Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 17

message: The Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format page is up for deletion. I didn't even realize it existed. I thinks it's something that can be moved to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force's space, and perhaps expanded upon to be more general. - BillCJ 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal deletion notice

message: Lately, a question has arisen as to the information presented in the F-86 Sabre specifications table wherein the F-series is identified but due to the wide range of performance between the block numbers from F-86F-1-NA to F-86F-40-NA, the actual sub-type is not given. Is there a standard for choosing the "representative" aircraft variant that is chosen for the specifications table? by most produced? by most capable/best performing or definitive variant for modifications? It looks like the fastest and most potent of the F-86F series is actually the block 30-NA which topped out at 695 mph at sea level and while the F-86F-40-NA had a slightly higher ceiling and improved maneuverability due to an enlarged wing, the penalty paid for tighter turns at high altitude was seen in lower performance at both higher and lower ends of the envelope where is reached 678 mph at sea level. Which one of these would you choose, given that Ray Wagner's book gives full detail specifications for all F-86F block series? FWIW Bzuk 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not use both but identify the Sub type involved (or Block type) - I am sure the P-51A/A-36 Apachee was slower then say the P-51H I am also sure the XP-51J was lighter then the P-51H (btw the XP-51J was a lightweight experiment)
Davegnz (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[F-86 Sabre]] specifications

message: Can we have a discussion about the merits of including videos in articles? As an example, look at Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. The size of the video previews really overpowers the article. It seems to me that a link to the Commons listings would be sufficient. Comments? (Oh, and BTW, the media doesn't work in Netscape browsers...should this be a consideration, too?)AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen those large boxes on several aircraft articles lately, tho can't remeber which ones right off. I think the straight links are the best, with Commons as a second option. I'm not a fan of galleries, but can live with that if the consensus is for them. - BillCJ 19:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For two examples, Amelia Earhart had a discreet and well-placed video that is now no longer in the article whereas the H-4 Hercules has a much more prominent video section that like Akradecki has described, it is an example of a video that does detract from the overall graphic appearance of the article. Like BillCJ, I would have no objection to their use if there could be some means of limiting the overall size of the video "window." FWIW Bzuk 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with User:Akradecki - the video previews overpower the article. I would suggest that the videos should be changed to a link and the previews removed. MilborneOne 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the subject article, I've now combined everything into one gallery, and it looks more appropriate to me. Comments? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * Super!  That worked well.  I didn't think about images mixing in when I mentioned a gallery, but that works fine. -Fnlayson 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that some of these images still are in place, how do you reduce the size of the image? FWI Bzuk 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media content?

message: Just found this article, US Aircraft A-67 Dragon. Is't not bad, and seems to cite some outside sources. Definitely needs wikifying tho, if it's keepable. - BillCJ 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: There is now a new page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance, that lists backlogged areas needing work, articles not covered under the assessment, etc. It is automatically updated by a bot daily. If your looking for something to do, check it out. If there is anything that you would like to see covered, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Maintenance 

message: I just stumbled on the new Comparison between Rolls-Royce Trent 900 and Engine Alliance GP7000 article. Do we really need an article on this? Most of the info should be merged into the A380 page, or the separate engine articles. Another alternative, considering how large the A380 page already is, would be to split off the whole engine section to a new page, possibly by moving and expanding this comparison page. Any thoughts? - BillCJ 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this is already in the two engine articles - I don't see this page as being needed. Nigel Ish 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we discuss it here? - S. Solberg J. 16:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New comparison article

message: I think that these two articles Lady Southern Cross and Lockheed Altair should be merged. It looks like I could do it but wanted to check first before upsetting anyone, any thoughts? Cheers. Nimbus227 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lady Southern Cross/Lockheed Altair merge

message: The note in the usage section here Template:Infobox Aircraft says to only list Primary user in cases where there are more than 3 More users (4 total users).  That's not what's generally done in WP:Air articles.  More like the top 4 users based on quantity (or other criteria maybe) are listed.  I think the note should be removed or reworded to say top 3 more users.  Suggestions? Opinions? -Fnlayson 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft Infobox note 

