Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force/Archive 1

Template
Howdy.

I'm not really a big aviation expert, but I would like suggest regardless that creating a standardized headings template for military aircraft articles should be among the first tasks done. Oberiko 02:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the WP:AIR group is in the process of creating aircraft templates. Meanwhile, sign up your name! Come on, the water's fine! :) Guapovia 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently building up userbox templates conforming to the the style found on the Military history WikiProject. I'll be building one for this task force if its members dont mind. What would be a defining image representing Military Aviation? Your help is appreacited.Dryzen 13:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How is this different?
How is this different from what WP:Air is already doing? WP:Air has covered the vast majority of better-known aircraft in good detail with an established (more or less) standardized layout, templates, etc. Please outline in detail what you are planning to do with these aircraft articles or how you plan to expand military aviation history beyond what's already there on Wikipedia.

Lest I be misunderstood, I'm not hostile towards this Task Force. I just don't understand what it plans to accomplish. - Emt147 Burninate!  05:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. There's no point in breaking out the military air stuff from the civil &mdash; they already are completely intertwined. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody's breaking it out. I just think that military aviation can be better blended in with 'the rest of history'. This is a task force, not a new WikiProject. :) The1exile claimed there's a bias against aviation in Wikipedia; oldwindybear had an idea about showing wars and battles in the grand scheme of things. Aviation had a significant role in military history; we can make sure that it's visible. This task force would help coordinate that effort. Guapovia 11:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed; the intent here is not to take over the purely technical descriptions already done by WikiProject Aircraft. Of more interest to the military history project is their use: major pilots and commanders of aviation units, aerial warfare and major battles and campaigns involving it, the role of air power in wars, etc.  While we could obviously work on this on our own, we thought some WikiProject Aircraft members might be interested in these aspects of military aviation as well. —Kirill Lok s hin 11:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm. I'm still not entirely convinced but I'll keep an eye on this page and jump in if anything strikes my fancy. - Emt147 Burninate!  13:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! :) Guapovia 19:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Spitfire
I'm not sure what the Airbox Template is but if it concerns the specs, I disagree with changing them. The Spit variants were different enough that they warrant a side-by-side comparison. - Emt147 Burninate!  00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, what about one of those nice boxes on top? makes the article look nice. We can keep the comparisons in at the bottom. See, my not-so-secret little plan is to start with several famous aircraft and make them FA's. That could kickstart aviation interest in Wikipedia. We can use another aircraft, (say P-51?) Guapovia 14:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * P-51 needs a lot of copyediting (yes, it takes as long to fix as to complain, yadda yadda). A good infobox with useful links (the WWI one is a start but too brief) would be nice. Yes, it makes sense to start with the famous aircraft. - Emt147 Burninate!  20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The famous are generally because they are important,eg Merlin engined P51's improved the USAAFs losses over Europe.GraemeLeggett 09:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's go powerhouse the P 51's. :) Guapovia 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help out
Let me know if I can lend a hand. Have been adding entries for some more obscure aircraft.Winstonwolfe 21:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I can kick it off!
I am a new and bigger aspiring Wikipedian who has been writing and correcting articles on Civil War Ballooning. By far this is the biggest story in the genesis of military aviation as it pertains to aerial reconnaissance, mind you, and not actual air combat warfare.

We all know Pancho Barns who had the tavern on Edwards Air Force Base in California, as seen in the movie "The Right Stuff." And that she is the granddaughter of Prof. Thaddeus Lowe the developer of the Union Army Balloon Corps. There was a time in the 50's when the base kicked her off the property. SHE SUED the Air Force claiming that her grandfather was the founder of the U. S. Air Force. On that premise she won her place back and a $375,000 restitution.

Well, I consider myself an authority on that part of military aviation and have written a book Intrepid: an account of Prof. T. S. C. Lowe, Civil War Aeronaut and Hero.

