Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 15

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 23:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Over the christmas holidays I made a visit to the Smithsonian's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center and took lots of pictures - see User:Raul654/favpics/Virginia2006. There's lots of red links for pictures that could use articles, and I'd appreciate help from the people in this project to do it. Raul654 06:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help requested

message: While adding the Template:Douglas aircraft tag to the appropriate articles, I came across the one on the A-26 Invader. Shamefully inadequate is an understatement. I've nominated it for AID so let's get cracking folks! [/steamfromears] - Aerobird 15:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, I haven't been on here all that long, but I'm not sure asking for assistance after nominating it for AID is the best way to go about it. But then, I'm still learning. - BillCJ 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-26 Invader for AID 

message: I think the template is going to be too big if we include all McDonnell and McDD products on it. Personally, I'd rather see the McDonnel Aircraft listed alone. Yes, there will be some overlap, such as the F-4, but probably not more than a few. In addition, the current name of the template is fine for post-merger McDD; only Mc DOnnell would need a new template page. - BillCJ 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for now I think it works better 'together' - a McDonnell-only template would be rather short. But if it starts to grow out of hand, I'll split it. - Aerobird 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: McDD template

message: I have been checking a few of the lists of operators mainly on civil airliners, some have the country listed after the airline/operator name (sometimes within different kinds of brackets). The list is normally alphabetic. Any reason why we cant make it like the military operators which normally list the countries then the operators as sub-lists? - or at least agree on a format. Apologies if this has been agreed before and I have missed it. MilborneOne 22:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Civil Operators - Format

message: I just wrote a fairly large article on the Pitot-static system.  I would love some feedback from other pilots of aviation enthusiasts.  I mainly covered the mechanical systems (I am not as familiar with the new computer systems).  If anybody has information, or sources or something on those, it would probably greatly enhance this article! I would love some feedback so drop by, read it and let me know what you think. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! Akradecki 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good job, Chris! I don't know that it needs much more in the way of sources; it's a pretty basic system. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pitot-static system]] article rewrite 

message: I saw that on the "Primary Users" section of the Boeing 737 that someone had put orders as well as deliveries there. For example they put Ryanair as having 492 737 in their fleet when they only have 120. The rest are orders. I though a fleet is what exists? I erased it and put what exists there. are we keeping the primary users as the number of planes they currently fly or all the planes they will one day maybe have? Thanks Marcus--Bangabalunga 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean in the Aircraft Infobox, I'm against having any totals listed there at all, especially if we're going to have poeple adding in various amounts. The Infobox is intended to give a summary, not full details, especially since those details are given later in the article. If we keep totals, however, I think it should be present fleet, and nothing else. - BillCJ 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bangabalunga (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing 737 Users 

message: There is a debate going on at Talk:F-15 Eagle over its appreance in the cartoon show, and listing it in the Pop culture section. Wtth the upcoming movie, we will probably be flooded with users adding the appearances to every article for an aircraft in the film. If you have a preference over opening up the Pop culture to cartoon appearances, please chime in, no matter your preference. - BillCJ 02:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I see fairly little use for pop-culture references in an encyclopedic article, and I believe that the ones that are justified (such as Top Gun for the F-14 and Dr. Strangelove for the B-52) are few and far between, and only when the appearance is significant. Gee, there's that concept of notability again! I can't see Transformers as being a notable appearance. Akradecki 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. As I mentioned over there, if it's (1) definitly an "xxxxx" and (2) can be referenced as being an "xxxxx" then why not include it? Preventing it could be seen as starting a slippery slope - who defines notability? What level of notability is the threshold? Game appearances no, TV (live-action, animated, or claymation) si. - Aerobird 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *shrugs* I reckon I'm fine either way. "It make no defrence to me". - Aerobird 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I give a somewhat extreme example? Consider the UH-1 page...how many movies, TV shows and cartoons have Hueys in them? The list would go on endlessly, far overwhelming the legitimate article. I agree with the consensus to keep the trivia and pop culture to the truly notable (and in answer to the question of who defines notability, WP guidelines do...so since the F-14 got real medis coverage for its use in Top Gun, that makes it notable. I seriously doubt if there will be any legitimate media covering the airplanes in Transformers). Akradecki 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the list gets out of hand, why not consider breaking it into another article like Cultural references to the Huey (just an idea name).  Then, on the article on the main aircraft, list a few of the most relevant and have one of those main article headers letting readers know there are more on another page.  Just an idea.  I think that the references are somewhat important, and interesting nonetheless but I also agree it could quickly get out of hand.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a lovely strawman argument you've put forth there, but, like all strawman arguments, it doesn't hold water. Sure, there have been several hundred movies, TV shows, and cartoons with Hueys. In how many of those did a Huey play a notable part? Three? Five? I don't think anyone is arguing that carte blanche should be given for every fictional depiction of an aircraft, just that when a bit of media is particularly focused on a certain aircraft, it is worthy of mention provided that the article has a "Pop Culture" section already.--chris.lawson 16:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps for the purposes of this section the sense of "notability" should be whether or not the "pop culture" item under discussion significantly contributed to the "fame" of the aircraft by instilling recognition of it among a sizeable section of the general republic to whom it would otherwise have remained unknown. This would help screen out those pop cultural items that merely used the aircraft as a "prop" (which is most of them).  Its effect would be to limit entries to a few best-seller books/novels, acclaimed films, and other bric-a-brac of modern culture. In this instance, the Transformers would be eligible; however, I'm not sure most of the flight simulator computer and video games and such would. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed (and I'm no longer going to be proposing that merge). - Aerobird 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transformers

message: Several months ago, another editor and I expanded the Harrier Jump Jet disambiguation page into a full overview of the Harrier. Intitally, I moved all the pop culture items fromt the Harrier variant articvles to this page. After a few weeks of noticable growth in that section, the other editor spun the section off by creating the Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture, with a "main" link under the heading. Predictably, it began to grow there also, even though the page has still not been categorized. I like not having to mess with it on the main articles, tho I do try to limit its length what I can.
Frankly, I wish we could do something like this for all the aircraft articles.  We do this anyway with variants, operators/users, etc. Granted, we'd end up with a bunch of small stubs in most cases. Maybe there is a way we could combine several similar aircraft on the same page (Hornet and Super Hornet would be obvious).
As to the issue at hand, I would not oppose having the Transformers listed on the F-15 pop culture page; in fact, I'd pretty much ignore the pages, as I prefer to concentrate on the hard history of aircraft. Yes, the pages would grow, but we could somewhat relax the standards as they now stand. We might have problems with the pages being AfD'd for various reasons (stub, notability, etc.), but if the problem stands behind the pages, that shouldn't be a big issue. 
This may have been proposed and nixed in the past, but I think it's time to consider it again. - BillCJ
: Agreed (and I'm no longer going to be proposing that merge). - Aerobird 20:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible solution

message: Was working on the Hawker Sea Fury page and noticed that a previous edit had left out the tag to end the "references-small" command. This meant the "Related Content" section was also in the small font - and it looks pretty dang good!
Perhaps this little bit o' serendip should be spread elsewhere? - Aerobird 02:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that actually does look pretty good!Akradecki 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy accident? 

message: It appears that on aircraft that do not list an value for afterburning (F/A-18 Hornet, NASA M2-F1), engine thrust is not appearing on the page...? - Aerobird 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look. ericg ✈ 15:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Whoever edited those bits last managed to swap the #if statements so that unless an aircraft had afterburning thrust specified, nothing would show up. It's been fixed. ericg ✈ 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Moochas grassius". - Aerobird 16:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the specs template? 

message: A thought on the infobox Aircraft template. When working on a Russian design, should the "Manufacturer" field be the design bureau - which most people will think of as the manufacturer - or the actual builder, KnAAPO, MiG-MAPO, etc.; with the OKB in the "designer" field (as I did with the Beriev Be-103)? After all, the Tu-16 would have most people saying that Tupolev was its manufacturer - but it was actually manufactured in three different factories. Probably the simplest solution is to have the OKB listed as the manufacturer, but the stickler for accuracy in me protests. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 03:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturer = OKBs vs Factories? 

message: As a variant of the Heinkel He 111, most would probably say the 2.111 belongs in that article; however, the production numbers and dates are totally different, and the later CASA aircraft were armed and powered by totally different equipment. I'd like to spin off what little data is available on the 2.111 into its own article, and possibly solicit information from the Spanish wikipedia. Spanish Air Force 2.111s were produced until '56, and many served until 1973! Opinions on the splitting of these articles? ericg ✈ 21:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Spanish He 111 article only has about two and a half lines on the 2.111. However, the German article has a good-length paragraph, though I can't attest to the quality as I don't read German. None of my printed sources have anything beyond a brief mention, nor any specs on the 2.111. I'd say if you have a couple of pics and some specs to go ahead and split it off, otherwise wait, and just expand the existing section in the He 111 article for the time being. Also, of the 236 2.111s built, only 100 had Merlin engines, so the first 136 will still pretty much just lisence-built He 111Hs. - BillCJ 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Deutsches Museum's site seems to have rough specs for the 2.111B - and at least 70 (according to another source) earlier aircraft were re-engined with a shipment of 170 Merlins from Rolls post-war. I'll work on a basic stub at User:Ericg/sandbox/CASA 2.111 - if anyone wants to lend a hand, I'll let you guys know when I start the actual CASA 2.111 stub. ericg ✈ 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say go for it, at least the later models were significantly different aircraft. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CASA 2.111]] standalone article? 

