") and second, whether it's a promotional image or not, when we use an image under "fair use" we fail in our fundamental mission of creating a free encyclopedia that anyone can reuse for any purpose. Indeed, the inclusion of a professional photo of a subject can only serve as a disincentive to somebody providing a free (but probably lower-quality) image. For the purposes of illustrating an aircraft or an aero engine, there really is no reason ever to invoke "fair use"; a drawing, a photo of a model, or a computer-generated image would serve to "illustrate the subject in question" just as well. The fair use provision requires that no image could be created that conveys the same information – not merely that creating such an image would be difficult or inconvenient or we don't think the result would be of the same quality... OK! Rant over! :) --Rlandmann (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

PS- please don't anybody take that personally - it's not aimed at anyone in particular, but at a practice that's perfectly allowed by current policy, but which I think is very problematic...


 * I should probably add that you don't need anyone's permission to read a work someone has written and then use the information from it (not the exact words) to write an article and then cite the original as the source. Under US copyright law (and most others, too) "information" cannot be copyrighted, only actual exact words can be. - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi - it's great to see this debate going on and thanks for your kind words about Flightglobal and the team. We’re working hard to bring a different and more modern approach to web publishing in the interests of positively serving the aviation community.
 * There are two issues here. Firstly the deletion of the entry – Flightglobal; and secondly the use of unique Flight Archive material on Wikipedia (and subsequent reuse).
 * The first issue I believe has been raised by my Content Editor – Barbara Cockburn – and the essence of the matter is that although Flightglobal is the web presence for Flight International magazine, importantly it is not just that. Flight International is a magazine aimed at the informed aerospace industry, providing updates on technical developments and operational thinking. Flightglobal is a website for all people involved in all aspects of aviation and aerospace. That therefore includes the Flight International audience and subject matter, but also takes the product out on its own. For example Flightglobal is also the website for Airline Business magazine (aimed at airline CEOs), Flight Insight (senior decision makers), Flight Events (airline marketers), ACAS (analysts), ATI (air transport management) and CAO (lessors) – all products from the Flight portfolio using Flightglobal as their front end. The intention of creating a Wikipedia entry for the site was to provide that information and to describe some of the more community-oriented aspects of the site such as our 100 year Archive.
 * As such I would appreciate it if the entry was reinstated and that a discussion could be forthcoming over what content was appropriate and what wasn’t.


 * Secondly, let me reconfirm the words that have been posted above. We fundamentally view the content within our 100 year Archive as a resource for the use of all people interested in the history of aviation, and at this point in time we are not looking to commercialise the content (other than the occasional banner advert). We are also excited about the chance to augment Wikipedia entries with content and images taken from this archive. And the good news is that the vast majority of the archive images have yet to be scanned in so it can only grow and grow. So the project is ongoing but the uniqueness of some of the images and reports makes it a thoroughly worthwhile project.
 * However I would be negligent in my current responsibility as custodian of that unique content to not control its use in a way that protects my company’s unique assets. I acknowledge and embrace the change that the internet has brought about to the sharing and collaboration of knowledge, but not all people in publishing share this way of thinking, and I think I would be naive to believe Flight copyrighted material wouldn’t be repurposed for commercial gain if that point was not made clear wherever it were used.
 * I would ask whether there is an opportunity to implement something akin to Flickr’s creative commons agreement that provides the option to select different CC licensing according to the wishes of the Copyright holder. I have copied and pasted here for ease of reference:
 * Attribution means:
 * You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work - and derivative works based upon it - but only if they give you credit.
 * Noncommercial means:
 * You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work - and derivative works based upon it - but for noncommercial purposes only.
 * No Derivative Works means:
 * You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.
 * Share Alike means:
 * You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.


 * I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these matters. Thank you for your time. Michael Targett, Editor - Flightglobal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.25.22 (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for taking the time to post here, Michael, and for sharing Flightglobal's position with us. It's very exciting to have input directly from such a major provider of content. Flightglobal has proved to be an invaluable resource for researching and referencing Wikipedia articles on aviation topics.
 * With regard to a Wikipedia article on Flightglobal: in order to show that any topic is noteworthy enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires references to that topic by third parties. Are you aware of any coverage that the flightglobal website has received in third-party sources? That's what we will need in order to reinstate the article.
 * Regarding the use of images, the freedom of our readers to use Wikipedia's material for whatever purpose whatsoever (including commercial use) is absolutely fundamental to this project (it is the third of the "five pillars"), and the CC-BY-NC-ND licence you propose above is incompatible with this fundamental aim. Since this philosophy underpins the whole of Wikipedia (not just the aircraft project), there's no real chance of this changing.
 * So, while we won't be able to take you up on your generous offer of using images from the archive, hopefully, we'll be able to reinstate the article on Flightglobal if some references to it by third parties come to light.
 * In the meantime, Flightglobal may consider publishing a notice on the website itself noting that the images are available under the CC-BY-NC-ND licence. This would allow other people and projects that do not share Wikipedia's unusually broad licencing requirements to reproduce the images freely. Cheers, and thanks again, --Rlandmann (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Michael, I just started using the PDF archive in creating and updating some articles on aeroengines, and it has been a great help to browse the archives. I think just the fact that we cite from your archives will let people know what is available, to some extent.


 * I do have a compromise suggestion regarding the photo archives that might be worth considering at some point: Has your company considered releasing a portion of the photo archives into public domain? Good photos of older or rare aircraft are always hard to find, and even a small amount of photos into PD might be enough to help generate more interest in the other archives. There may be legal obstacles to doing that, but if it could be done, I do think it would help to put out the word about your site's archives. Just a thought. - BillCJ (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the compromise. I'll speak to my publishing team about selecting a gallery of historical images - it's probably more beneficial for Wikipedia that the majority of those are the more rare pioneering aviation images from the 1909 - 1919. Some of the images we hold are very interesting and would be of terrific value to Wikipedia users. As an example this image here shows legendary British aviator A.V.Roe walking away from just surviving a crash in his Avro No. 1 Triplane. A truly unique image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtargettuk (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok - we'll set up some sort of free copyright/licensing gallery but it might take a little while to initiate - we've got tonnes of other projects on at the moment.
 * However one thing I am happy to do from this moment on is agree the reuse on Wikipedia of any material from the actually PDFs in the archive (as long as there is a credit and link back to the original). By this I mean that any reference in the text can be used and importantly any of the images replicated in the PDFs can be used. It's not a perfect solution as there would have to be an element of screen grabbing the images and saving and formatting etc ... However the images in many cases would still enhance a large number of Wikipedia entries and, from my point of view, the images are obviously not of a high enough resolution to be reused in print by a random commercial entity. Mtargettuk (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I for one think that this is a fantastic development! Thanks to Michael and his team for the above commitment and also for making images grabbed from the PDF archive freely available for use in WP articles. Brilliant!
 * Would it be a sensible step for a project member (with the required skills, which rules me out!) to create a Flightglobal citation template, so that we get a standardised and complete form of citation/attribution of Flightglobal sources? At present I have a text file template which I fill out, and I imagine that others may do the same, so a WP template might simplify matters.
 * What can be done about an article about Flightglobal. I can see no objection in principle, since e.g. Flight International and Nature (journal) have their own articles, and Flightglobal, as Michael has pointed out, is far more than the web presence of Flight International. I suppose that there is the risk of it looking like an advertisement, but it would be up to us to ensure its neutrality. Any suggestions, ideas? --TraceyR (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(Undent)The existing citation template was discussed very recently on the engine page here but there are apparently some problems with it in its current format. Also agree that this is a fantastic offer, I assume that some kind of specific release statement might have to be lodged at Commons unless it is ok to refer back here. I don't see a problem with the article being resurrected or re-created assuming that it meets all the usual Wikipedia criteria, am not familiar with the website myself other than reading the PDF archives. I believe that admins can see the content of deleted articles, not sure on that though. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cant see any evidence that Flightglobal.com was created only Flightglobal which had the text -