Lemme know Magi Media 02:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Aerial bombing
This subject is a mess, it needs someone to rationalise the articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 18 and Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II --Philip Baird Shearer 10:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Task Force Objectives
There has been some talk on WP:MILHIST's talk page regarding the kind of articles this Task Force should actually cover. Since articles on military aircraft are already within the realm of WP:AIRCRAFT, it may be a good idea to come up with a new set of objectives for this Task Force, so as to avoid any possible overlapping, and to focus the efforts of the TF on maintaining articles outside the scope of WP:AIRCRAFT. Thus, I propose the following objectives for the Military Aviation Task Force:

Our Goals Our scope Articles dealing with any of the following topics:
 * To provide general suggestions for articles dealing with aerial warfare.
 * To improve Wikipedia's coverage of military aviation by creating, expanding, and maintaining such articles.
 * Aerial warfare, including air battles or campaigns, air raids, bombing strikes.
 * Individuals related to the history of military aviation, including leaders, pilots, crewmen, ground staff, strategists, as well as designers and researchers involved in the development of military aviation technology.
 * Air units, air bases, significant individual airplanes or squadrons.
 * Air combat tactics, aerial warfare strategies, terminology, technology.

 What's being left out : Articles about military aircraft and/or weapons. The former are already being taken care of by WP:AIRCRAFT, while the later may fall within the scope of the soon-to-be-created Weaponry Task Force. Please add any other items I may have left out, or revise the abovementioned ones. Any thoughts? Andrés C. 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. I would point out, though, that even when a Weaponry task force is created, there's no reason why this one can't play a role in articles about aircraft weapons; the task forces are meant to have a certain amount of overlap (for example, an article on a British WWII anti-aircraft cannon could concievably be worked on by any of four different task forces). Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree also. The goals and scope above fill a void left in between the Aircraft and Military history projects that is lacking attention. There is alot of things that need improvement. I see no problem with a secondary focus of this task force being the aircraft and weapons themselves as Kirll said. I really look foward to being able to contribute to this task force. --Spot87 23:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Andrés C. 14:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First RAF victory in WWII
There are two competing claims for the first RAF victory in WWII; the Fairey Battle (on 20 September 1939 according to the RAF website) and the Lockheed Hudson (on 8 October 1939 according to Terraine's The Right of the Line RAF history and others). Does anyone know which one is right? Gsl 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Close air support - ground attack aircraft - strike fighter
Like above, this area is mess, it needs someone to rationalise the articles. See Ground attack aircraft --Philip Baird Shearer 10:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

