Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Initial Project proposal

The following has been copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Major proposal: WP Aviation

A funny idea has been floating around in my head lately. Wikipedia has no Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. A lot of the stuff this project takes care of (such as Federal Aviation Administration, and Douglas Aircraft Company) don't follow our stated page content guidlelines, and would be better served under that project, if it existed. If that project was created, the Aircraft Project would naturally seem to be a sub-project of it. The best way to have interaction between a sub-project and a parent project is, I think, have the sub-project become a "task force". Since we now have a "Rotocraft task force", a "Fixed-wing task force". That would free up editors involved in airplanes to focus on airplane articles. I'm not suggesting destoying this project, but what if this project was renamed "WikiProject Aviation", and any project work specifically aimed at fixed wing aircraft was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Fixed-wing task force. Crazy idea, I know, and would involve a lot of work moving pages and reorganizing content, but an idea none the less. Comments? *flinch from expected attack* Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That certainly is an interesting idea. Under the "Related Wikiprojects" there are several that would naturally fit as sub-projects under an Aviation umbrella. Maybe some feelers over on those talk pages might be an idea, too. Of all the wikiprojects I've seen, AIR is by far the best organized and has the most extensive resources (a subtle tip 'o the hat to all those involved in making it so!), so we have a lot to offer other related projects that might "come under our wing" if this were to happen. Akradecki 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have suggested we start a wiki[roject aviation before, move aircraft, airports, under it. I think it would be a great idea! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If nobody draws it up, i would not mind drawing up a proposal to create wp:aviation, and how each part would fit into it and then get feedback on the proposal. I really like this idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Trevor, I like your outspokenness! I disagree that WP:Aircraft needs to be renamed as WP:Aviation, I do, however, agree that a WP:Aviation would benefit the entire Aviation portion of the encyclopedia. I would say that WP:Aviation could be the parent for WP:Aircraft and WP:Airport and WP:Airline or even WP:Air-anything. I'd be perfectly content, however, to continue to participate as a member of a task force that belongs to WP:Aircraft. The only question is what would WP:Aviation's goals and scope be, and would it attempt to ecplipse any current project's goals and scope? --Born2flie 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me for jumping in the middle here, but I wanted to respond directly to the questions above. I believe one of the primary goals is to bring the complex and well-thought-out infrastructure that we have to the other areas of aviation on the encyclopedia. As I've stated before, I believe that Aircraft is probably one of the best set-up projects around. The result is a comprehensive set of standards and guidelines, and a dedicated group of editors who make these guidelines stick, even when the going gets tough. What we need to do is to clone our project up one level, so that the comprehensive guidelines are consistent throughout all aviation articles. Right now, the subject is quite fragmented by the various projects. For instance, I've done editing in aircraft crash articles, and some are covered under the Airline project, some are left floating out there with no one except WikiProject Disaster management covering them (if this gets going, I can even see the place for an "Aviation Safety Task Force" to cover accident articles). One of the hallmarks of a world-class encyclopedia is seamless consistency, which is probably the most important thing we can bring to the table. Akradecki 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that an oxymoron, an Aviation Safety task force covering articles about accidents? I'd prefer Aircraft Accident task force, something that doesn't tie "safety" to crashing, especially since very little in those articles about crashes meets the intent of what an accident investigation is really for.
Anyways, I think we're puffing WP:Aircraft into something more than what it is, a project that covers the articles about aircraft. Aviation is as much about the infrastructure as the aircraft that operate within that infrastructure, and we don't have a corner on the market of good ideas. Aircraft are popular, but dictating to the few people who do write about the other aspects of aviation has a risk of ostracizing or even chasing off editors who are working to improve the encyclopedia just as we are, and in areas we really don't care about (if we did, we'd be writing in those areas). If we were going to adapt to their guidelines and standards for their subjects, that would be fine, but I wouldn't want to start making all of Aviation look like Aircraft simply because we have numbers and we're organized and we like what we come up with. If we take it that far, you can mark my words that the project will mostly be fighting everybody just to maintain guidelines and accomplishing very little.
Also, keep in mind, that you're talking about expanding the scope well beyond WP:AIR's scope and when you do that, you will dilute the organization and strength that you are counting on right now. It would be more beneficial to gain concensus within each of the projects to have their say in what WP:Aviation will be and then to work within all the groups to achieve common guidelines or whatever you think the goal of WP:Aviation should be.
My $.02. YMMV. --Born2flie 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Some excellent points. With the "safety" thing, I was hoping in the back of my mind that maybe, since this is an encyclopedia, accident articles could be nudged to be more than just a news story of aluminum hitting rock, and relate what was learned from it, how things in the industry were changed by it, etc. Just a pipe dream. I do hear you about the danger of ostracizing others. You mentined adapting to their guidelines in their areas, I guess what I was getting at is that in a lot of areas, both covered by another project and orphaned areas, there's a distinct lack of guidelines and organization. I don't mean any disrepect to the other projects (I belong to a couple of them, too), but there is a lot of room for growth there, and we already have the standards set up. I was envisioning it more of us offering the infrastructure to them rather than marching in and taking over.Akradecki 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking something like wikiproject military history is set up, with the task forces. There is alot of stuff, related to aviation, that falls outside of aircraft and airports project currently that are getting stretched to fit in it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the Portal:Transport/WikiProjects template on the Portal:Transport page, you will see that Aviation is the only black link on the list. So creating this would bring Aviation in line with all the other projects on the portal. I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding and it would fit in under Aviation as a sister project to Aircraft. Dhaluza 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That might actually be a good way to start, but in the end I think we'd want Aviation out from under Transport as its own parent project. All the other sub-projects under transport are much narrower in scope, with several focusing on narrower aspects of ground transportation.
TO begin with, we might start an Aviation Task Force to put together the proposals, and to give a place to begin organizing the various orphaned articles. We also ought to coordinate with the Airlines and Airports projects, and get their participation on putting the parent group together. To be honest, Gliding should really be a Task force under another project, one that might include aother aspects of aviation-related sports and activities, such as airshows, private plane interests, etc. - BillCJ 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What, we're thinking all the other Aviation related projects will just become task forces? I don't find that realistic. --Born2flie 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Aircraft, AIrports, and AIrlines would all be projects under a parent project, as they are now under Transport, but instead would be under Aviation. I just meant the Gliding would probably be better as a task force under another project, perhaps Aviation Recreation, which would cover similar topics not currently under a project, or now under various other non-aviation projects. - BillCJ 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I guess it was really more a question to Chris in re: to his, "I was thinking something like wikiproject military history is set up, with the task forces." I mean, that's where I got the idea for Rotorcraft task force, but it blends. Aircraft and Rotorcraft, it was kind of like a no-brainer to cover a subgroup of the project without needing to be its own project. I can see Aviation as a parent group, but having it come out from under Transport? I don't see that. It still fits and belongs, especially the way the encyclopedia is constructed right now; Aviation is a form of Transportation. Once again, I'm devil's advocate because I am not against WP:Aviation. --Born2flie 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood the origianl proposal to mean coming out from under Transport. I do see the whole topic of Aviation as being much more than just a sub-set of Transportation. I can see reasons for doing so, but I was only advocating for what I though was being proposed. It does not bother me either way which way we go. As pointed out above, WP:AIR is under the Aviation topic under Transport, so it makes sense to just make it the parent of AP:AIR under the Transport "grandparent" project. WOrks for me. - BillCJ 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I created WikiProject Gliding primarily to bring people from the Gliding community into the WP community, so I would prefer it remains a separate project with it's own identity. Gliding is a sport organized internationally under the FAI Gliding Commission. The scope of the project includes gliders, which is a category of aircraft, but that is only one small part. The current project scope covers:

I do think we could have joint task forces to work on areas of overlap such as airports/gliderports and aircraft/gliders, as well as aviation in general. Dhaluza 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal outline

Here's my idea of how the various project should be organized. This is just one idea (my original was, by the way, to have just one project, Aviation, and anything sub that a task force), but I think its a good framework to work on:

Would fixed wing aircraft benefit from a task force, or is having WP:Air separate from WP:Aviation enough. Are there other areas of focus that would benefit from a task force? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think breaking aircraft down into to many "task forces" is a bit far out there. I think they all fall under aircraft and breaking it down too far will just spread the project out to far. I dont know what it means above when Aviation is under transport. I think aviation should stand by itself though. Aviation is used to fight wars, so the argument could be made that it should be a subset of military history. (Although, I am not making that argument, it is just to show that I dont feel viation falls under transportation). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)`
I also think the scope of aviation should be expanded to include
  • Famous individuals in the world of aviation such as the wright brother, clyde cessna, or other famous aircraft desingers
  • aviation specific terminologies and such (there is actually a categtory for aviation terminology)
  • Any articles related to the history and or development of aviation.
I think that these are important (and hope that it is not a bad case of scope creep). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you for the most part, especially on WP:Aviation not being part of WP:Transportation. But for now, your outline looks good to me. I see no problem starting out under tranportation for the time being, esp since WP:AIR is already there. We don't have to fight for our independence today! :)
As to a FIxed Wing task force, I think it works fine as it is. We can use the taks force for things which need special attention, such as Rotorcraft, as outlined by the originator of that idea, Born2Flie. ANother group which might benefit from a Task force might be Airliners. As the recent discussions on the Airliner specs have shown, they have their own unique requirements, and some editors spend most of their time in that sub-group anyway. Just a thought, but again, it doesn't have to be fought now. - BillCJ 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There is actually already a project for airliners. WP:AIRLINERS, not sure if you were aware of that. Has anybody posted to the other projects that are related ([WP:AIRPORTS]] and WP:AIRLINERS to see if they want in on this discusison? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I know there is a WP:Airlines, but the link you gave is red, and a quick search and parousal of some airliner talk pages turns up nothing. If they do exist, they aren't doing a very good job of advertising their existence, or on the airliner pages either! But yes, I agree we need to talk with the other projects on this. - BillCJ 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That was my bad, I was thinking of WP:AIRLINE, not airliners. oooooops. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I still think however that airliners beongs under aircraft. The argument can be made that there are many different models and verios with different specs and such but the same could be argued for regular aircraft. the differents might be more sublt but fo rexaple, there are many many verisons of the Cessna 172 )I am not aware of how they are all different). The same could be said about many other aircraft as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on my suggestion. Yes, Airliners should be under WP:Air, but just like Rotorcraft, they might benefit from a dedicated task force. But it's just a suggestion. - BillCJ 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh! I gotcha now. yea, I would not be adverse to having a task force for that. So, what is a propsoed list of task forces? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I went and read through WP:Airline's project page. Other than major accidents and fleet listings, it seems that this project is more geared towards the airlines as companies rather than airliners as aircraft, so I don't think there would be conflict. That being said, the airline company aspect seems like it would naturally fit under the WP:Aviation umbrella as well. Akradecki 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Listing the Airline project under Aviation sounds like a pretty good idea. As for conflicts, I agree that there wouldn't be any. Our coverage of aircraft just extends to organization of fleet info on airlines, not details about the planes themselves. DB (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Task Forces

I would like to take this section to discuss which task forcese would seem appropriatl to have under a WP:AVITION, should it come into existence. I would like the outcome of this discussion to be included in the proposal/plans for creaton of a Wikiproject aviation. Listed below is what we have now. If you have one you would like to propose, add it to the list and creat a heading for it! Explain why you think it should be included. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: I don't believe that WP:Aviation should replace WP:AIR, so there should not be any aircraft related task forces under WP:Aviation, since they would all fall under WP:AIR. --Born2flie 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikiproject Aviation - Proposed task forces
    • Airliners
    • Rotorcraft
    • Gliders (or Gliding)?
    • Fixed wing.