"Flightglobal.com is the leading online news and information provider for the aviation and aerospace industries as well as serving as the community hub for the numerous distinct communities within the aviation and aerospace industry.

It is affiliated to Flight International magazine, Airline Business magazine, Air Transport Intelligence, ACAS, Commercial Aviation online and Flight Daily News

Flightglobal.com is edited by Michael Targett who writes an Editor's Blog charting the site's hot content and new developments."

So it really needs references etc and notability established to be re-created. Need to look for non-Flight mentions of the website. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just created Flightglobal.com appreciate help in adding references etc MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have left a comment at Template talk:Cite flightglobal about a possible citation template for the Flight International archive. It's perhaps the wrong place, hence this mention here.--TraceyR (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Nimbus that (the contents of) this thread need(s) to be made available for future reference. Would it be a good idea for at least Michael's suggestions/commitments to be made permanent (non-archivable) for future reference? --TraceyR (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
I don't see how the In Popular culture sections apply to the avoid trivia part of wikipedia since they meet "being grouped into a type", which makes it not trivia. Also the wording seems to promote the removal of information by using the trivia guidelines which say they are a style guideline, not a basis for the removal of information.

I think this policy needs to be updated to be more in line with the rest of wikipedia and link to more appropriate pages. I think the following pages will be useful in doing this:


 * %22In_popular_culture%22_articles
 * Notability
 * WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Popular_culture
 * Notability_(in_popular_culture) (failed but good talk page)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Helicopters_in_popular_culture

I would like to think that moving these things to a Airplanes in Pop or Helicoptor in Pop would make it so that these things can be discussed in one place instead of argued on each planes page but the deletion of the helicoptors in popular culture page seems to indicate that may not work(I'm new to concensus but I don't quite understand where the concensus was their). Be Bold In Edits (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Essentially the guidelines for this project cited at WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content have been arrived at through many discussions amongst project members here and on the main talk page. They have really become restrictive over time to prevent aircraft type articles from being junked up with tons of video game Fancruft that is non-notable and adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the aircraft type's history. I don't know if that fully addresses your question? For info on consensus, have a look at WP:consensus - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture (again)
Following on from continual discussion at F-35 can the Popular culture text be changed to the following or similar, it adds the concept of real aircraft and non-real aircraft:

''A "Popular culture" section should be avoided per Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable.. This section should not be a compendium of every trivial appearance, but significant ones of relevance to the airframe. The canonical example would be Top Gun for the F-14 Tomcat. Notable appearances in media of real aircraft should be judged on their merits. Anything else related to non-real aircraft (simulations, artifacts, games, fantasy etc) are not notable to the real aircraft and should not be included. Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses should not be included, as they constitute original research''

Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kinda pet peeve for many editors but this descriptor sounds reasonable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC).


 * I think tightening up the wording and be clearer about what is not allowed will do. I suggest rewording like this:
 * A "Popular culture" section should be avoided per Avoid trivia sections in articles unless the appearances are especially notable. This section is only for appearances that are significant to the aircraft. The canonical example is Top Gun for the F-14 Tomcat. Trivial appearances, and appearances in computer games are considered non-notable.  Fictional versions and speculation about fictional likenesses are not to be included, as they constitute original research.
 * Some non-real aircraft appearances should be OK imo, like a simulator game dedicated to particular aircraft type. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with most of Jeff's take, should flight simulators be automatically notable without references attesting to that notability? That's how they are treated to this point, and they are the only media so treated in these sections. - BillCJ (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While I think that $5 million dollar full flight simulators may be notable I am not sure that the microsoft type games (and they are really games otherwise airlines would not buy the real simulators). What Jeff removed from my version was related to the difference between real aircraft appearances (films, novels) and non-real aircraft (simulations, artifacts, games, fantasy etc) because that I believe is the point missed by the fancruft editors who think that transformers et al are real aircraft! MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)\