message: Greg Goebel, the editor of Air Vectors posted a notice on the Antonov An-2 talk page that an outfit named Wingweb.co.uk that is posting aviation articles which “are largely or entirely downloads of Air Vectors articles -- advertized as "original content & images" though they also lifted many of my photos and artwork.”  It would be courteous to check any citations to Wingweb (including external links) that we come across and if they are copies of his work, then change the citation appropriately. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the external links should be gone and btw a quick google search on each on them clearly showed they were copy and paste from the Air vectors site. --McSly 18:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check Wingweb citations for Air Vectors content 

message: Does anyone know what this aircraft is?  A lookup of the tail number says it's a Bombardier CL-600-2C10, but it sure doesn't look like any of the aircraft in that article. --Carnildo 06:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Bombardier CRJ. FWIW Bzuk 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Listed as a Bombardier CRJ700 on Planespotters.net. -Fnlayson 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Bombardier CL-600-2C10 is the official designation, it the same as the Regional Jet 700, 701 and 702 which are just marketing names (FAA Type Certificate). MilborneOne 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. --Carnildo 19:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unidentified Flying Object 

message: {Deindent) First, TabooTikiGod, you really should have gone and brought this up for discussion first. Major actions like this, when done unilaterally, are both disruptive and plain rude. Common sense can prevail here. Yes, there might be images that are questionable, but with a little effort, they can be weeded out. To blanketly tag all as such, especially when some images are necessarily PD because of where they were shot from, is unnecessary. Let's try to approach this with a little common sense, shall we? I'll start looking through these and start trying to sort it out. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia policy, these images meet the criteria for speedy deletion, I do not make up the rules for this criteria--Wikipedia does.  Yes, these images are indeed in question, primarily the source which is for all intent and purposes--uncited and therefore not public domain.  The webmaster on WWII in Color even has a disclaimer under the FAQ section.  I suggest you learn how to communicate with other users on Wikipedia without resorting to making claims that I do not have any common sense.  See WP:CIVIL -TabooTikiGod 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss first 

message: :I didn't say you didn't have common sense, but I don't think you were exercising it. And before you go lecturing someone on not knowing how to communicate, consider that you could have made this whole process a lot easier for everyone by communicating first that there was a concern. Take for instance, the air-to-air shots in a war...had to have come from another Air Corps plane, so they were taken by somone during their duties, and therefore common sense says that there shouldn't be a problem with these.
*:Image:P-51D Tika IV 361st fg.jpg: This was clearly taken from another Army air corps plane...and is obviously PD. 
**::I found a couple of other instances of this photo online including page 145 of the book Best of the National Air and Space Museum by F. Robert Van Der Linden () and as part of the online gallery at littlefriends.co.uk where it is credited to Al Richards, the pictured pilot's brother. I reassigned its license to PD-USGov. -- Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Learn to be more civil, it is implied, this is confirmed by your statement above.  Again, I will refer you to WP:IUP and the FAQ website on WWII in Color, the copyright status of those images which you cited above have an unknown status, even with this knowledge that the source page states that the copyright status is unknown, you reverted the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P-51D_Tika_IV_361st_fg.jpg twice as indicated on the image history page. -TabooTikiGod 01:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This artificially created crisis regarding images is easily solved for nearly every WW2 photo of US aircraft. By far the majority were snapped by US servicemen in the course of their duties. No more quoting of ww2incolor's FAQ is required--it's rendered moot by WP's US Govt image license. Binksternet 01:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Tiki, I have reverted, because of my notations above. And I will be reverting others. I have also asked another admin to comment as well. If you want folks to be civil to you, you could certainly start out by acting civil yourself, which includes discussing things before making major changes. Tagging the core library of images that are clearly taken by U.S. Servicemen, in fact could not have been taken by anyone else, was not cool. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am being civil, I am not the one who is implying to another user that he/she does not have any common sense.  Furthermore, I will re-instate that these images are in clear violation of copyright status and meet the criteria for speedy deletion.  I have also taken it upon myself to contact Wikipedia via email and other administrators to your actions. -TabooTikiGod 01:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are well entitled to. However, they are not in clear violation of copyright, as most of these, as I've noted above, are clearly in Public Domain. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Between reading the disclaimer on the FAQ website, Wiki policy WP:IUP and criteria for speedy deletion, the language is clear cut and it is not public domain.  I will be contacting the Designated agent responsible for claiming U.S. copyright infringement and filing a formal online copyright infringement liability limitation act in reference to your actions. -TabooTikiGod 02:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image analysis 

