Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 14

message: Hello, I'm Dfrg.msc, and I want to make some constructive edits to Wikipedia. It's not that I am unable to, I would just like some guidance. So, if you have any specific tasks related to this topic, please inform me on my talk page, be specific and include links and I'll help out as soon as I can. Thanks, Dfrg.msc  1 . 2 . 3 07:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Work 

message: Please see help "Editing aircraft info" and advice user talk:HiFlyChick on how to put the specs in the page/template. Stefan 05:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing aircraft info 

message: As anyone else not satisfied with the new version of ?  Half of it is whitespace!  To my eye, it looks absolutely hideous.  Karl Dickman talk 00:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The first time I saw one displayed, I thought that it was a problem to be fixed. I see no reason for it to be stretched across the whole page. Askari Mark | Talk 02:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of Aviation lists 

message: This article could use some help.  I made a pretty large edit today, but some work still needs to be done.  Someone should upload a picture, too.  Zaku Two 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the to-do list at the top of this page.  Please feel free to expand my addition with more specific comments on how to improve it.  Karl Dickman talk 00:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-1 Trader 

message: I have created a new WikiProject related to this one; Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Bull Air Race World Series. Please join if you are interested.--HamedogTalk|@ 09:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WikiProject 

message: Rather than redirect to the 767 article, I think we could make an article on this plane. Zaku Two 22:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-767 

message: I am currently planning on working on an overhaul of categories and templates.  I have been dabbling for a little while now and the more I get involved, the more work it looks like is needed.  Please feel free to check out the talk pages for these Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Templates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories!  Some ideas and help coming to consensus on what should stay and go would be much appreciated!  - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AIRCRAFT]] - templates and categories 

message: I know that the P factor article is currently listed under wikiproject physics.  Does anybody think it might belong under WP:Aircraft as well, as it is a commonly associated with aircraft?  Just wondering what other people thought about this.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.--chris.lawson 15:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[P factor]] 

message: Anybody think that the $100 Hamburger should be part of wikiproject aircraft?.  I added a tag to the talk pgae but if somebody wants to oppose this, I will not object.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, though the airport people might also be interested. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aviation, maybe, but not Aircraft. Askari Mark | Talk 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I thought that after I added the tag.  I will look into that project tommorow.  Maybye it can belong to both.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[$100 Hamburger]] 

message: There has recently been a great deal of vandalism to the Aircraft page. Much of it has been by a single editor, 70.178.110.204. All of his posts on all the pages he has "contributed" to have been vandalisms; his favorite word appears to be "rape". Do we have have an administrator among us here who can at least temporarily block him? Perhaps after a week, he'll get bored and go away. Askari Mark | Talk 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he keeps on, post his ip at WP:AIV and explain it.  Make sure to warn the user! If you need help with this, please ask me on my talk page.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 10:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have semi-protected the aircraft page.  Karl Dickman talk 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with vandals 

message: I need a little help relolving a dispute. There is a new user named Tu-49, and he created an article on Operation Bolo. The problem is that it is almost a verbatim episode of "Dogfights". I have wikifyed the article but he has simply put all of his stuff back in. And much of it has nothing to do with Vietnam, or belongs in the Vietnam War article. I would like a little bit of help with this.--LWF 01:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in its current state is awful. The style is informal to the point of being giddy, writing and grammar are poor, and the user appears to utterly lack any concept of what makes a good Wikipedia article. In addition, the contents of the article border on copyvio (and I will tag it as such unless a major rewrite can happen without interference from Tu-49). - Emt147 Burninate! 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, but he got annoyed and put it all back. By the way, be careful how you change it, he has stated that if it is changed without consensus of some sort he will get very angry. Which could cause problems.--LWF 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He uses terrible grammar/spelling, is obviously a kid, and worst of all, he's a huge Ace Combat fan, yet can't even make decent edits in those crappy articles... that should say more than enough about how much we should trust his edits to real-world articles... Zaku Two 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I looked at the talk page of the article, seems that Tu-49 is fairly aggressive and could use some WP:CIVIL, etc etc.  The talk page is a mess but I will be glad to look at it and throw my own two cents in over there.  IF you have any questions, or particular comments on the article, We can start a discussion on my talk page -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot find that particular revision, can you link it here in the talk page?  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you meant this one from 17:18 on 7 December 2006?  Karl Dickman talk 05:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And why are we treating the "Liek i made teh artacle so it b3longs to m3!!!111one" defense as valid? Zaku Two 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Operation Bolo]] 