 * The key of course is references - a flight simulator would still need reliable sourcing that allows notability to be asserted - it will happen occasionally - one example could be the old Eurofighter simulator, which was used as a low cost training aid by the RAF. It would probably be helpful to add a note stressing that such tangental subjects need to be at least as well sourced as the rest of the article should be.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are $5 million dollar full flight simulators likely to be itms worthy of mention in a pop-culture section? I usually see items like Microsoft and Jane's listed in these sections, and that's what I was referring to. The airline types are genuine training products,a nd if notable, would be mentioned elsewhere in the text, I would think. For the most part, the average crufter doesn't bother reading the notes at all. These are here mainly for defining the consensus on the issue when problems do come up, so that regular WP editors, admins, mediators,and arbitrators know where we stand on this. Even in the recent discussions on several articles (F-35, SR-71, MH-53, and CH-53E - all transformers related), not one of these appearences has been discussed before it was added, as the hidden notes clearly ask to be done. Even those that bother to have discussions generally think there is some bias against games or movies, even when the underlying WP is fully explained to them in simple English. I'd still rather just get rid of these sections altogether, as they cause far more problems then they are worth. Then we wouldn't have to waste our time explaining why movie A is "allowed", but games B, C, D, E, and F are not. BillCJ (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There was an over-long discussion about a month ago, probably on the F-35 page, about a movie's inclusion and a game's exclusion. The crufter's main argument was that the game was "more popular" than the movie, all based on the section's title! Perhaps we ought to consider renaming the sections something like Notable appearances in medis, or the like. - BillCJ (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I should have realised that full flight simulators are not popular culture! I think the F-35 problem was caused because when the original CGI film came out I dont think we had a real aircraft flying - so it was notable then but I am not sure it has long term notability. I like BillCJs idea about removing the popular culture header (never really sure what popular culture actually is!) and use something like you notable appearance in media suggestion. Still need to define what is media and we could still have problems with fictional transformer films. MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Flags
We have a user adding flags to the infobox national origin field, the guideline does not actually mention flags but I understand the consensus and precedent is not to use flags. I will add some text about it if nobody objects. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. That seems to fall under decorative use at MOS:ICON.  We should add something about formatting nicknames and NATO codenames (like in quotes or italics to clarify). -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I have added a flag bit to infobox and added a bit about alternate names, if is not right then I am sure somebody will fix it soon! MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents, 2
Like to change the header Incidents to Accidents and incidents which in practice is what we normally use and it lines up with the categories etc. Also allow us to have a child article Foo accidents and incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Which would line up nicely with Aviation accidents and incidents, it should have been 'accidents' anyway as they are more notable than 'incidents'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Maybe list "Accidents and incidents" (or optional "Accidents") then to allow for tighter criteria for some articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, I have tweaked the page. I have also added a bit about sub-articles and consistent naming linking the parent article to the sub-article. Feel free to revert or change if anybody is not happy with it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think something should be mentioned about summarizing and possibly trimming non-notable content before the sub page part. I would not want to see "Foo sub page" articles created from overly long and uncited content from an aircraft article.  Mentioning WP:Summary style may cover it. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Operating cost
On the basis of the discussion about whether operating cost information should be included or not I will add some words to this project page. If any other editors think it can be said more clearly, please do fix up my language! - Ahunt (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ludicrous to try to compare the issue of whether to include operating costs on a Cessna 150 versus the issue of whether to include operating costs on a much more politically and economically significant project such as F-22 Raptor. The former are generally private aircraft operated by private owners, whereas in the latter case, US taxpayers are being asked to entrench themselves deeper into an eleven trillion-dollar national debt for much more notable, astronomical operating costs of a military aircraft of questionable public need, and questionable public good.  The former aircraft might have glossy company marketing hype aimed at a private pilots wallet, while the latter aircraft has an entire military-industrial complex behind it, hoping to persuade folks in Congress.  Consider that major, "mainstream," fact-checked news media organizations, e.g. The Washington Post, have been reporting on the issue.  If well-sourced, such edits as to operating costs can help make articles on higher-profile military aircraft more useful and encyclopedic, what's the problem?  Remember WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:SOURCES means something here in these aircraft/public expenditure articles doesn't it?  Critical Chris   20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you may be confusing "program costs" with "operating costs". Military aircraft program costs include the total cost of procurement of military hardware. These figures can generally be sourced, because they are published in government budget documents. There is no problem including these as long as you have reliable references. Operating costs refers to the $/hour figures often quoted for typical civil aircraft. The consensus was to avoid including these because they are notoriously unreliable, specific to one time and place, become quickly out of date and are often politically motivated (for instance even two years ago an aircraft type club was claiming that a particular type of aircraft could be operated for US$50, when even double that number was unrealistic - this was done to get more people buying them, flying them and joining the club - hence not a reliable reference.) Military aircraft generally do not have reliable operating costs published (ie $/hour) because they have so many buried program costs as to make the actual cost per hour unknowable. At one time the Canadian Forces published "recovery costs", which is what they billed other government departments for providing aircraft, but these costs were simply taken from civil cost estimates and barely covered the cost of fuel and the crews. So if you have sourced costs for program such as the F-22 then by all means put them in the appropriate article, but if you have an aircraft manufacturer who claims their single engine aircraft can be operated for $20 per hour then please don't bother. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the changes Ahunt wants to make, I dont think operating costs are encyclopedic. It would be constrained by time, operating costs today may be different then next week and also location. Operating a Tiger Moth in 1950 in Australia would be different from Argentina. If you add some words we can always tidy it up. As you say it is nothing to do with military programme/program costs. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually these changes were made a year ago, as per the first comment dated 28 July 2008, it is just that the User:Critical Chris moved the conversation from higher up on the page, down here when he added the second comment above. Perhaps it should be moved back before it confuses more people? - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to moving this back higher up, as you can see here, we have a volley going, and I believe we should let other editors weigh in on this issue...even if consensus was reached a year ago. Consider that many game changers have affected the US treasury in the last year, such as the Cash for Trash bank bailout plan, Obama's re-branded 19 month occupation of Iraq that was originally supposed to be only 16 months when he was on the campaign trail last summer, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus package), changes to the bond market, etc.  We'd be remiss not to consider the notability of costs to taxpayers of high profile military aircraft programs on the pork chopping block these days.   Critical Chris   20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The F-22 costs involved are maintenance/repair costs and are quoted on a per flight hour basis. The main source is article "Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings: F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing". -Fnlayson (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * With those kinds of sources and that sort of issue I don't have a problem with that being included in the F-22 article. Really what the previous issue was involved not using biased, one place/one time, highly suspect and perishable light aircraft operating cost numbers, since they were very unreliable and added nothing useful to the articles. Perhaps we need to amend the page to indicate that for military aircraft programs with reliable third-party arms-length sources (ie not manufacturers or aircraft type clubs) that is acceptable. It really was about using reliable refs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur sir, and would support said changes to project aircraft guidelines to affect inclusion of operating costs for military aircraft. At the present, efforts on my part, and on the part of several editors, to include such costs in the F-22 Raptor article are being reverted wholesale, using current project aircraft guidelines to defend such reverts.   Critical Chris   20:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I see your problem then. Let's wait a day or so for any further input and, if not, I will amend the guidelines based on this new consensus. Incidentally it is not usual to move a thread in a discussion on a talk page, but it is normal to add to it where it is. - Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure that the cost of operating military (or any article) aircraft should be part the guideline. In most cases like the F-22 it is being added to make a point and as such should be assesed at individual article level that it is not only reliable but any POV aspects before it is added (And I dont have a opinion on that particular case). So I dont support it as a global requirement in this guideline, although this guideline shouldnt stop it being added by local article consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That was kind of what I had in mind, to make it permissive. How is this for a proposed new text:
 * "Information on aircraft operating costs should not be included in civil aircraft type articles, for the following reasons: ... In the case of military aircraft articles operating costs may be included if supported by reliable third party references. The use of manufacturer-provided or other POV/biased operating cost numbers should be avoided."
 * - Ahunt (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good so far. A plain reading of your draft wording seems congruent with WP:SOURCES.  Critical Chris   21:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry, but why does anybody here think “operating costs” for the military are any more straightforward than for civil aircraft? Frankly, there isn’t even a standard way to report them.  Depending on which service or which organization within a service is reporting them, they may include or exclude different things, such as POL (petroleum, oil, lubricants) or personnel or higher-level maintenance (including scheduled overhaul).  Operating costs are quite variable even in the same aircraft model fleet.  Even flight-line-level maintenance OCs vary by base, optempo, sparing practices, repair procedures, reporting practices, equipment availability (particularly electronic test equipment), ambient conditions (such as environments with heavy dust, sand, humidity, ice, or saltwater air).  I have seen two USAF depots supporting the same type and model aircraft reporting for the same periods quite different OCs which fluctuated independently.  Fighters, being more complicated pieces of machinery, also tend to vary more than, say, airlifters or trainers.  Some of the factors are nonlinear, too:  optempo goes up dramatically if combat is involved, but within certain bounds, more frequent use can actually lower maintenance manhours per flight hour for a period of time.  If you don’t have access to information on how the reporting source prepared the information and what it included, you don’t know whether its OCs can be compared apples-to-apples to another source’s OC – or even a different set of data reported by the same organization.