Airliners

Rotorcraft

Gliders or Gliding

  • Support as Gliding - I support a task force dedicated to this but think it should be named the Gliding task force as opposed to Gliders. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support a joint task force on gliders between the Aircraft and Gliding projects to, among other things, standardize article format. Dhaluza 23:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Wing

  • Oppose - I think this will be the bulk of the project and creating a task force for it will be redundant and un-necessary. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that, since Airlines (note it's Airlines as in the companies, not Airliners as in the aircraft type) and Gliding already have their own projects they should remain such and not require a task force. As part of this edit, I've clarified my links in the project organization chart above. Also, I only consider WP:Aviation to be a sub-project of WP:Transportation in Wikipedia organization only. It will likely not have any overlap in members/rules/policies etc.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of a gliding project? Do you have the link to it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding. - BillCJ 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Isent gliding a subet of aircraft? Like rotorcraft? If rotorcraft were a task force (which I feel it should be), then i also feel that gliding should be as well. Would it be too much to create one for each group recognzied by teh faa (would that be to north americancentric). The ones I am refering to are fixed wing aircraft (the bulk of the porject as i am assuming), rotorcraft (should be a task force), gliders (should be a task force) and maybye lighter than air (another possible task force). DO you think the gilder project would be extremly adverse to being a task force/subset of the aircraft project? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the users above mentioned that he had created the Gliding project. I think he did this on his own without consulting any other project. RIght now there are only 5 names on their participant list. THey may have a larger vision for their project in mind, but it wouldn't hurt to ask them if being on of our task forces might be better for them, in the short run anyway. - BillCJ 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I will go ahead and do that. I guess i see gliders as a subset of aircraft like a caboose is a subset of a train. You wwouldent have a seperate wikiproiject cabooses (as far as I know) that made sense. It would make much more sense to have it in a hierarchical order. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Gliders are a category of aircraft, like airplanes/aeroplanes, rotorcraft, balloons, etc. But the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding has a much broader scope (see above). Dhaluza 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but right now you are a very small project. It might make sense to start out as a task force, or at least have a Glider task force under WP:Aircraft to handle gliders for you, but which is also a task force under the Gliding Project. Which ever way you decide to go is probably fine with us. We just didn't want to leave you out entirely of the discussion. the Aviation Project will have a broader scoope than WP:Aircraft, which will remain a project under Aviation. So having the Gliding Project under Aviation (not AIrcraft) is probably best for the scope you have in mind, with or without a Glider Task Force under WP:AIR. - BillCJ 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal Recap

Ok, so this is how I see the discussion heading so far:


Let's modify this list. Are there any topics missing? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its good. However in the future, i would not be adverse to adding a lighter than air task force under the aircraft project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added in the Gliding Project under Aviation, and included the Joint Glider Task Force with WP:AIR. - BillCJ 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to confirm: the items under the scope of the gliding project refer to articles specifically related to gliding. The list seems to me to be a little too broad. For example, its written that airports fall under the scope of WikiProject Gliding, but I don't thing that that should be so. Airport articles are not considered to be part of the scope of WikiProject Aviation, even though airplanes need them to take-off and land. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally like the joint task force idea for the gliders. I think that is a great way to do that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Might it be worth making rotorcraft into a project rather than a task force? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I wonder. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to deal with all these projects, and the likely addition of others, such as the aviation accidents project/task force. Where do we draw the line between what requires an entire project, and what can be done as a task force? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the question needs to be asked. If this taskforce/proposed taskforce were to be completly held by the project it is a part of, would that be acceptable/ I.E. the rotorcraft taskforce, could not exist and rotorcraft would still be covered by the aricraft project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For specific guidance on task forces, see: WP:TASKFORCE. I think the various categories of aircraft should be task forces under Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft. The glider task force will be joint with Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding. We could also propose a joint task force for military aircraft with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military.

As part of the discussion below, each project's scope may need tweaking, so that the project templates can be used effectivly. Does anyone see any problems with the list above? Are there areas that are overlapping than can be fixed? For example, currently Talk:Federal Aviation Administration is tagged with Airports, and Aircraft project tags, but I think it falls under, and only needs, the aviation project tag. And Non-directional beacon? It involves both the airport ground equipment (transmitter) and the aircraft equipment (receiver). So should it be tagged by both projects? What if we modify the aviation tag so that if it falls in a sub-projects scope as well as the aviation projects, it will tag and categorize it for both. Sort of how the military history project does it for its task forces. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Page top tabs

I personally like the page top tabs located at WP:AIRCRAFT. anyody have feelings about useing them here too? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I like them too. I'm for copying pretty much everything from WP:Air, and adapting it to our broader scope here, esp as the primary purpose of this project is to extend WP:AIR's standards to Aviation as a whole. - BillCJ 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Red Bull Air Race World Series

Hi Trevor MacInnis. I appreciate your proposal to take the WikiProject Red Bull Air Race World Series under the WikiProject Aviation umbrella, which has already been done. I believe that the deep knowledge of the members of various task forces within the parent project will surely contribute to the enhancement of the articles related to Red Bull Air Race World Series.

Maybe in some time, a Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation competitions can be established, being the immediate parent project of RBARWS project and comprising similar other aviation events. CeeGee 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Military aviation task force

Excuse my ignorance, but I’m coming into this change a bit cold. I see a “Military aviation” entry under the “Task forces and sub-projects lists” drop-menu. I presume this refers to the Military aviation task force of WikiProject Military history, and I’m wondering what the relationship will be. Does it remain with WP:MilHist or move to WP:Aviation or does it somehow become a shared task force? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the Military history task force, and it will remain under their project, but I just though a link to it would be appropriate. I haven't contacted them about this or the idea of it becoming a shared task force. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It's now a joint task force. :-) Kirill Lokshin 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Project tags

I've been going through tagging and retagging some articles. I found a few interesting questions, and would like to propose a consistent approach to dealing with these issues.

  1. Some articles are already tagged to one or more child projects. I suggest that if a page falls into more than one child project, it should be re-tagged for the parent aviation project. So pages that were tagged to Aircraft and Airports would be re-tagged to Aviation (with the same assessment).
  2. Articles that deal specifically with one project should be tagged to that project. So aircraft and parts of aircraft should be tagged to the Aircraft project (e.g. airframe). But terms relating to operation of the aircraft should be tagged to aviation (e.g. airway).

--Dhaluza 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with this, to a degree. An article tagged to both Airports and Aircraft, but that does not relate directly to either one, should be re-tagged to the more general Aviation project. One example is Talk:Instrument flight rules, currently tagged as an Airport project page, but I think that this more properly belong under Aviation projects scope. But articles such as Talk:Instrument Landing System belong specifically to the Airports project. Its all dependent on the scope of the projects. If there is some sort of overlap, it should be corrected. If the overlap is required, we could deal with it in the same way the Military history project does. Use the main project template, with an added parameter identifying other involved projects, which would then categorize them in both projects. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Your examples on IFR/ILS make sense to me, but seem to be inconsistent with the argument you make about aircraft engines and aircraft. If the ILS should be included in the Airport project because it is part of the airport, then aircraft engine should be in the Aircraft project for the same reason. I don't have a strong opinion either way, except that whatever we decide it should be easy to explain and most importantly consistent. My initial thought is that we should try to push things down to the child projects as much as possible, and only use Aviation to cover the gaps and overlaps. But I'm open to other opinions. 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's verify the scopes in the Recap above. This should help decide where everything belongs. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
PS. Just be thankfull our pages don't generally fall under too many non-aviation related projects, or we'd end up dealing with a situation like on Talk:Jim Thorpe. Six different wikiprojects! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation (parenthesis)

There is no consistency in the terms used to disambiguate aviation terms in Category:Aviation terminology. For example:

One of the things projects are set up to do is to standardize things like this, and now that we have a unified project, we may as well put this on the table. We should work on a guideline on how to use disambiguation terms consistently. The easiest thing to do might be to just use the more generic term aviation in most cases. Or, if not, we should decide when to use aircraft vs. aviation, and probably not use flight or aeronautics at all. Dhaluza 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I would think that things having to do directly with aircraft, especially parts of an aircraft, ought to say "(aircraft)", and terms relating to more general things such as air-traffic control should say "(aviation)". I also think "(aerodynamics)" would be useful for dealing with principles of flight, such as lift, drag, that would be more specific than aviation. - BillCJ 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Projects goals

I think we should start attaining some featured article goals. I was just recently perusing articles on Scouting with 17 ga and fa articles (just listed in the template at the bottom). I guess, what i am proposing we do is first, determine whoich articles are core to the topic of aviation. Extremly famous historical aviations, perhaps amelia earhart or the wright brothers and define a list of articles we would like to reach featured status. Then, get working on them. Do any other members have ideas on this? or prosed articles to push towards featured status? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A Single Project Banner for use by all aviation related projects

Painted nose section of a Douglas B-26C "Invader"
Serial No. 44-35918 (Formerly A-26C).
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007).
Good luck Trevor with this high-flying project!

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 here, and make any suggestions for other options to include in the banner- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't tell what the image was until I clicked on it to review the source page. It might need to be a little larger. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I increased it to 100px, but its still not that clear. I don't think it should be any bigger so maybe another picture should be used. Any suggestions? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessing articles

Just a quick summary on the assessment process to keep people up to speed.

  1. The "importance" is no longer used, the article is now assessed only according to content.
  2. The content can be classed by a rigid scale, here, to explain
    1. Anyone can rate an article stub or start, if they do so then a checklist of criteria for upgrade to B-class is shown in the template.
    2. If someone rates it B-class but does not include the B-class criteria checklist, then the article is placed in Category:B-Class aviation articles needing review, and people can check if the article deserves the B rating.
    3. If someone does the B-class checklist but the article is still rated start or stub then the article is placed in Category:Potential B-Class aviation articles
    4. No article should be rated GA unless it has gone through a nomination process.
    5. No article should be rated A class unless it has had an A-class review
    6. No article should be rated FA unless it is an FA

With this system in place, no article should be able to be rated too high. If there are any questions about this sytem, or comments on how to improve it, I'd love to hear it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Will this project replace WP:Air? If so, all the redirects should be made here, including the beleaguered aircraft specs templates. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:AIR will still be responsible for all aircraft pages, this project will just help out by taking on articles which are related to aviation, but not specifically to aircraft. For example, Flight, which used to be under WP:AIRs scope, is now part of WP:AVIATION, but autopilot is still under WP:AIR. This project will act as a "home base" for all the other projects members, giving each project more visibility and improving communications. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Template

About this message in the newsletter:

  • {{WPAVIATION}} is the project banner for use by all aviation related projects. All links to the old templates need converting to the new one.

I can have my bot change any references to old templates, just let me know which templates need changing. —METS501 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

{{AircraftProject}} and {{AirportProject}} need replacing. I don't know if it is possible, but the pages tagged AircraftProject could also have the parameter |Aircraft-project=yes added, and the ones tagged with AirportProject could use |Airports-project=yes. Thanks, Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm running my bot on the 3400ish references to {{AirportProject}}. Should be done later today. ^demon[omg plz] 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


List of aircraft of the RAAF - Page move

I've started a discussion / vote to move the page (Australian) List of aircraft of the RAAF to List of aircraft of the ADF. See Talk:List of aircraft of the RAAF. The main reason is to cover the Army and Navy aircraft already in the list and for future Navy/Army aircraft to be included. - Ctbolt 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Aerosonde

I am working in Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles and came across a couple of things some of you may care to comment on:-

  • Why does Insitu Aerosonde have this name, as the article only refers to it as "Aerosonde"?
  • Aerosonde is the abandoned article (a disambiguation page), having not been edited for nearly two years. Should Aerosonde be the main article in place of Insitu Aerosonde and the other disambiguation Aerosonde Ltd be a "For the Australian company see ...]] at the top of that article? --Bduke 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the article should be moved to Aerosonde, and the disambig page move to Aerosonde (disambiguation). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Volunteers needed?