message: :::::I'm curious as to the reason why you are working to have all the ww2incolor.com photos removed from Wikipedia. Are you financially linked that website? The unfortunate truth is that Wikipedia is free to publish any photographs that were snapped by U.S. servicemen no matter where the images came from, who is storing them on their webserver or who scanned and uploaded them. Yes, I've taken a deep look at WP:IUP and it clearly doesn't contain any clauses or sections that overrule PD-USGov. Binksternet 08:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refuse to fuel your infantile behavior and remarks, I understand the policy regarding Wiki's stand on Copyright policy.  Furthermore, I will add that you are a very uncivil individual, see WP:CIVIL. -TabooTikiGod 08:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  allegation of conflict of interest 

message: Oh, where to start. I think we have a fair number of people who may not be using the best approach here. A few points:
* Discussion to start things off is appropriate. The approach taken by TTG to start this process was not very collegial. TTG also does not conform to our formatting norms which makes matters harder (giving image names without linking them is inconsiderate of others time who then have to cut and paste, and that's just one example of many I could cite)
* In general if something doesn't have a clear license tag, it's eligible for deletion, as a violation of WMF policy, that's true here on en:wp and on commons as well as everywhere else.
* The site does not give clear provenance for the images.
* Common sense tells us that some of the images HAVE to be taken by someone who was in a military aircraft at the time. (air to air photos) but NOT that they were in the US military. Personnel of other countries were seconded here and may just conceivably have taken the photo.  (conceivably... not likely, but conceivably) Reporters or photographers invited up on a lark might have been on board a craft, and may just conceivably have taken the photo.  (conceivably... not likely, but conceivably)
* To be validly licensed as PD-usGov, each image would need either a source that reasonably and reliably claims US government ownership, that we can point to (it has to be credible so we have the defense that a reasonable person would have believed it to be true), or needs to have a very solid chain of logic about why it HAS to have been taken by a US government employee. If someone not from the US goverment could *conceivably* taken the picture that's not enough...
* Images that are kept on commons have to have a valid free license of some sort.
* Images that are kept on en:wp have to either have a valid free license, or a detailed fair use rationale.
* Reverting tags is edit warring and is not to be encouraged
* Casting aspersions on others is not appropriate. Many editors here have been throwing charges at other editors right and left. That needs to stop.
* Moving images from en: to commons (as I understand happened for some of these) without very solid licenses may have been wasting effort for many people. It should be discouraged if the licensing is at all unclear.
* It may be appropriate to move some of these images back here. They clearly help the articles they are in and it would be a shame to lose them completely.
* Someone doing research to try to find other sources would really be helpful. If they can be found in, for example, the USAF archive, that sorts that.
* Some of these images, in my view, are not eligible to be on commons without further work. For some of them unfortunately, it may not be possible to construct airtight rationales for them with just what we know now.
The above is all my opinion as an admin here and at commons. I am not the biggest license expert there so I may be wrong but I think I'm fairly close. 
The level of incivility here is not acceptable. This conversation is way too long and there are some editors who are acting in ways that are starting to shade into borderline disruptiveness. The conversation needs to move to discussion of the images and issues in a collegial way. I could name names but I won't, at this time. I will watch this and if I see things not moving in the right direction quickly, though, I may well be forced to act. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lar, that is exactly the kind of tone that should have been established from the outset: collegial, collaborative and respectful. Let's remember why we all do this, it's a global enterprise with "virtual" strangers coming together. Let's all treat each other the way we would if a stranger comes to our doors – we welcome them (not sure about those green men with big foreheads carrying death ray guns, however...) {:¬∆ Bzuk 14:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clear that you, Lar, are not the "law of the land" and the repercussions of the use of images that are not copyrighted violate U.S. and international law.   This is something that even the "community" has to abide by. -TabooTikiGod 16:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're accusations of violating the law are a bit over the top. Please quote the specific provision of the CFR that is being violated here. I've actually read and studied U.S. copyright law when I worked for a publishing company, and am familiar with the code. So if you're going to make legal threats, please at least have the courtesy of quoting the section that is being violated. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to reiterate the main contention that Lar has proposed, that being, there needs to be a sense of proportion and decorum in our interactions. Everyone involved in this contentious issue has an obligation to respect each other as members of a global "community" of researchers and scholars. (BTW, my own pithy advice here is when the discourse becomes overwrought and someone offers you a hand "in peace and friendship," don't swat it away. FWIW, that is my Platitudes 101 advice for the day.) -- Bzuk (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  everyone needs to throttle back here 

