Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gliding/Archive 1

Flight computers
I'd like to repeat the suggestion I made on Talk:Gliding that flight computers (as used in gliders) would merit an article & would be of general interest. There is already a precedent for this on WP in the form of an article on the E6B "whiz wheel" computer used by power pilots. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

List of glider manufacturers and list of gliders
The List of glider manufacturers and the List of gliders overlap somewhat. Should we merge them? Originally I intended that the list of gliders would be supported by articles on each manufacturer and then each type. However Francisco produced an excellent single list, so perhaps the manufacturers' list should be zapped, after first transferring the external links. JMcC 22:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have zapped this list of glider manufacturers by making it just a redirect. I first checked that all info is now in List of gliders and amended key articles so that links go straight to main article. That is one less on the list of things to do. JMcC 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki project aviation
There is a proposal currently under discussion at WP:AIRCRAFT wikiproject aircraft that is proposing to create a wikiproject aviation. The plans for this project include aviation as the top project with aircraft under that and a proposal that would make the gliding project a task force of the aviation project. Input from members of this project would be much aprpeciated. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Speed to fly
I've rephrased some of the opening para of Speed to fly. I suspect that the discussion of final glides later in the article should be expanded to include the special factors (wind, height to climb, etc) included in the calculation. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added an image from the FAA-GFH and cleaned up the text a bit. Dhaluza 03:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ... & I've added a remark about using windspeed in the final glide calculation. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added some more references under external links. Feel free to mine them for tidbits. Dhaluza 22:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Things to do
I've updated the list of things to do. It currently contains:
 * Requests: Upload images, especially aerial photography and link to appropriate articles
 * Merge: List of glider manufacturers into List of gliders DONE
 * Cleanup: Add proper citations to articles about gliding
 * Expand:List of notable glider pilots (see red-links at Soaring Hall of Fame)
 * Stubs: Create or expand airport stubs for airports with glider operations
 * Other: Add refs and scanned images from FAA Glider Handbook

We especially need images uploaded, so please go through your image collection (and any public domain collections as well) and look for suitable aerial photography to add to any page, especially those in the project scope. We need images for aircraft pages and biographies as well. For some ideas about types of images and where to put them have a look at the following pages:


 * Avifauna:
 * Bald_Eagle
 * Aviation:
 * Aircraft_engine
 * Flight_instruments
 * Schempp-Hirth_Duo_Discus
 * Slope_soaring
 * Swept_wing
 * Biography:
 * Paul_Bikle
 * Geography:
 * Brush_Mountain
 * I-99
 * Ridge_Soaring_Gliderport
 * Wasserkuppe
 * West_Branch_Susquehanna_Valley
 * Meterology:
 * Lee_Wave

The FAA Glider Handbook has lots of information that you can add to articles and cite. It is a U.S. Government work in the public domain, so copyright does not apply. It also has lots of images that you can upload, but unfortunately in the PDF version, the images are mostly unusable. If you have the paper copy and a scanner, you can scan the images and upload them. For a recommended naming convention and citation format, see: Image:FAA-8083-13 Fig 4-10.PNG.

I added the list of inductees to the Soaring Hall of Fame article, but most of the names are red-links. If you can redirect any of them to existing articles, or create new article stubs, please do. Be careful about WP:BLP issues, and please be sure to WP:ATT sources so the articles do not get deleted. Also be sure to tag the talk page with the WPAVIATION template.

Look for an article on your favorite gliderports, and make sure they exist, and if they do, make sure gliding is mentioned as well. When creating a new stub, be sure to use the official name. Check Category:Lists of airports for lists of red-links. It's been proposed to create a joint task force with WikiProject Airports under the new WikiProject Aviation to work on this.

It has also been proposed to create a joint task force with Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft to work on articles about gliders. One area that needs work is standardizing aircraft specification templates. We also need to complete the merger of List of glider manufacturers into List of gliders, and that will give us ample red-links to work with for new article topics.