 * Reporting one OC for an aircraft type would be like giving one temperature for a day – with no information on whether it was a high or low or median; was normal, high or low for that time of year and latitude; included a wind chill factor; was taken in direct sunlight or shade; or is given in Celsius or Fahrenheit. If an OC were to be used in an article for a given aircraft, it should be cited to an operator (i.e., the country and service) and from a source explaining how it was derived.  (Note:  This would include a report from an analytical organization like Rand, CRS, etc. which was drawing upon operator-supplied data.)  Comparing data from different sources would be OR.  This would limit any comparative discussions to information from one source.  Askari Mark (Talk) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Comparing data from different sources would be OR." Askari Mark, are you asserting that the presentation in military aircraft articles of properly sourced operating cost data from different sources, in a balanced fashion, would consititute WP:OR?  Critical Chris   07:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m not quite sure how one goes about presenting apples-and-oranges data “in a balanced fashion”, but let me give an example of what I meant. Imagine one had a source X that reported an OC of $33k/FH for airplane A and a source Y that gave $11k/FH for airplane B.  Stating (or implying) that the OC for Airplane A is three times that for Airplane B would be OR, not “simple math” – unless one had information that confirmed they were measured the same way.  Lacking that, we don’t know that the OC given for Airplane A includes POL and personnel costs while that reported elsewhere for Airplane B contains neither.  The “original contribution” would be based on the (in this case incorrect) assumption that they were measured the same.  In a way, this is like dealing with the price to buy an aircraft; however, with purchases there are descriptors (like “unit flyaway” and “unit procurement” costs) which clarify what is included, whereas there is nothing similar for operating costs.  If the data is obtained from the operator (or a source that has had access to the operator’s records), then one can compare them.  Askari Mark (Talk) 01:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Askari Mark brings up a good additional point about why we decided to not use operating costs previously: even if the data is non-biased you can never know what they are counting. Even civil aircraft manufacturers often quote "direct operating costs", often meaning just fuel, oil and engine overhaul, but ignoring hangarage, insurance, paint, ADs, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance costs, etc. These are marketing numbers only and provide no useful information about how much an aircraft actually costs to run. Likewise the Washington Post article doesn't detail what is included in its hourly numbers, so you can't compare it to anything. Do they include the cost of hangarage, including heat and light or is that absorbed by the base? Do they include programmed mid-life upgrade costs for budgeted but unfunded proposed upgrades? Do they include fleet management costs? Do they include salary costs for maintenance crews and aircrew or are those borne by another department? I think you can see the problems with these numbers - even if one number can be quoted from a reliable unbiased source they cannot be reliably compared with numbers from any other source or even the same source at a different point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Example template units
User:SkyBon repeatedly keeps changing the units in the example template from imperial (metric) to metric (imperial) and has now been reverted by a number of editors a total of six times. Since the templates are convertible to show either system as primary and the other as secondary, based on the country and thus standard of manufacture and since the majority of aircraft built in the world today are built to the imperial standard this makes no sense to change this example template and borders on simple POV vandalism. Rather than continuing to edit war on this page please state your reasons here and gain consensus for changing this example template. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. The thing is that most of aircraft is built in metric countries (EU, Russia for example). That's why SI should be primary. You can also read WP:UNIT where it is clearly stated that SI should be used as primary system of measurement. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 13:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This page is an example only, so edit warring over it makes no sense. Furthermore the majority of aircraft built in the world in 2009 are still made with AN hardware and imperial standards which is why the example template shows imperial first and metric second, although if you are actually creating an article with the template they are selectable. Also the WP:MOS is a guideline only, as it says at the top of that page "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Regardless of all that, your changes have been now reverted by three different editors and supported by none. To make this change to need to gain WP:Consensus and so far you have a strong consensus against your change, but let's see if any other editors watching this page support your changes. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read WP:units, the quoted section is "put the source value first and the converted value second" and "If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses". For most cases, the former section will apply - Aircraft built in Imperial (or US customary) units will be probably have these units in the source text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let it be so then. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 16:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible future operators, maybe?
I find the addition of this statement under the Operators section problematic:Generally, it's best not to place potential operators in this section, only confirmed orders with likelyhood of near-term production. Potential orders and interest by governments should be covered in the main text, either under "Development" or "Operational history", as fits best in the article. Possible purchases are neither development of the aircraft, nor operation of the aircraft. I am unable to find the discussion where this issue became consensus, as stated. I recommend that the second half of the statement be removed as it serves as an enticement to place unrelated minutiae in the article akin to the way Trivia or Popular culture sections attract vaguely related information: "Potential orders and interest by governments should be covered in the main text, either under "Development" or "Operational history", as fits best in the article." At the most, such discussion belongs in the article on that country's government or military, because it will relate to their final decision to purchase or not, or which aircraft they eventually decide on. --Born2flie (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - "just the facts, ma'am", no rumours! - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The potential operators part is intended for selections and competitions with a reference. These things aren't rumors. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I added that part. It is a clarification based on a consensus over many conversations on article talk pages, not one specific discussion here to add it. We already place this kind of info in the text, as stated. The point here is not to have 15 flags under the Operators section for nations that have showed a minor inteest in an aircraft, or even a major one. Take for example the Dassault Rafale: I've removed France several times from the Operators section, both before and after the Sarkozy announcement. However, there are many references on Brazil and France making a deal for France to buy the Rafale, and then Brazil clarifying that the competition was not over. That has to go somewhere, and we've been putting iy in Operational history in that article. (Similar things happoerned with ther KC-390 page.) Guidelines should reflect usage, and that was why I added it without a specific discussion - I didn't think discussion would be needed. Feel free to reword it or remove the contested part. - BilCat (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But then you have the Pakistan government officials making it known through the press that they are interested in acquiring the AH-64 Apache. This isn't a rumor either, but then it also isn't a legitimate acquisition. The problem is already rearing its head because the editors likely to make these types of edits now have a ready reference source to go to, similar to every accident which has an article generated a day after it hits the news. Maybe we have different ideas of confirmed orders? I personally don't see encyclopedic value to, "X country considered aircraft A, but decided to go with aircraft B," in the article about aircraft A. I will look at the talk pages you mentioned, Bill, but think it should wait for more discussion on this from other editors, rather than me saying I don't like it and you telling me to remove the part I have the problem with. If it is a true consensus to have it there, then it should stay. --Born2flie (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "If it is a true consensus to have it there, then it should stay." I didn't mean it any other way, though I should have made that more clear that I was addressing the editors in general, not just you. - BilCat (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * True, the wording needs to be refined to limit the scope. Some things will probably have to be handled at the individual article basis however. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there wording does need to be clarified to limit scope, and also, as Jeff said, to allow articles to handle the issues on a limited basis. For aricraft which are in service with many nations, such as the Bell 206, protential orders aren't likely to be notable, but they probably are for the Rafale, which has no export orders as yet. That said, remember the the section here is dealing with the "operators", not the main text, which is why I didn't go into more detail. ALso, "Operastionl history" is being interpreted to mean basically anything beyond development and design,and that appears to be the best place for this kind of info. Trust me,Born, I remove several rumors, cited and uncited, of potential operators from wide range of aircraft articles every week, if not every day. I'm in no way for throwing the door open to every rumor out there. This note was only to make clear that only actual or confirmed "in the pipeline" orders are to be listed in the Operators section. - BilCat (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I understand better now where you were coming from. I just hate to leave anything that resembles a justification for wikinewspedians to make knee-jerk edits because their favorite news source said something was going to happen. --Born2flie (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Me too! - BilCat (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Flight Global Images
Morning TraceyR: Encouraged by your use of such images in your recent Pfitzer launch (Pfitzner Flyer), and having not seen the note from the FG editor before I added a few to three of my recent starts (e.g. Carden-Baynes Auxiliary). They greatly improve articles, of course. I exactly followed your text in the Commons upload, particularly in the permissions panel, the more info bit and the licence. However, I've just got a note from Commons on all of them, saying they will be pulled in 7 days unless explicit consent is obtained for that licence (think this is the issue). If we can't sort this out, we will have lost an enormously valuable resource. As one who was involved in the discussion with FG, any thoughts?TSRL (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, This was what I feared might happen, which was why I included so much corroborative evidence of the original discussion about Flight as a resource (it took place here) - I wonder whather this thread would be enough to satisfy the watchdogs, or whether they need explicit permission for each image (which would surely be too much of an imposition on Flight Global). There is a consent form, which could perhaps be used to provide blanket consent. I'll copy this discussion to the project thread, so that those involved at the time see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TraceyR (talk • contribs)