message: Just FYI, I successfully completed a script that adds a button to the toolbar (the row of images at the top of the edit window).  When clicked, this button inserts  into the article.  This should prove to be useful for anyone who's interested.
However, it only works in IE so far.  When executed in Firefox it has some bugs.  I have asked for help on the technical section of the Village Pump.  Anyone who's interested can see the source at User:Karl Dickman/airbuttons.js.  Karl Dickman talk 02:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the script Firefox specific; I will add code for IE later.  For those who are interested, I added a popup menu for when the button is clicked, where you can fill out the fields.  Unfortunately, the script doesn't succeed at inserting what's entered in the fields.  But you can view the popup.  Karl Dickman talk 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft button 

message: If you're interested in chiming in on what "Primary users" & "Other users" should be included in Infobox Aircraft and whether national flags should be attached to those nations, please add your comments to Template talk:Infobox Aircraft#Primary users. Grazie! Askari Mark (Talk) 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Aircraft, Users & Flags 

message: I see several other Wiki projects have welcome templates.  Would that be something other people involved in this project would be interested in seeing?  I would have no problem designing it, just want to make sure some other people htink that would be a good idea before I jump in headfirst.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki project welcome template 

message: Convair B-36 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.
Gzkn 11:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Convair B-36]] 

message: As far as I can tell, as major parts of aircraft, this would fall under wikiproject aircraft.  These articles are extremly sub par and need expansion.  I am planning on writing these articles well but was wondering what other aircraft project members thought.  Should there be a seperate article for both Pitot tube and Static port as well as Pitot-static system, or should we write one really good article on the Pitot-static system and redirect the other two to that article?  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means combine them into a single article (with appropriate redirects to support searches). Askari Mark (Talk) 16:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what i was leaning towards.  I think it would be alot easier to cover both individual systems and how they work together and there importance within a single article.  Anybody else have feedback, opinions, etc?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I did a major rewrite of the Pitot tube article some time ago, although I haven't had time to do any further work on it for some time due to real-world commitments. Having looked at the separate articles, I support a merge, probably into Pitot-static system, and I will assist in the improvement of that article as and when I can. --Chrisd87 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I too support a single pitot-static system article. It probably is also worth mentioning in it how RVSM also affects the physical aspects of the pitot-static system, and how the system has to be certified to higher standards as a part of meeting RVSM requirements. If you need references for this, let me know, as I have access to some. Akradecki 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, a merge would improve the topic representation. They can always be split if the article grows large. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: yea, I read the comments, i had originially proposed the move.  I removed the noticve from the pitot tubve article because I do not beluve the move to be correct.  However, I think after a rewrite of the pitot static systm article, there should be a notice at the top of the pitot tube article says, For the aircraft specific pitot-tube, see pitot static system or something like that to point seekers in the right direction. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pitot-static system]], [[Pitot tube]] and [[Static port]] 

message: Needs attention badly.  Barely any info, and half of it is incorrect anyway. Zaku Two 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually working on an article to replace that stub — in my spare time ... which is becoming a little hard to find the closer Christmas gets. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mikoyan MiG-33]] 

message: I created a category for Flight Instructors and it was changed to Flight instructors by an admin. I believe the all cap term is correct, since this is an official government title like Professional Engineer. I know it's a minor point, but Flight Instructors deserve the recognition of a specific title as opposed to a generic term. I'm interested in feedback from this forum before proposing a title change on the Flight instructor page. The cat and the main page need to have consistent titles. Dhaluza 04:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it is an FAA title, is there a category for Private Pilot? vs. Private pilot? I think some more feed back from the wp:aircraft community would be good.  I will also do a little reading, see what I can find.  I dont see why your reasoning is wrong dhaluza.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also inclined to believe that this is correct, especially if I see some sources.  Karl Dickman talk 05:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The FAA does not currently hold "flight instructor" to be a proper noun, just as it does not hold the term "private pilot" to be a proper noun. (Pilots certificated at the private level in the United States can be properly said to hold an airman certificate with private pilot privileges.) As such, and as a flight instructor myself, I would oppose any move contrary to WP:MoS.--chris.lawson 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet, thanks for clearning that up! I oppose then after the above explanation.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight instructor or Flight Instructor

