Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force/Archive 3

Australian use of helicopters
An IP editor has recently made changes to the Operators section of several aircraft articles about Bell models used by the Australian Army. Unfortunately, it seems that most of the edits were wikilinks to unreferenced articles on military units and the only "source" claimed by any related article uses an unattributed article claiming to be a history of Australian Army Aviation, found on fourays.org. This article seems to be the source of confusion as to which unit actually flew the aircraft in question and when.


 * 1st Aviation Regiment (Australia)
 * 6th Aviation Regiment (Australia)
 * 171st Aviation Squadron (Australia)
 * 173rd Surveillance Squadron (Australia)

I'd like to draw attention to the articles about these units, as they're listed as falling under WP:MILAIR. --Born2flie (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide more details of what the problem is? This edit by you appears to have corrected the problem for the Kiowa article. I think that I wrote most, if not all, of those Australian Army aviation articles and would be happy to make any needed changes - fourays.org is the website of the Australian Army Aviation Association, and while it's now quite out of date, I think that it should be regarded as a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the edits in question linked units that may or may not have flown the OH-58, or the OH-13, because the only article from fourays.org used as a reference on Wikipedia does not specifically say which aircraft were flown. As far as fourays.org, there is no attribution to the author of an article, only whether the article claims to be an interview of a specific person. Journalistically, the site leaves much to be desired in the way of attribution and citation. I anticipate that under GA- or FA-Class review, such sources will fall into question similarly to other self-published sources.


 * The other problem is that those articles I listed above are mostly unreferenced. They don't have any references listed, nor do they use the inline citations that are nearly requisite these days for article promotion to GA-, A-, and FA-Class quality. Furthermore, the contents of the articles, specifically the content of the 173rd article may not meet the notability criteria. Especially without sufficient references to demonstrate notability.


 * I'm not a content nazi, I am simply bringing these articles to the Task Force's attention before someone else determines that these articles need a prod. If you are not concerned, then I have nothing else to offer. --Born2flie (talk) 14:13, 1 February 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)

Help please!
I'm trying to rescue the article for level bomber at AfD. Please could anyone who thinks Wikipedia should have an article on level bombers help me to re-write it? Thanks!-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  00:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

GAR for SR-71 Blackbird
SR-71 Blackbird has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-MBK004 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Egger
Hi I have created an artilce on Paul Egger, who was a 109 pilot during the Battle of Britain. I have infomation that he recorded several victories but I can not find a total number of kills. Is anyone aware of a souce for this info ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

330th Bombardment Group
Apologize in advance if this is not the correct soap box for asking for assistance with my aircraft table on the 330th Bombardment Group article. Maybe I am trying to fit a square peg into a round hole and should remove the table all together? Any assistance in formatting it would be appreciated. Kind regards, --B29bomber (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:25, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

RAF bomber Command and oil targets and transport
Any one in a position to help on the Oil Campaign of World War II and its two related articles: Oil Campaign of World War II (Chronology) and Targets of the Oil Campaign of World War II from the Bomber command side of things? I think the Transportation Plan article and the targeting of German aircraft production (I'm not aware of an article on the subject) could also use attention. At the moment we seem well served on city bombing but less so on these other topics. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What is .79 inches?
At the P-38 Lightning page, there is a difference of opinion about adding the United States customary units of inches following each instance of "20 mm" when referring to the aircraft's central weapon, to make, for instance, "20 mm (.79 in) cannon". I must point out that nobody in the US verbally converts the term "20 millimeter cannon" to an inches-based terminology; they never used the notional terms "79 caliber" or "point seven-nine inches". The conversion benefits no reader at all. I don't see anything about this type of case in the MilHist MOS or at Manual of Style (dates and numbers), so I think we must rely on common sense. The sensible thing? Drop the conversion. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally US or metric units conversions should be provided per MOS:CONVERSIONS. The .79 in one above provides a value in units someone is used to.  I myself wouldn't be the one to remove that one, but would not add it for common metric calibers like that.. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd remove it simply becuase they, along with the Bofors 40mm, never used imperial measurements. IMO, you shhould probably just leave the conversion for the 20mm and 40mm articles. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Great example in the Bofors 40 mm article; similar ones are to be found at 20 mm caliber and Hispano-Suiza HS.404 which give the conversion just once. I agree with ed17 in that the conversion is appropriate for the weapon's own article. Furthermore, I think the conversion should only be given once in that article, not following each instance of its name, as in the aircraft articles. An interesting parallel is the Ordnance QF 6 pounder, which lists the weight of the round in kilograms just once, in a table, and never shows the weight of the round in pounds (it was never exactly six pounds!).