Use of page numbers in citations
A recent change in an article (the Christmas Bullet) to eliminate/replace the actual pages numbers cited in preference for simply listing all the pages of a chapter, has prompted me to seek out some opinions. Unfortunately, the talk page also brought forward another editor who has been shadowing my contributions and who quickly affirmed the earlier editor's revision and subsequent change back to the earlier style that consolidated pages. Here is the quote justifying the change: "...of course it is more "accurate", but one can in fact overdo accuracy at the expense of readability, and I strongly feel that this is the case here. Can we expect anyone to read up two different facts in four consecutive pages of a book? I think we can. Doing it otherwise leaves a reader of average intelligence with a feeling of "how illiterate do they think I am"?" FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC).


 * When citing book refs I have sometimes cited a group of pages (i.e. p 23-27) rather than create five different refs for five pages in a range. I think the key determinant should be whether someone, armed with this information, can go and find the book, find the page or pages and confirm the information is correctly cited, without having to look excessively through a large range of pages or text. Personally I would say a limited page range is probably justified to save duplication, but not necessarily a whole book. In reviewing the case of Christmas Bullet I don't see that consolidating that small range of pages (41-49) would make it hard to locate the information. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will use up to a few pages in a footnote also, more so if I am summarizing the text over that range. It does not help with verifying/checking to list more than few pages.  Going to the other extreme with each sentence having a footnote for each source page is overkill, imo.  -Fnlayson (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Engine specs examples
Would it make sense to move the example engine specs to WP:AIRENG/PC? It would shorten this page and I note some editor commentary in there, also noting that guides are given at both template pages, it needs fixing. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, move engine spec example to WP:AirEng/PC. That's a more fitting place now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, think I might copy it to a sandbox first as there are problems with the 'guidance' notes! Will leave the headers there and indicate where the information is. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    10:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Layout
Is there any tangible reason why the operators and operational history sections are separate? It seems natural to me that you would explain the operators first, and then explain the operational history. Therefore I suggest either of the following changes:


 * combine the operators and operational history sections (possibly making the operational history a sub-section)
 * move the operators section to immediately preceed the operational history section

Any objections? 70.250.198.221 (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, not sure what your point is but i dont see any reason to change. The operational history section is related to the history of the type and not individual operators although in most cases it will deal with the primary operator, in the small number of articles where the operational history of an individual operator is notable then that is included in the operators sections. Has not caused a big problem so far. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that it doesn't make sense to develop the operational history without explaining the operators first. Adopting the mindset of "primary operator" is very much a POV attitude as well.  70.250.198.221 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how a "primary operator" is POV. The fact that the F/A-18 Hornet's primary operator is the U.S. Navy, as opposed to Canada, Spain, or any of the other Hornet operators, isn't POV, it's fact. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 18:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "primary operator" is fine. I'm talking about a mindset.  In the article that I'm having problems with, there is a great deal of historical musing, which is mostly from the perspective of the "primary operator".  I have no doubt that if I were to try to balance the existing musing with more minor operator perspectives, that it would be rejected.  70.250.178.31 (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That would depend on how you define "historical musings", how you attempted to "balance" the material, whether the info was properly reference per policy, and whether it was really relevent to the article at all. Also, the "primary oeprator" is often the largest user, who also has the most experience with the aircraft in question. In addition, aircraft in US service tend to have grreater coverage because more is published about them, especially by the US government, and that material is generally copyright free. Taken together, the means most of the aricle will be about the primary user. That doesen't preclude someone from making a good-faith effort to add material about the other users to the article, but it does need to be somewhat proportionate too, and not spend a large part of the text on one relatively minor user simmply to make a point. - BilCat (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no intent to do any of what you suggested, so I don't know why you are getting so worked up. I was making an entirely different point about the mindset that is being exposed on these articles.


 * Having more data *does not* mean the article should be biased toward a user. It may be more complete, or better referenced, but saying "this means the article will be about the primary user" is laughable.  Would you write an article about Santa Claus that was a compilation of childrens letters to the North Pole?  I'm sure they comprise a significant volume of the Santa Claus pubs.  70.250.178.31 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "I have no intent to do any of what you suggested" - Hmmm. Yeah, I believe you. But you want me to take your suggestions seriously? - BilCat (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of making tendentious edits (your suggestion). If you can't take me seriously because of that, then I suggest that the problem is yours.  70.251.33.111 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making what you meant clear. Forwhgatever reasons, your points are often hard to follow. - BilCat (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I appreciate sincere discussion.  70.251.33.111 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Operators, Variants, Accidents and later sections are listed further down in the layout since they are generally lists. The preceding sections should be in paragraph form. -Fnlayson (talk)