message: Which one of the two got deleted because of copyright concerns from Illinois Institute of Technology? (Ju-88 index at IIT.) The first image (three bombers flying in formation, taken from another aircraft also in formation but slightly below 10-11 o'clock of the closest Ju-88) is available in larger size here, on btinternet.com, a site administered by Jeremy Lee. Lee's version doesn't have any attribution. The second IIT photo of a Ju-88 underbelly as it flys overhead is one I can't find elsewhere. -- Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The belly shot is the one I deleted. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ju-88 photo deleted

message: Would someone from here please have a look at these. —Moondyne 17:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the only airlines I know that are based in China: Air China · China Southern Airlines · China Eastern Airlines · Hainan Airlines · Shanghai Airlines · Shenzhen Airlines · Xiamen Airlines · Sichuan Airlines · Shandong Airlines · Cathay Pacific (Dragonair) · Air Macau. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both received Google hits, but it would be better if someone with a knowledge of Chinese tried to search for the [Chinese language] terms. --MoRsE (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: All the google hits for Ming Airlines look like typos for MNG Airlines of Turkey. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The two google hits for Qing Airlines only found the term inside Chong Qing Airlines Co. Ltd.. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ming Airlines]] and [[Qing Airlines]]

message: Now that Stefano has departed with a thunderous parting shot, there are a few loose ends that need cleaning up. The F-4 Operators article is shaping up nicely now that it's been trimmed. The above issue has been resolved. The other one that I'm aware of is Ki-61 Hien Comparison. It was split off the parent article because Stefano was adding so much material on the comparison issue that it was overwhelming the rest of the article. However, the way he did the sources, none of the statements can be linked to a source, and this was a classic example of Stefano's brand of OR...looking up raw data on the aircraft, then using the article to analyze and draw conclusions about the aircraft and which model was better. We really shouldn't be in the business of deciding which aircraft was "better" or "best". If someone else says that in a reliable source, that's different, but this here is just OR. I'm considering AfDing it, but wanted to get other's input first. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Thundering parting shot" indeed! Can we be sure the ARBCOM has seen it? It'll probably lay to rest the chances of the 4-6 month appeal. Concur with the Ki-61 Hien Comparison AFD. Perhaps we can "mine" the bibliography for some sources that aren't in the compaired aircraft articles, but I don't think anything else is useful there. - BillCJ (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who did a lot of clean-up work on the Ki-61 Hien article, I have to say I agree with BillCJ. Other than mining a few exceptional sources, I'd say we could AfD the comparison article and remove the rump section from the main article. I never liked the comparison section because it calls for us to make judgments. Furthermore, the original material he dumped read like it was someone's assessment and I still remain uncomfortable with its provenance.  Askari Mark (Talk) 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just had a look at the F-14 Tomcat, was that all down to SM? I quite like technical details but it is far too much and duplicated in many places. I also doubt that the controls are mechanical (should be some hydraulics somewhere) and that the wing skins are titanium, a very difficult material to work with. There is POV in there as well, I could have a go at it. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The Tech. Descrip. section was added in early Sept.  It's been cleaned up and cut down a bit since then.  Section has a lot detail on early avionics that were later upgraded/changed.  I have some sources to go by on  that now and can help. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've just been reading the talk page and can see the work that has gone in to fixing things, also just spotted History of the F-14 Tomcat that looks like half an article with its own share of POV. Nimbus227 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Loose ends