I'd like to volunteer for any task that this project might lack.Wikimachine 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • While waiting for other requests, it would be nice if someone could check to see that for all IATA and ICAO codes, there is a redirect or a disambiguation page pointing to the airline or airport article. Vegaswikian 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Check out Template:WPAVIATION Announcements for many sub-project tasks, convert {{AircraftProject}} and {{AirportProject}} tags to the {{WPAVIATION}} tag, nominate articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Collaboration, recruit new members and send out newsletters (See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Outreach). These are just a few things to work on. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Airports?

I was under the impression that the old WikiProject:Airports was now within the scope of WP:AVIATION, but I don't see it listed as such on this project's page. Someone should maybe fix that if I'm remembering right ;)

Secondly, I'd appreciate it if some other aviation folks could take a look at this WP:Airports discussion about whether or not to disambiguate Liberia, Costa Rica, from the country Liberia in a list of destinations served from LAX. There is nothing even remotely approaching consensus at the moment, but some people seem to think a discussion with two (plus a comment from an individual who is otherwise not participating in the discussion) on one side and two on the other amounts to consensus.--chris.lawson 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:Airports is listed as a sub-project, see:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation#Sub-projects. But the specific airport articles, such as Montréal-Mirabel International Airport, are still under the WP:Airports scope. The project banner used is {{WPAVIATION}}, but the parameter |Airports-project=yes should be included, to place them in the correct assessment categories. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Skybus Information

I am just curious about something. Recently, a few unregistered users have edited the Skybus Airlines article with information that I could not verify at all after hours of search. I am not saying the info is false, but I think it should be verified somehow. I do not know how to go about talking to an unregistered editor, so I am not sure what to do. The reason I am concerned is because this came soon after someone added malicious information to the article. This info isn't malicious, but isn't exactly raving either. If someone can either verify what was recently added or suggest a course of action, please do. Thank you. Polypmaster - Talk

  • Add some fact tags on items you can't find. And ask about them on the Skybus talk page. -Fnlayson 03:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

List of most successful aircraft

List of most successful aircraft seems to be a rather vague list with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. No definition of success and probably has an English speaking county / US bias. It's basically uncited and probably unverifiable for the aircraft listed. Is there any opinion here on deletion of the article, cleanup etc? It was prod'd but de-prod'd by an anon user. Initial contributor of the article is now indef blocked. --Dual Freq 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It looks like it goes by most produced or long term use in its category or something like that. But without some critera spelled out, it should be deleted. -Fnlayson 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

Man, that whole concept is just begging for edit wars! How would you ever define it without doing serious OR? I agree, it should be deleted. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Defining Jet Fighter Generations

Since there has been a fair amount of edit-warring regarding what aircraft belong to what jet fighter "generation" (especially in the 4th generation jet fighter article), I've produced a "description", based on my professional experience, to serve as a guideline to help reduce, if not eliminate, the feuding. The problem is, there is no official definition and few published ones to go on — yet the terminology is so widely employed that it's hard not to treat in Wikipedia. While my contribution can only be treated as OR, my intent and hope is that it can serve as a guideline that editors can refer to in order to resolve disputes.

I would like to invite other knowledgeable editors to review and comment on what I've posted at Talk:Fighter aircraft#Defining Jet Fighter Generations so that we can have, as a guideline, something that is well-rounded and represents a consensus of our "in-house" experts. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Columbus Regional Airport Authority

I created the Columbus Regional Airport Authority article recently as it is the overseeing body to Port Columbus International Airport, Rickenbacker International Airport, and Bolton Field. I am curious if this article should be covered under {{WPAVIATION}}. It is certainly involved in aviation, but it doesn't fall directly into any of the subcategories. Polypmaster 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

New infoboxes

I've been working on some new infoboxes for commercial aircrafts. So far I've done:

Someone asked me to do the same for military aircrafts, which I'd be glad to, but I don't know anything about military aviation. So if you want me to do any new infobox for either type of plane, just tell me the manufacturer and give me a list of models. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

well I have not edited any of the airliner articles, but here is a list of the aircraft made by McDonnell Douglas prior to merging with Boeing:
DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, MD-90, MD-95
Polypmaster 02:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
James, you probably need to consult with the editors of the current Infobox at Template talk:Infobox Aircraft before you make any further changes or additional infoboxes. The original {{Infobox Aircraft}} was created to provide a single infobox for all aircraft aritcles, both to standardize the box, and to allow easy updating to new standards. Creating new infobox templates means that when changes are made, they will have to be made to more than just one template now. The current box was also created and accepted by consesnus of WP:AIR, and changes to it should be carefully considered and discussed first.
Having said that, I do like your ideas, and they obviously took some time and thought on your part. One suggestion would be to ask the original infobox editors if your changes can be incorporated directly into the original template as an option for a company header to be added if needed on individual pages. - BillCJ 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This seems super redundant, considering that we have a) an infobox for aircraft and b) a shitload of templates for designation sequences. I'm just sayin'. ericg ✈ 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually do agree with you on those points, Eric. Thanks for doing the subtemplate solution anyway; I didn't realize it would be that simple to implement. It seems the broader concensus is going to be to use them, so at least this we we keep the main infobox. Thanks for the quick work! - BillCJ 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no prob (for reference, I just converted the "Infobox X Aircraft" to logo+sequence only, and included those in the Infobox Aircraft template as {{{subtemplate}}}). I simply made the change in light of maintenance issues and standards between infoboxes - I'm not making any kind of comment on their appearance or suitability, although if asked I'd say they're kind of awkward and not very useful.
Anyway, It'd be nice if you guys could think outside the box a little bit more (and I'm not saying that to be condescending) as far as templates go - it's a template, which means it can be modified easily using parameters that don't necessarily apply to all uses. If you have infobox questions or suggestions, bring them up and we can adapt the existing template to include them rather than having to herd a bunch of variants around whenever changes are made. ericg ✈ 06:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Good day, it looks like the Boeing list should be called "Boeing Airplanes" instead of "Boeing Aircraft." Otherwise you may want to include the Boeing Helicopters (eg: 107-II, 234, 360). Great look though! -Trashbag 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Engines

I would think that aircraft engines and their manufacturers are covered by WP:AVIATION but they currently do not display as such. What is the verdict on this? Thanks. Polypmaster 02:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Falls under WP:AIRCRAFT's stated scope. --Born2flie 15:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, add the banner where ever you see it lacking. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Airport Infobox Change???

I have noticed that when looking at the Midway Airport and O'hare International Airport articles the Airport Infobox has changed. There was a new airport statistic section. When did this start? Marcusmax 01:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for new page

Hi. I just joined up here, so please forgive me if i've posted this in the wrong place. I wanted to start a page on Diverterless Supersonic Inlets (DSI) which are being used on the F-35 and JF-17. I'm hoping for your help, especially since, frankly, my aeronautics related knowledge is almost zero. I hope you'd be able to do so. I've created a user sandbox page at Diverterless Supersonic Inlet Sandbox, which i'm hoping can become a suitable page. Hope you'd be able to help edit it and expand it. I need any info possible, especially the basic science behind engine inlets (which i'm not really able to find). Thanks and cheers. Sniperz11 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • All I can do is suggest some layout/format changes. Try a Development section to cover the changes in the design and how it came about. Then a Design or Description section describing the specifics of the current design. Avoid advantages/disadvantages sections, since that could encourage original research type conclusions. Good luck. -Fnlayson 13:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Need your attention!

I started this List of airliners by Maximum Take-Off Weight,if you are interested,get involved.--Ksyrie 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Heads up to members re: Blue Angels

Given the crash today, a lot of IP editors have been adding to the Blue Angels article...I've been trimming back and trying to keep it orderly, but I'm off to bed. If there are any other project members editing, you might want to watchlist this one. Akradecki 05:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to watch the page since the crash was first reported, but they add as fast as we trim back. I even had to take an AP photo (unlicensed) of the smoke from the crash out. It ought to settle down in a day or too, and then we can cut it back to a well-cited summary. - BillCJ 05:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Helicopters

Hi, I'm traducing the aircraft specifications template to the spanish Wikipedia, but I don't understand what exactly is Disc area? Someone can you help me?

Please answer in Elkan76

Many thanks

Elkan76 04:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Il-76 vs IL-76

Hi, I was wondering, with regard to the Ilyushin Il-76 superfreighter, is Il-76 or IL-76 correct? Or is it both? Particularly, it's one point on the GA hold for this article, which I'd like to see listed. Thanks, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure it should be Il-76. This becomes confusing since the Russians and Americans have different naming schemes. The Americans use a system that specifies the type of aircraft and the number model in that series. The Russians have decided to go by the manufacturer; "Il" is the abbreviated form of Ilyushin.
Even the US Military has problems with this. Aircraft at Hurlburt Field include the Mi-8 and An-26. I have seen many references that get this one wrong; case in point: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123037189— BQZip01 — talk 20:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It is properly "Il-76"; "IL-76" comes from the primarily (but not exclusively) American tendency to produce acronyms wherever an abbreviation would serve as well. ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD that has overtones for the project

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brisbane Light Plane Crash is about a general aviation aircraft crash. We do not, at this point, have notability criteria that can be applied directly, but we probably should come up with something. I'd appreciate it if members would take a look, voice their opinion, and consider how this can lead us to better criteria. Thanks! Akradecki 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation userbox?

Just wondering if members of the project would like to have a userbox to add to their Userpage, as many other projects do. If so, I've created one for comment here before submitting it as a User Template.      JGHowes talk - 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One already exists, actually. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Outreach#User_banners_and_userboxes. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I missed that. Thx! JGHowes talk - 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New aircraft manufacturer

Hi there. Could you give me a hand with the article about Texlond? It's a recently founded aircraft manufacturer. Information about it can be found at texlond.com or press releases that can be googled, thanks! --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 22:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oregon Airports

Good day all, I have started a List of private-use airports in Oregon. In addtion, I will be updating the List of Airports in Oregon soon as I get it completed. (I have not segregated them into types or added IATA/ICAO data). Feel free to take a look and pitch in all you like. Any advice or input would be appreciated. --Trashbag 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport FAR

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter

Article was reviewed as a Start-class article by the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Review and listed as a vital article for the Wikipedia. I think we've brought it along, but I don't quite feel it is a B-Class article due to some gaps and lack of citations. If anyone gets a chance, look it over and put your two cents, tuppence, opinion, whatever, on the Talk:Helicopter page. --Born2flie 18:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Emirates Airline

Our Emirates Airline article has been the subject of a concerted campaign to add copyvio and really blatantly spammy content for several weeks, to such an extent it's now a jumbled unencyclopedic mess. The help of members of this Wikiproject in helping rescue this once proud article (while spotting any future incarnations of the spamvertiser should he return) would be very welcome. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yep, it has problems. Even the destinations article was moved to Emirates DESTINATIONS with no redirect! Do remember that anyone can use the user warning templates if it looks like someone is vandalizing the article. Just don't get caught in the WP:3RR violation if you revert changes. Vegaswikian 21:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The issue isn't that there's vandalism and spam (I already blocked the vandal twice), it's that there has been so much (the only thing worse than a spamvandal is one who doesn't use preview) that getting the article back to something sensible needs the attentions of more winged wikipedians. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, there are major rewrites needed. Even the heading levels are messed up. When I looked at it, I was not sure if it is better to rewrite some of the sections or simply delete them. That decision needs to be made by someone who is more acquainted with the airline and its history. Vegaswikian 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Airreg

Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — --Aude (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review and AfD

Could editors please drop off comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Adam Air Flight 574/archive1 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air West Flight 612? Thanks Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Air accident task force

When the Aviation project was reconstituted a few months ago, provision was made for an "Air accident task force", but the task force was not formally established at that time. Since we seem to have a fairly dedicated group of editors who are spending time on this subject, and since there's been discussion of developing some notability and other guidelines, I thought it was time to start putting electrons on screen to establish the task force. Currently, I've started the group's page at one of my sandboxes, and I'd like to invite any and all interested folk to join in drafting the material. Since this task force stradles the line between this WikiProject and WikiProject Disaster management, I'm starting this out as a joint effort between the two Projects. Akradecki 16:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Aviation lists - better as navbox generic, in collapsed state

Template:Aviation lists is so general, that it's utility as a desired navigation resource borders on distraction, in many contexts. Do I really want to see its tangential choices unfurled every time I click on Lodz Wladyslaw Reymont Airport? It suffices that it's there, collapsed. Could we have it recast as navbar generic, in collapsed state by default? It looks no different than now, only ....out of the way slightly. See my yesterday's edits, reversed. --Mareklug talk 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This box was originally devised for use on articles about aircraft, to which its content is relevant (well, most of... it's a victim of bloat now and could do with some trimming). If this navigational tool isn't useful for airports, it should simply be removed from them. --Rlandmann 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone has been adding it to just about any article related to aviation. I have been removing it from most articles unless they are listed in the infobox or are very closely related to something in there. Every airline and airport does not need this box in my opinion. Vegaswikian 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
What if it were pruned back to something like this? (personally, I'd lose the "accidents" line as well, but we seem to have a lot of coverage, so someone must like reading about them!) --Rlandmann 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It you look, they show up on a bunch of stubs where it looks like they were added to fill out a page. I don't think they are being used from most pages. I'll leave another sample version here shortly. Vegaswikian 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
But, could you all please address the original point? What's so wrong with presenting this template as a collapsed one to begin with? --Mareklug talk 21:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No objection. But it still needs to be removed from a bunch of articles even if it is collapsed. Cleanup is a related issue can can be discussed while we are looking at the template in general. Vegaswikian 21:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Two objections. (1) As someone who makes extremely frequent use of this template, I don't want an extra click to access links that I previously had immediate access to, and (2) I think that most of these indices are relevant enough to be usefully displayed to readers without being hidden in a collapsed box. As I see it, the problem's not with links to relevant lists, but with links to irrelevant tangentially relevant ones. --Rlandmann 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Serious cleanup of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 needed

I've looked today on the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article and IMHO this one needs cleanup urgently:

  • Lead should be shortened, it's a little bit senseless to write whole history of the aircraft.
  • Prototypes and Models sections should be merged and then moved to separate article, like Supermarine Spitfire variants (BTW - shouldn't it be renamed List of Supermarine Spitfire variants?
  • Luftwaffe fighter contest history ("The contest" section) should be moved to separate article.
  • Combat service sections and subsections should be cleaned and copyedited, info about survivors should be moved to new section or separate article.
  • Operators section looks like Christmas tree now. I'll clean this one but I'm sure someone will try to revert this cleanup.
  • Related content should be rethought, list of comparable aircraft is a little bit long.

Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

New pages under project's auspices

Greetings, WikiProject Aviation!,

A confused MfD couldn't quite decide what to do with these "airport destination lists" (which, somewhat inexplicably, had been marked as guidelines.) Assuming there is some use for them, they have been moved to WikiProject:Aviation subpages. Should the consensus here find them extraneous or bothersome, I'll be happy to delete them. May you all fly high and land safely, Xoloz 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes they are needed. They went through and Afd as keep and were moved out of the main name space. Thanks for letting us know. Vegaswikian 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Caps

I've noticed a lot of aviation specific terms that are capitalized in the article title when they don't need to be. I realize that they usually are better known as acronyms, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) calls for us to use lowercase, unless it is a proper name that is normally capitalized in the middle of a sentence. The reason is that when they are used in wikilinks in text, they are capitalized, and it looks silly. Yes, we could pipe the links, but if the term should be in caps, then it should appear that way always, and vice versa. Dhaluza 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, see:

These are correct (but it seems they all were moved from all caps):

Coordination for improved productivity

Could everyone have a look at Wikipedia: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) 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Accident/incident notabilility guidelines discussion

Given that there have been a number of AfD discussions relating the borderline notable aviation accidents and incidents (such as United Airlines Flight 897 and especially Brisbane Light Plane Crash), I've initiated a discussion of developing some project-based notability criteria over at the Aviation accident task force talk page. Though this is a task force project, because the issue is fairly significant, I am seeking input from the entire project. Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

List of runway overshoots

I have created a List of runway overshoots in my userspace, to add to the lists already in Category:Lists of aviation accidents. I would like to ask the participants in this WikiProject to help me expand and improve the list, so that it can be moved to the mainspace. AecisBrievenbus 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Utility aircraft

There are 32 red links to the phrase Utility aircraft. You guys need to either create an article, or create a redirect to the most appropriate page. Willy turner 09:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources on destination articles

While patrolling new pages recently, I noticed Air Ivoire destinations and another new destinations article lacked verifiable reliable sources. I pointed this out by placing the "sources" template on the articles.

A user I think must be a part of this project asked me about the template I applied, pointing out that these articles routinely lack sources. He also removed the templates, and I haven't replaced them because it became apparent to me that the issue is one with what appears to be the whole class of destinations articles.

I think we all accept that there are official policies of this project we must abide by like WP:V and WP:OR. I'm concerned that these pages do not live by that standard. I have noticed that they have been to AfD on at least two occasions and have survived, so my intention here is not to march them back to that possible status. Instead, I thought I'd raise the issue here to see if there is a project consensus as to what to do. It just seemed a better course of action than a Request for Comment, but that may be the next necessary step. Erechtheus 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It has been pointed out to me that the airlines wikiproject may be a better place for this discussion, so I will also attempt to begin it in that project. Erechtheus 14:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

History of aviation in Bangladesh

This article needs you attention. Can anyone take a look and advise, or better still, lend a hand? Aditya Kabir 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lockheed 1960s bribery scandal

A user has asked about the possibility of creating an articel on the Lockheed 1960s bribery scandal. I am looking into doing that. If anyone is interested in participating, you can answer at Talk:Lockheed Corporation#Lockheed Scandal or my talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The new Wikipedia ads

Should our project be represented there? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OMG that's horrible! --Rlandmann 03:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing help

Is there anyone who would like to help with the writing of aviation articles? I have several sandboxes of articles I've created recently with text-dumps from several sources that need to be rewritten, but, for me, that is the most tedious part of creating an article. I now have 13 new articles that need text added, with several more to come. I keep finding new articles to create, and with watching my watchlist, I hardly have the energy to do the rewriting. While knowledge of aviation and aircraft would be helpful, I'm mainly in need of someone with decent-to-good writing skills, as I can handle the editing for factual accuracy. I know of many other articles that need to be expanded beyond the ones I'm working on (mostly experimental helicopters at this time), so if the work interests you, but you have other types of aircraft you'd rather work with, I'm sure we can find some of those too. This would be a good opportunity for some informal coaching on how to put together an aircraft article. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A class review

I listed Biman Bangladesh Airlines for an A-class review a long time back, and the issues raised there, though pretty minor has been addressed long since. But, the review has not progressed a bit. What happened? Lack of volunteers? That part of project abandoned? Can someone take a look? Cheers. Aditya Kabir 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Air South Charter notability

Hi, can I have some input over at the above article regarding notability please? See also the relevant discusion at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR plane crash in FL

This story has been placed in the Cessna 310 article. On the face of it, it seems notable due to who was killed, and that several on the ground were killed also. We might want to get ahead of the curve on this one, especially if it's not notable. - BillCJ 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Assistance with writing up landing patterns and approaches for Perth Airport

Ok, so i'm no pilot and I don't know enough to write this section of the article. We're improving the article even further based on some suggestions from a peer review. I'm looking to include something not too dissimilar to this section of London Heathrow Airport. If there is a topic expert or pilot who knows where to find the information and write it up into something sensable I'd really appreciate the assistance. Thewinchester (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this section is worth mentioning in this article. The information currently listed in this section is illrelevant because it is similar to any other airport in the world and does not contain any uniqueness, other then the name of the facilities. The reason the section is included in London Heathrow's article is because it deals with noise restrictions and describes the reason behind the approachs. If you can find notable information about the reasoning behind any approach at this airport, then it may be worth mentioning. But if there is nothing but standard approachs, I don't think it should be mentioned. --Pilotboi | talk 15:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

List of works with the equal transit-time fallacy

I could use some help with the List of works with the equal transit-time fallacy. The equal transit-time fallacy is a common misconception of how lift is produced, and I was surprised to find how many sources turned up in a Google Books search. Many of these are textbooks, training manuals, and government publications. Some were even published by a university press, or in just the last few years! Perhaps you have a book with this incorrect explanation and you can add a citation to the list. I am particularly interested in encyclopedias, school textbooks, and military training manuals, as well as very old and international works. For books with an ISBN number you can use ottobib or Wikipedia template filling to generate a quick citation, just add a page number and a one-sentence quote that captures the equal transit-time fallacy. Dhaluza 12:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nice list! If I happen to come accross any material stating this fallacy, I will definatly check the list to see if it's listed, and if not, I'll list it myself. --Pilotboi | talk 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Subject anyone know about?

Aircraft Disinsection, I'm assuming it should be "disinfection", however I want to give notice to the AV group before it gets deleted or something. 68.39.174.238 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

New Article Proposal

I have proposed a new article, Airport Signage. Talk about it can be made on the Talk:Airport page. Thanks --Pilotboi | talk 05:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I was thinking of creating something that is similar to the Runway article, only about airport signs instead of runway markings and runway lights. The article could also include airport lighting and other aviation-related lighting, but would keep runway approach systems to the Runway article and other articles specific to that. --Pilotboi | talk 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

International certification

Tu-134 says "The Tu-134 was the first Soviet airliner to receive international certification from the International Civil Aviation Organization, which permitted it to be used on international routes.", but there's no template or category linking to other planes that have received international certification. Should there be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosfilaes (talk • contribs)

I don't see why this can't be mentioned in the article. A category or template is not required just to mention a fact. And in this case, it is being stated because it is unique to this aircraft, because it was the first. This statement, however, does need a citation. --Pilotboi | talk 15:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
But when I read that, I wanted to see the other planes that had been internationally certified; how many there are and what types there are, and a chance to browse through the set of internationally certified planes.--Prosfilaes 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so you are requesting that an article (or section) be created about this subject. I misread your first post, thinking that you stated that this section be removed from the article. I, myself, am interested in finding out what qualifies as an international certificate. After a quick search on the ICAO website, I couldn't locate information on it. But I will continue to see what I can look up and if there is enough information available, I may create a section about it. --Pilotboi | talk 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a guess, but I would say it just means it had an airworthiness certificate recognised by ICAO members, no different from a FAA/CAA/JAR certificate. The earlier soviet aircraft probably did not have an internationally recognised certificate. MilborneOne 19:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, there is no seperate certificate required to fly an aircraft internationally. The only document required for a pilot to carry to go international is a Radio Operators License (FCC License). --Pilotboi | talk 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Quick read of the UK CAA website indicates that special exemptions are needed for foreign aircraft to fly in UK airspace if they do not have a international recognised CofA - Owners of foreign-registered aircraft with either a temporary registration or a Certificate of Airworthiness not recognised as an ICAO standard document will need an Exemption, not checked the FAA site but it looks like if you do not have a ICAO standard document you probably cant fly into most countries. MilborneOne 19:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, haven't really been taught too much about international travel yet, other then navigation. And I'm getting a degree in Aeronautical Science. That's it, I want my 120G back! LOL --Pilotboi | talk 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Noise levels

I would like to see noise ratings (if these are available) in the statistics tables for each plane (e.g. alongside max pax, range, weight etc). Uncoolbob 09:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the noise level more a product of the engine then the airframe? Vegaswikian 00:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this would be a combination of both. At least, that is, if your talking about noise levels inside the aircraft (which is usually what most people are concerned with). The variables are both the engine and the aircraft. As the engine produces the noise, but the aircraft is designed to surpress the noise. So I think it would be difficult to list in either article, because most aircraft are available with numerous engine options. --Pilotboi | talk 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, inside the aircraft indeed - ever lived near an airport? Yes it is a combination of engine and airframe - but I guess there are only a few combinations in major use. And it's THAN not then for crying out loud vegaswikian... get an education! Uncoolbob 12:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
For your information, Uncoolbob, yes, I live less then a half a mile from an airport, right underneath an approach/departure path. And there was no reason to talk like that to vegawikian. Talk about being 'uncool'...bob. I recommend you grow up a little. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 15:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Cant see that the noise rating of an aircraft is particularly notable unless it is excessive or very quiet, then it could be mentioned. MilborneOne 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox...