message: Born2flie: I created a template to award Wikiwings on a user page: . Use in good health. --19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiwings 

message: Does anyone have some definitve, verifiable sources on the origins of the IAI Nesher? THere seem to be two main ideas: 1, that Israel copied and produced the Nesher on its own (possibly with US help); and 2, the Dassault supplied kits for the Neshers to IAI. The former is in all the printed sources I have, but the latter is stated in the article as if it is uncontested fact, but with few sources. Please respond on Talk:Dassault Mirage 5‎, as that is where we are discussing a merge with the Nesher page. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commented on that page. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IAI Nesher

message: I know that there is a portal for aviation.  and that wikiprojects aircraft airprts fall under aviation.  Is there a particular reason however there is not a seperate portal for aircraft?  Likewise, i am unaware if there is an actual project for aviation.  Do some editors have some feedback on this?  I would be interested in possibly starting an aircraft portal where we could showcase the aircraft did you knows.  (we have had 3 in the last month) and showcase featured articles etc.  Anybody have some feedback on this idea? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no aviation project, and (if enough editors show interest) I think there should be. An aircraft portal, however, may be a bit too specific to be useful. If there is anything people want to see then, as maintainer of the Aviation Portal, I urge them to make suggestions and even add them to the portal themselves. After reading your comment I took a look at the most recent DYKs and added what I believe are the three ones you mention to the automatically updating list here. If there are other thing you'd like to see then I'd like to hear about them. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my other interest was getting involved with the aviation portal.  I would like to see however maybye a wikiproject aviation, and have task groups for aircraft, ariports, airliners, etc.  similar to the WP:MILITARY or whatever group it is.  I think there are some stuff that is being forced into a project on aircraft or airports that would better belong to a general purpose project on aviation.  such as the article on First solo flight.  there are others and i can bring them up later.  I will look into doing some work on the viation portal thoigh.  Thanks for the feedback!  by the way, what are your suggestions, reccomendation, ideas on starting an official wikiproject aviation?  It could better cover famous pilots, etc etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal aircraft 

message: We seem to be having a minor edit skirmish here over which image of the Convair B-36 at the National Museum of the United States Air Force to show.  I had put	:Image:B-36-NMUSAF-4.jpg, a commons image that I took, in the survivors section and User:Signaleer keeps substituting :Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg, a similar image that he downloaded from the museum's website.  It is my contention that the commons image is sharper, has better color and definition of the nose area.  Signaleer's main objection is that my "camera and photograph is inferior to the one provided by the USAF" .  I had put up a discussion on talk:Convair B-36#NMUSAF photo, where other editors agreed with me.  User:Signaleer refuses to discuss it and keeps reverting the change with no edit summary.  Thanks for your input.  --rogerd 12:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at both images.  They both appear like decent images.  However, the first image, :Image:B-36-NMUSAF-4.jpg, you can see less of the plane and has a stray person in the picture.  the latter picture, :Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg has a bit wider view of the plane but is admittable a little blurry.  It is a tough call but I personally prefer the latter picture, picture :Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg.  Hope this helped. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a random note, I looked through your gallery Rogerd.  the image, :Image:B-36 NMUSAF 2.jpg might be a great addition to the page.  It does not look like it would step on any toes and gives a good close up of the front of the plane.  Just a reccomendation though. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: All I can really add to this is that Signaleer is prone to breaking the 3 revert rule. Take that as you may. ericg ✈ 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute about image of B-36 

message: I am doing some aero stub sorting and project tagging and ran across this article 7500.  Was wondering if anybody thinks it should be renamed squawk 7500 or something of the sort? or, should it fall into the numbers style and be formatted like a number articles.  e.g. 42, 256.  or, should it redirect to Transponder (aviation) which gives summary of the important squawk codes? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say redirect to Transponder (aviation), myself. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree...redirect. There's absolutely no reason this should have its own article. Akradecki 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[7500]] 

message: Hello folks.  Seeing that just about every section in WP:Air/PC appares before the specs, it seems a little silly for pop culture to come after.  May I have permission to move pop culture to directly before the specs?  Karl Dickman talk 06:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally do not see anything wrong with it.  You have pretty good judgement on that kind of thing anyways. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, personally, would place it after the specs, but I won't object enough to stop ya. ;-) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just about every article I have worked one up to this point that had a "Pop culture" section has them after the Specs. I actually like it there, as I think it sections it off from the rest of the text, giving it less prominence, especially as WP:AIR stated guidelines are to avoid having the sections. The crufters appear to have no problem finding the section, no matter where it is located. As it appears after the specs in the Page content guidelines, that is the pattern I (and other editors from before my joining the Project) have been following. If there is no consensus, thats OK, or if the concensus is to place it above the specs, I will abide by that. However, in the interest of consistency, I believe it best to chose one way or the other. Consistency, after all, is one of the purposes of the guidelines. - BillCJ 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would personally prefer to see it following the specs. Not being intimately germane to the article, I believe it belongs with the "related content" and "see also" material. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While i am mostly indifferent, I like Askari Mark's reasoning. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. Akradecki 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Askari Mark. ZakuTalk 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Born2flie: Me, (1, 2, 3, 4...) 5! --02:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Talk about the Bicylce shed effect.  Great to see 5 people chime in on a topic! Lets get a little more discussion on some more complicated topics (like the new category proposals), etc etc!  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's got to be something wrong with this ... too many Wikipedians actually agreeing on something!! Isn't there a policy against that? ;) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper location of pop culture 

message: We've had a comment period for my proposed reworking of the category scheme, and I think it's time to put the proposal into place.  However, a few kinks need to be ironed out first.  Most aircraft articles begin with the manufacturer name, so just about every category will be sorted by manufacturer.  However, some categories, such as :Category:Bomber aircraft 1940-1949, that contain both U.S. military aircraft and aircraft from other nations could be potentially problematic.  Most other aircraft will be sorted by manufacturer, but many of the U.S. aircraft will be sorted by their military designation.
There are two ways to resolve this.  The first is to let it alone and sort the U.S. aircraft by designation.  The other option is to sort the U.S. aircraft by manufacturer.  However, this option is unworkable unless the software changes, because even though P-26 Peashooter will be sorted in :Category:Fighter aircraft 1920-1929 as if it were titled "Boeing P-26", its link on the category page will still be titled "P-26 Peashooter"—making the reader wonder what it's doing in the B section.  This problem will remain until Bug 491 is resolved.
For my explanation and justification of the changes made to the current scheme, please see /Categories/Proposed update.  Karl Dickman talk 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I don't deal with categories (aside from occasionally adding them to articles), this isn't my preferred area of discussion. However, nobody has said anything yet, so I'll simply say that whatever you guys come up with is fine. ericg ✈ 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some comments to the talk page for the proposed changes. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft category update 

message: Spurred by discussion at Talk:Short Sturgeon: IMHO, the manufacturer's name should not be included in the "name" section of Infobox Aircraft, as it duplicates the "manufacturer" line. In some cases (i.e. Boeing airliners) it may be necessary on aesthetic grounds, but overall I strongly believe it should be avoided. Thoughts? - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 23:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric and I have also discussed this, and my position is essentially the same as yours.  Karl Dickman talk 01:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bicycle shed effect, again. Don't put the manufacturer in the infobox header. --Born2flie 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought this was fairly obvious, but I did basically create the infobox, so I guess some things are clearer than others. [edit: on reviewing Template talk:Infobox Aircraft, it's extremely clear: " |name = #REQUIRED ". I'm not sure how much more detailed this can be. Unless it's something like Cessna 140 or Boeing 757 that has no specific model name, the manufacturer needs to stay 100% out of the infobox name field. There's not a lot of space in these things. ericg ✈ 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * Not names, but 140 and 757 are the model "designations", right? -Fnlayson 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps stating the obvious, but if the manufacturer's name is deemed necessary then it shouldn't be linked to the respective article; imo that should be done on the Manufacturer's Name line (where it is useful). TraceyR 07:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like it if the manufacturer's name wasn't linked in the boldface of the first line of text.  However, BillCJ has pointed out that on low-resolution monitors, having the link in the boldface may be preferrable.  And while I'm at it, the bike shed should go as close to the showers as possible.  Karl Dickman talk 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturer names in infobox headers 

message: Although this is on the edge of the "Aircraft" project (I'll be cross posting on the Airline project page, too), I've put up a proposal on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft)#Airline accident naming conventions to codify the long-standing practice of naming articles on crashes as <<airline>><<flight number>>. Comments from the group to help establish consensus would be appreciated. Akradecki 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crash naming proposal

message: I have found 6 articles on indivudual v-speeds, of which most of the information is already in the article on V speeds.  I have proposed that they all be merged into this article.  I would like some feedback from this project though.  Do these speeds deserve individual articles?  The speeds that have been proposed for merger are VNO speed,VNE,VR speed,VS speed,VC speed and V1 speed.  What do you all reccomend? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do what you like, but they will probably form a more coherent concept as one article. Anyway, the titles are all poorly-formed other than Vne - Vno is a V speed, but I've never heard it referred to as a plane's Vno speed - you'd just call it Vno. ericg ✈ 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For such an esoteric topic, I can't see why they were separated. BTW, regarding the first line of V speeds, "V speeds or elephants ..." — can't say I've ever heard that one before. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably some vandalism I would have caught in the merge.  Kind of funny actually. lol. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[V speeds]] proposed mergers 

message: I discovered a curious thing while browsing around globalsecurity.org. A significant portion of the website's contents is a verbatim copy of various books (e.g. the entire Knaack's USAF Bombers encyclopedia which predates the internet by 20 years is copied word-for-word with a globalsecurity.org copyright slapped on top of it and the webmaster's claims that it's all his original writing). Strong work Mr Pike. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pike previously established and ran military info database  for the Federation of American Scientists . This was created because its arms control advocates wanted some basic information on military systems and weapons available for the larger, public pro-arms control community. Pike built it up slowly on a shoestring budget until it became a popular reference site for news reporters who knew little or nothing about military subjects they were writing on. Although it got the FAS a lot of press, they never really wanted to fund it as a general resource. Much of the material was drawn from other writers and defense press publications. (Keep in mind that until recent years, if it was on the net, published material was often considered and treated as "free use".) After years of this, Pike left and started Globalsecurity.org to do what he had long wanted to do, the way he wanted to do it. There was an agreement that he could start the GS database with material from the FAS database at that time, but each would pursue their own updates from there. FAS, in fact, has done little in the way of updating — or even maintaining, for that matter — since then. As a result, I tend to deprecate using FAS as a source; whatever they have, you can find (or find better) on GS. However, I treat GS like an encyclopedia: a place to start, not one to rely on. — Askari Mark (Talk) 05:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know about the FAS origins, my comment was that Pike stole huge sections of text from several books predating the Internet (e.g. Knaack's encyclopedia was published in 1978) and is presenting them as his own copyrighted writings. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalsecurity.org 