 * MOS:CONVERSIONS says nothing at all about the case where American practice uses a metric notation from the start. Because of we have no guidance from the Manual of Style, I think we have to use common sense. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that they should not be converted. The MOS explicitly recognizes that the US military is comfortable with metrics, and that applies here. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But, common sense tells you to make the conversions consistent with each other... if it's normal for .30 in (7.62 mm) and .50 in (12.7 mm), it should be normal for all conversions... Magus732 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's "normal" in those two cases, but not uncommon; however, those are the only ones I've ever seen it done so for, not for other calibers (aside from ship guns). Moreover, even with those two it's almost always giving the metric equivalents of the caliber in inches and rarely ever vice versa. One way to help the reader would be to link "caliber" to the article, which also provides a conversion table. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, that always did seem odd to me... I just assumed it was normal... Magus732 (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess what bothers me is that it's done for most other units of measurement... Magus732 (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right ... this is just one of those rare, odd exceptions. Sort of like 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 22:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How many kilograms is a 1,000 lb bomb?
At MOS:CONVERSIONS, it says that we should apply only the appropriate level of precision to our conversions. I'm seeing a bunch of articles displaying too much precision in the conversion. I know that, in WWII, 1,000 lb bombs had a range of weights, but I don't know how wide the range was. How many kilograms should we say that bomb is? 453? 454? No, these figures are more precise than reality was. How about 450 kg?

Same for drop tanks: nominally 300 gallons, they could range from 300 to 330, or possibly wider.

For consistency, it would be useful to establish some common conversion quantities for our general usage. Suggestions:


 * Bombs
 * 3,000 lb (1,350 kg)
 * 2,000 lb (900 kg)
 * 1,000 lb (450 kg)
 * 500 lb (230 kg)
 * 250 lb (110 kg)


 * Drop tanks
 * 300 gal (1,150 L) (capital 'L' for clarity, per MOS:NUMBERS
 * 200 gal (760 L)
 * 150 gal (570 L)


 * Rough altitude
 * 30,000 ft (9 km)
 * 20,000 ft (6 km)
 * 10,000 ft (3 km)
 * 1,000 ft (300 m)


 * Estimated aircraft weight (empty, max, takeoff)
 * 30,000 lb (13,600 kg)
 * 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)
 * 10,000 lb (4,500 kg)


 * Rough range
 * 1,000 mi (1,600 km)


 * Rough speed estimates
 * 100 mph (160 kp/h)


 * Standard jet engine power
 * 3,000 lbf (1,350 kgf)
 * 4,600 lbf (2,100 kgf)