History of military aviation
What is one supposed to do with this article? Currently it redirects to history of military ballooning, but if we really plan to make a separate article I could do that.-KingPenguin 11:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I would think there would be enough material on the topic to make a full article worthwhile.  I'm a bit surprised we don't have such an article already, though; maybe it's been misnamed somehow? Kirill Lokshin 13:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Commando Hunt
There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Commando Hunt that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any knowledge about this?
Sorry to trouble you, but a month ago, I saved List of Cold War pilot defections from an early grave at AfD. I feel a bit responsible for getting it into some sort of readable form, however I have no particular knowledge of or interest in military aviation or the Cold War, and it was only through a fluke that I recognized the article's significance in the first place. I'd originally hoped someone else might find it on their own, but that hasn't happened. So I'm coming here to see if anyone has any knowledge of the subject, I'm at a loss. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 11:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Air Command wings
This is a VERY long article, at over 200 kb. Unless anyone has a difficulty (maybe the writer), I'm going to reduce its size by moving the Strategic Wings (mostly the 1000+ numbered MAJCOM wings) to the Strategic Wings page, unless there are better suggestions. Buckshot06 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Meh. I suppose that would work as a stop-gap solution, but at least the wings with significant histories probably ought to be split out to their own articles in the long run. Kirill Lokshin 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just split the Strategic Wings out into their own page, but the SAC Wings article is still over 200kb. Appreciate suggestions about how to split out other material in order to bring the SAC Wings article down to a more readible size. Cheers Buckshot06 04:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmm, is there some reason why just splitting out some of the meatier entries into their own articles won't work here? Kirill Lokshin 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Only the anticipated objections/reverts of the main contributer..Buckshot06 08:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons
There's a new peer review request for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
There's a new peer review request for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
There's a new request for A-Class status for Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Khe Sanh
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Khe Sanh that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Convair B-36
Gzkn 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for F-84 Thunderjet
There's a new request for A-Class status for F-84 Thunderjet that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for F-105 Thunderchief
There's a new request for A-Class status for F-105 Thunderchief that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Help needed
I would appreciate any help I can get with User:Raul654/favpics/Virginia2006. It's a gallery of pictures I took while I was visiting Virginia this weekend - mostly from the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, and a few from the new Marine Corps musuem in Quantico. There are a lot of red links there that need creating, and most of the rest need to be inserted into articles. Raul654 05:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Linebacker II
There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Linebacker II that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for B-17 Flying Fortress
There's a new request for A-Class status for B-17 Flying Fortress that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Igloo White
There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Igloo White that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Kurt Welter
There's a new peer review request for Kurt Welter that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Linebacker
There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Linebacker that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 14:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for HM-15
There's a new peer review request for HM-15 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Sukhoi Su-30
There's a new peer review request for Sukhoi Su-30 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments added. — Askari Mark (Talk) 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Rolling Thunder
There's a new peer review request for Operation Rolling Thunder that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Flypast
There's a new peer review request for Flypast that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for air forces
There's a discussion going on at the military unit infobox talk page about adapting the infobox for national service branches (in particular, national air forces) that could use some additional input. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Rolling Thunder
There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Rolling Thunder that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Igloo White
There's a new peer review request for Operation Igloo White that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for P-38 Lightning
There's a new peer review request for P-38 Lightning that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Igloo White
There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Igloo White that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Barrel Roll
There's a new peer review request for Operation Barrel Roll that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Barrel Roll
There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Barrel Roll that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Menu
There's a new peer review request for Operation Menu that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Khe Sanh
There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Khe Sanh that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Igloo White
There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Igloo White that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons
There's a new request for A-Class status for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1943 bomber bailout over Gironde
This is a small bit of trivia that relates to the discovery of the jet stream. According to sources, one of the outlier cases that was noted by aviators was a 1943 RAF bomber squadron that encountered 380kph headwinds over the Gironde, apparently causing the planes to run out of fuel and the crews to parachute out in German-occupied France, whereupon they were taken prisoner. Our source(s), one of which is translated from German by proxy, says the planes "stalled" which seems aerodynamically unlikely. A better source for this incident would be helpful, but it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere I can google. Any suggestions? --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Robin Olds
There's a new peer review request for Robin Olds that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Tupolev TB-3
There's a new request for A-Class status for Tupolev TB-3 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Zveno project
There's a new request for A-Class status for Zveno project that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 08:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base
There's a new request for A-Class status for B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 10:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sign-ups?
How would I sign-up for this thing? Just stick my name on the list?

-AceFighterPilot 04:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's all. Kirill Lokshin 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for DFS 346
There's a new peer review request for DFS 346 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 10:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Sukhoi Su-25
There's a new request for A-Class status for Sukhoi Su-25 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gransden Lodge Airfield
Gransden Lodge Airfield the former RAF Gransden Lodge has beed nominated for deletion Articles for deletion/Gransden Lodge Airfield, this may be of interest to task force members. MilborneOne 12:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New article:South Atlantic air ferry route in World War II
Just wanted to let you know about this article. Hopefully, it does not duplicate the content of any other existing article. --Richard 07:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct PoAF squadron name writing?
Hi there,

I'm forwarding this question to this project as suggested in the Village pump. I would like to request your help do clarify a doubt of mine. I've been lately working more on articles related to the Portuguese Air Force here at Wikipedia and have ran intro some trouble when translating correctly the squadron's number format. I took a look around and tried to adopt a format already used in another air force article (i.e. USAF and Royal Air Force) but they ended up seeming incorrect.