 * Why does a list need to go at the end? Especially if it is supported by details of the operational history?  Supporting details usually go after the information they support.  70.250.198.221 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is there a separate section for specifications? Wouldn't this be covered under the existing design sub-section?  Shouldn't specifications be a sub-section of design? 70.250.198.221 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why, specifications is a list of data and placed near the bottom of the article, design is a narrative that goes at the top. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you realize how circular that sounds? Why is specifications not included with design?  Because it's not included!  You don't explain why lists and text can't coexist at all!  70.250.179.89 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it is a long templated list of data it would break up the article text, hence it is included near the end. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So, it's impossible to come up with narrative text describing the specifications? The design section seems to do a good job of that, so why couldn't the specifications section?  And moreover, why couldn't they be combined?  70.250.179.89 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The main text sections, Deve,opment, Design, and Oper, History, are basically the history of the aircraft in prose. The other sections cover other info which are usually brtter presented in formats other than prose, such as lists. (The Variants section is generally an annotated list, but this does have some variation in presentation, with some articles using more prose than others.) It's not so much an issue of right/wrong or better/worse so much as an editorial decision by WPAIR made several years ago. Yes, there are other ways to present the info, but for now, the current layout has worked best. Consensus does change over time, and this may change in the future as well. (This is happening with the new poroposal to change the naming conventions for aircraft, which even one year ago had no support, but now has almost no opposition.) - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that the text sections that you mention are all "history" is one of the major problems with these articles, which I would like to change. This project has a POV perspective on aircraft, assuming that they can only be seen through the lens of history, rather than explaining the facts, as most articles do, and then supporting the facts with sections on history.  There is a strong "romantic", "narrative", or "insider" bent to much of the prose, that is inherently POV, and contrary to the interests of non-partisan readership.  70.250.179.89 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That perception of POV (if it is there because I don't see it myself) has been added by many different editors over a long time period in most cases. There is no communal drive to write aircraft articles in a certain style that I know of apart from consistency of the layout and adherance to the wiki-wide Manual of Style. If there is non-neutral POV in individual articles that has not yet been noticed by someone else then it should be removed. Comparison articles are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia, aircraft comparison articles have been deleted in the past. A big advantage to my mind of the standard specification section is that readers can very easily compare different aircraft by clicking between them or by having two separate windows open, I do it myself. More notable specifications are often mentioned or highlighted in the prose sections (top speed for fighters, maximum weight for large aircraft etc.), every article will be different. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nimbus, this isn't really the place to discuss the POV issue. I can take that us someplace more appropriate, perhaps your talk page?  As for a "communal drive", I don't think there's a grand conspiracy, but there are some pretty strong predispositions.


 * I don't really know what you mean by comparison articles, and I don't believe I've suggested that. I'm not opposed to the idea of a standardizization, and I appreciate your argument to keep it for comparison purposes, but I don't see how this is incompatible with the idea of a specifications subsection under the design section.  Why couldn't that be just as standard or comparable?  70.250.178.31 (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WP by its nature does suffer from the "Too Many Cooks Syndrome", and that's not going to change. Modern aircraft are quite technical, and it's difficult to describe them without being technical to some degree, or we run the risk of oversimplification. This is the full version of WP after all, not the SImple English version. However, I don't think the major problem on aircraft articles is with knowledgable "insiders" writing too technically (though they can), but with "fan-boys" with little knowledge inserting highly-technical material taken from other sources without suffient rewrites. Many of us in WPAIR spend the bulk of our time on WP just trying to keep the new addions in line on a popular aircraft, a task far more difficult than herding cats! To be honest,the F-16 article is one of the better ones we have; the HAL Tejas is not, and is actually a far longer article than the F-16! That article has its own POV issues, much of which stems from the nationalism of some of the contributors, and from editors who believe the article should be a compendium of all information available on the aircraft, and even some information that's not available! - BilCat (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen the issue of the over-technical insertions b "fan-boys" on other pages, and I've personally had to deal with it. When I have, it has usually been no problem to make appropriate high-level organizational changes to the article in question.


 * IMO, this process is severely hampered by this template. I believe this template needs to be opened up a bit, to be a little less prescriptive, and to have fewer "naggers" that arise due to being pulled in different directions due to sections like operators *and* operational history or design *and* specifications.  There are obvious tensions here that need to be resolved in the template itself, and I suspect there are more than I've mentioned.  I take that as a sign of immaturity of the template.


 * You mention insufficient rewrites, and that very well may be, but you can't have it both ways. If you think more rewrites should be happening to incorporate all this material that is accreting, then it would behoove you to allow my edits unless you can specifically identify why it's a problem, not just hand-waving.  Reverting because it doesn't fit the prescription certainly doesn't make rewrites more likely.  You have now twice voiced a false-dichotomy between Wikipedia and Simple English as well the still unfounded assertion that it is difficult to describe advanced aircraft in simpler terms; you haven't even allowed me to try before dismissing the idea.  Also, claims about F-16 being "one of the better ones" is simply a rationalization.  From my perspective, it is one of the only eyesores I experience on Wikipedia, because none of the information is really accessible.


 * Having long articles that are difficult to manage according to the template, I believe speaks volumes about how effectively the template is doing its job. To put it another way, if this template is so good, then why are random Joes able to make it so difficult for the experts to manage?  Didn't the experts anticipate some of the content that was going to be added?  70.250.178.31 (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you considered creating a sandbox aritcle in userspace, so that you could make all your changes to the article outside of main space, and then present them as a whole? If you truly believe your concepts are better that what we have, this would give you the oppurtunity try the idea without fear of interference or dissmisal. I don't thing IPs can create pages in their userspace, but I'm not certain on that point. If it is so, then I would be happy to set up a page on my ierspace for you, and I won't interfere in any way beyond wnat is required by WP of such spaces (usually this means disabling the cats). - BilCat (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have considered it, but I don't see why it is necessary. Why are my smaller edits not allowed?  I'm not making revolutionary suggestions, and they are being rejected without substantive reasons.  What would make me think greater effort will be given any consideration before being rejected as well?  Why should I have to fear interference or dismissal?  Isn't this what the discussion page is supposed to be used for?  Why isn't it being used for this purpose?  That is, why should I trust *more* process when existing process if failing?  70.251.33.111 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole point of this section has been in addressing the layout of the article, and that's what I'm suggesting you try out in the sandbox. As to your minor edits, using the insue tag is best for that, as it allows you to complete your edits without having them reverted mid-stream. But want you seem to want is free reign to do whatever you want to the article without it being reverted unless we discuss it to death first, and no one has that priveledge on WP. - BilCat (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, please point me to any discussion *at all*! Even better would be a discussion sufficient to reach a consensus.  70.251.33.111 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what isn't clear about what I've suggested for this template, but if you have a sandbox for me to use, I could probably set something up. It won't be immediate, though, so please be patient.  70.251.33.111 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as the sandbox, I'm referring to the F-16 page, since that's the main article you've edited so far, and reordering that article to follow your proposals. I'll set the sandbox up within a few hours. - BilCat (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