message: I’ve been seeing a number of editors misreport aircraft costs.  This is quite understandable since there are some many different ways of reporting aircraft costs, as well as the fact that most sources reporting costs mislabel the specific type being reported (usually through ignorance as well).  Moreover, two different countries might have similar, but differently named and slightly differently calculated costs that are otherwise roughly equivalent.  To aid our editors in understanding what they’re reading (assuming the source is knowledgeable), I’d like to provide a brief overview of the different ways in which costs are typically captured.  (Actually discerning whether a given cost number is accurately referenced requires some experience, though, especially since sources generally aren’t very clear as to what cost elements are or are not included.)  Please note that a “unit” cost is the indicated type of cost for a program divided by the number of aircraft being paid for (i.e., the “per airplane” cost).
*Recurring flyaway cost:  Usually reported as “unit recurring flyaway” (URF) cost, this covers only the airframe, engines, avionics, and other such equipment that come “standard” with every airplane.  Until the F-35 program began using it, the URF was rarely ever reported in the general press.  The F-35 program uses it to capture those costs of the basic airplane that are common to all of the partners.  The partners are individually responsible for those elements they may desire to “tailor” the airplane better to their specific requirements.
*Nonrecurring flyaway cost:  Almost never separately reported, the nonrecurring costs include basic “startup” costs which are apportioned over the whole fleet of aircraft planned to be built, as well as allowances for user-required changes.
*Flyaway cost:  The flyaway cost (FAC) is the sum of the recurring and nonrecurring costs and is always reported as a “unit flyaway cost” (usually abbreviated “FAC” and rarely “UFAC”).  It is the most commonly reported cost and is normally what most people think of when they think about what an airplane “costs.”  However, just to keep things from being simple, there is something called “total flyaway cost”.
*Total flyaway cost:  This is always reported as a “unit” cost, and is often also referred to as “weapon system cost” or simply as “flyaway cost” — however, it comprises not only the “basic” flyaway cost, but also the delivery costs and the peculiar support equipment, technical data packages, training equipment, and a variety of contractor services required to provide initial support for the airplanes; all of this is usually amortized over the size of the customer’s purchase.  Unfortunately, with the total flyaway cost often being called “flyaway cost” and the term “weapon system cost” being used generically (even sometimes for the total lifecycle cost), it takes an expert to figure out which is which.  For the purposes of Wikipedia, editors should treat the “total” FAC and “basic” FAC as the same “in round numbers.”
*Procurement cost:  This can be reported as either a “program cost” or a “unit procurement (or program) cost”; the unit procurement cost (UPC) adds cost of the initial spares — amortized over the quantity being purchased — to the flyaway cost.  This is the other most commonly reported type of cost, and is usually derived from the reported procurement program cost divided by the quantity of aircraft being bought.  (It’s not an accurate accounting, but usually just about all one has to go with.)
*Program acquisition cost:  Rarely ever seen – and normally only in the US — the PAC adds the costs of research and development, testing and evaluation, and related military construction (e.g., new hangars, test facilities, etc.) to the procurement cost.  It can be found in the US DoD’s “Selected Acquisition Reports”.  Detractors of a program often used this to “estimate” an exceptionally high unit cost for an airplane; while it is a “legitimate” form of cost, it is often used it as a political tool by comparing it to the FAC or UPC — which are very different types of costs — to imply that it is the “real” cost (generally perceived to be the FAC or UPC) of the airplane as opposed to the government’s “official” — and by implication, deceptive – cost (the actual FAC or UPC).
*Life-cycle cost:  The (total) life-cycle cost (LCC) takes the program acquisition cost and adds to it all of the projected lifetime logistic and operational costs:  munitions and missiles, AVPOL (fuel, oil, and lubricants), spares (other than initial spares), replenishment, depot maintenance, system support and modifications, as well as the costs of hiring, training, supporting, and paying the personnel associated with the operating unit(s).  In recent years, the term “life-cycle costs” has increasingly been used to refer to just the logistic and operational costs, while the term “total life-cycle costs” includes the PAC.
Wikipedia editors should only use the unit flyaway cost (FAC) or unit procurement/program cost (UPC) in their articles and identify which they are using.  I hope this helps!  Askari Mark (Talk) 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is worth keeping somewhere besides the archive.  Naturally, adding this whole post to WP:Air/PC is instruction creep of the worst kind.  Perhaps there's somewhere else we can put it?  Karl Dickman talk 00:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could add it as a subpage to my user page and link to it from WP:Air/PC. Would that suffice? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of something similar.  By all means, please do so.  Karl Dickman talk 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've added that to my to-do list. Askari Mark (Talk)
*An expanded reference version of this article can be found at User:Askari Mark/Understanding aircraft unit costs. — Askari Mark (Talk) 02:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft cost reporting 