Please add any more common ones you have run into. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fair to me. Using more than 2-3 significant figures (for example 330 has 2 sig. figures) in these types of conversion is not needed.  Tolerances in manufacturing, measurements, etc can make for somewhat imprecise values. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A rough conversion for bombload I have no problem with. As you say for most individual bombs, the weight is nominal. Eg the British 1000lb MC is 1020 lb. So the level given in your example is fine. Perhaps we should be clearer with the use of "1000lb MC bomb" in specifications. Sooner we get proper articles covering the bombs in question the better. General-purpose bomb is relatively good for modern bombs but lacks any history.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's true, the GP bomb article leaves a lot of history unsaid. Say, Fnlayson, significant figures are a good thumbnail to go by but the editor needs to keep in mind the relative granularity of each measurement system, especially with gallons to liters where there's almost a 1:4 difference. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These recommended conversions look reasonable to me and are, in fact, consonant with those used in a number of aircraft encyclopedias. The only exception might be with the altitude conversions, which often include a "tenths" digit.  Of course, the reverse conversions also beg to be regularized. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If these look good, the next thing to do is shoot through all the articles and change 454 kg to 450 kg, etc. And put capital 'L' in for liters. I know I have to alter some of my changes where I put 1,400 kg in for 3,000 lb payloads... it probably should have been 1,350 kg. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems a reasonable idea but you might want to let the aircraft project know what you are doing as not all of them watch this and may see you changing aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we're forgetting something... those conversions are literal conversions... 500 lb converts into 227 kg, no two ways about it... the fact that the bombs may not show that means nothing, because the numbers are what's being converted, not the true weight of the bomb... if it was listed (the true weight), then that would be converted instead... but, since it's impossible to weigh every single bomb that comes off the assmbly line, they used a rough figure for the bomb's size, which it how it's listed in every publication I've ever seen or had... Magus732 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, a "rough figure" was used for a thousand pound bomb. We can use the same kind of rough figure for the kilogram equivalent. Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we can't... because, if you list 1,000 lb as 450 kg, it's no longer an accurate conversion... common sense, and the rules of general math, tell you to round to the nearst whole unit... which means, for example, 1,000 lb = 454 kg... you can't re-round it to 450 kg, because 450 kg is not equal to 1,000 lb, it's equal to 992 lb... Magus732 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what I mean: By your logic, 1,600 km would = 1,000 mi, except that is doesn't, it does = 994 mi... By extension, 1,350 kg doesn not equal 3,000 lb, it equals 2,976 lb... Because these numbers are not rounded properly, it then becomes inaccurate... and if two numbers use the same metric/US customary conversion because of it, people will become confused... I, for one, will not use such a system... Magus732 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your concern about inaccuracy is valid if the converted units are then used to generate a new conversion back to the original. At that point, rounding up or down would have a deleterious effect. But all we're doing is converting once, for the users that are more familiar with a term, not converting back and forth. At MOS:CONVERSIONS, the passage that applies to us reads "Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value, so the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not (236,121 mi). However, small numbers may need to be converted to a greater level of precision where rounding would cause a significant distortion, so one mile (1.6 km), not one mile (2 km)." I added the bolding to show the guideline we are to follow. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see... Well, I never thought of it quite that way... that brings me to a somewhat-related question; should the number "10", when it's used to quantify objects, planes for example, be written as "ten" or "10"? I've seen it both ways and I don't know which one is right... Magus732 (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally as "10". See WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for where that's covered for more info. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, dude... I guess I should just take a day or two and read through the rules... Magus732 (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Seems like when I think I understand the details of some of the polices, they change (slightly). ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps leaving a hidden note to editors when doing these would be advisable something along the lines of "this is the bomb nomimal weight, so using appropriate accuracy of conversion". There should in most cases only need to be a one or two conversions stated per article - the same as explaining an abbreviation once - though I have seen conversions repeated several times in some ship articles for guns.GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

USAF unit lineage issues
Hi, I'm not part of this task force, and I'm not sure I should be, but I'd like to ask your opinion/help on one article: 353d Special Operations Group. The lineage section was confusing to me, until I looked at the USAF history pages for the unit. My confusion first stemmed from listing 553rd and 554th Squadron as having been Special Ops, when they were recon sqdns. Then I realized, hey, the 353rd didn't EXIST during the Vietnam conflict.