Arbitrary break
70.xxx, click on User:BilCat/Sandbox/F-16 Fighting Falcon, edit the page, and strat typing! You can cut and paste in the enter F-16 article if you need to. Take all the time you need with it. As promised, I won't edit it except to make sure it complies with WP's policy for userspace pages, such as disabling the category pages, and I'll rewvet anyone elses changes, unless needed for the same reasons. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You deleted it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.198.35 (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Tense guidelines
It can be a bit confusing for a retired aircraft whether the Lead should say like "Aircraft model 999 is or was...". From what I've seen, the Aircraft project has generally used is if the aircraft still exists. Should we add some guidelines like the Aircraft Engines subproject does in their guidelines? -fnlayson (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the engine TF guidelines, but I think there should be an explicit comment regarding context. In a history section, where you're talking about a decision made in the past ("... Boeing submitted a single engine design" for example), past tense makes more sense, even if the rest of the article is in the present tense ("... The F-XZ Foo has one engine"). I know that's common sense, but I'm sure a situation will arise if there isn't a "out" in the guidelines. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to admit to writing the AETF guideline on tense but I made sure that it was accepted by consensus at the time. The reason that I wrote it was because of the inconsistency between articles that was apparent, some were using 'is' and others were using 'was' (mainly applied to museum only engines which was where the confusion seemed to be). This was being questioned on article talk pages prior to the guideline by editors (some said it should be present tense, some said it should be past!!). The guideline is really only meant for the lead section (it gives the reader a clue to the current status of the subject). As a 'qualifier' (as you mentioned) it should be clarified in the lead why a particular tense is used. I used 'was' for the Rolls-Royce R as it is a 'museum only' engine and backed this up with Three examples of the R engine are on public display in British museums as of 2010 at the end of the lead section (also summarising the 'Engines on display' section. I think I might have mentioned this tense problem at WT:AIR before but did not push it, perhaps a guideline should be written. Tense could be whatever works best in the rest of the article as long as tenses are not mixed in the same sentence, probably more on tense at the MoS. As long as we are not contradicting anything there then we are ok. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    17:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If this guideline is just for the Lead, then a sentence or two could be added to the Introduction section in this guideline instead. After the first sentence, context should take care of the tense. -fnlayson (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For clarity you mean WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft). Yes, that would work. The AETF guideline could be adapted (replace 'engine' with 'aircraft'). I would rather that someone else does it though, not feeling very bold at the moment). A minor problem for the aircraft is that 'Survivors' and 'Aircraft' on display' are used interchangeably (where they are not for the engines). This has been brought up before by other editors and I think that the guideline was changed but we have not got round to adjusting the articles yet (or it was not widely accepted), it's clear to me at least that 'Survivors' and 'On display' are two distinctly different things (but this is probably not the right time to go into that one!!). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If it helps the engine article lead guideline is here, tense is not mentioned because it has its own section just below. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on the AETF text 2 sentences like: "The first lead sentence should be present tense if flyable aircraft exist. But if the aircraft is extinct or only found in museums then use past tense." in the Aircraft guide Intro section. -fnlayson (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's all you need. Gets my vote! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems to make sense to me as well. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose formalizing a consistent tense when referring to aircraft defined by whether in active service or not. This is not to say flyable, but rather being used for their intended task such as the B-25 or B-29 which are still flying, but not as bombers. More definitively, the SR-71 certainly exists but is no longer flyable nor in service any more than the Wright Flyer. For proposed aircraft or those under development, present tense would be used such as for Beriev Be-2500. This precedent would have some spillover into spacecraft given the pending retirement of the shuttle fleet. Thoughts? CompRhetoric (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Still in service, present tense: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, Douglas DC-8, Grumman F-14 Tomcat (ironically, still in service in Iran), Boeing 707.

Retired/not in service, past tense: McDonnell F-101 Voodoo, North American B-25 Mitchell, Martin MB-1, de Havilland Comet, Wright Flyer, Boeing X-32.

Inconsistent: Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird retired 1998 but still uses present tense.

Consensus
The consensus policy states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.". The policy being breached here is, of course, common name. Unfortunately many Milhist conventions are in breach of this. I'm sorry I couldn't notify you about this rule sooner. I read the policy and then forgot what page it was located on. Marcus Qwertyus   00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong page. This is a layout guide.  WP:Naming conventions (aircraft) is the aircraft naming guideline. I don't think it goes against WP:Common name (& WP:Article titles), though. -fnlayson (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been upheld before, but you're welcome to "kick against the pricks" if you like sore feet. :) - BilCat (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Military aircraft accidents guidelines
Based on this discussion on WT:Air, I adjusted the guidelines in the accidents section to put a higher threshold on accidents of military aircraft. See this diff for the exact changes. Does this current wording seem OK? The wording could probably use some more work, though. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Flightglobal images/license
In the discussion archive we had some kind of a permission for re-use of the old Flightglobal images (extracted from the PDFs). Was there any specific license given for free use or just a permission for use at Wikipedia ? I'm asking because of this deletion request at Commons that may end up in the deletion of all old Flightglobal images. --Denniss (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the Flightglobal images published pre-1923, so are pd in the US (and so could be uploaded to en:wiki as Template:PD-US even they are not suitable for Commons). The pre 1923 files are:

File:Crashed Zeppelin L19.png

File:Linke-Hofmann R1.png

File:Linke-Hofmann RII.png

File:Macfie control lever Flightglobal Vol2(11) p.179.jpg

File:Macfie frame joints Flightglobal Vol2(11) p.178.jpg

File:Macfie Plan-side-views Flightglobal Vol 11(10) p.153.jpg

File:Macfie side elevation Flightglobal Vol2(10) p.152.jpg

File:PfitznerFlyer Control linkage FlightGlobalVoll II(9) p.182.jpg

File:PfitznerFlyer Front view of wing trussing Flight Vol.II(11) FlightGlobal archive.jpg

File:Supermarine Sea King Plan.png

File:Supermarine Sea King.png
 * Nigel Ish (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

New sub-infobox idea
I've been trying to think of something that we could add to article that only use Template:Infobox aircraft begin or Template:Infobox aviation to make their a bit more useful and more immune to deletion. I think finally thought of good addition.