That's all I have for now. Fell free to comment and add other things as well. Dhaluza 15:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Gliding/Glider task force
I created the WikiProject Gliding/Glider task force (which is a redirect to WikiProject Aircraft/Glider task force) by copying the rotorcraft task force page. This is the joint task force that was proposed under the WikiProject Aircraft. Feel free to join and modify the page as appropriate. Dhaluza 17:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A Single Project Banner for use by all aviation related projects
I've created a project banner at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. This banner can replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses, such as categorizing articles under specific projects. It is based on the banner user by the Military history project (WPMILHIST). An example of it in use is at User talk:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner, and you can see that by using the various parameters, all aviation articles will be combined under the aviation project at Category:WikiProject Aviation articles and when tagged properly, in their respective Category:Rotorcraft task force articles, etc. It will also allows us to introduce other areas of the Wikiproject, such as "collaboration of the month", and take advantage of the larger total number of users throughout the projects. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Coordination for improved productivity
Could everyone have a look at WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal, and make any comments there. This is an idea that the Military History project uses, and their production of high quality articles far exceeds ours. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable glider pilots
This is a project notification of an Afd for an article within the project scope at: Articles for deletion/List of notable glider pilots. Dhaluza 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging gliders and Gliding
In an effort to streamline the subprojects of aviation, and given the fact that the Glider task force has four members and a total of 51 articles tagged under its scope and the Gliding project has 7 and 56, I'd like to mere the WikiProject Aircraft/Glider task force and the WikiProject Gliding into one project, WikiProject Aviation/Gliding task force. Any objections? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Project Maintenance
There is now a new page, WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance, that lists backlogged areas needing work, articles not covered under the assessment, etc. It is automatically updated by a bot daily. If your looking for something to do, check it out. If there is anything that you would like to see covered, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A new wiki specially for Planes...
Hello members of WikiProject Gliding,

I just wondered if anyone is interested in helping us with a new wiki, Plane Spotting World.

Please let me know if you;re interested!

 Bluegoblin  7   19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Info boxes
You may have seen the discussion on the talk page of the aircraft project. The standard aircraft info box is splits the data about a glider in two places and puts some in the main text rather than in a single neat box on the right hand side. I propose that we do not use the standard aircraft info box for articles about gliders until the Aircraft Project can come up with a better layout. I think that avoiding an unsatisfactory layout outweighs any benefits of standardisation. You can judge the two formats by looking at Schempp-Hirth Discus. JMcC (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of category:competition sailplanes
Someone created an (almost) empty category:competition sailplanes. By starting a discussion about it, I provoked that it is now considered for deletion formally.--Vierzehn (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

History of hang gliding
Hello. I've been working on History of hang gliding for a while and I could use some help from a glider project like yours to improve on the required Wikipedia style. I am an "experienced newbie" at Wikipedia. I just received valuable feedback on its Talk page and I will be working on it in the incomming weeks and months. Any suggestion and assistance is appreciated. I am also a contributor to Hang gliding and Powered hang glider which God knows can use some assistance. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation for our projects changes with the new class. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope of Glider article
Some misguided enthusiasm has wrecked the Glider article.User:Rlandmann has asked for its scope to be discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Please contribute your views so we can present a united front of experts. JMcC (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sullenberger proposal
I propose that Chesley Sullenberger should be added to the List of glider pilots in view of his superb handling of US Airways Flight 1549.
 * Done JMcC (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