Let me propose two versions of showing the lineage of the current unit: first, based on main units' names:


 * 3d Air Commando Group established on April 25, 1944. Activated on May 1, 1944. Inactivated on March 25, 1946. Disestablished on October 8, 1948. Reestablished, and consolidated (July 31, 1985) with the 553d Reconnaissance Wing


 * 553d Reconnaissance Wing, established, and activated, on February 9, 1967. Organized on February 25, 1967. Inactivated on December 15, 1970. Redesignated 353d Reconnaissance Wing on July 31, 1985; Redesignated 353d Special Operations Wing on March 21, 1989. Activated on April 6, 1989. Redesignated 353d Special Operations Group on December 1, 1992.

second, based on timeline:


 * 3d Air Commando Group established on April 25, 1944. Activated on May 1, 1944. Inactivated on March 25, 1946. Disestablished on October 8, 1948.


 * 553d Reconnaissance Wing established, and activated, on February 9, 1967. Organized on February 25, 1967. Inactivated on December 15, 1970.


 * 3d Air Commando Group reestablished, and consolidated with the 553d Reconnaissance Wing (July 31, 1985)


 * 553d Reconnaissance Wing redesignated 353d Reconnaissance Wing on July 31, 1985


 * 353d Reconnaissance Wing redesignated 353d Special Operations Wing on March 21, 1989. Activated on April 6, 1989.


 * 353d Special Operations Wing redesignated 353d Special Operations Group on December 1, 1992.

So, what are your opinions on this one?--Vidkun (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A-7D production data
A-7D production data has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good - it clearly fails WP:IINFO. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Forward Air Control
We have some disagreement about the contents and direction of Forward Air Control, appreciate any comments from this project. MilborneOne (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

George W. Bush GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Military History Assessment Backlog
There is a huge backlog in unassessed articles tag with the Military History progect tag. Many of the articles appear to be concerning helocopters and planes of various sorts. I was hoping some people from this task force could jump in and help clear this backlog out. WikiProject Military history/Assessment Thanks. --dashiellx (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of squadrons?
Forgive the complete lack of military knowledge on my part -- that's why I'm asking here. :)

101 Squadron (Portugal) was recently prodded. While I agree that the article is in pretty poor shape right now, my question is whether or not individual squadrons are generally considered notable. If not, what would be a logical merge/redirect target? Thanks!-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction -- while I was doing research, it was speedied. But my questions remain.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  15:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think as the basic unit of military aviation that all aircraft squadrons would be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Air Experience Flight
Just had a bit of a tidy up at 1 Air Experience Flight (A RAF Chipmunk operator at RAF Manston) included loads of unreferenced information that was not really encyclopedic. Still not sure that cadet flying units are notable but appreciate somebody else having a look at it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

801 Naval Air Squadron
Had a clean up at 801 Naval Air Squadron to remove some of the detail. I removed a list of names of pilots lost in the Korean war, a list of pilots transferred to the squadron before the Falklands wars and also some of the names of those involved in combat. Although I am pretty sure that just a list of Korean war casualties doesnt meet WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and lists of person transferred is not really notable I am just looking for other opinions. Paticularly should be say Lt Smith shot down x and Lt Jones ejected or just summarise without the names. Comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing the lists of pilots and casualties seems reasonable, as otherwise they unbalance the article - and the lists of shootdowns and losses could be trimmed down.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for Indian Air Force now open
The A-Class review for Indian Air Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary: -- Mr.Z-man 00:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
 * The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
 * I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - ~alexz/pop/.
 * This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
 * This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
 * There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
 * The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
 * The data is now retained indefinitely.
 * The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
 * Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" -

Bomber Mafia new article
I started a new article, Bomber Mafia, that expands on a subject taken from the Air Corps Tactical School article. The new article contains some gaps in coverage, the one thing preventing it from achieving B-Class status. Anyone interested in filling the gaps is welcome to do so. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A related article that is yet unwritten: General Headquarters (GHQ) Air Force. I'm not going to write it, so jump in! Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Naturally, such an article would take United_States_Army_Air_Corps as a jumping off place... Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The text is all in a Lead section of Bomber Mafia. Seems like it needs a Lead and a section to meet B-class structure check. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point! I overlooked that. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Plenty of good content there to justify a Lead in any event. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ...And plenty more good content "out there" to justify one. Right now, the article has a List-type structure. I'll change that. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Need help identifying appropriate articles
I'm involved in a new Alliance of Military Reunion Groups. We have about 60 members from all services, and our online directory links to each member's web site, plus to an applicable Wikipedia article, if there is one. This is easy for the Navy groups, since almost every group is from a ship, and almost every ship has an article in Wikipedia.