message: I recently stumbled onto a change to Arado Ar 234 made by User:Nekhbet, this user added a link to http://www.aircraft-list.com/db/Arado_Ar_234/23/ . But the text there is nearly 100% a copy of the Wikipedia article. Is this site a mirror site or is the content stolen from Wikipedia? If it's a mirror/clone them I was not able to find GFDL license info or even a notice it's text was taken from Wikipedia. --Denniss 23:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it's a licensed site or a mirror. They have a link to the Wikipedia article on their page, so it doesn't appear to be an underhanded effort. I suspect it's just another aviation aficionado with creditable webpage programming skills who probably believes Wikipedia is free-use and has no clue about a need to license. Have you contacted the owner to let them know how to arrange that with Wikipedia? — Askari Mark (Talk) 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added at mirrors and forks --TAG 06:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki mirror or stolen content ? 

message: For those of our editors who aren't "up" on some of the aircraft-related terms that get mentioned here, a fairly good basic reference I've come across is Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (Canadian Edition). (However, please keep in mind that its units of measure are Canadian, not US.) If anybody has come across better, please post a link to it here. — Askari Mark (Talk) 22:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FAA version is also online.--chris.lawson 23:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation terms reference 

message: There's a discussion going on at the military unit infobox talk page about adapting the infobox for national service branches (in particular, national air forces) that could use some additional input; it's been suggested that editors here might have some useful experience to share, so comments would be very welcome.  Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox for air forces 

message: Apparently there is a conflict when dates are wikilinked where if, say, 1913 is used, then the reader's preference for the date, January 24, won't display properly when the option is set to use the format "January 24, 1913" (cf. ). Has this been encountered before and is there a fix? Askari Mark (Talk) 18:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought this 1913-01-24 (1913-01-24) might work.  But it doesn't look like it.Wiki Date formating :( -Fnlayson 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that a bot is going through the aviation articles changing all of this. I went and read up on the subject, and there's been lots of debate, but definitely no consensus about going to the "user preferences" format. It seems to me that a bot campaign is therefore premature. If there's consensus amongst project members to leave the YiA in there, I suggest we approach the bot owner, quoting the MOS, and ask him to stand his 'droid down. Akradecki 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, seeing dates in the ####-##-## format, especially in infoboxes, makes me cringe... - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is improper for the bot to replace YIA code without consensus; however, the best thing would be to fix whatever the problem is in the first place. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a problem with a lot of Wikiprojects... if possible, I think the programming of the date template should be modified to link to a "year in..." page if a separate parameter is specified. ZakuTalk 00:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something along the lines of 1941-12-07 in aviation would definitely be nice.  I would also like to admit that I convert the dates to ####-##-##, but only for infoboxes.  Karl Dickman talk 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then, perhaps consider that there are other editing chores you could do instead, and leave the date as to the editor's preference. :}  Bzuk 06:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As a side note, I'm not sure why we need more than just introduction / retirement year in the infobox, especially since for most aircraft we only have a year. It's much better to state the years, then explain specific dates (if available) in the text. For first flights an absolute date makes a lot more sense. This would also help strip (SOME) of the YiA problems from our articles. ericg ✈ 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * True.  The Year only is generally fine for older aircraft.  Full dates matter more for somewhat new aircraft, imo. -Fnlayson 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, giving the full date as a YIA date attracts the unmerciful attentions of the bot. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been having a conversation with the bot's owner over on his talkpage, others who are concerned with this issue might want to weigh in there, as well. The owner has also been invited to justify himself here. Akradecki 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what do you mean by "there is definitely no consensus about going to the "user preferences" format". The consensus is reflected at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Wikipedia:Piped link. Extensive discussions concern mainly relevance of links to partial dates and the shortcomings of current date preference scheme. Piped links to "years in something" are also frequently mentioned as easter eggs links which shouldn't be used at all but I haven't seen nobody suggesting using them in a way that breaks date preference at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Jogers (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Year in aviation" vs. reader's date preference conflict 

message: January was an immensely productive month for us with 74 new aircraft articles! Awesome job everybody! - Emt147 Burninate! 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many were improved to GA or FA status? --Born2flie 05:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: F-84 and B-17 got A-class ratings, B-17 became an FA, F-105 became a GA. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles 

message: I designed a couple of templates that we may be able to put to use.  First off is a welcome template.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/welcome
This template incorporates a proposed template for "Proposals and hot topics" which is
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/proposals
Any ideas, suggestions, recommendations?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few things: the welcome template should probably have links to all our major subpages (the tabs at the top of WP:AIR), with a brief explanation of what they are and why they're important.  Being obsessed with standardisation, may I also propose that your two templates be called  and ?  Karl Dickman talk 02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem renaming those templates! I will move them sometime this week.  I also like the suggestions for enhancement and I will work on them too! Thanks for the feedback. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Done - Templates have been renamed per Karl Dickmans request. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll concede that the links could be considered redundant, since they are already present on the main page.  In my experience, lists tend to look less cluttered when they're plain text and have no border/background.  Preview it and see if you like it.  Karl Dickman talk 02:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In an effort to follow my own recommendations, I have moved the location of the image, which hopefully makes the template look slightly better.  Karl Dickman talk 22:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the picture there.  That was a good change.  I thought the aircraft icon looked a little out of place, and where it is now looks great! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome template and discussion template proposal 

message: There's a new article that's been created on a UAV, Dominator UAV. As I've been working on the UAV section for quite sometime, 
I tried moving this article to Aeronautics Dominator to conform it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), but the article's author, User:Headphonos insisted on moving it back, asking for a "vote" before moving. We don't have "B-52 Bomber" or "Mustang Fighter" or "Globemaster Cargoplane", so why should a UAV article be an exception? When I asked the author, his response was "Don't care, the issue is the name, which is correct as per many articles under the +cat, pls don't contact me any further on the matter." Most other UAV aricles conform to the standard naming convention, and I didn't see the need for a "vote" to comply with guidelines, but since that's what he wants, I'll go that route. So, folks, rename to Aeronautics Defender, or leave alone? Feel free to reply here or at Talk:Dominator UAV Akradecki 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's wrong per our own naming standards. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a note to those not following the discussion, I have re-directed Dominator UAV to the Dominator (disambiguation) pages as there is more than one Dominator UAV. A confusion that was also in the original article mixing information between the Israeli Aeronautics Defense Dominator and the American Boeing Dominator UAVs.MilborneOne 11:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have gotten involved in this situation as an administrator.  If headphonos keeps being disruptive over the issue, please let me know and I will handle the situation appropriatley!  I agree with the renaming, as it complies with project standards. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also left a note explaning it a litte more in depth on headphonos userpage.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left notes on some individual's pages, but I wanted also publicly thank the project for your response on the note above...it's working together like this that has made Project Aircraft one of the best on WP. Akradecki 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need project members' help with an issue

message: Zeppelin 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) 17:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeppelin FAR

message: After an exchange on the talk pages of User:BillCJ and myself regarding the length of the Beechcraft King Air article, we've come up with a proposal to split it into two articles. I've added a split tag and copied the discussion to Talk:Beechcraft King Air. If anyone else is interested, comments on the proposal are invited. Akradecki 00:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: King Air split proposal

message: The final article in the list of aircraft belonging to the Finnish Air Force was created today! --MoRsE 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement 

message: When exactly is a good time to use the aero specs tag.  Also when do you remove them.  Can you do this with AWB? RED skunkTALK 00:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to Use Aero specs tags 

message: Since this page, Bolton-Paul Defiant, is duplicated in the much more authoritive and complete article (BTW with the actual aircraft and manufacturer spelled correctly), Boulton Paul Defiant, I recommend this page be deleted. Bzuk 18:14 10 February 2007 (UTC).
:I would have thought that you could delete it without consensus as the company name is not correct Bolton/Boulton.MilborneOne 19:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never deleted an article- how is it done? Bzuk 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just redirect it to the good article as I just did with this rather short, non-noticeable article. --Denniss 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bolton-Paul Defiant]] and [[Boulton Paul Defiant]]

message: I've just copied over the quality scale from the Military History Project. I think it makes things more clear as to where to put each article. For military aircraft, when it comes to B and A class ratings, I suggest deferring to them. They have a good system in place to rate articles B or A, and I suggest starting a similar system for reviewing non-military aircraft pages. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Quality scale. 