3000 photos now available
For sometime there have been available some 3000 photos from a photographer in Switzerland who has a wealth of photos, especially from the 1970s-1980s of aviation in Europe and the US (and elsewhere). He has licenced them all under GFDL. I have uploaded several dozen over time, and they can be found at Commons:Category:Photos by Eduard Marmet. All available photos can be found at http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Eduard%20Marmet. Only Eduard Marmet's photos are able to be uploaded. If uploading, do so to Commons only and use this template Commons:Template:EduardMarmet. Using this template will add the necessary OTRS permissions and will also place the photos in Eduards commons category. If uploading, be sure to remove the airliners.net banner from the bottom, etc also. Bookmark those link, and make use of them, as they are available and there is a wealth of photos there for all aviation topics. Any questions, contact me on my talk page as I may not see discussion here. --Russavia Dialogue 13:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gliding
One user is currently very active in disrupting the articles on gliders and gliding. Despite the consensus being against him, he has taken a narrow definition of these words to just the technical and dictionary meanings. This is contrary to the Naming conventions of using the common name. Thus to him gliding is an article that should also include flying squirrels and that glider includes airliners with engine failure. He also believes that gliding includes hang gliding and paragliding, despite the classification used by the world governing body for air sports,the FAI. He is constructing a duplicate article called Gliding (flight) which I suspect ultimately he will use to replace Gliding. He is forceful, abusive, unreasonable and has been cited on Administrators' noticeboard more than once. Any action would be appreciated. JMcC (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume I'm not the one you're talking about. But I think a possible cause for this is that even in aviation (excluding the squirrels, etc) "gliding" has a much wider definition than "soaring".  They are not the same thing.  Technically, gliding is unpowered winged flight while soaring is the sport of flying sailplanes.  (That's from the FAA Glider Flying Handbook page 1-1.)  I don't see a problem with the more inclusive definition for gliding.  Wikipedia isn't supposed to be overly technical in any topic it covers.  But if you and others do think it's a problem to mix up gliding and soaring like Wikipedia has been doing, a possible solution may be to separate them.  Introduce a subcategory of soaring under the gliding category and recategorize appropriate articles under it.  And make other clarifications to articles.  I would be willing to help with that if the consensus points that way. Submitted for your consideration... Ikluft (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In defence of JMcC, I think a UK/US distinction may lie at the heart of this dispute. In the UK we do tend to refer to the sport as "gliding" tout court.  Maybe that's because our climate results in many of our flights being mere glides rather than soaring flights! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's important to get the wider picture when we pursue consensus in our international community on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how wide or deep a "dispute" it is.  But I saw him asking for help referring to one unnamed editor.  With the inputs you and I have brought to this, are there any obvious paths toward a guideline for Wikipedia that everyone can live with?  For starters, a guideline should summarize (or summarise, for those who prefer UK English) what the correct usage is from each country.  Currently the status quo mixes up gliding/soaring as a sport and misc unpowered flight.  So perhaps one idea might be to make a guideline that "unpowered flight" or more specifically "unpowered winged flight" (since it is not intended to include balloons) is the more generic topic.  And then gliding/soaring (as synonymous terms) would refer to the sport as a more specific topic/category? Ikluft (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At present the dispute is mainly about the word 'glider'. I think we are about to reach a solution, so it is possible that further suggestions may muddy the waters. Even so I may get back to you! So far 'gliding' as the name given to the sport by the worldwide body, the FAI, has not come under serious attack, but who knows? JMcC (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that gliding as a synonym of soaring is acceptable in the US. A remaining part of the problem is whether to include other unpowered flight in "gliding".  We haven't heard from everyone on that yet.  As one step to help deconflict the situation, I created  and moved  and other types of unpowered aviation into it.  I then moved, a category which I created after the AWE1549 accident, out of Gliding (which did fit the way its intro was worded) and into Unpowered flight, now that the option is available.  I'd still like to see a consensus reached over the Gliding (flight) article.  Whichever side of the issue anyone comes from, please be prepared to give some ground to reach a common consensus from which WikiProject Gliding can make a guideline everyone can live with going forward. Ikluft (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I can state quite categorically and can back it up with plenty of references that there is no consistent, single worldwide usage of terms like gliding or glider. Gliding can refer to a sport or to a general mode of flight. Glider can refer to a wide range of aircraft, notably sailplanes but very definitely including aircraft with engines powered down. The thing is, the wikipedia simply doesn't require a single use of terms in it, indeed that's why we have disambiguation pages. My understanding is that Jmcc150 is trying to force one particular usage on the wikipedia, in violation of NPOV. I've never seen this happen anywhere else in the wikipedia, it's quite extraordinary, and really rather a big concern. It also seems to be having a damaging effect on the scope of the wikipedia. A general article on gliders was essentially completely descoped and more or less removed for this reason.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More than that, it's the other way around, the wikipedia is supposed to reflect the world, so if X,Y,Z are all called gliders in the world, then the wikipedia is supposed to do that also. Jmcc150 appears to be doing the aviation equivalent of a person going through and removing all the references to lions and tigers pumas etc. being cats, because he or she keeps house cats, and likes them a lot.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Brainstorming
OK, we're all here... I was hoping we'd get all parties at the table, so to speak, in order to find any real consensus. I'm going to toss in some ideas which I hope may help lead toward a solution we can all live with. Anyone who can't accept any of this, please take the responsibility to consider and propose alternatives which you can live with and you think others will accept as well. I realize these ideas aren't going to find 100% agreement on either side of the Atlantic - let's try to help make a workable solution. I've changed some ideas so they aren't necessarily my first preferences either, in the interest of finding common ground. I hope this helps get us in the right direction. Please respond that either you can live with this or what your alternative would be that you think everyone might be able to live with. Ikluft (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Gliding" for the sport is apparently not the only "common usage" on an international scope since we got into this discussion in the first place.