message: I’ve been going through the Russian aircraft pages and was surprised by how many lacked  templates — several dozen! — and of those which had them, how few had even a stub or start rating.  By no means were these articles all about little-known or insignificant aircraft types.  
Given the demands on our time over the holidays, I thought it might be a good idea to invite my fellow editors to pick an aircraft company they like and go through its products adding templates where needed, and marking those which are stubs or start pages as such.  My purpose for this is to have a fuller list of “orphan” articles which editors — particularly new editors who are looking for a place to “help out” — could browse through in order to find one to “adopt.”  Perhaps someone more skilled in coding than I could work up a random “stub/start of the day” box to raise awareness of some of these articles needing attention.
I’m also hoping that we can encourage editors working on these “starter” articles to introduce notes and references as they go; a lot of “established” articles on popular aircraft are short — if not bereft — of these and it’s much harder to go back and add them in many months later, even if you were the one who wrote it in the first place.
To minimize duplication of effort, I’d like to encourage those who take up this challenge to post below the companies whose products they’ve gone through.  For topics that are aircraft-related but not a manufacturer’s product, I’d recommend adopting a lower-tree category.  Thanks and Merry Christmas!  Askari Mark (Talk) 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea.  I have been slowley trying to do that as i create nav templates for each aircraft manufacturer.  I will keep doing it but wont tie myself down to a particular company right away.  I will also probably continue my template creation (and duplication on spanish wikipedia).  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I really think we shouldn't be creating templates for every manufacturer, but if you need help with the sequences, I've already got a couple dozen manufacturers' sequences listed. If you create other items with sequences, please update them at the list i've been working on! ericg ✈ 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adopting "orphans" over the holidays (and beyond) 

message: Recently, I came across the Mitsubishi F-2 page, and noticed the following in the Designation sequence:
|sequence=
*Fighter Support Aircraft (Strike fighter) : F-86F - F-1 - F4EJ Kai - F-2
*JASDF designation: F-104J Eiko - F-4EJ/F-FEJ Kai - F-1 - F-15J - F-2
*Trainer Aircraft : T-33 - T-2 - F-2
These sequences seemed very convoluted, and I assumed they had been added by a newbie. I therefore simplified the list to: F-1 - F-2, which is the numerical sequence in which the F-2 is located.
However, another editor has insisted on complicating the list again. He has added:
:Sequence is not a list of every fighter to serve in that role, just of the designation sequence itself. (my text) However, In this case the Japanese do not use a linear sequence for aircraft designations of this system (e.g. F-2 and F-15) (his text) (Commented out)
:Fighter Support Aircraft (Strike fighter) : F-# series:   (Japanese) F-1 -  F-2 - (Foreign) - F4EJ Kai - F-15J - F-86F - F-104J Eiko  
He has provided several links on the article talk page to back up his claims, but to this date I have not found any coroborration there, other than picture galleries listing the aircraft.
This has the potential to grow just as the multi-line sequences did (which, by the way, are back again). I don't see the necessity of listing every aircraft in a particular role with a given air force, as I believe the list is only intended to show a particular sequence. However, I will abide by the consensus on this matter. - BillCJ 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I frankly think the sequence lists should follow only the manufacturer's product series or the air force's usage of its own uniquely assigned series. In the Japanese example, only the F-1 and F-2 comprise a true series. Some countries like Spain and Sweden will assign unique indigenous designations (even to foreign aircraft they acquire) which would comprise a series; I'm not so sure they would be useful outside an article on that aircraft, though, since the general reader would not be able to readily relate it to the "common name" designation. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Designation sequences