message: There appears to be a low-grade revert war beginning on several airliner pages (notably  Airbus A330 and Boeing 707) over the use of Spec tables vs. the Specs template. While I totally understand the need for consistency within the project, I believe we need to develop a consesnus on whether or not airliners should be exempt from the Sero-specs template.
Airliners are differ from the other aircraft, especially military ones, in several ways that make using a specs table more efficient. Airliners almost always have more than one or two models to compare, which a table is good at presenting for comparison. I can't see using six or eight  in order to present each major model covered on the page. A table just makes more sense in these siturations. In addition, airliners don't have as much information that needs to be presented as military aircraft, especially weapons. Also, tables make comparisions between the major models easier, as all the data is there on the same lines.
Now, there are several different styles of comparison tables being used on the various airliner pages. To me, some of the ones on the Boeing pages seem to be the best in terms of look and presentation format. If nothing else, I'd like to see the project develop/approve a standard table for use on the airliner pages, so at least the look is consistent across those pages. - BillCJ 00:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you mention the top 3 or 4 tables from the Boeing pages that you're referring to, so we can focus on those? Akradecki 00:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * These all have similar looking tables: Boeing 777, Boeing 787, & Boeing 747.  A like different look on this one Boeing 767. But Bill may have others in mind.. -Jeff/ Fnlayson 04:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the look of the 747/777/787 in general, but I also like the fact that the left column in the 767 is bolded. I'd be nice to combine them. Is there a way to make it a template so that the average user can add them, or is this one of those things that no matter how it's set up, you're gonna have to be an expert to be able to implement it? Akradecki 05:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spec tables

message: Not sure that the article will meet the criteria, but I requested semi-protection for the Helicopter article due to a recent increase in vandalism. The last 4-5 days has seen at least one incident per day (by my count, but I'm tired). --Born2flie 02:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested semi-protection 

message: Someone who I'm fairly certain is not a participant here recently page-moved seaplane to Water Aircraft. I sort of doubt this move would have any support, so I un-did it, but I'd like some commentary on it (preferably on the seaplane Talk page) from other project participants.--chris.lawson 03:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished going through and doing some cleanup work on that after the move back, but it probably would be a good idea of someone (or two or three) went over it again. Also, I see that the responsible editor acknowledged (on his talk page) that he won't be doing that again. Akradecki 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seaplane = "Water Aircraft" ? 

message: Akradecki recommended that I present this to the Project. So, without further ado, I would like to propose a Rotorcraft task force with the following Goals and Scope:
; Goals
* To improve the quality of Rotorcraft articles
* To represent the interests of Rotorcraft within the WikiProject Aircraft.
; Scope
Articles dealing with any of the following topics:
* Rotorcraft (Helicopters, Autogyros, Gyrodynes, etc.)
* Subjects relating to the function and operation and nature of rotorcraft.
I guess the reason is that there are many of us with different interests within the scope of the Project, and mine happens to be Rotorcraft in general and helicopters specifically. The task force would work to apply the WP:AIR guidelines to the rotorcraft articles and continue to work with the concensus found within WP:AIR. There are many key articles that need improvement and it will be the immediate goal to improve those articles to at A-Class and hopefully GA- or FA-class. For the task force proposal, see User:Born2flie/Rotorcraft task force. --Born2flie 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Implemented and moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Rotorcraft task force —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevor MacInnis (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task force proposal 

message: I just discovered the IAMI Shafaq article this weekend. It is in dire need of attention, though probably of low importance. I moved it from Shafaq to its original page name, and have made some minor changes. Anyone who can, please take a look and see what you can do. Even if everyone just makes one or two changes, taken together, it will help alot. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help requested

message: (Entry moved to the "airspeed" discussion page WhatIsTrue 13:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air data 

message: There are many images on wikipedia related to aircraft.  Do you think it would be appropriate to add a clas to your project template for images and tag images as such?  That way, we could have a good idea of what images are associated with the project etc etc.  We could also add a section to the project for featured pictures related to the project such as [todays picture of the day] or other high caliber pictures. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, and I'm not sure if any other projects are doing this yet. I'll take a look around and see what's what. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also am not aware of any.  I gladly tag them fo rother projects and am involved in many others.  Another thing I was thinking about regarding to this project is I would like to see every article on an aircraft have at least one appropriate picture.  I think pictures add so much more value to an article than almost anything else we could include.  Any others have ideas on this goal? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the project template so that if you add it to a page that is not an article, just enter NA for the class and it will automatically put it in the relevant subcategory of :Category:Non-article aircraft pages. See  for what I mean.  As for the adding pictures to every article, I certainly agree, but am not sure how to go about promoting this. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NA function has always been available.  I have used it for numerous templates etc etc.  I guess what I was proposing is either a.) a project image template or b.) a permutation of the template to allow pictures and an appropriate ciategory for pictures to be included in the images.  On the pictures issues, I would love for some other project members to weigh in on this one, what is the best way to promote it? Maybye start by figuring out how many articles do and how many articles dont have images?  Just an idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you're talking about images that are on En:Wikipedia? How would this work for images at Commons? It's my understanding that it is preferred that images be uploaded over there rather than here so they can be used in other language WPs. As for an image for each article, I heartily agree, and have been shooting even the most mundane aircraft (can't get more mundane than Citation CJ!) whenever I see one that's needed. Akradecki 23:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot about the commons, that is a good point.  Guess that wont work.  However, would creating a maintenace cateogyr, "airraft articles without pictures" be helpful in a goal of making sure very article has an appropriate picture?  If I have not stated that yet, I think that would be an excellent goal for this project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would indeed find that helpful, because that would give me, and presumably other editor/photographers a target list. Akradecki 00:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Template:WP India uses image-needed=yes to put these type of articles in :Category:India articles needing images. And Template:TrainsWikiProject uses Imageneeded=yes and Imagedetails=  to describe specifically what type of image. Something like this could easily be added to our template as well. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea! Who does our template maintenance generally? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone really, but for this type of thing I have some experience. I'll add the options in now. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Articles can now be tagged: see the new instructions at Template:AircraftProject. An example I've already done is Talk:Avro Jetliner. It will add the article to :Category:Aircraft articles needing images, which, to also get help from outside the project, is listed at :Category:Wikipedia requested images and :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs by subject. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing can now be done with the new template . - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: (Found this over at Talk:Cessna, thought it would be of interest here Akradecki 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to rename Category:Cessna to Category:Cessna aircraft

message: I've gone ahead and created the project. Lets move this conversation there. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Aviation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I am not aware of a gliding project?  Do you have the link to it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding. - BillCJ 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Task Forces 

message: *Support I support the inclusion of an airliners task force. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airliners 

message: *Support - I support the inclusion of a rotorcraft task forces. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotorcraft 

message: *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)
thread_title: Gliders or Gliding 

message: *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)
replies: text: I am not aware of a gliding project?  Do you have the link to it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding. - BillCJ 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Fixed Wing

message: Ok, so this is how I see the discussion heading so far:
*WikiProject Aviation
**Scope
***Famous people, e.g. aviators (Amelia Earhart), designers, (Burt Rutan), aviation pioneers (Wright brothers)
***Aviation terminology, e.g. stall, Mach, 
***Aviation technologies, e.g. aileron, jet engine
***articles about aircraft types, e.g. airliner, interceptor aircraft, helicopter
***Government agencies, companies e.g. Cessna
***Aviation history
**Sub-projects
***Aviation accident task force
****Scope
*****Aviation accidents and safety
***WikiProject Red Bull Air Race World Series perhaps change to Red Bull Air Race World Series task force
****Scope
*****Red Bull Air Race World Series pilot/races/aircraft
***WikiProject Airlines
****Scope
*****Airline companies eg Air Canada, Qantus
****Subtopics/task forces
*****WikiProject Defunct Airlines perhaps change to Defunct airlines task force
***WikiProject Airports
****Scope
*****airports, eg Montréal-Mirabel International Airport
*****airport services and technologies, eg Fixed base operator, Baggage handler, Instrument Landing System
***WikiProject Aircraft
****Scope
*****Specific Aircraft articles, eg fixed-wing Cessna 172, lighter-than-air LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin, anything not covered by a task force
*****Aircraft lists
****Subtopics/task forces
*****Rotorcraft task force
******Scope
*******specific Rotorcraft aircraft articles
*****Glider task force Joint TF With WP:Gliding
******Scope
*******specific glider aircraft articles
***WikiProject Gliding
****Scope
***** Articles on aviation, aerodynamics, airmanship, aviation history etc.
***** Articles on aircraft, especially gliders, motor gliders, flight instruments, and aircraft systems, 
***** Articles on airports, especially gliderports
***** Articles on soaring birds 
***** Articles on meterology, especially mesometerology and soaring weather phenomenon. 
***** Articles on air sports, especially gliding and gliding competitions
***** Articles on geography, especially pertaining to soaring sites, and geographic features that support cross-country soaring.
***** Biographical articles pertaining to aviation pioneers related to gliding, and notable glider pilots.
****Subtopics/task forces
*****Glider task force Joint TF With WP:AIR
******Scope
*******specific glider aircraft articles
Let's modify this list. Are there any topics missing? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's deliberately broad, and there is a lot of overlap not only within aviation, but also with other subjects like meteorology. But the overlap is limited to topics specifically related to gliding. Dhaluza 02:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: FYI, there already is a List of gliders which still needs to be merged with List of glider manufacturers.Dhaluza 02:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal Recap 

message: I've gone ahead and created the project. Lets move this conversation there. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Aviation 

message: Anyone else care to join me in cleaning up the ATR article? It still needs some serious help, although I've done quite a bit on it.--chris.lawson 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, what a mess! Looks like someone didn't realize there was a ATR 42/72 page, and tried to put the info on the company page! There wasn't even a link to the aircraft article. Thanks for the heads-up; I'll do what I can. - BillCJ 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, boy, did I get that one wrong! Actually, some just restored the old ATR 42/72 page that was previously merged into the ATR page. Since there was no real discussion on the merge, I missed it. Probably best to discuss this on the ATR page. - BillCJ 19:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the merge was about a year ago, IIRC, and there wasn't much discussion on it. As I noted on the ATR Talk page, I don't think there's enough material to justify two separate articles, but if people think there is, be my guest.--chris.lawson 19:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To me, it seems strange having a company and 2 aircraft on the same page. That's why I misunderstood what was going on when I first saw the page. I'd support a split, but we should have a better disscussion this time. - BillCJ 19:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATR 

message: I've finally spun this out of my sandbox and into the Real World of aircraft articles. If anybody would like to help - or if anyone has books on the He 111 or CASA - please throw in some content! ericg ✈ 19:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CASA 2.111]] 

