Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 9

message: I know I can't speak for all of you, but I personally would probably leave out virtually all aircraft articles from Wikipedia 1.0.  However, we could probably use our articles as the basis of Wikipedia's version of Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, and publish that to raise funds for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Of course, we should also work to prepare some of the articles that will be included in Wikipedia 1.0—work to get them Featured, or at least Good.  Some that I can think of off the top of my head:
* Aircraft
* Fighter aircraft
* Bomber aircraft
* Airliner
* Airship
* Attack aircraft
* Cargo aircraft
* Aerial refueling
* Airplane
Any comments on my proposals?  Ingoolemo talk 18:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia's Encyclopaedia of Aviation

message: Can we get a consensus on standardized aircraft engine specs (and place it in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content)? Here's what I've been using:
Piston
Specifications ()
* Type: Seven-cylinder supercharged air-cooled radial piston engine
* Bore: in (mm)
* Stroke: in (mm)
* Displacement: in³ (L)
* Valvetrain: Two pushrod-actuated valves per cylinder with sodium-cooled exhaust valve
* Valvetrain: Overhead camshaft-actuated, two intake and two exhaust valves per cylinder, sodium-cooled exhaust valve stems
* Carburetor: twin-choke updraft with automatic mixture control
* Supercharger: Two-speed two-stage, boost pressure automatically linked to the throttle, water-air aftercooler installed between the second stage and the engine.
* Oil system: Dry sump with one pressure pump and two scavenge pumps
* Cooling system: 70% water and 30% ethylene glycol coolant mixture, pressurized
* Compression ratio: 
* Power output: hp (kW) at rpm for takeoff at sea level; hp (kW) at rpm for cruise at ft (m)
* Fuel consumption: US gal/hr (L/hr) at economical cruise
* Length: in (mm)
* Diameter: in (mm)
* Dry weight: lb (kg)
* Power-to-weight ratio: hp/lb (kW/kg)
Jet
Specifications ()
* Compressor: single-stage dual-entry centrifugal compressor with two-sided impeller
* Combustion chambers: 10 flow combustion chambers with igniter plugs in chambers 3 and 10
* Turbine: single-stage axial flow with 54 blades
* Fuel: Aviation kerosene with 1% lubricating oil
* Oil system: US gal ( L) capacity, circulation rate US gal/hr ( L/hr), maximum inverted flying time  s
* Overall pressure ratio: 
* Thrust: lbf ( kN) at rpm for takeoff; lbf ( kN) at rpm for cruise; lbf ( kN) at rpm at idle.
* Fuel consumption: lb/hr ( kg/hr) at maximum power; lb/hr ( kg/hr) at cruise power; lb/hr ( kg/hr) at idle
* Oil consumption: US gal/hr ( L/hr)
* Length: in ( mm)
* Diameter: in ( mm)
* Dry weight: lb ( kg)
* Thrust-to-weight ratio:
- Emt147 Burninate! 20:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized engine specs 

message: Do you all think there is some utility to providing labeled versions of some aviation-related photographs? I've made a couple of examples using WW2 engines... let me know what you think.
- Emt147 Burninate! 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree.  Many laypeople (such as myself) are not well-acquainted enough with engines to know what all the parts are.  Labels are a good idea, and I like the ones you've used.  Ingoolemo talk 20:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also, as per Ingoolemo. --The1exile 20:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Fair enough. Engines are an obvious place to start. Can I get some feedback on the engine specs proposed above? - Emt147 Burninate! 22:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So far as I know, your specs proposals are good ones.  But again, I'm a layman, so I really can't make much useful feedback.  Ingoolemo talk 19:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labeled images 

message: I've been playing around with AutoWikiBrowser, just doing general cleanup. However, it can use regular expressions and thus can be programmed to do fairly complex semi-automated search-and-replace operations (layout changes, units, conversion from infoboxes to inline text or vice-versa, etc.) on a batch of pages. If anyone has suggestions for WP:Air-related AWB tasks, post them here. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template still contains some references to the external links like that one. We have the parameter |links=no still there and also the comment at the top () mentions the links and may be misleading since there is not link section anymore. --Sylvain Mielot 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, experimenting a little with the Boeing 717, it seems that the values and even the presence or absence of these parameters have no incidence on what is displayed so we should be able to clean them up:</br>
 |links=no</br>
 |has sequence=yes</br>
 |has relations=yes</br>
 |has lists=no</br>
 |see also?=no</br>
But I may be mistaken because I don't know much about the templates. --Sylvain Mielot 01:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Okay, all of the |external link= have been removed (about half a dozen stragglers were left). - Emt147 Burninate! 06:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWB task list requests 