Just to show you the problem and the type of formats that I tried I'll post here a brief explanation. In Portuguese the naming used for squadrons - and using an real example - is Esquadra 201 Falcões - Esquadra = Squadron, Falcões = Falcons. Now, I don't have any problems translating Falcões, but I'm in doubt about the right translation for Esquadra 201. Here are some examples of the translations that I tried so far: This is the format used by the USAF (i.e. 18th Fighter Squadron), and I personally have used this once but it is incorrect, since the PoAF's squadron numbers aren't just "plain numbers", instead they are a set of three algorithms in which the first two indicate the squadron's primary mission and the type of aircraft operated. This is the form used by the Royal Air Force and other commonwealth air forces. This naming was already used in some articles by other users and seems correct but there is still another option. This one is actually the one used at the official PoAF website in English, but still I'm in doubt about using it.
 * 201st Squadron
 * No. 201 Squadron
 * 201 Squadron
 * Squadron 201

This is probably something really simple, but I would appreciate any help to clarify this.

Best regards, Get_It 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the main guideline on this is WP:MILHIST; in the absence of a convincing reason to do otherwise, I would just follow whatever the PoAF itself uses in its translated texts. Kirill 17:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. I also asked for help at an Portuguese aviation forum and they replied that although the PoAF uses 'Squadron 201' in their website, the most common translation used is '201 Squadron'. Best regards, Get_It 17:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "201 Squadron" would be best. "Esquadra 201" does not express an ordinal number, so that should definitely not be used. The other three are all options, given the lack of firm translation rules, but "Squadron 201" is not a normal style. "No. 201 Squadron" wouldn't actually be wrong, but would be more appropriate if it were used to translate "Esquadra Numero 201". Askari Mark (Talk) 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Air bases, aifields, field runways, and forward operating bases
I looked, and I could not find the definition of these terms. Further there is no page for airfield, there being a redirect to aerodrome. However aerodrome is no longer in common use, these having been replaced by airports or aeroports. Civilian airports are the equals of military air bases. Of course to further confuse the issue RAF and the US Navy/USMC calls their aerodrome, air stations. An even further confusion is from this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Forces_in_Europe that states:

AB = Air Base. Flying/Operational base with permanently assigned aircraft.

AS = Air Station. No permanently assigned aircraft, may or may not have a runway and flying facilities.

The reason I was looking is because I was trying to find information on operation of tactical combat airfields, their organisation and operation during WW2.

It seems to me that an air base/station is a fairly permanent establishment (many date to WW1), usually located within the national territory of a country, with a permanent non-flying operational component. An airfield seems to me to be a temporary establishment for the duration of particular operational requirements of a short period of campaign (hence the use of 'field'!), and most often will be a part of a flying unit, and commanded by the flying unit officer.

An air base may have non-combat flying related missions such as receiving replacement aircraft and their assembly and maintenance/repair, pilot training and type conversion, communications and radar installations, medical and administration facilities, and even housing for the personnel, including civilian employees.

An airfield will concern itself with combat functions only, and will have only limited maintenance and medical capability for field repair and treatment, and all of the installation will be temporary and mobile. Usually they will operate aircraft capable of taking of from unprepared or temporary runways.

I appreciate that in the United States some historical air bases are in fact called Airfield, and that in UK and France the word used is Aerodrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfield, and often for both types of installations, but essentially its all about the difference of having permanent and makeshift (field!) runway which is not covered by this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway article. No article seems to cover the construction, and operation of field runways and airfields.--Mrg3105 07:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for George Jones (RAAF officer) now open
The A-Class review for George Jones (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft by war
At one time, weren't aircraft categorized by war in addition to being categorized by decade? Is there some kind of policy regarding this? Oberiko 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Richard Williams (RAAF officer)
There's a new peer review request for Richard Williams (RAAF officer) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 01:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for B-52 Stratofortress
There's a new peer review request for B-52 Stratofortress that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Air Force of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution
There's a new peer review request for Air Force of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles
It doesn’t take much looking at a number of articles on air forces to notice that there is no consistent organization at all. What I’d like to do is offer a “straw-man” organizational structure for these articles. No article would necessarily need to have every section or subsection, but it would be nice for them to have at least a common outline, if you will. In my mind, these articles are a “beginning point” for learning about a given air force, with links going to more detailed articles or lists (which would give better access and focus for them); I do not want to make the air force articles chart- or table-heavy. I have tried to develop a draft structure that has some logic to it and still “flows” when read. (There are many other possible ways to do this, of course.) The content comes from looking at what types of information is given in many different air force articles; it’s not exhaustive, but I think it at least covers most of what one would consider encyclopedic.