message: 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. 
#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). 
#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)
thread_title:  Project tags 

message: I added aircraft engines to the project scope, to clairfy that this should not be covered under WikiProject Aviation. The jet engine was originally used as an example under aviation technology in the proposal, but as a major airframe component, I think it would be better to categorize it with aircraft. The points I added to the scope are:
* Aircraft engine technology e.g. jet engine
** Aircraft engines e.g. Pratt & Whitney Wasp
Any objections? Dhaluza 21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought that WP:Aviation would take over that sort of article, leaving this project to only take care of specific aircraft (i.e. Cessna 172). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Aviation says it covers "Aviation technologies not part of an airplane (e.g., Airport Surveillance Radar)", so I suppose WP:Aircraft still covers those technologies that are part of an airplane or else go into it.  This seems to be a grey area left behind by the reorg, so perhaps the "masters of mayhem" can enlighten us further to their intentions. ;-)   Askari Mark (Talk) 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that it is still covered by the Aircraft project. --Born2flie 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft engines 

message: has the project banner been set up to add the capability of specifying a task force (like the milhist one)? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that rotorcraft task force is already amended to the banner, I don't think Trevor has added in the other task forces just yet. --Born2flie 16:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project banner 

message: 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 (). 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 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#A_Single_Project_Banner_for_use_by_all_aviation_related_projects. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I like it. Not sure about the Wright Flyer icon, but if there is one thing that can be used by Americans to signify Aviation, I guess that would be it. --Born2flie 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Single Project Banner for use by all aviation related projects 

message: Fellow editors, your advice and help is needed here as another editor has constantly reverted the introductory passages of the Amelia Earhart despite the contentious nature of the statement that is made. The fact that the issue of Earhart's flying skills is addressed later in the article is not the real issue. Please read over the exchanges and then hopefully you will see a need to intervene. The aforementioned editor has constantly rebutted any arguments that show a different referenced source to the one that is purported to be the authoritative source. I have real reservations over the reliability of the TIGHAR information that is presented but irregardless it is the disregard of other editors' work that is the source of my consternation. Bzuk 21:38 27 February 2007 (UTC).
:Please provide a link to the editor and some diffs.  I will be glad to get involved from an adminstrative standpoint. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A request for help in the Amelia Earhart article

message: We've got a low-grade edit war brewing on the Airbus A380 page. User:Skyring has been removing the  tag from a line about the A380 being called the "Super Jumbo". His repsopnse is that it is a common term, and to just "Google" it. I'm not sure that qualifies as a verifiable source per Wiki policy, but I am hesitiant to get involved in this given my lack of familiarity with citing rules. COuld someone, preferably an admin, take a look at this issue and see what can be done? Thanks. - BillCJ 01:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that Googling in itself counts as a particularly good verifiable source, because the result of Googlin can vary with time. However some of the links returned by Google could be. So I think I will add one. -- Cabalamat 02:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if the term is coined by Airbus or just used in reference to the A380 being the preeminent jumbo jet in the market. --Born2flie 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A380 cite

message: I had Hawker Siddeley Harrier moved back to the original, and correct, article name, Hawker Siddeley Harrier, as there is no hyphen in the company name (well, apart from in WP!) However, it would seem - Special:Whatlinkshere/Hawker Siddeley Harrier - that there are a LOT of redirects that need sorted. Is anyone savvy enough with bots or AWB to do this in bulk? I spent a lot of time manually sorting out redirects via Hawker-Siddeley and I would prefer not to do it all over again! Regards Emoscopes Talk 05:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had Russbot help me with such things in the past, you can contact the owner at User talk:R'n'B. Akradecki 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knocked off a few remainders linked to the (now) redirect Hawker-Siddeley Harrier. MoRsE is running others down with a bot. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I believe I got all in the article pages, I also changed all Hakwer-Siddeley's into Hawker Siddeley. If anyone noticed some mistake that I did, please notify me and I'll try to undo it.--MoRsE 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hawker Siddeley Harrier - assistance required

message: I was considering creating a list of Chief Test Pilots for the Short Brothers article; it has been suggested there that perhaps a general list of test pilots might be created, which would go beyond the list of notable test pilots here. This project would be the sensible place for such a discussion. I'm not really thinking about full biographies, just a few important details for each, e.g.
*general info (date of birth, death etc, country of origin) 
*test pilots' school attended (if applicable)
*companies worked for
*aircraft flown for the first time
*other aircraft tested
*major achievements (e.g. major 'firsts' such as VTOL, supersonic, carrier take-off/landing etc)
*military service (if applicable)
*decorations, honours etc. etc. 
Would it be part of the test pilot article, a separate page there, a separate article, included in the list of project lists? Loads of aspects! 
Any comments? Thanks. TraceyR 10:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that a list of some sort would be most appropriate, but I would also question the inclusion criteria. Notability must be established, and how are you going to decide? There are thousands of active and retired test pilots, who to include? For other subjects, the standard of notability is having a wikiarticle. That sounds like it won't apply, as these will be mini-bios, so that implies inclusion of guys that don't have wikiarticles. Maybe having been honored? I started an effort to write bios for all the test pilots honored on the Aerospace Walk of Honor, and there's a lot more to do there. There's other awards that have been issued, as well (such as the SETP awards) that might give you a source as well. Akradecki 15:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point - it could be a very long list! IF it were to happen, some structure would be required, e.g. by decade or company within country. I'll think I'll stick to my original plan for the time being. And your point about 'notability' is very topical: since I raised the question a few test pilots have been added to the test pilot article and, although there is a WP article for most of them, they are perhaps not all universally considered notable e.g. does 'piloting' the first private space vehicle accord notability as a test pilot? (Is space flight 'aviation' in the strict sense of the word?) Does piloting the British Concorde on its first flight? If so, where is pilot of the French Concorde, which flew first? etc etc. I can already hear the sound of edit wars! TraceyR 18:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Test pilots

message: * Do we set guidlines for Comparable Aircraft? I've looked through this project page did some searches and haven't found guidlines; only discussions on the footer templates and other related stuff.  Thanks. -Fnlayson 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * These things were brought up about the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet on the talk page. -Fnlayson 18:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Similar capability can somewhat cover similar size anyway. -Fnlayson 03:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparable Aircraft guidelines 

message: Hello,
I would like to offer my original avation images to any Wiki you see fit.  They are a little raw, but  feel free to use them if you can.  
They are mostly of various airports and museums in the US.  There are some pretty detailed ones of the Connie and 404 from Kansas City.  I also have scans of my timetables as well.  
If this is not relevant to your contribution area, please post this or pass it to who you think could use this info.  Please delete this post if it is in an irrelevant area.
Thanks
Chris Cummings chris(at)chriscummings(dot)cc
Older site with Full-Size Pictures:
http://www.chriscummings.cc/air/
Newer site with full collection:
http://www.chriscummings.cc/air2/
Airline timetables:
http://www.chriscummings.cc/timetables/
:User:Irisreg I would suggest that if you wish to make your images available for use on Wikipedia that you upload them to Wikipedia Commons with the appropriate licence. MilborneOne 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images offered for use 

message: I just noticed this category, surely it would be much more useful if it was split up into 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6- and so-forth. As it is, it discriminates against single and multiple engined aircraft, and that is it. What does this really achieve? Emoscopes Talk 02:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If broken down might help someone find a 6 engined plane if they couldn't quite remember the name until they saw it. GraemeLeggett 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - there are/were some with 5 engines too (it would help with quiz questions!). TraceyR 18:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the original intent was to break things down along the lines of official categories of aircraft (licencing authorities grant airman certificates for single-engine or multi-engine craft, with no differentiation among the multi-engine craft). I, too, would be in favour of further breakdown for the reasons Graeme and Tracey outline.--chris.lawson 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the category for the reason specified above.  Im not sure if breaking down further would be that valuable.  Similary, would you break an aifrcaft down into :category:300 passenger aircraft, :category:400 passenger aircraft.  I might see a category :Category:passenger aircraft or :category:cargo aircraft or even :category:multi purpose aircraft, however I think further breaking it down by the number of engines is a bit extreme. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you already are breaking aircraft down by numbers of engines; only your chosen categories are "single" and "multiple". This would be the same, in my book, as breaking them down into "single passenger aircraft" and "multiple passenger aircraft". I think that by breaking down by the number of engines, people with a particular interest in, say, trimotors or four engined bombers, might find it easier to navigate around. This would not disrupt the existing system, as any aircraft in "2 engined aircraft" or "5 engined aircraft" would still be a member of the higher category "multiple engined aircraft". Emoscopes Talk 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Multiple engine aircraft]]

message: Somebody has just added the E-3 Sentry into the Category:British command and control aircraft 2000-2009, I thought that these categories were for British or whatever country built aircraft not operated by the relevant country. Just seeking clarification please. MilborneOne 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK somebody has deleted the cat now. MilborneOne 21:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aircraft Categories

message: Is any of us an Admin capable of moving this article back to Blohm & Voss BV 142 to fix the company name and a/c designation or should I post at Requested moves? --Denniss 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Blohm + Voss Bv 142]] 

message: There is a dispute regariding Sri Lanka and the LTTE going on on the IAI Kfir page. It has been protected. Mediation is not my strong suit, so any help to establish a concensus there would be appreciated. Thanks. - BillCJ 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have resolved itself. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IAI Kfir

message: Can someone remove the redundant CT-114 Tutor article or tell me how to do it. The larger, more expansive article (Canadair CL-41) should be the primary article. Bzuk 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pick the title that is correct, and merge in any information (by copy & paste) absent on it from the incorrectly titled article. then simply redirect the incorrect title to the correct one. I'll leave your wiser judgement to choose the correct title. An admin can always move it back should there be a mistake. Emoscopes Talk 22:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a really hard time just finding the article! Looks like someone has done a few moves already. According to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) page, your main options on names should be: CT-114 Tutor, Canadair CL-41, or Canadair Tutor. I'd give preference to the first one, as that is the official designation and name given by the primary customer. If you need help with the cut-and-pastes, let me know, though I can't make admin-only moves (not an admin). - BillCJ 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[CT-114 Tutor]] and [[Canadair CL-41]]