 * We should not mix up non-sport unpowered winged flight with gliding/soaring as a sport. This mainly applies for categorization - the articles are already separate.  But that is part of the misunderstanding and disagreement that needs to be solved.
 * The current "Gliding" article could be renamed "Gliding (sport)" or another alternative yet to be suggested. (I would have suggested "Soaring" except for the info already given above in this discussion - that isn't international either.)
 * Gliding (disambiguation) would then be renamed "Gliding".
 * could be renamed "Category:Gliding (sport)" for consistency with the article.
 * The newly-created category could be renamed as or replaced with "Category:Unpowered aviation" in order to exclude animals like flying squirrels.
 * A new category named "Category:Gliding" (after the current one becomes "Gliding (sport)" could become the more general topic to include even non-aviation gliding topics, and would not be a subcategory of.
 * If all of the above turns out acceptable, then the newly-renamed "Category:Gliding (sport)" would be a subcategory of the new "Category:Unpowered aviation" and "Category:Gliding".
 * Sounds great!- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now, unpowered flight is a subcategory of aviation which is a human activity, but mammals do unpowered flight, as do arrows and so forth; and not all forms of unpowered flight are atmospheric/aircraft; you also have ballistic flight of rockets, cannonballs etc. We don't seem to have a simple category right now either, that seems to be more general than aviation. And I would expect to see a  or something as well as .- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suggested changing to "unpowered aviation" to take into account your edit comment on .  If I understand correctly, you'd prefer to modify this to keep  but not as a subcat of, and make my suggestion of "Category:unpowered aviation" as a subcat of "Category:aviation" and "Category:unpowered flight".  If I understood that correctly, it sounds fine and it should work.  A "Category:Flight" would work as you suggest too.  The part about "Sports gliding", I have a feeling that wording won't go over well for internationalization - it makes up a term which isn't actually used that way.  It was pointed out that FAI uses the term "Gliding", which is why I thought the parenthesized term "Gliding (sport)" was a way to handle that by Wikipedia standards. That's why I think "Gliding" as a disambiguation page is our best path to compromise/sharing the use of the term "Gliding" among the different expectations. Ikluft (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I created category:Flight it seemed to be very reasonable to do that at least, and we were able to put spaceflight under it for example.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and helped populate the category. I created  since that part seems to be separate from the "gliding" term question, and mainly seems to resolve the matter that we reverted each other's edits for -  is now categorized under .  Was that to your satisfaction? Ikluft (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose the suggestion to rename gliding. The name 'gliding' is the internationally recognised name and it is by far the most common use of the word. I suspect we may have many long months ahead of us debating this one. I have proposed a solution to the glider debate that should satisfy Wolfkeeper. It is on a couple of talk pages for comment before I post it on the Glider Talk Page. I hope that my proposal would quieten things down, but a debate has now been opened on gliding. Terminology is always a grey area. I think 'Glider' is a 60:40 issue but for the sake of making progress, I have suggested a solution in favour of the 40. I hope this will be accepted in the spirit in which it is intended. With 'Gliding' we have to use the internationally recognised name for the sport. When Americans compete in the World Gliding Championships, people, even in the US, will type in gliding to find out what it is about. The next question is whether there are people who are typing 'Gliding' into Wikipedia, and being surprised with what they see. The Wikipedia naming convention is to use the natural name for things. Each article does not have to give every definition, as in a dictionary. As I have said, there are many articles with a main definition, but the one I always quote is London. If this is typed in, most people would expect to see an article on the city rather than a disambiguation page, and this is what happens. Other places are linked in a separate disambiguation page. Wolfkeeper's search for neutrality if taken to its logical conclusion would turn most pages on common things into disambiguation pages and thus destroy some of Wikipedia's usability. There is scope for an article called 'glide (aeronautics)' or 'gliding flight' for a gradual descent. There may be a few people who search for this mode of flight rather than getting there by a hyperlink, but I suspect very few. My concern about the Gliding (flight) article is that it is a parallel article. I can see the need for a piece about the descending flight of animals and aircraft, but the present incarnation does not seem to add much else, apart from duplication. I also think an ornithologist would find it odd to find a paragraph on winch launching in a general article on descending flight. I can't stop it, it just seems a shame. With the glider article, there is a solution. With 'gliding', there isn't a problem, or not much anyway, not 60:40 but 95:5. JMcC (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC) & JMcC (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We appear to be seeing the same discussion in a number of different forums, probably the need to keep asking the same questions and making the same points until somebody agrees. It would appear that the need to rename the articles is really to make a WP:POINT. Nothing wrong with the Gliding article it covers the primary use of the topic and provides a link to Gliding (disambiguation) but any change should be discussed on the related talk page. Perhaps we should concentrate on agreeing what the Glider article is first before any changes to all the related articles but I dont see any consensus to change any of the articles yet users are creating and muddying the waters all the time. I have suggested but it has been ignored that this really needs to go to some sort of arbitration rather than the constant re-treading of the same arguments and to clear up (with agreement) the mess that all the articles have now got in. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the discussion on Talk:Glider. I withdraw from this discussion and will no longer attempt to moderate this.  Sorry for interrupting the party all of you have been having! Ikluft (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Project participation
There is a discussion and poll about project participation going on here. Please take a look and share your opinions. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  22:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Aviation contest
As many of you are aware from the invitations I sent out, there is a new contest starting in the Aviation project. If I somehow missed you, check out WikiProject Aviation/Contest. I created this contest for, what is provisionally titled The Peter M. Bowers International Award For Meritorious Service in the Pursuit of Aviation Knowledge or PeMBoInAwMeSPAK, with the aim to motivate increased quality in aviation articles and improve participation in the Aviation WikiProject by offering a form of friendly competition for project members. We already have 20 members signed up, if you would like to take part you can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the competition will start soon; if you can't take part, come out and help the competitors by assisting in their peer reviews, article promotions, etc. Hope to see you there! -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  19:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