message: I just thought I'd let you guys know that it seems Tiki got permabanned for legal threats. You probably won't be hearing any more out of him anytime soon. Jtrainor (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, he sowed and salted before he left and many of the contentious images are now deleted. Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Images are never permanently gone, and if support can be found, they can be brought back. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image situation resolved

message: Because a suspicious IP editor keeps deleting an entire section on the article Fourth generation jet fighter, that article has now been S-protected, but a discussion and consensus needs to be acheived about the subject section, so all interested editors are asked to go to Talk:Fourth generation jet fighter, consider the material, consider the refs, and give their input. Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion needed

message: There is a discussion at Template talk:Spaceport#Shorter names that might be of interest to some editors here. Details there. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template discussion

message: The following images have been challenged: 
:Image:Snowbirds logo.jpg, :Image:Phoenix (static).jpg, :Image:Phoenix P-1 (flying).jpg and :Image:Phoenix (O-47A).jpg are all challenged under fair use. What does it take to have them qualify since three of them are screen shots and the other is an organization's logo. FWIW, this bot is notorious for removing images on the flimsiest of reasoning. Can someone help me save these images? Bzuk (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What the beeswax is going on with the [[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]]?

message: I am having difficulty getting a new editor, User:Areskaratepe, to conform to MOS and project guidelines on articles about Iranian aircraft. In addition to his uploading of unsourced pics ( a separate issue), his is currently adding a very LONG list of iranian aircraft and related links to the "See also" sections of several articles. I'm at my limit on reasonable reversions, and could use someone else, preferably a non-native-English speaking editor, to help guide him and explain our policies and guidelines. He has added some good, sourced info to the Iranian aircraft articles, and I don't want to run him off simply because of my "brusque edit style". :) These are his contributions. Thanks for any assitance any editor can provide. - BillCJ (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with a new editor

message: Something seems to have gone wrong with the aircraft scpefication template on some of the articles where it is used - anyone know what's happening and how to fix it?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft Specification template 

message: The C-5 Galaxy is under A-class review on Military History here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/C-5 Galaxy. Please add comments and help improve the article if you can. It probably won't make it, but it can be improved a fair bit based on review comments. -Fnlayson 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-5 article under review 

message: Earlier I had noticed the new user Mooner72 adding spam links on aircraft articles to CombatAircraft.com.  I left a message regarding this and inviting the newbie to consider joining WP:AIR, but have received no response.  Today I noticed that Mooner72 has resumed adding such links.  I’m going on a week-long wikibreak soon, so I’d like to ask other project members to follow up.  I have not yet begun removing links.  Have a great Thanksgiving and a safe one!  Askari Mark (Talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user appears to be a sockpuppet of TougHHead. Be wary. Bzuk (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor keeps adding and re-adding the links. At this point it's clearly being spammed. I'm going to remove all of the links and if they keep coming back I'll ask for the site to be bloacklisted.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CombatAircraft.com spam 

message: Hey all - just letting you know I'm back from wiki-holidays and that I've finally uploaded the long-promised documentation for the aerospecs template. Hopefully those of you who know why I've been away will forgive the delay ;)
Very sorry to have missed the recent bunfight - what a doozy! Cheers --Rlandmann 03:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back. Oh, which bunfight do you mean? I think their were several! - BillCJ 04:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, that was a doozy all right! Being in the middle of that one wasn't fun! But atleast it's over! - BillCJ 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back on deck 

message: I have a small project that I could use some help on: I'd like to tak two different aircraft, and produce a combined image for satirical purposes, but I'm unable do anything beyond scanning (poor) hand drawings. Is there anyone with some talent and a little free time that might be interested in helping out? I can give details on my idea by email, as I'm not ready to reveal it publically as yet. - BillCJ 03:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo editing/CGI work

message: I'm thinking of taking this essay to AfD. Does anyone have any objections? --Rlandmann (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. It was a split off of material Stefano added to the Ki-61 page. He's gone now, so we don't need to pussy-foot with it anymore. - BillCJ (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I don't think we would lose anything useful. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The impressive reference list is the same as in the main article - and virtually nothing is cited - there is very little that isn't OR to merge.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Yea, and the fly off info is covered better in the Ki-61 article too.  AfD time for comparison article or turn it into a redirect. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: **Given that there are only two links to the page, one here, and one in Kawasaki Ki-61, deletion shouldn't be a problem, as there's nothing else to redirect from. Also, OR and no sources is a key reason the ARBCOM whent the way it did. Hopefully this is the last such article still around, but we might ought to check anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ki-61 Hien Comparison]] 