It is my thinking that the content focus on service in its “current” state. To keep these articles from becoming too unwieldy, I think that substantive information on past organizational details like OOBs & TO&Es, former leaders, etc. should be in separate lists or articles, linked to in the main article as is fitting.

Subsection names in brackets are not intended to be the “official” heading, but rather indicative of the content intended for one or possibly more subsections. Comments in braces are my thoughts on content.


 * (Intro)


 * History
 * Formation
 * [Major evolutionary periods] {e.g., 1947 Key West agreement, major periods of expansion/contraction (giving an idea of the before/after end strengths), etc.}


 * Major operations
 * Combat {very brief chronological summaries intended chiefly to provide links to more detailed articles; there could also be links to OOBs for referenced wars}
 * Humanitarian {ditto}


 * Aerospace doctrine {current}


 * Organization {current}
 * National command authority {current civilian/military command structure}
 * Current leadership {civilian & military; link to separate list of service chiefs}
 * Operational structure {active-duty component}
 * Administrative structure
 * Support structure {maintenance and logistics, weather service, research and test organizations, etc.}
 * Reserve component(s)
 * Aerobatic display team(s)
 * Airbases {primarily maps} {to include research and test facilities}
 * Domestic
 * Foreign


 * Equipment {current} {The intent here is to provide a table (for small air arms) }
 * National aircraft markings
 * Aircraft
 * Fixed-wing
 * Bombers
 * Fighters
 * Combat support and special-purpose aircraft {AWACS, MPA, etc.}
 * Transports
 * Trainers
 * Rotary-wing {including tiltrotors}
 * Attack
 * Combat support and special-purpose aircraft {ASW, AEW/EW, etc.}
 * Transports
 * Trainers
 * UAVs [and Airships]
 * [Aircraft carriers and other aircraft-capable ships]
 * [Ballistic missiles]
 * Early Warning and Air Defense systems {only AD systems under that air force's control}
 * [Space systems]


 * Rank structure
 * Officers
 * Non-Commissioned Officers and Enlisted personnel


 * Uniforms and insignia
 * Uniforms
 * Badges
 * Awards & decorations


 * Recruitment, training and military education {including authorized end strengths, institutions, and major regular training exercises}


 * Future plans {reorganizations, force structure changes, major acquisitions, key technology thrusts, etc.}


 * [Glossary of terms]


 * Galleries {definitely optional, but at least keep them at the end, instead of buried in the midst of the article}


 * (Standard appendices)

For the Equipment section, it could be either a table of total inventories according to the categories listed, or a short discussion with links to list pages (for large- and medium-sized air forces) or tables (for small air forces only). This approach could also be used for sections like Rank structure and Uniforms and insignia.

Please share your thoughts, suggestions, criticisms, and (if appropriate) witticisms. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite good A great format-- Phoenix 15 (Talk) 20:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good - but not sure about the 'major operations' section. I think it should probably be a lot further down, and then how do you define a 'major op'? Where would the contribution to the International Force for East Timor fit in - not really 'combat', not really 'humanitarian'? I think a great deal of the list items (eg, equipment, uniforms, awards) would be simply a link to another page. Only minor points though PalawanOz 00:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. No specific comments but it's a good step to deal w/ the mess. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  06:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good initiative, though as PalawanOz said, the history and major operations might effectively merge. What about volunteers for a task group to bring a specified & discussed set of important air forces up to this standard (Thinking of Iran, Saudi, in ME, but others, 10 or so for starters)? Buckshot06 11:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good overall, although I might have some quibbles with placements, i.e. air demonstration teams might be ranked lower in the section list as not all air forces would have them, there is no clear delineation for a note on technology although that might be incorporated as a statement regarding current or future developments and of course, in any comprehensive list there should be provision for a reference guide (a suggested framework would be to have the standard "References" section grafted into the format. As to witticisms, all out today, after a long frustrating day of answering charges that I was a deity or acted like one on Wiki aircraft articles. FWIW Bzuk 12:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks, for the comments! Personally, I’m not hard-over for any particular order – there’s certainly no one best way – so I can only explain why I picked the one I did.  In general, I tried to keep the parts that are generally most-read toward the top, and the parts that are more list-like or list-dominated toward the bottom so readers wouldn’t have to scroll through them.  In that sense, “Operations” seemed to naturally follow “History”.  That’s also why “Administrative structure” follows “Operational structure”, although many references switch that order; I’m still thinking of making that change.  I would certainly have no problem with merging “Operations” into “History”; I considered that.