TG-27 / Grunau 8
Just looking at missing article Grunau TG-27 and it appears to be a Sanborn-Grunau 8 Glider registered NX16029 and built in 1937. It was impressed into military service as a TG-27 with serial number 42-65552. I presume it was either an imported Grunau 8 glider from Germany or less likely a homebuilt version built by Daniel Sanborn. Image of actual aircaft at http://soaringweb.org/Soaring_Index/1938/1938Apr_full.jpg Like to create an article but have very little to go on, any help appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Surviving project, gliders
Is this project still alive? Not much has happened since the autumn, though I've just added some more types. If it is, a question: does anyone know how to find out, citeably, roughly how many of a particular type of glider are still flying in a given country? The question arose in the writing of an article on the Slingsby Swallow. With a powered UK aircraft I could get a good idea from G-INFO, the CAA records, but not for gliders. Presumably (never having owned or flown one), you must have some sort of current airworthiness cert, so there should be a list of these somewhere. rcawsey's lists, which are often helpful, do not positively identify any active Swallows, rather noting those that have gone. Any thoughts appreciated.TSRL (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not much activity I am afraid, but just out of interest G-INFO also lists gliders apart from old ones, they all had to be properly registered (rather than just a BGA identity) a few years ago. Also a searchable BGA database at http://www.mrandmrshedgeho.uk/skymaster/bga/bga.asp which has 30 or 40 Swallow entries. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Maybe glider pilots are like bikers, who winter with Reliant Robins (their price always went up in the autumn).  Not sure what the aeronautical equivalent is.TSRL (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gliding articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Gliding articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participate!
Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. &rArr;  Dan Rosenthal    Wikipedia Contribution Team  18:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons Aviation Wikiproject
Several editors have decided to start a Commons Aviation WikiProject which is going to be devoted to aviation-related content on Commons; Commons:Commons:WikiProject_Aviation. Some of the main tasks for the project include maintaining and sorting aviation content, as well as working on obtaining permission from photographers to upload their photos to Commons, in addition to working on introducing photographers to Commons to get them to upload photos directly to Commons. There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation at which we are trying to ascertain what the needs of the community-at-large are, so please feel free to join in the discussion. Also, if there are any project members who are willing to do some translation work for us that would be great. See Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation for more info. Also, anyone with scripting knowledge would be welcome, as there are some ideas which would require such expertise. Look forward to hearing from project members over on Commons with any ideas, etc. Please feel free to translate this message as needed. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Re-naming
With Wolfkeeper long since banned, would anyone support the moving of Glider aircraft to Glider (aircraft)? Currently latter redirects to the former, but I think it should be the other way round. I have never heard the phrase "glider aircraft" but glider (aircraft) would the the normal way to disambiguate the word "glider". JMcC (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Gliding at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft additions to WP:AVLIST
You are invited to comment on WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists/draft. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability
An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Gliding flight move
A user has proposed that Gliding flight be moved to Gliding. The current topic at Gliding, which is about the sport of gliding, would be moved somewhere else. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)