message: I felt I should reopen this discussion, since many editors have arrived in the last few months, some of whom have taken part in creating navboxes.  I would like to allow everyone to mull over the discussion once again, with the eventual goal of creating a statement for WP:Air/PC.  Karl Dickman talk 22:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put my two cents in: I personally like the consistent look of collapsable nav boxes. Boeing 707, for example, has 3 and the result is a lot of navigation options for our readers. Let's keep in mind that our "customers" are not ourselves, but the general public that comes here to look things up, and the more ease of navigation that we offer, and the more consistent a look that the articles have, the better it is in the end. I'd like to see this format become the project standard. Akradecki 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will reitterate what I said on the originial proposal page by agreeing with akradecki.  Remeber, in the end, most of these articles are not for aircraft enthusiasts, but probably a highschool  or college student writing a paper or an individual interested in aircraft but not keen to all there ins and outs.  I agree that the format should be standardized.  I also have a proposed rewrite of the first criteria.  And it goes. "1. The navbox should not be used where a "See also" link to a category or list will suffice, especially in the case of large and or broad categories.  For example, a navigation box of "All Aircraft," or even "All single engine aircraft", would be too large and too broad a grouping to be useful as a navigation box.  A navigation box for a narrow enough category or grouping, such as aircraft by a particular corporation (for example ) or a particular class of plan may be appropriate, especially when it is believed in to aid in navigation of readers of the article." -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (My above proposal may be wordy and full of instruction creep, i am all for rewording it, as long as the spirit of the change is addressed.  Please feel free to help with rewording, if it is felt appropriate). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to go out on a limb and comment a bit further. I respectfully disagree with the concept that a nav box should not be used when a "see also" link or other such link would suffice, and here's why, with the Bell box Chris mentioned as an example. One of the features in many articles are the headers "see also" and "designation sequence". Any change in one article (such as a rename, split, new article, etc) requires editors to manually go through each article and update each section appropriately. Using a nav box instead of a designation sequence list allows an editor to make one single change and have it consistently show up in all the articles. All the little things that can be done to streamline this kind of maintenance task results in us being able to devote more time to where it's needed, and reduces the potential for error to be made or an article inadvertently overlooked. Akradecki 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like that point!  Perhaps we should add something to the requirements being, "information common to a set of related articles", such as desgination sequences, similar aircraft, etc etc. Just another idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navboxen again 