message: I believe that the F-104 article now meets the 'good article' criteria now after much work by many. It is at least as good as the F-105 article if not better. Any thoughts? Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am struggling with this guys, I have nominated it (under engineering-air transport but I notice the F-105 was done under history!?) and have added the nomination template to the talk page but it does not appear to be working. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * Don't know either.  But try asking about the GA nomination on WP:Aviation assessment and/or WP:MilHist assessment pages or talk pages. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed :) --Rlandmann (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marvellous! That's two things you've fixed tonight. Will be interesting to see how this goes, fingers crossed. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor has failed the GA nomination with what I believe are incorrect conceptions and not an awful lot of thought given to the review. Comments have been left on the Talk:F-104 Starfighter page, any thoughts from you guys? Nimbus227 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lockheed F-104]] Good article nomination?

message: Dear Wikimedians,
This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).
The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests
If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.
The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.
* General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
* Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations
thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[m:GIP|Greenspun illustration project]]: requests now open 

message: Is Basic T an article that contributes to our coverage of aviation?  Creator says it now has context and sources, can someone who knows what this is verify? Thanks Mbisanz (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007
(UTC)
:Yes, although this article is not going to be very long. I hold a JAR (European) pilot's license and the term is familiar. What has been written is correct. I have found a reference to it in one of my old training books, I will add that.
A diagram would be nice also or a photo of an instrument panel (specifically these instruments). Nimbus227 (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a further look this is covered adequately and with photos in Flight instruments and is also a redirect from Basic-T. A case for deletion and another redirect? Nimbus227 (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll support that Mbisanz (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs someone who knows the process to sort it out, I'm still new here myself! Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! --Rlandmann (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Basic T]] 

message: This user seems quite active in our sector but his edits seem somewhat strange. Either a Troll or just pure vandalism. Please triple-check those edits if you stumble onto them. --Denniss (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:Wujuanyu]] 

message: ;Article being considered for Featured Article but conflicting instructions between Manual of Style and Wikiproject
The Boeing 747 article is being considered for FA.  However, an editor disputes awarding it FA and cites the "Related content" appendix at the end saying that it is not allowed per Manual of Style.  That appendix is common to most or all aircraft article.  I am seeking consensus on whether we should change WikiProject guidelines or allow the appendix as a MOS exception.  I seek guidance, not troublemaking.
Since there is a lot of WP:aviation and WP:aircraft, you may wish to follow the discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Manual_of_Style_dispute
Thank you for your consideration and advice. Archtransit (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WPAIR already has an MOS for its articles, and I don't see any movement to change it from what we already have. You need to take this up at Wiki MOS itself, as to whether or not projects should continue to be allowed to vary from the Wiki MOS, as they have up until now. Also, it would be nice if you could keep the discussion in one place, rather than asking differnt questions on several, just place a link. - BillCJ (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The question proceeds from a false assumption. It's true that WP:AIR's standard page layout differs trivially from (some? most?) other pages in Wikipedia in the way that it orders appendix sections. However, the MoS specifically states that the order of these sections is irrelevant. It is not therefore an "exception" to the MoS, since the MoS already allows it. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'd like to propose restoring the Boeing 787 "Related content" section to conform to WP:AIR/PC guidelines. It is apparent at this point that User:O has not attempted to build a consensus for requiring WP:AIR to conform to Wiki-MOS at the WIki-wide level. Instead, he continues his campaign on an article-by-article basis. Per (admin) Rlandmann's advice on the 747 FA page, O needs to go th the WIki-MOS pages to try to build a consensus first. As such, I don't think we need to have the 787 page out of order any longer. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support restoring the article as per this project's guidelines: but that should really be discussed on the article talk page. OTOH, are you aware of any other pages that User:O has "crusaded" on? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other articles? Not right off, no, but there might be some others. I'm just tying to do some consensus-building here before bringing it up on the 787 page itself. - BillCJ (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Hum, I had thought of the 787 changes as a test or example.  In any event, it shouldn't stay different forever.. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's got nothing to do with WP:Aviation. The page content guidelines in question are maintained and administered by WP:Aircraft. It would make more sense to move those comments here. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From whats been said on the various talk pages and in the FA review for the F-4 Phantoom, a group of editors who appear to be uninterested in the content of articles but are dedicated to defend there idea of the MOS - even when it isn't what the MOS actually says, have declared war on WP:Aircraft.  Forget any ideas of getting any article through FA (or even GA) until this is resolved.  There seems little point in wasting effort  trying to improve the articles are arguing the point because minds appear to be closed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that may overstate the case somewhat, but the combatative and wikilawyering attitudes that prevail in these discussions (don't they just love the word "breach"?) are one of the main reasons I refuse to participate in the FA/GA/quality scale process. So how about we concentrate on the content of our articles, and leave that arena to those who enjoy bloodsports. Wikipedia, via WikiProject:Aircraft, will very soon become the most comprehensive encyclopedia of aircraft ever published in English, and probably in any other language. That's something to be very excited about and proud of! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the ordering of the bottom sections is now being discussed  at WP:MOS.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA MOS question