There are some USAF groups in the Alliance, but I don't know enough Air Force unit nomenclature to know what these guys even DO, let alone identify a Wikipedia article that relates to them or their mission. Can somebody help me with articles that relate in some way to:


 * 435th OMS Enroute MX Section
 * 614th AC&WRON

As our membership grows, there will surely be more of these. (BTW, our web site is HERE) Lou Sander (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a "Fighter"?
I’ve raised a question that is essentially about how articles we need to cover non-bomber fixed-wing combat aircraft at WT:AIR. Right now, there are three such article, but a case can be made for combining them into one, so I’m seeking to generate a broad consensus on addressing an issue in which the basic definition can be narrow or broad in general usage. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Project participation
There is a discussion and poll about Aviation Project participation going on here. Please take a look and share your opinions. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  22:46, 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)

A-Class review for 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident now open
The A-Class review for 1982 British Army Gazelle friendly fire incident is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! – Joe   N  15:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!

Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder but, with about 18 hours to go until nominations close, you'll need to get your skates on if you're thinking of standing as a coordinator. The election is based on self-nominations, so please don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect.
 * Otherwise, voting starts tonight at 00:01 (UTC). Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. You should cast your votes here.
 * Roger Davies talk 06:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

FLC under the scope of this task force
Input on the definition and utilisation of the terms AWAC and Airborne early warning and control would be welcome at Featured list candidates/List of AWACS aircraft operators/archive1. Any interested members of this task force please are invited to comment on the FLC page. Thanks, Woody (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Vehicles of the United States Air Force
Raised this at the aircraft project with little response, a user has just created Vehicles of the United States Air Force and is now suggesting that it be merged with the only slightly older List of United States Air Force aircraft. Both of these articles have the same content as the long established List of active United States military aircraft. I removed the list of aircraft from Vehicles of the United States Air Force just in case the user was going to cover motor vehicles or similar but has reverted the removal and still suggests that it is merged with List of United States Air Force aircraft. I have proded both new articles as duplicates of the older List of active United States military aircraft. Just looking for other comments and suggestions. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945) now open
The peer review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 05:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for John S. Loisel now open
The peer review for John S. Loisel is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 01:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

List of military aircraft by era
Hey guys? I really need some help in the World War One department of the new list List of military aircraft by era. I am not an expert on WWI aircraft in this time period. Thanks! Jeremy (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh! are you sure that is a needed article most of the aircraft are already categorised by decade I am not sure that the article really adds any value and is full of NPOV naming problems. Perhaps you should consider deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing now open
The A-Class review for 102nd Intelligence Wing is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Brian Eaton now open
The featured article candidacy for Brian Eaton is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga now open
The A-Class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for List of X-planes now open
The peer review for List of X-planes is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for John S. Loisel now open
The A-Class review for John S. Loisel is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 02:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) now open
The A-Class review for Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for William Ellis Newton now open
The A-Class review for William Ellis Newton is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for CFM International CFM56 now open
The featured article candidacy for CFM International CFM56 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 21:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for William Ellis Newton now open
The featured article candidacy for William Ellis Newton is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Ian Rose (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Nimitz class aircraft carrier now open
The featured article candidacy for Nimitz class aircraft carrier is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

attention needed
Attention is needed here, it especially needs an organization section. I would prefer something like this. Since I don't know much about this particular topic, I would like this task force to assist. From experience, the Army's website is better than other branches, and it's easier to find things there, so I wish you the best finding things on the AF website. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