Need some help with populating {{Infobox Aviator}} onto the articles dealing with aviators... If anyone has time on their hands, help will be appreciated. Cheers. --Dark Falls talk 10:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye out and if I come across an Aviator, I'll be sure to add an infobox. Looks like a great infobox! --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

World's largest airlines dispute

We have a conflict going on with the World's largest airlines page. The main editors involved appear to be newbies, and there's been more reverting than discussing going on. The discussions that have occured at Talk:World's largest airlines haven't accomplished much. Mediation is not my strong suit, and I really don't have a good idea of what the article should be. We could use a few experienced editors (and perhaps admins) to step in here, and get things moving in the right dierection. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just now reading what has recently been discussed. E dog95 04:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a little Edit war, Perhaps the page should be semi-protected, I put the page on my watch list and will be checking on it often. Marcusmax 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OK i am amused (thanks to Bzuk)

Few days ago i started the collaboration with Wiki.en. I have a lot of articles and stuff about italian aircrafts, that here are not much known. My english is not too good, but i don't think that is so bad either. Now, since i started i have the 'sweet' attenction of user (Admin?) Bzuk, a guy that have no problem to delete entire contributions, even more than 20Kb, because 'there are no references,' there are too many herrors, and obviousely, since i am also a liar, i write NNPOV statements. So i wuold understand: is there some place that can establish if this guy is a lot exaggerating with his censorship? Is it possible that every thing i write, in this 'free' encyclopedia is censurable with every 'arguments'? Is an Harvard graduate needed to write in this encyclopedia? So i ask you. Modiphics made by this guy are simply made without even contact me, so do are these good manners? If yes, i am of the opinion, that wiki is unuseful for me to continue: what's the point when every stuff i pose is 'no good'? When it's not grammar, nor NNPOV, not reference, now i discover, it's also good enough arguments like 'too combat histories', 'too histories' and so on. So at these terms i am already sicked. Really. Wiki.en rests as well with its gross lack of information in these parts, so there is Bzuk that solve every problem, decides, every stuff and insult newcomers. Amused.--Stefanomencarelli 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Lack of references is not a reason to speedy delete an article. Do you have some examples? Also, if you believe that an improper deletion was made, you can list the article on Wikipedia:Deletion review. If the article was improperly deleted, the deletion can be reversed. In any case, adding a few independent references to an article improves the quality and makes it more difficult to justify a deletion. Vegaswikian 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just check aboutP-39s: i wrote that they had 2-4 mg. in the wings. This is so easy to check for anyone, even in the page itself, that ask 'citation needed' is simply laughable. Bzuk has done it. And cut to half -atleast- the history of italians P-39s as well,amd i failed to see how describe in details such operations is a bad for wiki.en...

To add insult to injury, in the page Spitfire, i wrote an article about Italian career of spits. I posted well in evidence the source from wich i extract such infos. Every bit of such infos. And what happened? I find Spitfire and from one side, the source posted is vanished, OK, but from another side, oooops, there is a citation needed. Bzuk strikes again. I have given a precise source for everything i wrote, and a-this is vanished, and b-apparead 'citation needed'. So what? Is it a joke?

Another case, Macchi C.202. I wrote everything i had at hand to descrive such fighter, that is it cleary not so known outside Italy (mind you, i am not acting for chauvinism, i am not a nationalist fanatic, just a guy that noticed how italian aircrafts are not so developed, expecially with all the stuff i have to contribute!). And what happens? Deleted more and more, because: 1-too herrors, then 2-too sintax errors, 3-NNPOV, 4-I find, Bzuk rates 'too historical airbattles' in what i wrote. And he treats to have just start to 're-write' my contributions. So i am well aware that there is GFDL, but still, this manner to strike with a hammer all i write is a very bad thing IMHO. I am really surprised and amused how this guy acts, w/o any respect for me and my willing to contribute in wiki. I strongly protest with this 'grizzly bear' kind touch with my posts. I have asked to handle me with a grain of salt, but Bzuk thinks that he is even too good with me. I rate this unaccetable.--Stefanomencarelli 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Benvenuto Stefanomencarelli! I checked your user contributions, but could not find an article of yours that has been deleted. I suppose the deleted contributions you referred to are of normal edit additions to articles. Looking at your talk page, I can see that Bzuk has tried hard to explain to you how to cite your reference sources, so it seems that his deletions were of good will in nature, not censoring. Whenever you add to a Wikipedia article, anyone can change what you write. I have looked at his and others’ follow-up edits and can see that they were trying to help. For example, one of the “deleted” references was actually moved to the references section.
If another editor believes that the source for a particular statement or information needs to be cited, they can delete it. However, the normal practice is to first place either an {{Unreferenced}} tag at the top of the article page or else a {{fact}} tag at the end of the statement. It is then your job to add the missing source. If you find the wikicoding Bzuk described hard to understand, you can ask for help here (faster) or on the article’s talk page (slower).
What is needed here is only patience from all. Being more familiar with your knowledge of the subject of Italian aircraft and challenges with English, perhaps Bzuk and others can be more gentle in their revision of your work. Feel free to ask for help, and do not worry about the spelling and grammar, as other editors can help with that. The people here are mostly friendly and helpful, unlike those you had problems with on it.Wikipedia. Ciao, Askari Mark (Talk) 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd also ignore the referencing directions provided by Bzuk and just use one for the cite templates like {{Cite book}} or {{cite web}}. Fill in what you have and the code takes care of the formatting. All you need in many cases is the title and the url. Vegaswikian 22:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
BZuk doesn't LIKE {{Cite book}} and {{cite web}}! He even removes them from articles he's watching if someone adds a source with them! So it's hardly surprising he's not recommending them to newbies. Anyway, whether or not BillZ's advice to him was easy or not, he has been trying to talk to him. And I'm usually alot quicker to pull unsourced material than BillZ. So if he felt that was his best option in this case, then it probably was. - BillCJ 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Removing those is vandalism. Plain and simple. Vegaswikian 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, he just changes the info to a MLA-style cite. He's only removing the {{Cite book}} formatting, not the whole reference - he's keeping the data. That's not vandalism, just anal-retentiveness :) - BillCJ 23:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


I dont' understand well all your posts, perhaps i need a wikidecoder for that. However, i would remark that yes, no articles but edits butchered, and then, let me say that Bzuk has fullfilled of citation needed everything i wrote. This is disturbing also because 'presume good faith' should means something, or not? As Spitfire example, i repeat, first, i posted cleary references, then they vanished but insthead compared c.needed. So what's the point? I can proof everything i post and even references are vanishing? And so, how i can be accused to write pov and so on statements? The most irriting thing is Macchi 202: 20kb totally butchered. So, if in wiki.en the standard is before shoot and then ask, let me know. I leave and i'll make better things in my time, that lost xx hours to write my posts and then, because 'they talk too much about air combats (IDIOTIC reason, don't you?) Bzuk or other guys (happy to live in ignorance abotu some stuff) arrives and deleting all the stuff? Well, i know you are 2 millions users, so no fear to waste nothing. But still, wikipedia leaves a lot to desire in many sectors, one of wich are italian aircrafts. So make you counts about: i must be forced to leave, or someone ends to treat me as troll? Just tell me.--Stefanomencarelli 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As to the Macchi 202, I looked at one revision that removed one section at 02:58, 26 July 2007. It had no references and read like an opinion and did not appear to be encyclopedic so its removal appears to be reasonable. As far as the later reversal that was moved to the talk page. Bad grammar and errors are a reason for adding the {{copyedit}} tag. Simply removing valid information for this reason is for me problematic. However it appears that most of this has now been rewritten and is in the article. So the removal with a replacement rewrite also seems reasonable. Maybe the bottom line here is a new editor doing a major edit that had issues. Likely a case of don't bite the new user. I may have done something similar if this was an article I was following if it had a major impact on the quality of the article. I think the best for all is to treat this as a learning experience and move on. Vegaswikian 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked over this as well. I can't even see a case of biting the newbie. Stefano's additions were interesting, but barely ledgable. But BZ didn't revert these, nor did he, as Stefano claims, remove 20kb, the removal was about 3k of completely off-topic material. BZ then went out of his way to explain, in detail, what was wrong with it, and suggestions about how to improve it. It's all right there on Stefano's talk page. I'm sorry Stefano, but you have not been wronged here, and are pointing fingers at the wrong guys. As you say, we "dont' understand well all your posts". Maury 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD

Hi all, We would benefit from your input at this CfD. Cheers, TewfikTalk 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New Boeing airliner userboxes

I have created a set of Boeing airliner userboxes indicating the user's favorite Boeing airliners. I have created all of them except for the 737 and 787 ones.

Here they are: User:Andros 1337/Boeing airliner Userboxes

It would be nice if someone could also make some for Airbus and McDonnell Douglas. ANDROS1337 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed in updating outdated stuff

Hello all, I think it is seriously time we start updating our old pages here at WikiProject Aviation. We need a new Collaboration of the month. Old Reviews need to be archived. And old Talk page comments need to be Archived. Feel free to help maintain Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. Marcusmax 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Auto archiving

Any objections to letting User:MiszaBot_II automatically archive the contents of this talk page? Vegaswikian 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1996 Charkhi Dadri air mishap

This article needs some attention, starting with the title. I don't know what the policy is, but going by Tenerife disaster, maybe this article should be "Charkhi Dadri disaster"? - PatrikR 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force has been created to specifically handle these types of articles. I'm going to copy your question to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force page. I'm not that familar with the naming conventions for these articles, but it is common to use the year in the title. It may be the other article that is not following the naming conventitions for air disasters. As to the other concerns, we will try to address them. - BillCJ 04:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Coordinators needed

Coordinators who, will help promote and improve aviation articles with the interest required in maintaining the various areas and sub projects of WikiProject Aviation can sign up now at this talk page. Any member of WikiProject Aviation is welcome to join. Marcusmax 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I need YOUR help!