message: What do you all think about adding a small header to all aircraft pages to inform potential editors about the existence of style guidelines... something like this: User:Emt147/Airhead. This may alleviate the headache of having to redo formatting, especially of specs, after well-meaning but uninformed edits. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, adding such 'meta-data' to articles has been a taboo in the English Wikipedia almost since inception.  Only in extreme cases, such as  and  are those boilerplates usually tolerated.  However, instructions can be 'commented out' (with the code ) so that the instructions can be seen only while editing the page; this technique was often used to explain the proper implementation of  before we switched to Cite.php.   (The current boilerplate could be placed on an article's talk page without much fuss.)  Ingoolemo talk 04:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Commented-out instructions make total sense. I'll add them as I go through the Airtemp conversion. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page headers 

message: A question before I embark on an AWB-assisted conversion of all aicraft articles to the template:
The current version of Template:Airtemp ignores the whole muck with unit switching. If this is the current adopted WP:Air policy, we can do away with the "|something main=" "|something alt=" and use a single parameter instead, cutting the specs parameter list in half. The migration from "|something main=" "|something alt=" to "|something=number (another number)" can be easily done with AWB. The template can be modified to accept both versions until the migration is complete.
Also, anyone object if we change from boldface to regular type for the specs? It looks like someone went crazy with a Sharpie right now.
Any other issues/comments/concerns/objections before I start? I'll give this a few days to percolate, say until March 1, 2006. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the reason why it apparently ignores unit switching is because I simplified the code.  Now instead of using a parametre-based |switch order of units?=yes functionality, you just change {{airtemp to {{airtemp-switch.  If the parametres are shrunk to a single line that would eliminate the switching functionality, which was designed in the event that the units were entered in the incorrect order.  The functionality has been used, by the way: see .  Ingoolemo talk 08:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see how it works. Hmm. The question is whether this functionality is worth all the extra code. I like what you did with Airspec-imp and Airspec-met. I think we should make an entire pre-filled "new aircraft" page that can be subst-ed in. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a pre-filled new aircraft page, see Template:Aircraft-imp and Template:Aircraft-met.  Ingoolemo talk 22:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airtemp revisited 

message: I have requested a new feature at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5116, which would allow us to fix the categorisation problem mentioned above by using a kind of uber-pipe.  Example: by typing |Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit, the article isn't merely placed under 'N' on the category page, its link actually takes the form 'Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit', thereby avoiding the incongruity of having 'B-2 Spirit' in the 'N' section.
By visiting the bugzilla link above, you can vote for the bug, thereby making it more likely to attract the attention of the developers.  If you have any questions, it's better to leave them on the bugzilla page, so that I can make sure that the developers are also aware of my clarifications.  Ingoolemo talk 08:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug request 

message: The data I will insert during migration to template can be seen here: User:Emt147/Template. Please review and comment/modify as necessary. The first line about WP:Air will go at the very top of every article (for HTML non-savvy, it's a hidden comment that will only be seen when you edit the page). Note, I will migrate to the aircontent template for the Related contents secton at the same time.
I will post my AWB settings file with find/replace filters and task list after I do a trial run on or after March 1. If anyone else wants to get in on the action, there is plenty of work -- I figure 2,100+ articles at 2-3 minutes per page (expect a bit of manual work because the formatting used right now is VERY inconsistent and it's impossible to write find/replace filters for all possibilities) is 100+ hours of work. Just keep watching this page for the lists. 
I have also updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content with links to subst templates for new pages and template-based specs. 
- Emt147 Burninate! 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a few very minor alterations, which can be seen in the history.  Please remember that for the uncommon fields like useful load it's probably best to remove them entirely than to leave them with unspecified unit values.  Other than that, looks fine to me.  Ingoolemo talk 06:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration template - please review 