message: Just noticed the following image :Image:TR 000978 kittyhawk.jpg of a Kitthawk in 1943, used on Curtiss P-40 and No. 112 Squadron RAF. It is from the online Imperial War Museum Collection  and has been categorised as PD-British Government on the grounds that it was taken in 1943. The IWM website specifically says that the images are Crown Copyright 2003 and has restrictions on use (which do not include Wikipedia). I understand that was why the wealth of aircraft images in the IWM collection have not been used (as it is a recent digitisation project). Can one of the image experts tell me what it the position please. MilborneOne (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it depends on where the photo originally came from - some will have been taken by the UK government - and therefore be crown copyright expired - some will be donated or purchased and therefore not be Crown Copyright expired - so I don't think that it is safe to claim IWM images as CC expired without further back-up (and I also think that IWM is playing fast and loose with copyright laws and claiming copyright for items which rightfully have expired). Nigel Ish (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - it's not uncommon for libraries, archives, and other bodies to claim copyright where none exists. However, the onus is on us to prove that copyright has expired if we want to use it. The only effective way we can do this is to find a copy of the same photo in print where its copyright is attributed to the Crown. You should probably contact the original uploader and ask why they think that this photo belonged to the Crown. If they've got no evidence, then it needs to be deleted. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Brought it up on 112 Squadron talk page and the uploader had the following comment - The original photo wasn't taken in 2003 and the Wikipedia image is significantly different from the image on the negative — by me using picture editing software — so I don't believe it is copyrighted under UK law. You will find that many museums/libraries/galleries try this stunt of claiming copyright, when they don't have a leg to stand on, legally speaking. I have asked User:Grant65 to prove it not copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial War Museum Images

message: A user has been adding preserved cockpit sections to various British aircraft articles in the survivors section. I have been removing them as non-notable, the user has reverted this on the Vickers Valiant article. Some older aircraft types have a lot of cockpit sections (and other big bits) extant but if the individual aircraft is not notable then I understand that it should not be included. Just asking for opinions that my interpretation is along project guidelines. Thank You. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK there are no specific guidelines here, but I think that your stance makes good sense. Additionally, I think that it would probably be worth noting cockpit sections and other significant portions of airframes if no complete example has survived. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comment - agree with no complete survivor point. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two points here - There is a lot of museums without a lot of space that have just a nose section on display - I can think of 4 B-24's right off the top of my head (3 B-24D's and one B-24J) that are viewable to the general public.  Same with other historic aircraft.  The second point being it is just not the general public that might use wikipedia - there are true aviation historians that might have a need to see a partial airframe / or sectionalized airframe - the airforce museum has a deskinned F-86, SAC Museum has a cutaway B-25, the Imperial War Museum in london had a walk-thru cockpit section of a Halifax & Lancaster - I can think of numerous examples.  My critea for being included in the seperate survivors series  has been 1) extent of airframe remaining (75-80 intact structure) 2) Is it recoverable/restorable (ie Glacier Girl) 3) Is it in a museum / on display / viewable to the public 4) airworthy  5) historic.  Big question is what is historic / restorable etc...  Several years ago saw a cargo container from Russia opened and what was removed was a pile of rusty tubing and wing sections - should this have been included in a survivors section - this pile of "junk" turned out to be the basis for the complete restoration to airworthyness of two Hawker Hurricanes.  Been sseing a lot of "junk" being recovered off the Normandy coast (a ME-109E & a historic P-51) and restored - so it is a tough choice (who would have thought a P-61A could be restored?  Davegnz (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cockpit sections