Hi! I want to create a List of Flight Schools. Category 1: Flight schools from an airline; Category 2: General flight school. Is the CAAC a flight school? If not explain how chinese people become pilot. Dagadt

I suggest you userfy the article and develop it there first. The stub you created is so incomplete, it is bound to get deleted. Dhaluza 11:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Category templates

Many of the entries in Category:Aviation navigational boxes add one or more templates and tables. The introductions on category pages are not articles. The introductions should be short and about what the category contains, but the name should generally do that. Adding navigation templates, especially multiple ones is not proper for categories. Can someone fix these? Otherwise they will be cleaned up over time by others. Using the templates to correctly categorize the categories is acceptable, adding tables and navigation boxes is where the the problem is. If this needs to be discussed, try Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Vegaswikian 19:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Still Bzuk

In Kawasaki Ki-61 page it's coming out a new edit war between me and Bzuk. I have explained how and why i had written such things. I know, oooh,,, Bzuk only do its 'job', But still i have really enough. This guy treat me as a vandal, and this is not a thing i have to support to stay in wiki? Where is his autority to delete almost i write? Go figure. Cerebral activity is a guilth here in wiki? Just to understand. --Stefanomencarelli 13:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, we aren't stupid. We know you were blocked in IT.wiki for problems related to adding unsourced information, and refusing to say where you got it, or to source it properly. Proper sourcing is Wikipedia POLICY, and it gives anyone the right to remove questionable material. You still haven't answered any of our concerns over where you got the material, and yet are still tryiong to add unsourced text. You keep this up, and you'll probably get a block from the Wikipedia Foundation, and you won't even be able to contribute in Hebrew, Arabic, sor Swahili! - BillCJ 17:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Stefanomencarelli, I don't mean any disrespect by these comments, but as a professional writer myself, it is clear from the grammar of your comment above, and those on your talk page, that English is your second language. It is also clear that the material added to Kawasaki Ki-61 is very professional English, so I strongly doubt that you wrote it yourself. I'm guessing that you got it out of a magazine article or a book. It would be most helpful if you'd just cite your source. It is also inappropriate, and a copyright violation, to drop the text directly into the article. I would be appropriate to quote the book or mag article, but again, that needs to be clearly identitified as a quote, sourced, and limited in length. If you can't or won't provide references, then it is appropriate to remove the material as original research. If there's an edit war here, it's because you either don't understand our policies or are deliberately refusing to abide by them. If it's because you don't understand them, then let me know and I'll explain them futher to you. If it's because you deliberately refuse to abide by them, and you persist in doing so, eventually that will probably lead to you being blocked from editing, which I'd rather not see happen. So, please honor our policies and help us build the integrity of the encyclopedia, rather than bringing that integrity down by introducing inappropriate material. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
In every instance that I've seen, Bzuk has been improving your contributions, not only by fixing the language but by challenging or removing claims that are based on your own analysis, are unsourced, or which are simply irrelevant to the subject of the article. And in every case, he's tried very patiently to explain to you exactly what the problems are. Two of the other reasons for your block from it.wikipedia were your inability to work together with other editors, and your possessive ownership of articles that you considered "yours". You are exhibiting exactly the same behaviours here, and if they continue, they will have exactly the same result. One of the 49 people who voted to ban you forever from it.wikipedia suggested that you were incompatibile col progetto. I sincerely hope that he was wrong about you, but I must say that practically everything you've done since the very day you arrived here on en.wikipedia seems to me to confirm that opinion. --Rlandmann 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Noooo problem, guys. Bzuk is always allright, and all you make is right and juste. So, no problem: my manners and my problems on wiki.it are use even here to make your dirty accusation on myself. Sadly, you good boys have missed had also 31 USER have considered the accuses on my side TOTALLY BS. But obviousely, you preferred to count your interests alone, right boys?

And for istance of my articles, i have 3 in evidence in wiki.it. and nobody, differently to here, has EVER QUESTIONED COPYRIGHT to me. Differently by your accusations, obviousely based on non-existent facts. So for strange reasons, i am sicked by your chensorship manners and your continous vandalizing my posts 'because this and that'. ALl excuses and nothing else. But if you, rlandmann, thinks that Bzuk 'improves' my contribution DELETING TOTALLY AT HIS OWN JUDICE, so you are only cleary kidding me. And Reggiane RE.2001 is the non-return point: still deleted totally what i wrote there, as 'improvement'. --Stefanomencarelli 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Up to now, I have been quite careful to avoid having your past follow you here; I thought that you should have a fresh start and an unprejudiced chance to become a respected member of the community - cambia forse un leopardo la sua picchiettatura? However, my point is that nothing has changed; and I've only started referring to your past now because I want to warn you that the same thing will happen again if you keep going the way that you're going. You seem to have missed the point.
I mentioned the 49 people who voted for an indefinite ban because it is an absolutely staggering number of people who voted to give you the maximum penalty that the community can give - I hoped this would remind you that it's not just the members of WikiProject:Aircraft on en.wikipedia who find your behaviour problematic. Is it just a co-incidence that two separate communities have come to similar conclusions about your ability to work together with others on a collaborative project like this?
Now - to address your two specific grievances above:
  • You were accused of a suspected copyvio on the Ki-61 article. First: no-one needs to have solid proof to make such an accusation. Wikipedia:Copyright problems often deals with text that "looks like" it was copied from a book or images that "look like" they were scanned from somewhere. As BillCJ told you, if there had been proof that you were plagiarising text, the matter would have been treated more seriously. But since there was no proof, it was simply treated as suspicious. The suspicious text was removed, and no further action was taken, yet you still keep going on and on and on about it. For everybody else, the matter is ended, but you want to keep talking about it. Why?
  • You claim that Bzuk "deleted totally" what you had added to the Re.2001 article. Anyone who looks at the edit history will see that while he made some big cuts, your statement is simply not true. You know what? I think that some of the cuts he made were too severe, but that's only my opinion; maybe I'll try re-writing some of it and putting it back in. If you actually discussed these things on the talk pages, it would be a great help. Instead, you use the talk pages for protesting loudly when anyone touches "your" articles and for making claims about being "mobbed" and "censored". Please remember that anything that you add to an article can be edited by anyone at any time - they don't need your approval. The article is not yours and it's not sacred.
Please Stefanomencarelli, please try to work peacefully with others. If you can't do this, you will not have a very long career on en.wikipedia. --Rlandmann 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: User:Opuscalgary blocked

After blocking this long-time abusive user I received an e-mail from him containing a lengthy diatribe against me and BZuk. It was written with my name in the 3rd person, as if he were talking about me to someone else. The subject also suggested it was a letter he had sent to other people, which he described as the "wiki tribunal".

When I asked what he was talking about and who he had sent it to, he refused to clarify and then finally responded with a simple "Shut up". Great way to get unblocked, Opus.

My gut feeling is that he has done nothing, or at most send it to a drop-box where it will be ignored. There is, however, a chance that he is using the e-mail links within the wiki to spam other editors. Just a heads up, everyone. If this does happen, let me know and I'll turn on the "block e-mail" checkbox too.

Maury 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As expected, Opus came back under an anon IP. Anyone getting spammed in e-mail? Maury 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft Disinsection AfD

After watching Aircraft Disinsection be abandoned by the creator, and inspite of the efforts of others to improve it, it still has no sources, among other problems. As such, I've put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft Disinsection. - BillCJ 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this project a child project of Transport?

Hi. Can I ask if this wikiproject is a child project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport as I am trying to establish which projects are, so that the list on the main page can be sorted out. Thanks. Tbo 157talk 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Not entirely. This has strong connections with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History as well. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that WikiProjectAircraft originally was a child project of WP:Transport. WPAviation, however, is a more recent creation that subsumes WP:AIR and other aviation-related material. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Member category

While adding the new Simple label, I noticed something strange. Category:WikiProject Aviation members has only one member listed, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Members has many. The userbox {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Userbox}} says that displaying the userbox will add you to the category page, but none of the members from the member page are listed there. I'm not really sure why this is, or if the members simply have all chosen to not use the userbox, but there are so many members I'd think at least some have the box on their page. Maybe someone could please take a little peek at this and see why the category is (nearly) empty? Ariel♥Gold 19:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, I'd say it as just that people don't have the Userbox on their page - I hadn't, and adding it put me into the category page. The first 6 or so people on the member list don't have the Userbox. PalawanOz 21:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have the label at my page but was not added to the category, any tip? Heltzen◩ 14:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay I think I understand at least why it isn't working for the label, because there are two categories: Category:WikiProject Aviation members, and Category:WikiProject Aviation. I'd be willing to bet that nearly all of the people are added to the latter, but not the former. I can't do much about that, but I'll get the Simple Label fixed. Ariel♥Gold 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Jakew has fixed the label for you, Heltzen. Ariel♥Gold 23:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Flarecraft

Is anyone taking care of flarecraft or I create a page? I couldn't find any Heltzen◩ 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Some issues

There are some consideration that i would pose:

the articles are not still a real 'mature' template'. While veicles and ships have it, the specifications of aircrafts are still written at he foot of the page. Why? I found easy to read these numbers, because they aere bigger than template have. But still i cannot understand this lack of a real 'total' template.

In contrast, the photos are real small. Maybe that i miss something, but the reader should be pleased to read the article, and with aircrafts he should been also pleased to 'see' it and appreciate the particulars that only a quite big picture can gives: force him to click over the photo every one that he want to not see the aircraft in the same manner that he would see it at 1 km distance is really a loss. By Zeus, some care for graphic and some care also for the pleasure to have at the hands (expecially if one want to print the article...) a fair article. Is it so difficult to understand this? I wuold not been interested in aircrafts seen in a 100px photo.

Another thing: the tecnical section. This is not an trascurable one in articles related to aircrafts. There must been one in every article, not a confuse scattering of engines, electronics and so on all over the stuff. This is the 'professional' way to do, as i have already said. The articles and monographies i have on the hands are all built in history, tecnical and then versions and service. This is a rational way to do IMO.