message: Quick question -- what to do with pages that have specs for multiple versions (Avro Vulcan, Supermarine Spitfire, Curtiss P-40). IMHO multiple specs on these pages are warranted because they show the evolution of the aicraft (just compare an early Spit Mk.I with a Griffon-powered Mk.XIV!) and not enough aircraft have them (e.g. Bf 109B vs E/F vs G, FW 190A vs D, P-51A vs D). I'm tempted to leave them alone but somehow mark them (a category called Aircraft with multiple specs or something even less obvious) so they can be manually modified if there is a big change in aircraft specs again. Another option is to make the specs follow each other and drop the side-by-side comparison. Opinions? - Emt147 Burninate! 06:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AIR guidelines state that (in most cases, apparently) only the most common variant should be used for specifications. I personally feel that if more specifications are desired, they should be placed in an additional 'Aircraft variants' article (such as Supermarine Spitfire variants). In these cases, they should also not include all specs, but those with significant changes – engine(s), performance, armament. A wingspan increase of 4 feet and a better climb rate, for example, doesn't warrant an entire specs block. The variant listing used by the PBY Catalina is a good way to outline changes over the course of an aircraft's service life. ericg ✈ 06:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that makes sense. Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, if the specifications of the different variants are enormously different then the variants are probably different enough to warrant separate articles.  Cases where this occurs are rare, however.  Ingoolemo talk 19:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multispec pages 

message: When I see most of the fighters listed in Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft being put in categores in the 90's, it confuses me. For example, the F-22 Raptor entered IOC late last year, and started development long before the 90's. Why is it then categorised as 1990-1999 fighter aircraft? Same goes for the Eurofighter Typhoon, which has not even entered IOC yet. The only fighter classed this decade is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Can someone explain this to me? --The1exile 23:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * As I understand it, the convention is to go by the year of development/first flight. Of course, with the extremely protracted development cycles of modern aicraft this is kind of moot. The easiest fix is to add it to multiple year categories. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *This article discusses planes in service in the decade 2000-2010. Aircraft are typically categorized as Emt147 said, by first flight. As we now have lifetimes in some cases approaching 100 years (the B-52) and 30-40 is not uncommon (the F-104 and F-4 was just recently retired in Europe), this can lead to confusion. --Mmx1 15:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major category fix needed, unless someone can explain this 

message: I nominated F-4 Phantom II for Feature Article status. Please voice your yays and nays at the above page. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has quite a few red links that I think should be fix up to help with that. -Dawson 07:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-4 Phantom II FAC 

message: I've started an article on war emergency power, a common throttle setting on World War II aircraft. If anyone can fill it out and grab some references, that would be great - I'd like to make it sort of a central source for boost techniques used during the war, and link out to the various specific systems used. I'm going to grab my copy of Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II and see what it's got to say about boost systems and the engines that used them. ericg ✈ 15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting reading for ya. http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm Essentially almost everything had gear-driven superchargers, a few systems had a turbo on top of it, Germans had MW50 and that other stuff I'm blanking on injection, Allies had water injection, many aircraft had WEP throttle setting which permitted overboost of the engine. I'll help you out soon as I'm done messing around with AWB and specs templates. :) - Emt147 Burninate! 18:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: entirely weird; just this morning it jumped into my head out of nowhere that wikipedia needs an article on WEP. well, i added what I could, which is mostly p51-oriented. Gzuckier 18:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for expansion: [[war emergency power]] 

message: I've updated the AWB settings file for template conversion. It should work (please let me know if it doesn't or if you see strange behavior!) and it's considerably faster now -- on most pages you only need to add the }} at the end of the specs, everything else is done through regex statements.
The settings file is at User:Emt147/AWBsettings, copy the source code (NOT what Wikipedia displays) and save to an XML file. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just changed AWBsettings by inserting .  By inserting those tags editors need not copy from the source code anymore, they can now copy directly from the wiki page.  Ingoolemo talk 04:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually you still need to copy the source code. The < and > symbols you see are actually written as & lt; and & gt; in the config file. If you don't copy the source code, AWB will give you an error on every single one of those buggers. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWB settings file updated