Template:Thespooknav is used on several F-4 subpages. On McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators, the navbox appears just below the Lead image, which doesn't use an infobox. As I saw the pic and template together, I realized that we could propaly use a simple add-on which would work just like Template:Infobox aircraft type and Template:Infobox aircraft career in being added to Infobox aircraft begin. This would probably be a simple box that would list the main aircraft article as well as the other daughter articles. Any thoughts? (Btw, I can't do the coding for a box like that!) - BilCat (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know squat about coding, but by copying another aircraft infobox, I was able to create Template:Infobox aircraft links. It's fairly straightforward to use. Two exapleas are now at List of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II variants and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators. - BilCat (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In other aircraft types with lots of sub-articles we have used the standard navbox at the bottom like on Supermarine Spitfire so I am not sure why we need the links at the top as well. I cant see any reason why the F-4 cant use the standard navbox style at the bottom. MilborneOne (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Milborne. Standard navbox at bottom or links in the See Also section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * But no one has complained about Template:Thespooknav being at the top of the F-4 pages, to my knowledge, much less sent it to TFD. All I've done is move that fuction into the main infobx so we can use the functions on other article besides the F-4. This new function is primarily intended for the long variant and list of Foo operator type articles, not for all the aircraft type articles. - BilCat (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, the new function is also designed to give the the top infobox somethineg more to do than merely host the Lead pic, which has come uner some critiscim of late. I also see (now) that the List of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II variants and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II U.S. operators, and McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II non-U.S. operators have no bottom-page navboxes, not even aviation lists. Interesting. - BilCat (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is an obvious oversight! I have added to all three! - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was going to get to it, but got sidetracked "fixing" some other articles on my watchlist. - BilCat (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem - collaboration works! You can't do it all yourself! - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

They do this with music composer articles, I got caught out asking where the related article navbox was at an FAC review, daft place for it IMHO. There is more important work to do, create new articles, fix existing ones. To change the stable layout of aircraft articles now is inviting problems, my thruppence. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    00:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit surprised that this addition has invited so many negative comments, while I've seen none whatsoever for the Template:Thespooknav, which is not attached to our existing infoboxes, but is usually in the same location. As far as the slam about there being "more important work to do", that's always subjective, and essentially worthless as a comment . We all do what we're best suited to do, or what we like to do, nor should we but we shouldn't try to tell others what they should consider important on WP. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed both my infobox add-in and the spooknav from the pages where they were used. I'll userfy my add-in template to keep the coding for any future use, request its deletion, and take the the spooknav to TFD in a day or so, once I refresh myself on TFD procedures. - BilCat (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We must always bear in mind that what one editor wants is not necessarily what the other project editors want. As for the Phantom template, silence does not always imply consensus, it more likely means that no one has noticed it. I took the Phantom article off my watchlist long ago due to out of control poor quality inputs, it's an aircraft that I love dearly after spending nine years working on them. I apologise for adding 'worthless' comments. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    01:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood, and apology accepted. - BilCat (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bill, you will realise that my apology was not a real one, I had nothing to apologise for. I only ask that you stop patronising knowledgeable and intelligent project editors. As you know I stopped creating articles because of your actions, that is a fact (but I can't cite it!). You may not realise it but your dominance and perpetual presence in aircraft articles is having a negative effect on the project, a foul-mouthed outburst against me on Milb1's talk page did you no favours. Jimbo's vision is wonderful but the reality of doing it is worse than pulling teeth. I am full of 'hyperbole' apparently but also have a wealth of knowledge in aviation obtained first hand. The Wikipedia project is all about using this knowledge. After almost four years here you should know that you are a possible catalyst for an early retirement. I suspect that may make you dance with glee. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    02:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was actually trying to assume good faith. I'm tired of this feud continuing on without end, and I was hoping that our recent civil interaction on Terry's page was a good sign, and I'm sorry to be wrong on that. When I semi-retired, I had several WP:AIR editors ask me not to go, so apparently your sentiments aren't shared by any of the other WPAIR regulars. I've certainly not gotten the impression my presence was unwanted by other competent project users. If you have this much bitterness towards another editor, then perhaps retiring from WP is soemthing you should seriously consider. As I have sincerly said before, you are a good editor, and I do hope you stay on WP. But, apart from more parental health problems, I'm not going away, and I'm not going to let your bad attitude towards me steal my joy for editing here when I've just gotten it back. I am sorry for the censored (not foul-mouthed) outburst of Michael's talk page, but since Michael or the others didn't comment to me about it, I take it that they understood what was going on, and cut me some slack. I'm not perfect, and I do try to apologize without using form letters when I've messed up. What others do after that isn't up to me. - BilCat (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Units
hi, i read on one of a minor changes (on dc-3 article's bottom data section), that "altitude typically written only in ft" when put at max speed at xyz height and not at the other mainly alt data. and with that the autoconversion to proper understandable (in the continent) decimal unit was deleted. while i didnt revert the experienced user's change hereby i want to challenge this hideous rule. lets have conversion everywhere (, or at least at such important places). maybe an exception if the there-given alt is roughly the same as another already converted - but in that case it was a much lower number. how could we nonflyers place that value in our mind: i hate always dividing with 3? (i also know that since the flood of ww2 surplus american transport the civilian scene, alt is universally and always everywhere measured in feet, but i shit that down as well. and if i will ever drive an aircraft i will replace the instrument paper with a custom one.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Aaa3-other (talk • contribs) yeah sry forgot signing as usual--Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs
 * Sigh ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Commas are used as separators for every 3 digits for numbers over one thousand per Wikipedia policy (WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers). Unit conversions should generally be provided per that same policy page (WP:MOSNUM).  Try WT:Air for more general questions. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * okay, so we were mistaken and there is no "there shouldn't" policy. then its nothing, sorry :) - (before i posted, i've read both this aviation and genericwiki guides, and there was only that on awkward places or rare specific subjects' pages (baseball etc) shouldn't be autoconv between the arbitrary and ten-based, everywhere else yes, and all what i read there is 100% ok. i just feared an additional consensus restriction and whined against that -thinking it is this place where aero policyguys hang out-, which rule is now seems nonexisting. so it's all ok then. i only didn't want that it be the "should-be" and as a consequence thousands of editors should-edit thousands of articles that way.) --Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 21:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No wing, no turn
http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/10/video-cbc-investigates-canadas-purchase-of-f-35-jets.html

While "No wing, no turn" is certainty true of Sprey's F-16, the state of the art has advanced since then. So can we drop wing loading like a lead balloon? After all modern fighters like the F-35 depend on their body lift. Hcobb (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wing loading may be less of a factor in lifting body fighters, but it is still a useful parameter to include in the aircraft specs as it affects turbulence ride and stall speed amongst other factors. - Ahunt (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * These other factors are also impacted by body lift, especially with chined vortex lift body stealth fighters. That's why their wings look "too far back" WRT CoG. Hcobb (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, the vortex lift jets get the best of both worlds. At zero AoA they can fly low with heavily loaded wings for a smooth ride and at high AoA they add on body lift for turns and stall. Let me see if I can find a source for this.

Anybody got this article?

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.25898 Vortex Interactions Between Chined Forebody and Strake

Hcobb (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wing loading is still very relevant. Dropping it is pointless. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt what you say about body and chined lift, but I don't see that that drives a need to remove wing loading as a described parameter. Even if it isn't totally descriptive of some fighters it is a very useful parameter for light aircraft and gliders. We do remove it from the spec parameters for some aircraft, like helicopters, gyroplanes, airships and balloons. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey (and etc.) has "Disc loading", while Space Shuttle orbiter lacks wing loading. However the most interesting case is the wing loading of the Martin Marietta X-24A. I ask, what wings? (Not quite as bad as the wing loading on the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, but even that case is a bit odd.) Hcobb (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My point was that for any given aircraft article you can just not fill in "wing loading" or even delete the parameter from the template if it isn't really applicable on a case-by-case basis. - Ahunt (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)