At the end, i would also object to the selectivity of sources. I already protested about the lack of credibility tributed to T.Cooper. I rate IMO unaccettable that an author unliked is trown out of this enciclopedy only because he said that not only Tom 'Maverick' Cruise Tomcat made havoc of MiGs. I like MiGs so imagine if i am happy. But the NPOV way should been not worse served than this shows.--Stefanomencarelli 23:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Steph, it might be better if you wrote in Italian, and then let someone else translate your rant for you. THis is attrocious, and I never know half of what you're saying. I'm sorry your ENglish skills are not that good, but do you have to practice on us?
What articles have 100px pics of aircraft? We usually remove the sixings for everything but logos, such as are in the F-4 page. So again, I'm not really sure what the hades you're talking about. - BillCJ 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Essential Air Service page

Even though I'm not a member of this Wikiproject, I added some information to this page and it looks like it is still in dire need of an update. I hope the "(dba *AIRLINE*)" additions [when pertinent] were okay. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Supersonic transports and grammatical gender

There's an interesting conversation here. I'd be grateful for some wider input to it. --John 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Airship Management Services

Folks around here might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airship Management Services, Inc. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also two related images, Image:Big-Ben & Palm2.jpg and Image:FUJI - liberty 1.jpg that are listed for deletion, and this blows me a way...the company that owns the airships uploads some gorgeous company images, releases them under the proper license - doing us all a big favor - and these images get nommed for deletion? Folks here need to speak up! We should be encouraging aircraft manufacturers to release images under CC licenses, not deleting them when they do! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all who commented. Issue has been resolved in a positive, cooperative manner. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Air Transport in the United Kingdom

Hi. Just dropping a line to say that I created a new article; Air Transport in the United Kingdom, which seems relevant to this project, if anyone is interested in helping out. --FactotEm 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Found page

I just ran across this article, List of people who have died in incidents involving DC-3 aircraft. It needs alot of help, esp refernecing, and might be better off merged with another page (possibly a list of DC-3 incidents). - BillCJ 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles

Your comments are appreciated on this proposal. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 21#Template:Aircontent O2 (息 • 吹) 02:24, 21 October 2007 (GMT)

Peer review

I just updated the intructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review, making them very simple to use. If there is an article you are hoping to get to FA quality, or want to help someone else get their favorite article up to par, try using this page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Lockheed XF-104

Hi guys, I have just added a new article, the Lockheed XF-104. I felt this prototype deserved a page of its own. Need to tidy specifications etc. but I think the bones are there. Will work on linking it to other relevant articles. Cheers Nimbus227 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. If you can, some in-line citations would be good, while your sources are still fresh in your mind. This would save alot of work later on, as GA and FA status require them. I'll work on adding some links to Related contnet section, etc. Also, you might want to post this at WT:AIR, as that is the daughter project dealing more directly with aircraft. - BillCJ 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Bill. Afraid I'm very new to Wiki editing but creating this article has helped with the learning process. The reference/citation linking is my next hurdle, I would like to include quotes from Kelly Johnson that are referenced, just a matter of learning the technology, thanks for your help. Nimbus227 00:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if any of you guys can help. The image XF-104_Johnson.jpg has been disputed over its fair use rationale. Perhaps you can advise whether this is correct or if it is not then please edit the fair use rationale to strengthen the case. I was advised to upload it with the correct copyright template and a fair use explanation which I did. Surely this photo could not be more relevant to the article? It is possible that it is a USAF photo which would help, does the photo number mean anything to anyone? Many thanks. Nimbus227 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for someone to make a map of the dead of Singapore Airlines Flight 006

I thought it would be helpful to post a map indicating the locations of the dead of Singapore Airlines Flight 006 in 2000. The problem is that the map from the final report (Seen here [1]) is from a Taiwanese government, NOT the US Federal Government. In other words, the report here is likely copyrighted and we may have to make our own map.

Is anyone willing to make an original map of the disaster using the Taiwan document as a source? WhisperToMe 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that the article needs it, the text makes it clear that most people in the middle section of the aircraft perished due to exploding fuel tanks. Also on reading the article I dont think the article really needs a list of people killed and injured by country which has no relevance to the accident. MilborneOne 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The map from the Taiwan document is one of the two sources used to support the statement - I feel that a map of the aircraft will help the readers get a better grasp of the accident (the seating scenario is relevant as it was included in the disaster report). I found NTSB maps of survivor/dead/seat chart locations and uploaded them as they are pd. WhisperToMe 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

How to use the footnote template?

Hi, Someone removed references to the Tango Squadron Museum in Chiang Mai where William McGarry's P40 wreckage is displayed. It now simply reads, "Today the wreckage is displayed on the floor of a building on the Air Force Base in much the same condition and arrangement as it was found." The museum is in fact located in a restricted section of the Chiang Mai International Airport used by the Royal Thai Air Force. Access to the public is available but arrangements must be made in advance. The person apparently makes occasional revisions operating from an IP. They have no user page so I have no opportunity to enter a talk page. Being a new editor, how does the footnote template work? I wanted to reenter the information with a reference from a local newspaper cited so hopefully it will remain. ThanksNYerkes 00:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Are you asking about a reference or an external link? Which article? Chiang Mai International Airport? Vegaswikian 02:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The article is the one on the Flying Tigers. I wanted to add a reference to support what I had previously said about where the aircraft is displayed. I could a link to photographs from the museum but since I took the photos and own the website where they reside that wouldn't be permitted. I am not a member of Tango Squadron being a foreigner living in Thailand but I have visited that museum often and have become friends with several members and well acquainted with the squadron commander.I looked at the template for the footnotes but did not understand how to make the addition. William McGarry's P-40 was shot down during a raid on the Chiang Mai airport. I was not found until the early 1990s. Today it rests in the Tango Squadron Wing 41 museum in Chiang Mai. NYerkes 03:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I added the website as a ref. However, using your own site as a source of information may be considered WP:COI. If you want to include a picture, then simply make it available under the GDFL and upload it. The fact that you own the web site only complicates matters. When you add this as an external link it is probably a clear violation of several guidelines. Vegaswikian 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Project Maintenance

There is now a new page, Wikipedia: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) 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was having a look through some of those articles, a lot of them do appear to have infoboxes, specs and/or have been assessed. Is it just a matter of removing them from the list or removing a tag or a bit of both? Would like to help in this area. Cheers Nimbus227 09:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The articles are added to a lot of the categories by use of the project template, {{WPAVIATION}}. If an article does have an infobox, then remove |needs-infobox=yes. If an article has been assessed, it cannot be in Category:Unassessed aviation articles, unless it was assessed in another projects banner, but not in {{WPAVIATION}} (class=) If it does have all the proper specs, remove {{aero-specs}}, from the page, if it has been updated to the current specs template, {{aircraft specifications}}, then remove {{aero-table}}. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I added an infobox to the Lockheed CL-1200 a while ago so I went back to the article just now but can't find the code you show above, it still appears on the 'needs infobox' list. I assume that removing the code should also remove it from the list? Forgive me for I am new here! Cheers. Nimbus227 16:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That's ok. It's on the talk page. {{WPAVIATION|class=Start|Aircraft-project=yes|needs-infobox=yes
I'll go ahead and remove it so you can see how I did it here. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha, got it now thanks. Only a few more to go then! Nimbus227 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Kara Hultgreen bio

The Kara Hultgreen is in need of attention. A user has been adding info of late - some unsourced, some from her bio book - but alot of it is poorly-writtena dn extraneous. This seems to be a pattern with the user on other article. Any help with this one would be apprecuiated. - BillCJ 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

S.O.S.

As a courtesy I have tagged the article 7th Airlift Squadron as being within your scope, but the article really needs help; could someone here eyeball it and see about cleaning it up some? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please help

For WPAVIATION
For WPAVIATION

What is Tag & Assess 2007? It's a Wiki-wide call for volunteers. To explain ... a month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where youcan help.

Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom II in world airforces service

Please look at this article; it seems to be assembled under a {{WIP}} tag and may need revision but where to start? FWIW Bzuk 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

Where to start? With a new title, with better grammar. After that, do we really need detailed serial number listings? This seems somewhat contrary to our mission. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur with both. And Considering WHO created the article, is it really a surprise that it has grammar issues, or seems somewhat contrary to our mission? - BillCJ 01:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing Pam Ann

I found a Pam Ann comedy sketch parodying SQ006 - I saw it on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8AFpso1X3M

How do I cite the actual sketch? What show does it appear on? Which episode? WhisperToMe 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Verification needed

A new article on a putative Chinese bomber called the Xian H-8 has been created but might just be speculation. Could somebody with some knowledge in the area take a look at it? Tim Vickers 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tim. I've added my professional observations to your AfD. We've had the same issue arise with Chinese fighters. I think the best approach is to roll them all into a future-oriented article with the "reported" names/designations redirected to that article until each one has sufficient solid information come out that it can be moved into its own article. Deleting them just invites their recreation, and this one is not poorly done; it does need citations, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, citations - there's the rub! Tim Vickers 19:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Public domain image of a tropical scheme Singapore Airlines 747/9VSPK/Singapore Airlines Flight SQ 006?

I want an image of a Singapore Airlines 747 using the tropical color scheme seen on 97SPK, the plane that crashed as SQ006.

The image is significant as the crash forced SQ to retire the paint scheme;9 VSPK wore the paint scheme when it was broken into pieces. WhisperToMe 05:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirects for plane crash victims

I also wonder what to do with these names.. Usually if I find the name of a plane crash victim, it redirects to the crash.

However...

  • Elma Thwaites is the mother of Singaporean horse trainer Malcolm Thwaites (no article yet) - Should Thwaites redirect to Malcolm Thwaites or to Singapore Airlines Flight 006
  • Shannon Lychner and Katie Lychner are the daughters of Pam Lychner (no article yet), who is notable for introducing a victims' rights bill in the US. Should the Lychner girls redirect to her mother's article, or should they redirect to TWA Flight 800? (The mother also died on the flight)

WhisperToMe 05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Colorado Airways

I think this article should go, as it seems this airline never got off the ground. I searched the FAA Certificate database and found no AOC for either Colorado Airways or its parent Bobrel Leasing. Bobrel Leasing owns no aircraft according to the FAA register database, nor does CA. I did find reference to a route application pre-dating the article, for services from Lamar, Colorado; but nothing on the airline being awarded the service; and also an old registration to Bobrel of a Cessna 402, which was sold in 2005. I found reference to a trading name for Bobrel Leasing as FBO Northeast Planes in Akron, Colorado; it has no aircraft either and its website is defunct. Lastly, the route mentioned in the article is being flown by another airline, and the Wikipedia article and the website for the Central Nebraska Regional Airport make no mention of Colorado Airways. YSSYguy 02:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Messy Pipers?

Whilst going through the list of articles needing infoboxes (did about 10)I noticed that the Piper range article naming is a bit messy, we have Piper PA-12 (Super Cruiser), Piper Saratoga (PA-32) etc. So some with names, some without and some with numbers, some without. I think Piper PA-30 Twin Comanche is the accepted convention. Perhaps this has been spotted. Is there an easy way to sort this out? I realise it could affect links to lists. Nimbus227 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines for US civil say that they shoud be either manufacturer and name or manufacturer and number but not manufacturer and number and name. Perhaps we should just decide what is appropriate for Piper aircraft and then just move them. If I remember some Piper aircraft have more than one name for a model number so I would suggest they should all be like Piper PA-12. But wait and see if they are other opinions. MilborneOne 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see the Piper list uses just numbers which works. The Piper Cherokee Six is a good example of what you mention, it is a PA-32 like the Piper Saratoga (a PA-32R I think). The Cherokee Six article has no infobox (and no tag saying it needs one) but there is a link to the Saratoga article in the text. I just realised the size of the task going on in this project! Nimbus227 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you'd have to approach it on a case-by-case basis, as there was little consistency from the manufacturer's side of things. For example, there is the PA-30 Twin Comanche and the PA-39 Twin Comanche; the article deals with both, but the article is called Piper PA-30 Twin Comanche. Then there is the Cheyenne, some of which are PA-31Ts, some PA-42s, with two articles. The PA-23 Apaches and PA-23 Aztecs are lumped into one article (called Piper Aztec), and although one was developed from the other, they are two very different aircraft. The Cherokee article is the same. There are two basic families, fixed gear and retractables. All of the fixed-gear PA28s are basically the same from the firewall back, save for evolutionary changes and the different wings on the -151s, -161s, etc. The PA-28R Arrows, while similar, are very different aircraft that should probably have their own article. The T-tail Arrow IV model has less resemblance to a PA-28-140 than a Boeing 737-900 does to a 737-200. I feel I have some qualifications in speaking about this, as I have worked on almost the entire Piper product range, from the Colt and Super Cub up to Cheyenne II. YSSYguy 02:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I didn't realise it was quite that complicated, looks like we are stuck with how things are. I bet Piper staff got confused themselves at times! Cheers. Nimbus227 12:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Airport destination list up for deletion

After a peer review of Manchester Airport, it was suggested that the terminal destination lists be split into specific terminal articles. That was done - List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 and List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 were created and links to them are in the Manchester Airport article. Since then, all the terminal articles went to AfD. It seems a mess.

See deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination). --Oakshade 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review

F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Snowman (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Busiest air routes

I was thinking whether there should be an article about the World's busiest air routes. Something like the World's busiest airport, etc. Will it satisfy the relevant wiki guidelines? There are some data here: oag.com kawaputratorque 09:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention

Is there any consensus as to whether we use official full names for titling (Newark Liberty International Airport), or perhaps the names represented in the codes? TewfikTalk 12:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessments: importance ?

The {{WPAVIATION}} template does not list an importance field. Has that been done away with? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, Marcusmax said this has not been used. Thanks, I was just wondering. I was trying to add that with the assessments I've done, but never sure what critera for high and mi importance were. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal alert: User:Victor N

User:Victor N (contribs) has been creating massive amounts of made-up junk regarding his fantasy Bromo Airlines and Roro Anteng Airport, as well as adding nonexistent flights to Surabaya and Malang for actual airlines like SQ, Silkair, Shenzhen Airlines, etc. I've reverted most of it, but please keep an eye on the guy and help me double-check his edits. Jpatokal (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Boeing 367-80

The specifications table at the bottom of the page Boeing 367-80 is not showing properly, but instead displaying as code. Can someone from here take a look at the section and see about fixing it? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Modex

I'm kinda surprised that we didn't have an article on this; any help would really be appreciated. ZakuTalk 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Line spacing

I've been noticing this on a lot of aviation-related articles recently, and I have to break it to everyone that adding unnecessary spacing is an MOS breach. Clearly, we should be focusing on optimising the load times for users who might not have as fast of a connection or CPU as we do, since most people only read articles. The cleared bytes caused by unnecessary spacing should be used for prose development rather than satisfying an editor's preferences. Comments? 哦，是吗？(review O) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (GMT)

  • Uh, it's only 1 byte per return. The effect of several extra blank lines in an article is very small. The blank lines after an image for example helps on the edit screen. It is more difficult to scroll down and find the paragraph of interest without the blank lines (only 1 at a time). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty idiosyncratic way of reading the MOS; and I suggest it's an attempt at some fairly serious over-reaching. Clearly, the needs of readers and the needs of editors need to be balanced; and making editors' jobs more difficult in order to save a measly 2 bytes makes no sense whatsoever. 2 bytes=16 bits=less than 0.01 seconds even on a 2400 baud modem. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
But that two bytes could be a lot of prose. 哦，是吗？(review O) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (GMT)
How much prose is two bytes, in letters? (I don't speak Byte-ish, so this is a genuine question.) - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
2 bytes = 2 letters. Not exactly "a lot of prose". --Rlandmann (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point about load times. Images will affect that more than some blank lines. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack Real

Jack Real is going to be speedily deleted. I'll remove the speedy and give you time to assess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Edit-first-section

I looked on the page user:O linked to above, and couldn't find the rule he is reffering too. However, I did find a link to {{Edit-first-section}}, which seems like it could be very useful to the project on long article pages. I've wanted a feature like this for a long time, so it was good to finally find it. It was apparently created back in June 2007, but I've never seen it used on a page. I am trying it out on the very-long Atlanta, Georgia page. And, no, I don't know how many bytes it adds, but if it helps cut loading time when all you want to edit is Section 0, then I'm for it! - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Chinese Wikipedia has this on all articles, one example is the Chinese version of Kai Tak Airport. This is a great idea. 哦，是吗？(review O) 01:09, 13 December 2007 (GMT)

Sorry for the snipe, then, O. I would like to see it built in to all en.wiki pages, but this is a good first step. I think I'll try it out on the Concorde and Airbus A380 pages, and those are getting to be very long too. - BillCJ (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hey that lets you do section editing on the lead. That's nice. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Just don't put it at the top of the article before info boxes. If you do, it can cause formatting issues. I changed it in Airbus A380. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving it below the infobox defeats one major purpose for the edit tag, as the Infobox is one of the more-edited items on aircraft pages. I didn't have any problems on WinXP SP2 using IE6, so I wasn't aware some others might have problems with it. Perhaps it's just a small number of systems that are effected, so I'd like to heare from others if they've had problems with it. It might also be something that can be fixed or tweaked in the template formatting. - BillCJ (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It still works the same. The [edit] button is a slightly different place, but you can edit the everything above the first section heading. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747

This article is up for Featured Article. Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 747, and maybe lend a hand. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See above section. 哦，是吗？(review O) 04:01, 17 December 2007 (GMT)

Manual of Style dispute

User:O has commented "Please reorder the last three sections so that they follow the global guidelines. It doesn't matter what the Aircraft WikiProject guidelines say; they're supposed to follow the MOS anyway"

I believe the comment is directed at this type of section [2] .

My response was that there should be discussion at the WikiProject level. If it is at the article level, this creates a difficult situation trying to address the criticism of the "related content (similar aircraft list)" section, which is common to WikiProject Aviation articles and the purported Manual of Style violation. Since this is more of a policy decision, it may be better discussed here or at some other larger forum, rather than having the same question come up in every article. Archtransit (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has cropped up a while back and the consesnus that was arrived at was that there were some concessions to the unique characteristics of the Aviation Project article. It made sense to put this section below rather than treating it as a "See also" section. Bye the bye, there really are no MOS standards etched in stone (at least I hope not?!) that are uniformally applied. Commonsense does rule as well. Bzuk (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC). (I'll take that last statement back if I am shown in error... {:¬∆)
MoS specifically states that there is no prescribed order for this material; only that if both "Notes" and "References" are included, these sections should appear next to each other. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, The Layout guide says on Standard appendices, that "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other." -Fnlayson (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed this dilemma with the assistant who helps the Director of featured article selection on following WikiProject guidelines and having a section that is not mentioned in the Manual of Style (possibly interpreted as a violation of MOS). The advice was to look at previous FA (they have that last section). The advice also was to see if we can meld the appendices so there is not a non-standard appendix.

To avoid a heated argument about FA's, I propose to do it on the F-4 Phantom II article (which is already an FA and where changing the appendix will not ruin the article to the point of removing it's FA star). Then you can comment on whether the meld is acceptable. If so, the meld could be a proposed new guideline for WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. Archtransit (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to F-4. User:O has already messed up the 787 page as an example - there is no need to crap on the F-4 page too. If O wants to make changes, he needs to gain a consensus first. If you want to use the F-4 as an example, then set up a sandbox-type page, and experiment there. No need to mess up an FA-page, which in itself disproves O's point that WPAIR-style MOS pages can't make FA. - BillCJ (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Air force

Could someone from this project have a look at Air_force#The_two_World_Wars? It says that WWI aircraft could only do 50 mph, which I'm pretty sure is wrong. You may want to look at the rest of the article, too, as it's not one of the better ones I've seen on Wikipedia. Also it's not included in this project, yet, and you may want it to be. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not kidding, a lot of very questionable statements and no real reference sources tends to lead to a very rudimentary or formative article. Bzuk (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

New article: Option (aircraft purchasing)

If you perform a Google search you will see there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles that discuss airlines having 'options' to buy further aircraft, but the use of the word 'options' for aircraft purchases has not been clearly defined for the general public to understand. So I started a new article Option (aircraft purchasing) so other aviation articles can link to it when talking about aircraft purchasing options.
First, you may want to check this article and expand it (using references, please). Second, someone has called for it to be merged with another legal article about legal options. Please comment on the article talk page. I personally feel this article can be expanded to include reasons why the manufacturers include options, and why airlines take them up. A separate article allows for future expansion. Regards, Lester 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Good idea. Looks fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If we are locked-off on the title, then comes the task of Wikilinking all those many articles that discuss purchasing options, as shown in the Google search (above).Lester 02:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin help with User: 195.110.70.55

I believe this user is making unconstructive edits to aircraft pages and others, the IP has been warned numerous times at USER talk:195.110.70.55, the last warning said that they would be blocked if it continued. Many thanks Nimbus227 (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

The airline destination lists are really magnificent, I didn't know they existed and they are very useful, because on the separate country airport lists, it is not clear which airports are commercially served and which are not.

To help you finishing this great work, I posted a little comment on the talkpage of your Oceania section.

Friendly greetings, 84.195.51.99 (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (User:Belgian man)

Situation Awareness

The well written article on Situation Awareness is tagged as an aviation article. However I feel it belongs in the Psychology domain where it is obviously being well cared for. Question: shall I drop the WPAVIATION tag and add the Psychology tag? Carl M. Anglesea (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Can the article have both tags? This subject will be familiar to most pilots, in the UK the subject is part of the CAA 'Human Performance and Limitations' exam for a private flying license. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It also applies to fighter pilots during dogfights. There's no reason an article can't have multiple WP banners. Many military aircraft have one for Aviation and another for Militar History. Some even have 3 or 4. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I will tag it with both. My concern comes in when we start to assess/reassess the quality of the article, which should be done by the psychology folks. Carl M. Anglesea (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. Some articles are assesed to different classes due to different standards. Example: Talk:Mil Mi-24. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mirage jets in Pakistan

From Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction: "(Pakistani Air Force aircraft include) the Mirage IIIOs, Mirage IIIODs and Mirage IIIEs. The Pakistani Air Force, currently, operates some 156 Mirage (III & V) aircraft." -- Can anyone straighten out those redlinks? (WP:REDLINK). Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Each variant does not get its own article usually. Those are all in the Dassault Mirage III article. I removed the Mirage redlinks. Piped links like: [[Dassault Mirage III|Mirage IIIOs]] could be done too but there's little point. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

{moved from my user talk page, to keep conversation together)
You removed redlinks on Mirage jets from Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - [3]
I personally don't know anything about the Mirage jets in question, which is why I asked others to take a look at the page. IMHO, just removing redlinks from an article is contrary to Wikipedia policy (WP:REDLINKS), unless we're sure that an article will never be created about the subject, or they can't be redirected to an existing article that covers the subject.
Could you please add a quick note on Talk:Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on why you think it's appropriate to remove these redlinks in this case?
Thanks -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Like I stated above those Mirage links would go to the same article Dassault Mirage III. Repeating that link for ODs, & Es variants would be overlinking, which is against policy. That's not worthy of mentioning on the article talk page, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles on recent crashes

Hi all, I have PRODded the following articles about recent accidents:

The last two articles have blue links to politicians. In the case of the Berlin accident, the blue link is to an article on the German WP. In the case of the Brazilian crash, the article about the person was created as a result of the article about the crash and is basically a repeat of the info in the crash article. YSSYguy (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've deprodded the DC-3 crash, it meets at least A3 and P1 of WP:AIRCRASH and possibly A5 too. The DC3 is an airliner, not a general aviation aircraft, which means that an accident resulting in a write-off should be given more weight as to notability IMHO. I linked to the de.wiki article on the policitian as he doesn't have an en.wiki article. A member of a country's parliament is notable enough to have an article on en.wiki. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I support the PRODs of the first two articles, and have added a {{prod-2}} to each. Not so sure about the other one, as it does meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria P1. Probably better in the article on the politician so maybe convert to a redirect? Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I think its better not to link to the German wikipedia. A redlink that will probably result in an article being created is better than having a link to an article most readers here can't understand. If its left as a link to de.wiki unless one actually clicks on it one is left with the impression that an en.wiki article for that person does exist. Roger (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The de.wiki link is in accordance with WP:ILL#Purpose, besides which, Stefan Kaufmann on en.wiki is someone completely different. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course, should anyone create Stefan Kaufmann (politician), then the iwl can be changd to a wl. Request filed at WT:PLT and WT:GER for assistance. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Article created and link changed. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the Manaus Cleiton article as an uncontested PROD, and then recreated it as a redirect to Cinthia Régia Gomes do Livramento. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Archive_1&oldid=1153970674"