message: Another German translation/expansion for you guys to look at, the Pützer Elster. I have another missing aircraft in the pipeline (it's Christmas quiz time, can you guess what it will be?!!)
Will keep plodding through them. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pützer Elster]]

message: G-APSA is up for deletion. Folks here may want to weigh in. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD heads-up 

message: User:Trulystand700 has created two new articles about supposedly-current SST program(me)s. The first, High Speed Civil Transport, has ONE source, a NASA page, which CLEARLY states the program was stopped in 1999, yet the article claims it was restarted later and is ongoing. The second, Avion de Transport Supersonique Futur, has absolutely no sources whatsoever, and is a possible hoax, or at the very least a pipe dream. Comments and further directions? - BillCJ (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Avion de Transport Supersonique Futur could have been a real project ten to twenty-years ago, the use of Aerospatiale and British Aerospace in the future tense when the companies have both moved on since. I would think it could be just a reference and a few lines in Supersonic transport - although that is full of similar statements from old programs reading as if they are still current. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Avion de Transport Supersonique Futur' was a project during the 80s and 90s to develop a successor to Concorde by the French and the British. I remember seeing articles on it but the project didn't go very far and in any event I haven't heard anything about it in at least 10 years. This may warrant an article. I'll try to dig up some additional information, but the sources will probably be in French only. --McSly (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick Google search reveals that ATSF was real enough and notable enough. Given that neither Aérospatiale nor British Aerospace have existed under those names for many years, I doubt that anything is "being designed by" those entities in 2007. Like the HSCT, this part of the story could be an honest mistake, a hoax, or wishful thinking by the contributor, but the article itself should stay. We've actually had the ATSF mentioned on the disambiguation page for many years! :) (ATSF) --Rlandmann (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He may have been taking his cue from old, undated articles thinking they were recent. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New SST articles

message: There has been some discussion in the motorcycle project concerning fairings. 
*Fairing has become the disambiguation page. 
*Aircraft fairing has been created with the aircraft section from Fairing
*Bicycle fairing has been created by moving Full fairing
*Motorcycle fairing contains all motorcycle-related content.
You might see some activity while the editors update the links in the aircraft articles. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and most links from aircraft articles seem to be updated to direct to Aircraft fairing now. ww2censor (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fairing redirects to Fairing (disambiguation). That ought to be changed. While not the norm, a cut-and-paste move seems to be the only way to preserve the history of both pages. FWIW, I would have moved the Fairing page to one of the daughter pages, leaving the main name open for the DAB page to be moved there. Perhaps an admin can still do that by merging Fairing's history with a duagheter page. Or there may be a better way to do it. - BillCJ (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fairing]]

message: Per the discussion on the Project Motorcycling page, I tried to cleanup the mismash of fairing articles. I have renamed Fairing to Aircraft fairing and Full fairing to Bicycle fairing to make them parallel to Motorcycle fairing. I've updated the Fairing (disambiguation) page and all the aircraft and bicycle articles that linked to them to reflect this. I've also moved the launch vehicle related text from Aircraft fairing article to the existing Payload fairing article. Hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairing articles 

message: De Havilland Comet is experiencing a minor revert conflict over an odd sentence that one user insists on re-adding to the page, but will not discuss outside of edit summaries. See Talk:De Havilland Comet#Comet wings for details. Thanks for any assistance that can be rendered. And if my opinion is wrong on this, please point out why. - BillCJ (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comet revert war