message: In light of all the confusion over what constitutes fighter "generations" and what aircraft belong in which, I've outlined what I believe them to be, according to my experience and understanding. While this constitutes "original research," frankly, there are no formal definitions and darn few informal ones. At the least, I hope this can end some of the feuding over whether a particular IOC date or technology or upgrade places one fighter in a "pot" and not another. If you're interested in this issue, my post can be found at Talk:Fighter aircraft#Defining Jet Fighter Generations, and I will answer questions about it there. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighter Aircraft "Generations" 

message: There appears to a daily change then revert of the fleet numbers of the Royal Saudi Air Force, far more then the 3RR allows. Anybody known what is going on, I was thinking of deleting the quantities and then invite somebody to change it back with a citation but a bit of research shows that this is happening with a few air forces recently refer for example Special:Contributions/Ammar_shaker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MilborneOne (talk • contribs) 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure! The edit war seems to have settled down ... or at least they're pausing to rearm, since they've posted nothing on the Talk page yet. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Force revert wars 

message: There is a revert war going on on F-104 Starfighter between a regular editor and an IP. The issue in question is whether using "was" in the first line of the article implies that the Starfighter no longer exists. THis could go on forever, so I would suggest someone familar with English grammar is needed. THe IP is registered in Germany, and uses British English spelling, so may in fact be a German. I don't know German, so it is possible that there grammar rules on past tenses are different then ours. Or the user may just be woddenly litteral. I know this usuage is common, but I can't explain why it is correct grammatically, just that we do use "was" that way, especially in an encyclopedic context. - BillCJ 17:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the lead paragraph to make the point without allowing it to continue as a simple "is" vs. "was" edit war. Now it may just become a seriously back and forth editing of whole sentences. New lead clarifies some difficult wording of the second sentence though. --Born2flie 17:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The introductory paragraph reads well and despite the controversy over whether the aircraft is implied not to be in existence, the fact that the article is essentially an historical article should require the past tense throughout. Bzuk 17:50 17 March 2007 (UTC).
For whatever it's worth, I agree with all of the above. It sounds like we have consensus, at any rate.--chris.lawson 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It depends on usage. I believe the proper usage is to employ past tense for actions or events transpiring in the past, and to use present tense for the present and for describing what something is. "The F-104 is an American-designed fighter aircraft" is proper, but "The F-104 was an American-designed fighter aircraft" is not; likewise, "The last F-104 was retired in ..." is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Askari Mark (talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The meaning of "was"

message: A few weeks ago, I created the Boeing VC-25 page as a split off of the Air Force One article, in order to better focus on the VC-25 aircraft itself. At first, I intended to split the pop culture items too, keeping those related to the callsign in general on the original page, and putting those about the aircraft on the new page. It was not easy, and somewhat arbitrary as to what went where. Not long after the split, users started adding items to one page that were already on the other page. I realized then that two lists were not going to work, and tha the simplest solution was to have an Air Force One in popular culture. So that is what I did.
Now, however, it is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force One in popular culture. I have much more explanations on that page. Thanks for at least looking. - BillCJ 19:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The trend is continuing to nom such articles...I've already posted this on the Rotorcraft task force talk page, but ya'll might want to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture and voice your opinion. Akradecki 02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They tagged AH-64 Apache in popular culture article as well. (testing the Hagermanbot@03:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD assistance

message: 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) 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Jet Fighter Generations 

message: Anybody known where the adding of BAE Systems evolution is being talked about, I cant think it was done with concensus, it is being added to company articles like Auster and is far to big and in some cases not really relevant to have the whole history of BAE shown in some of the early companies.MilborneOne 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the graphical version :Image:BAE Systems evolution.png with a templated tabular version so that it can wikilink nicely into all the aircraft companies within its scope. It is really to illustrate the consolodation of the UK aviation / aeronautics industry into one entity; the present day BAE Systems. I realise that it is quite large, and for that reason I purposely included a "Hide" option in it so that it can be collapsed. In my opnion it is a nice way to kill 2 birds with one stone; summarise the last 50 years of the UK aerospace sector and provide a navbox around it. Emoscopes Talk 19:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S, for those who wish to inspect it, the template is at :Template:BAE Systems evolution Emoscopes Talk 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: With hindsight, it makes sense to move the template into the end of smaller articles such as Auster or Hunting Aircraft where there is not a dedicated history / evolution subsection. Emoscopes Talk 21:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My other main problem was with Auster was a large bit of the page had this template on it when it really had nothing to do with BAES evolution. It became Beagle and when it went to the wall the designs right were sold not the company. Did Scottish Aviation take over the design authority for Auster ?  MilborneOne 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote mentions that Scottish Aviation took over some assets of Beagle rather than merged with it, I couldn't think of a different way to represent this. I'm sure you will agree that the template isn't too intrusive at the bottom of the page where it is located now, and there's always the "hide" feature if you really wish not to see it. Despite the name, this isn't really just the evolution of BAE systems (the title is a throwover from the graphical version), in my eyes it is more of a timeline of consolodation in the aircraft industry. Emoscopes Talk 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My hat's off to Emoscopes for all the work of putting this together! Askari Mark (Talk) 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doff your cap in Mark83's direction too, he has been keeping me right with the history of it all. Emoscopes Talk 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BAE Systems evolution

message: I have decided that my new task that I am going to devote myself to on WP is to put my orthography skills to good use and supply commons-friendly 3-view drawings of aircraft. If you would like a sample, please see :Image:Blackburn B-20.png or :Image:Supermarine Spiteful.png. If you have a request for me, please leave it [[If you would like me to produce a 3-view drawing of an aircraft for an article, please make your request here; here. Emoscopes Talk 18:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Flettner Fl 282, Focke-Wulf FW 61, Vought-Sikorsky 300 --Born2flie 12:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *It looks kind of like your scale is off - any reason why two feet = one meter? ericg ✈ 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I can't count! Well spotted, and I have fixed this. Emoscopes Talk 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad to help. :) I also have some experience doing vector 3-views, although mine are not as detailed as Emoscopes', and I'm also open to any requests. Emoscopes, do you want to coordinate on this? Maybe create a subpage where we can handle requests? ericg ✈ 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Open for requests

message: A request to rename is made but an admininstrator is needed. Coment: Bill (BZuk), in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), particularly this portion (In general, best practice is probably Manufacturer, followed by either Number or Name, whichever seems to be more common.), I recommend we rename this article Canadair CF-5 or CF-5 Freedom Fighter. If the names are current redirects we can't overwrite, I can ask an admin who works with the Aircraft Project to move it for us quickly. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Canadair CF-5 would be the most appropriate name. I wanted to stay away from the nomenclature, "Freedom Fighter" because it NEVER was used. I will post to the Aircraft Forum and get an admin to make the change. Bzuk 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was another case of an air force designation that no one ever used. Bzuk 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * That's was my guess.  The UK Apache is titled WAH-64 but got designated Apache AH Mk 1.  I think it'd help on the CF-5 to mention the designation in a second sentence like with the WAH. -Fnlayson 02:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Chris K., the article was moved successfully.Bzuk 2:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[CF-5]] change to Canadair CF-5

message: Someone has created a new category called Upcoming aircrafts. I don't know anything about categories, but I do know a little about English grammar, and this is driving me nuts! HELP!!! - BillCJ 23:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my understanding that the plural of aircraft is aircraft. Bzuk 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine too, why I asked for how to change it! - BillCJ 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-grammatical category

message: Just an FYI. According to the information provided in the  template, Italian images published before 1976 are in public domain (copyright expires 20 years after the date of creation unless the image is famous, and US copyright only covers images that were copyrighted from 1996 on). - Emt147 Burninate! 04:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: Italians are fair game 

message: A new editor, User:James Hetfield, has created new versions of the standard Aircraft Infobox with specific company headers (Boeing and Airbus). He has a discussion on them, and making new boxes, on the Aviation Project talk page. I have tried to express my concerns there that the original infobox was meant to be standard for easy updating, among others reasons. Feel free to chime in there whatever your opinion on the new boxes. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the usage and made them subsets of the existing infobox, but I nonetheless feel they provide little or no benefit to the article. ericg ✈ 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Infoboxes

message: Notice any similarities here?
:SBD Dauntless: The Dauntless was one of the most important aircraft in the Pacific Theatre of World War II, sinking more enemy shipping in the Pacific war than any other US or Allied aircraft.
:SB2C Helldiver: Although production problems persisted throghout its combat service, pilots soon changed their minds about the potency of the Helldiver, and the SB2C would go on to sink more enemy shipping in the Pacific war than any other US or Allied aircraft.
One of these does not belong - the question is, which one?ericg ✈ 05:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this site which says,The SB2C sank more enemy shipping in the Pacific war than any other US or Allied aircraft. It's a webpage for a model on the aircraft, take it for what it's worth. --Born2flie 14:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like somebody needs to dig into some good paper references from the bookshelf to sort this one out. Emoscopes Talk 16:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall seeing similar claims for both aircraft - I have one Reference for the Dauntless that says '...and went on to sink a greater tonnage of Japanese shipping than any other aircraft' - from American Warplanes of World War II -  - not sure how far I'd beleive any such claims Nigel Ish 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source I've got with me at school is the combined 1945/1946 Jane's. I looked up the aircraft, but it doesn't have any post-war summaries of their actual performance, only wartime background and specifications. ericg ✈ 17:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the statements in both articles are unsourced, it's probably best to just remove them, and add the correct one back when we find several verifiable sources for one or the other plane. - BillCJ 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not compute 