New Naming conventions(aircraft) proposal
There is a proposal to revise the Naming conventions for aircraft at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft). Further comments are welcom at this time. If you aren't familiar with the current standard, please review Naming conventions (aircraft). Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split of 330th Bombardment Group (VH)
This article has reached 114KB, well past the size recommended for spliting and I have proposed that it be split into two separate articles, 330th Bombardment Group (World War II) and List of Combat Missions of the 330th Bombardment Group (World War II). A discussion on the proposed split is here and comments (both for or against) are invited. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   08:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A Challenge
Hi all I have a challenge for all you aviation buffs. I am slowly reworking the St Nazaire Raid article  and has come to a stop regarding the Royal Air Force involvement. All I have managed to find is that 35 Armstrong Whitworth Whitleys and 27 Vickers Wellingtons were involved and one Whitley failed to return. Which must mean about five to six squadrons ? No where can I find details of which squadrons were involved any help appreciated and it must be worth at least the for who ever can find the answer. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

this suggests that 51 and 77 Sqns is worth investigating.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Aircraft of No. 19 Group Coastal Command protected the ships during the return journey. 20 sorties (105 flying hours) were carried out which included destroying one enemy aircraft and anti-submarine sweeps in the Bay of Biscay during the outward journey. MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, great work this has helped me no end. For interest it was No.'s 51,58,77,103 and 150 and I was not aware of the 19 Group involvement which can now be added near the end. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for HMS Courageous (50) now open
The A-Class review for HMS Courageous (50) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Boeing B-52 Stratofortress now open
The A-Class review for Boeing B-52 Stratofortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 16:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Arado Ar E.381 now open
The A-Class review for Arado Ar E.381 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron now open
The peer review for 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) now open
The featured article candidacy for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 03:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Courageous class aircraft carrier now open
The A-Class review for Courageous class aircraft carrier is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) now open
The A-Class review for Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Article that is very close to B class
During a check on articles that fail only one B class criterion, I came across this article: F-16 Fighting Falcon operational history. It looks very close to B class to me. Probably just needs a slightly expanded lead and for someone to deal with the "citation needed" and "verification needed" tags (one of each). I did a little bit of a copy edit, but otherwise I don't have sources to rectify the issues listed. If anyone is interested, it looks like it might be an easy kill, so to speak. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Coandă-1910
FYI, is undergoing an edit war, and has been protected multiple times. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for HMS Avenger (D14) now open
The peer review for HMS Avenger (D14) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Arado Ar E.381 has been nominated for an Aviation project A class review
An article in this task force's scope – Arado Ar E.381 – has been listed for an Aviation WikiProject A-class review. Any one interested in participating is encouraged to do so. The review can be found here: WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Arado Ar E.381. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Douglas XP-48 now open
The peer review for Douglas XP-48 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 06:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard John Cork
Hi there I have just created Richard John Cork a Fleet Air Arm pilot who was the wingman for Douglas Bader during the Battle of Britain. Also the only FAA pilot to shoot down five aircraft in a day. Sounds interesting ? yes but badly needs an image of Cork, posting here in case anyone from this project has better luck than myself in finding one.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:International fighter aircraft 1990-1999
Why the split between USA and international when the F-35 goes on both lists?

Can't we just have Category:Fighter aircraft 1990–1999 please? Hcobb (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It should just be in the USA category, IMHO... - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation looking for help
Hi there I am looking for some help. I was reading up on a subject prior to creating an article when I come across this.  He was commissioned in the RAFO in August 1934 does anyone know what the RAFO is ? some background the subject is British and later enlisted in the Fleet Air Arm as a pilot so I suspect its something to do with the Royal Air Force. Anyone with any suggestions. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Black Friday (1945) now open
The A-Class review for Black Friday (1945) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Doomsday now open
The A-Class review for Operation Doomsday is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK004 08:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)