 * PalawanOz: I’d rather leave the definition of “Major ops” to the editors involved; after all, it’s rather relative to each air force’s capabilities.  If it starts getting too long, then I think that would mean there needs to be a separate article on the force’s operational history.  I wasn’t particularly sure how to add activities like IFET either.  Perhaps a “Peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations” subsection?


 * Buckshot06: A task group might be a good idea; in particular, I think a run-through of the existing air force articles to bring them to the new standard would be a good idea.  Part of the reason I decided to work on this is because my “real-world” responsibilities are making it increasingly harder for me to find time for Wikipedia, so I feel I need to focus on something for the foreseeable future.  Since I’ve pretty much added all I can to the “List of air forces”, working on the article for these air forces seems a natural next step.


 * Bzuk: One of the options I’ve considered for “Airbases” is to raise it to being a section itself as they are more infrastructural in character (although they are also units in some air forces); it’s that “infrastructural” sense that led me to place it at the end, but the more I think of it, the more I like the idea of a graphic going there.  As for the standard appendices, I didn’t think I needed to add them since they are generic to all articles, but I’ll include them generally for reminder’s sake.


 * I thought about having a “Technology” section (and/or “R&D”), but really couldn’t figure out a good way to do so; it just seems to be a subject that is orthogonal to the rest. At this point, I’m tempted to avoid being too prescriptive and leave it up to the editors working an article, possibly working it into the various topics under “Equipment”.  Anybody have some good ideas on how to structure an “R&D/Technology” section or subsection? Askari Mark (Talk) 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apart from very big air forces (and that would be determined by the individual circumstances) it isn't necessary to worry too much I think. For a first cut of 10 articles to bring them up to the standard, what about United States Air Force (really a separate project in its own right, and there user:Tdrss might help) Russian Air Force, Royal Air Force, PLAAF, French Air Force (just covering the P5 of the Security Council) and then Iranian Air Force, Japanese Air Self-Defense Force, Brazilian Air Force, Israeli Air Force and maybe South African Air Force and maybe Royal Australian Air Force (get user:Nick Dowling to help on that) and finally, because of current events, Iraqi Air Force? Buckshot06 16:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems a reasonable list, although I'd throw in the Luftwaffe for an "even" baker's dozen since that's always a popular subject. Any more thoughts on "Technology", etc.? Askari Mark (Talk) 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added an optional Glossary section, which would be helpful for explaining foreign-language names and terms used in the article. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Richard Williams (RAAF officer) now open
The A-Class review for Richard Williams (RAAF officer) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Help request
Hi there, Xian H-8 a new article on a Chinese bomber has been created, but I can't find anything about this on the web. Is this genuine? Tim Vickers 18:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Britain GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles and just reviewed Battle of Britain. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues considering sourcing that should be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I am leaving this message at this task force, along with the other relevant task forces to the article, since the article falls under this topic and figured you might be interested in helping to improve the article further. The article needs some more inline citations, and if added, I'll pass the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After leaving the article on hold and the issues I mentioned were not addressed, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the articles' status. Issues needing to be address are listed there. Please join the discussion to see how the article can be improved to prevent delisting. If you have any questions about the reassessement, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident now open
The peer review for 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident now open
The A-Class review for 2007 United States Air Force nuclear weapons incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for C-5 Galaxy now open
The A-Class review for C-5 Galaxy is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing now open
The A-Class review for 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 12:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident now open
The peer review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 03:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident now open
The A-Class review for 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)