message: Ksyrie believes that the alternate nomenclature for the Eurocopter Colibri is the HC-120. I've provided verifiable sources that demonstrate that CATIC (via Harbin) has a subordinate role in the development of the aircraft and that the HC-120 will be a Chinese-assembled variant. The Australian Aerospace production line will provide EC 120 production for the rest of Asia and the Pacific rim, a fact which also seems to relegate production of the HC-120 for the internal Chineses aerospace market.
The nature of my dispute is that I feel Ksyrie has taken a less than neutral position on this article and is promoting a nationalistic or regionalistic viewpoint. The HC-120 is already listed as a Variant and CATIC and Harbin feature prominently in the lead-in proportional to their involvement. I believe that Ksyrie's edits serve only to mislead as to the nature of Harbin's involvement in the worldwide production of the EC 120 and attempts to simply give the HC-120 a treatment of greater importance in the article. (Reposted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Rotorcraft task force) --Born2flie 03:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Eurocopter Colibri#Dispute|Eurocopter Colibri]] 

message: One of the things I try to do is drop a  template on the talk pages of new users that I come across, and I've realized that articles within the scope of our project attracts its share of new users, many of whom would probably be interested in joining the project, if they knew about it. To that end, I have created a project-based welcome template, . I'd like to invite project input on this...both in terms of its usefulness and its wording. Akradecki 17:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A great idea, Akradecki! My only suggestion would be to boldface the user's name (i.e., the  part) to make it stand out in the welcome. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea...done! Akradecki 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also designed one earlier.  
Whta do you think about it?  There is a thread farther up that explains how it works. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Chris, looks good! I assume that the intent is to use it to welcome people who've signed up for the Project? Mine was for people new to Wikipedia to get them to come check out the project. Maybe there's a way to get the two to look similar, so that if the newbies come join the project, they get the second one welcoming them onto the team? Akradecki 22:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, i see the difference! I like yours, i was thinking of one like that too.  I run into editors at several different aircraft related articles and think they might not know about WP:AIRCRAFT.  I like yours! It looks good.  However, what if the editr has already been welvomed to wikipedia?  I think it should be a little more specific of an invite to the project, and project policies and guidelines etc (and less related to wikipedia in specific.). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should come up with an invitation-oriented one? I was also musing the situation with the IPs that edit...maybe combine an invitation to register with an invitation to the Project?Akradecki 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes alot of sense (about the IP's).  I like it!  I dont have alot of time now to work on it but this week i will put some more effort into developing a series of welcomes/invitations! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have missed this discussion when I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Outreach. Check it out, this welcome template should be worked into it.  - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our own welcome template? 

message: Is there a Wikipedia page that describes Range terms for military aircraft?  I found Range (aircraft), but that's basic info.  I'm referring to terms such as ferry range and combat range.  This web site  has a short paragraph on range.  Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range terms 

message: Hi everyone. I hope you are taking in the slightly amusing edits from a newbie editor in the following: XF-103, Lockheed supersonic Lockheed L-2000 airliner, F-101, F-102 and F-106 articles. Every-second-word-is-hyphenated which gives me a laugh but nonetheless, the editor seems to have a good grasp of the subject matter but does not have any attribution or citations and injects his own "this editor thinks..." comments into the articles. Again, a bit supercilious and presumptuous but the spelling and typo errors are the most annoying characteristic of the edit submissions. Any suggestions? I have already tried humour, slightly sarcastic comments in the edit history but the edits keep coming unabetted from at least two ids (the same person judging by the exact same over-hyphenated style...oops, I'm starting to do it)Bzuk 23:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-hyphenated

message: Ugh. I just found this popping up on several aircraft articles I watch: :Template:4.5_and_5th_generation_Fighter_Aircraft. Has anybody else seen it? Can't say I like the proliferation of nav boxes, but this seems to be of little value given it's such a trivial subject; worse, it begs for the addition of "4th", "3rd", etc., generation templates ... and for every other secondary or tertiary descriptor. Also, I thought the use of flags in footer nav boxes was deprecated. Askari Mark (Talk) 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is a fairly trivial nav box.  I know nav boxes have often been a source of heated debate, and I am generally a proponent of ceratin nav boxes, however I find this one a bit unecessary.  Have you contacted the creator? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the fact that this template is a pretty bad idea overall, it's ugly as sin. Whether flags in navboxen are deprecated or not, they damn well should be. ericg ✈ 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it really goes against this projects "look and feel" for nav templates.  Somebody should propose it for deletion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just nom'ed it for deletion...please add your comments at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 25 Akradecki 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be in favour of deleting this one as well. --Guinnog 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "4.5 and 5th generation Fighter Aircraft" template 

message: The same user has also created :Template:Modern Attack Helicopters. While perhaps less contentious, it was still created without project discussion, and uses flags. There are already discussions over whether the Huey (AH-1!) is "modern" or not! - BillCJ 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be in favour of deleting this one as well. --Guinnog 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another one

message: Jeff and I have been working up the new :Template:Boeing military aircraft template. However, it has proven to be very large and cramped, so much so that I am hesitant to place it on the article pages as is. I would appreciate comments and constructive ideas on :Template talk:Boeing military aircraft.
We could create :Template:Boeing combat aircraft for the fighters, bombers, attack helos, patrol, and experimental combat planes. :Template:Boeing military aircraft would remain for the other types, but with the title line changed to "Boeing military tranport and support aircraft" (or something similar). Also, we could work :Template:707 military variants and :Template:B-29 family into the new templates to avoid having too many boxes on the 707 and B-29 families pages, if it wouldn't make the templates too big again. - BillCJ 04:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boeing military aircraft templates

message: I have been informed by User:Zscout370, a Foundation admin, the we can't use logos in the aircraft infoboxes on airliner pages as it violates fair use policy. (See discussion atTemplate:Infobox Boeing Airliners.) He removed some of the logos himself, and locked Template:Infobox Boeing Airliners for several days (he has since semi-protected it). I removed one other logo. I just wanted to make the project aware of the issue. 
Without the logo, I'm not sure the sub-templates need to be at the top of the infobox. - BillCJ 06:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of crap (specifically by User:Betacommand and his robot are why I am not currently participating in Wikipedia from an editing standpoint. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos on Infoboxes

message: Template: 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. — A. B. (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't help. What's your beef? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Airreg}} 

message: Friends, neighbours, countrymen, lend me your ears... Seriously, I have made some edits to the aforementioned Percival Mew Gull article that seems to have stirred up some trouble. The editor, PontiusPilot  may also be operating as an anonyn with  88.111.107.83 and 88.109.125.193 IP addresses. I had posted on the editor's page a mild rebuke for using a personal attack but that only resulted in the anonyn's taking on the attacks. Can an administrator block or semi-protect this page from the attacks? Thanks. Bzuk 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "So what have you got in that bag?" "Ears!" (Sorry, couldn't resist! - BillCJ 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The guy's definitely a dick, but the bigger problem here is that the article is grammatically... difficult ... to read. By difficult I mean almost impossible; specifically, there are tons of commas in some places and a distinct lack in others. I made some edits that may help, but it needs a buttload of work. ericg ✈ 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The aforementioned editor has returned with more personal attacks. I can't figure out what he/she is about? At first I thought it was a kid, but then some of the submissions are of a high quality akin to that of a historian (referring at one point to  "my archives"). What is the next stage to address this issue? Can an admin pick this up? Bzuk 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have worked itself out... there no longer seems to be a revert war going on. I'd possibly attempt to discuss their edit summaries with them privately, but moving it to an admin doesn't make sense at this point. ericg ✈ 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was not about an edit war, which can be handled easily but about inappropriate personal attacks which are still occurring (with more comments made today). Bzuk 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks to everyone who worked on this issue. It seems to have been resolved amicably and with the editor's return, he/she has again made substantive contributions to this article and others but has now become a much more responsible contributor. Thanks again, everyone. Bzuk 14:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for help on attacks on [[Percival Mew Gull]]

message: :Image:EC 135.jpg has been on both the UH-72 Lakota and Eurocopter EC 145 pages with the following caption: A Eurocopter EC 145 (German ADAC air rescue helicopter), a version of which was selected as the LUH.
I reverted his deletions twice, and he has reverted my reversions twice. I requested discussion after my second revet, but he just reverted again.
His edit summaries:
#Removed unnecessary commercial advertising spam from image caption.
#Revert irrelevant link to commercial organisation which has nothing whatsoever to do with article.
#Please stop reverting my good faith edits. The wikilink to the commercial company adds nothing to this article.
I know we have links to articles on operators of aircraft in captons on many other pages, whether or not they are commercial companies. The company name is clearly marked on the helicopter, so why not link to it so that reader can know what the company is. If I though the user would stop with this company, I might not pursue it any further. Howver, given that company articles are linked in many other captions of pics, this could become a crusade for this user.
As I told the user in my second edit, "to my knowledge, it is not against Wiki policy or guidelines to link to existing articles on companies whose aircraft [are] in photos". Any help on this matter Any help resolving this matter would be appreciated, whatever your point of view. - BillCJ 00:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the company has a wikiarticle, it is entirely appropriate to have a wikilink to the article. Linking to a wikiarticle is not spam. I'll watchlist this one, too. Akradecki 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thanks. - BillCJ 03:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see some of other editer's points in the edit summaries, but not arguing about it.  I prefer less details to keep the caption relatively short.  But that caption is short, so no biggie. -Fnlayson 05:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like reasonable wikilinking. I'm much more irritated by the obvious captions, e.g. "P-51 Mustang in flight" (no shit, I thought it was "P-51 Mustang eating a ham sandwich" until I saw that helpful text). - Emt147 Burninate! 20:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was taking a walk in the park. Glad there was some clarification in the caption! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic caption debate