message: See #Proposed page content standard for navboxes in footers above for the original discussion.
Askari Mark proposed this statement:
The use of navigation boxes in aircraft articles, particularly in footers, should be kept to an absolute minimum. For a navbox to be included in an article, it must meet one of the following criteria:
# The navbox links to aircraft-related pages that are closely related but have disparate names. (See the B-29 article for an example.) If no other pages are linked to from the navbox, consider using a table instead.
# The navbox only offers links to articles on subjects that are directly related to that particular aircraft, or to pages on other very closely related aircraft. Otherwise, consider placing links under "See also" instead.
Furthermore,
# The navbox should not be used where a "See also" link to a category or list will suffice would be equally useful.
# The navbox should not contain subsections which simply reiterate or summarize information presented elsewhere in the article.
# Navboxes should only appear in the footer or — in those rare cases where it may be more appropriate — at the end of the "Related content" section.
# There should not be more than one navbox per footer (besides the standard Aircraft footer); for consistency in appearance, the standard Aircraft footer should come last (or after "See also", depending on how that particular article is structured).
As a general rule, if the subject of the navbox is not essentially related to the particular article, it should not be included.  For instance, a navbox on Lockheed Martin may be appropriate for such a large conglomerate, but it should not be appended to every article related to the company, its officers, and products.
Please also refer to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for more information and guidance." 
:I'll put my two cents in: I personally like the consistent look of collapsable nav boxes. Boeing 707, for example, has 3 and the result is a lot of navigation options for our readers. Let's keep in mind that our "customers" are not ourselves, but the general public that comes here to look things up, and the more ease of navigation that we offer, and the more consistent a look that the articles have, the better it is in the end. I'd like to see this format become the project standard. Akradecki 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will reitterate what I said on the originial proposal page by agreeing with akradecki.  Remeber, in the end, most of these articles are not for aircraft enthusiasts, but probably a highschool  or college student writing a paper or an individual interested in aircraft but not keen to all there ins and outs.  I agree that the format should be standardized.  I also have a proposed rewrite of the first criteria.  And it goes. "1. The navbox should not be used where a "See also" link to a category or list will suffice, especially in the case of large and or broad categories.  For example, a navigation box of "All Aircraft," or even "All single engine aircraft", would be too large and too broad a grouping to be useful as a navigation box.  A navigation box for a narrow enough category or grouping, such as aircraft by a particular corporation (for example ) or a particular class of plan may be appropriate, especially when it is believed in to aid in navigation of readers of the article." -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (My above proposal may be wordy and full of instruction creep, i am all for rewording it, as long as the spirit of the change is addressed.  Please feel free to help with rewording, if it is felt appropriate). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to go out on a limb and comment a bit further. I respectfully disagree with the concept that a nav box should not be used when a "see also" link or other such link would suffice, and here's why, with the Bell box Chris mentioned as an example. One of the features in many articles are the headers "see also" and "designation sequence". Any change in one article (such as a rename, split, new article, etc) requires editors to manually go through each article and update each section appropriately. Using a nav box instead of a designation sequence list allows an editor to make one single change and have it consistently show up in all the articles. All the little things that can be done to streamline this kind of maintenance task results in us being able to devote more time to where it's needed, and reduces the potential for error to be made or an article inadvertently overlooked. Akradecki 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I like that point!  Perhaps we should add something to the requirements being, "information common to a set of related articles", such as desgination sequences, similar aircraft, etc etc. Just another idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most recent proposal

message: I have summarised my changes at /Categories/Proposed update.  Please leave comments there.  Karl Dickman talk 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed update to category scheme 

message: I put B-17 Flying Fortress up for a peer review as a precursor to FAC. Comment here. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-17 Flying Fortress 

message: As those of you who have been around the project for a while probably know, I like to complain about how guilty I feel when I consider "legislation" proposed here to be "passed" after a 3-0 or 4-0 vote.  (Or rather, alternatively, after the unanimous consent of 5% of the project's participants.)  I think a possible solution is something similar to the WP:MILHIST Newsletter, a publication that is delivered regularly to the talkpages of interested users by Grafikbot; user's can specify how they want to receive the newsletter by adding themselves to the appropriate sections at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach#Delivery options.
A similar system could serve as the vehicle to notify project members of important discussions.  To help prevent annoyance, we could make a rule that notices could not be sent out more than once every two weeks.
:Or, another idea might be an opt out option on the member sign up page.  At the bottom of a notice we send out, we could include the link and the details on how to, "opt out".-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might i also suggest a todo template that we keep up to date.  Coupled with this, create a new uswer welcome template (I will be glad to design it, i have a bit of template design experience).  This way, as we gain project members, we can post a welcome on there wall with a section of areas they "might want to check out or get invloved with".  I think that this could promote project invlolvement.  Furthermore, after an important proposal is posted, lets post on other projet members talk pages.  I am all for trying to boost project involvement!  ANy reccomendations on the new member template would be much appreciated! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And oh, by the way, I would be glad to assist in development of a newsletter.  Just let me know what needs done or if you need any ideas or reccomendations or feedback.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter/notice?