message: There are two aircraft articles which use infomal names in the title that I would to see renamed. I am just testing the waters here to see if I should bother with proposing a formal move for each page.
#YF-17 Cobra - The "Cobra" name was used by Northrop for the P-530 design, but not the follow-on P-600, on which the YF-17 is based. Simple to rename it as Northrop YF-17.
#YF-23 Black Widow II‎ - "Black WIdow II" was never an official USAF or even Northrop name. The name "Gray Ghost" appeared in early publications on the YF-13, but it was not official either. Renaming is not so simple, as the name Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23, while correct according to our naming conventions, is a bit long. One alternative could be Northrop/McDD YF-23; while shorter, it is a bit unorthodox, and certain long-time editors have objected to such names recently. The other option is simply Northrop YF-23, but this leaves out McDD, who was a primary partner, not a subcontractor. One final option would be YF-23 ATF, but I don't think this is an obvious choice.
Any comments? - BillCJ 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought renaming the the two articles would not cause much of a problem, it is highly unlikely that somebody would search for YF-23 Black Widow II if it was not the official or common name. As long as what you choose re-directs from YF-17 and YF-23 which is what I suspect most people would search for if they did not know exactly who built it.MilborneOne 20:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would favour Northrop YF-17 and Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 as the choices for names. Bzuk 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bzuk. --Rlandmann 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Northrop YF-17 and dropping the "Black Widow II" nickname for the YF-23 are the correct way to go, but I'm neutral on whether it is given as "Northrop YF-23" or "Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23". It's generally referred to as the former, just as the F-22 is most often referred to as the "Lockheed F-22" or "Lockheed Martin F-22" in general usage, although Boeing has something like a 1/3 share. I do notice, though, that the YF-23 article bears almost no mention of McDD's role or share in the program; that really needs to be addressed if the joint name is decided on. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: type in B-17 in search engine will get:
*B-17 Flying Fortress, a famous World War II heavy bomber
*B-17 Flying Fortress (computer game), a flight simulator
*B-17, Queen of the Skies, a solitaire board wargame
an Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings code describing the Steinitz variation of the Caro-Kann Defence 
*"Vitamin B17", a name given to Laetrile by those who claim it prevents and cures cancer 
* Saab B 17A, Saab B 17B and Saab B 17C, Saab 17 series of fighter bombers made in Sweden in the World War II era.
Davegnz 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree with renaming US Military - I dont think we should disturb the guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) they have evolved by concensus over a number of years. Entering just B-17 in the example above gives you the right article with one click so I see no value in rocking the boat. MilborneOne 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just typed in "B-17" and it gave me exactly what it should: the disambiguation page B17. No slight intended, but I get the impression that since he quoted the whole dab page above, Davegnz doesn't understand the role of dab pages on Wikipedia. They exist to direct the reader to the appropriate place when a search term can refer to more than one subject. I don't see how changing the naming convention will change this - "B-17" is more than an airplane, and dab pages are intended to deal with this kind of issue. The fact that the first entry on the page is the one to the plane shows that things are set up as the are supposed to be. Akradecki 18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I really sympathise with Davegnz. It's always seemed crazy to me that we have one convention for US military aircraft, and a different convention for every other aircraft that ever flew. However, changing that now would be such a Herculean task as to make it completely impractical IMHO. If we were ever to do it, it would probably require a group of volunteers to get stuck into it for a couple of weeks; it wouldn't be a fun job at all... --Rlandmann 07:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize too. However, my preference would be to change the US aircraft pages in line with everyone else's. Really, the designer's name should lead the title; aircraft don't invent themselves, and it's the designer(s)' creativity, investment and hard work that brings them about. However, I've been there and caught the javelins for proposing it before, so I'll demure this time. ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry if I wasn't clear - yes, it's the naming of US military types that would change (in my ideal world - as Davegnz is suggesting). I just don't want to be the one to do it! --Rlandmann 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page rename preview

message: I am creating a list here of survivor list articles. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of survivor list articles 

message: I just found a ton of detailed aircraft configuration, design, and construction information, along with fleet size and history data in an NTSB accident report, which I transcluded to the Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-4 article. The NTSB reports could be a valuable resource for creating and expanding aircraft articles. Dhaluza 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NTSB aircraft info 

message: This morning, Strangerer and Jusjih went on a tear and began tagging all the images from the World War 2 in Color collection for speedy deletion. As some editors may appreciate, this collection of wartime photographs is based on government (as well as private sources) that represents unique images from the Second World War. I have replaced some of the images- P-51, Hawker Typhoon and Henschel HS 123 as a test to see how far they will go in eliminating the extant Wikipedia images. Any suggestions? 12:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was up late last night when it all started, but I didn't think to put  tags on the image pages. That would stop the CSD (at least it should, assuming these guys will follow the rules). You probably need to place proper tags and sources on all those images, rather than trying to re-upload them, as they have already tagged one as a duplicate. Other than that, I don't know what else to tell you. They should not be CSDing the images, but these image deletionists feel they are justified in their actions, and thus exempt from WP:AGF. - BillCJ 14:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This just shows how really important proper tagging of images is. And, I would also suggest, that such images be placed in Commons, not here. AKRadecki 02:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked over at CAT:CSD and didn't seen any currently tagged for speedy. It'd probably be a good idea for everyone to periodicly check this area out while online, and if one shows up, add  and focus your comments on justifying the keeping of it, and editing to include PD licensing where applicable. If someone can give me some image names, I can see if I can recover them. AKRadecki 02:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more curious is the fact that the image tags were stripped off the images and the aforementioned editor justified this action by claiming that World War 2 in color images were: " Re: Template:PD-WWII-in-Color ==
From the template itself:
“	This is an image from ww2incolor.com. License [1]: Most of the images stored on ww2incolor.com were collected from government sources or submitted by their respective owners. This does not mean that all images on this site are in the public domain. The majority of the images, unfortunately, have an unknown copyright status and therefore it is recommended that you do not distribute or copy them for any commercial purposes unless they are specifically stated to be in the public domain (some images have a “public domain” notice in their captions).	”
Hope this helps. ^demon[omg plz] 04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: FWIW, all the images were very obviously government photos from wartime.Bzuk 04:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help need in photo images being systematically deleted

message: I have been thinking of this for awhile, but haven't really put any ideas down on pixel as yet. The whole issue of the aircraft survivors has got me thinking on this again. The Wiki Foundation offers space to projects that will follow its policies of open editing. Given that Wikipedia's scope is (correctly) limited as an encylopedia, is it possible that some of us on the WP:AIR project, or perhaps WP:AIR or WP:AVIATION themselves, could ask for hosting space for an exhastive database/encyclopedia on aviation. THe name Avipedia shows no hits in English on Google, so that could be a good title.
This would be a serious site, meaning I don't envision any pop-culture crap, and would still reqire verifiable sources (also Foundation policy to my knowledge for such sites).
I honestly don't know what would be requied for such a site, or what relationship it could maintain with WPAir or WPAviation. I would love to limit such a site to registered user editing only, but I doubt the foundation would allow that, given its Open Editing policy.
Comments? - BillCJ 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, i posted a similar concept at the afd.  I think it would be a good sepearation of encylopedic, vs. "useful resources for an enthusiast". -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A bit like Scramble's Aviation Wiki .MilborneOne 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, but more open, not associated with a publication, and closer in concept to what we already do here, but with a broader scope. As Chris said, "useful resources for an enthusiast". Chris, I must have missed your suggestion there, or I might have commented on that page. - BillCJ 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Wiki-hosted site idea

message: I need help with the Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture page. It is the Pop-culture page for 4 Harrier articles. I am not justufying its existence, but I do try to keep the Cruft out of it. (It was split off from the Harrier Jump Jet page, and I could support merging it back.) Anyway, I have a user wondering why I keep deleting "Metal Gear Solid 2" from the page, with comments at Talk:Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture#Metal Gear Solid 2. Any assistance in backing up our guidelines on non-notable games would be appreciated. - BillCJ 17:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harrier Jump Jet in popular culture

message: Yesterday, I reverted an edit that would force this box to be displayed collapsed by default, by a user concerned with its irrelevance to the airport articles that it appears in (whose point I concede!). While I think that this bloated list needs some severe pruning back, I find it very useful in articles about aircraft, and (a) don't want to have to expand it to use it and (b) want readers to know it's there. Please share your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation --Rlandmann 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Aviation lists]] 

message: Please check his recent article moves, it does not seem they are in compliance with WP:Air naming standards. Special:Contributions/Davegnz --Denniss 07:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not surprising, but also not surprising he claims they are in line with WP:AIR guidelines. Can we block users for the inability to actually understand the policies and guidelines as they are written? I don't know of one he's gotten right yet. - BillCJ 07:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I suspect you could get him a slap across the wrists for abusing the "Move" function for controversial, undiscussed moves. Emoscopes Talk 07:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Davegnz]] 

message: Now that the B-29 list is settled, I'd like to address this one. This is a bit different of a situation, in that it's not as significantly historic of an aircraft, only 7 on the list are in museums, and the rest are actively working, many rebuilt as S-64s. To me, only the 7 preserved examples have any sort of notability that can be assigned to them. Given that there's only 7, I'd suggest moving them back to the main article, and redirecting the list back to the main as well. Thoughts? AKRadecki 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. I would also recommend placing the list of civilan rebuilds on the S-64 talk page for archiving purposes. - BillCJ 18:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion - since the S-64 are rebuilt CH-54 recommend that both articles be mergedDavegnz 13:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are all still flyable and not in museusm, how are the notable?  I was willing to compormise due to the notability of the B-29.  Are the numerous till flyable non displayed models encylopedia worthy?  Remeber, notability needs to be established for each item on the list, other than the fact that it is an instance of a notable helicopter. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of surviving CH-54 Tarhes]]

message: I'm available to assist with this project.  Please give me an assignment.  --Kevin Murray 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevin, how do you feel about writing about UAV's? There's a huge project languishing, and a bunch of articles that need to be formatted or created. If interested, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction. AKRadecki 22:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Here to help