Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 16

message: User:Jetwave Dave has created a new article at Heli-Jet. It currently has NO sources, and no support for the use of the term as described. I am added a  tag at this time, and we'll see how the page goes. The subject would probably be better covered on the VTOL page. - BillCJ 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pop-culture neologism, I think. Once various airline and charter companies are excluded from a Google search for the term, all that's left are references to the Thunderbirds TV series, and (what I think is the origin of this article), Battlefield 2142. --Rlandmann 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I recall, the term first popped up in the 1950s, but never caught on – chiefly because the implied technology never developed. I can't say I've ever heard of Heli-Jet or Helijet use recently as other than a brand name, per Rlandmann. If it had ever become a common-use term, it would have been difficult for those companies to have branded it, so I wouldn't even rate it a "neologism". Best thing to do is post him a query for a reliable source and invite him here – which I'll do. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked through my print references, including the "bible" of the subject, Ray Prouty's Helicopter Aerodynamics, and found absolutely no reference to the term, even in chapters that deal with the type of compound aircraft that you'd expect the term to refer to. If the emminent Prouty doesn't use the term, I doubt it's legit. I would suggest a redirect, rather than AfD, because someone might someday use it as a search term. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *OK, I made Heli-Jet redirect to VTOL.  Copied the main content to VTOL talk in case something is useful. -Fnlayson 17:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heli-Jet

message: Could everyone have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal, and make any comments there. This is an idea that the Military History project uses, and their production of high quality articles far exceeds ours. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination for improved productivity 

message: I came across this article earlier in May and noted that someone had "dumped" an entire uncredited article into the main body of text. I placed a query into the discussion page but no one seemed to have noticed till today. I think the whole thing may belong to the author of the piece at least that is what is claimed by an anonymous user with the 58.160.112.238 IP address. What say you? Time to expunge the offending copyedit mess? IMHO Bzuk 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need help in [[UC-61 Forwarder]] article

message: When browsing I noticed that the Cruise speed was given only in Mach number on some articles, where as in other articles the Cruise speed was given in Mach number and mph/kph. This has created some discussion - I would like to get a consensus on which is the prefered format. I would argue that the Cruise Speed should only be given as Mach number.
My argument is twofold. Firstly most standard industry documentation gives Cruise Speeds in Mach number. Secondly there is no consitent way to convert Mach Number to a velocity. As I'm sure you are aware the speed of sound (Mach 1.0) depends on a number of factors (temperature, pressure altitude, air density etc..) For example (discounting air density/pressure altitude) at 0°C the speed of sound is about 740 mph (making Mach 0.85 equal to 630mph) where as a temperature of -50°C (not uncommon at FL400) the speed of sound is only 670 mph (making mach .85 = 570 mph) This gets further complicated when you consider pressure & density, When considering this with respect to an aircraft there are other things to consider, for example wind speed, this then brings the question do the speeds refer to Ground Speed, Airspeed (TAS or IAS). Hence the reason jet aircraft crusing speeds are normally given in Mach Number. The litereture that does give speeds in mph/kph is usually the Janet & John bit (i.e. for those who have no concept of the speed of sound).
Which is the prefered method of listing cruise speed? -- Rehnn83 Talk 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an encyclopedia, aren't the "Janet and John" type part of our readership? I honestly don't see the problem including knots, mph, and km/h in the airliner spec tables, as we already use them for the most part in the specs templates that are used in most non-airliner articles. Simply including the alternate figures is not "dumbing down" the presentation in anyway, nor would it be likely to offend a more knowledgeable reader, unless of course the conversions are inaccurate! - BillCJ 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *One question: Aren't most Mach number cruise speeds for atlitude anyway? And don't airliners cruising at say 12,999 ft go slower than they would at 40,000, meaning that the Mach number at that altitude is even lower? So since the Mach number were using is going to be for altitude anyway, what's the problem listing the actual speeds? - BillCJ 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with the concept of mach numbers only. First, as to the comment "most standard industry documentation gives Cruise Speeds in Mach number," maybe that's true in the AFM (though I bet VNE is given in knots, or at least there's a conversion chart - I'll have to dig into my DC-10 AFM - but in general literature, knots is included. For example, this Boeing page that's aimed at the general reader (which, BTW, doesn't even include the mach number), the exact target we should be aiming our articles at. We don't just write for the 10,000 hour ATP! Second, what's the point of being so limited? You talk about the difficulties of converting from mach to velocity, but that shouldn't be an issue, if you're using proper sources, which will provide such information. C'mon, folks, the whole point of doing this project is to provide valuable information in an encyclopedic format...and such speed information is just the kind of thing we're supposed to include. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems the manufacturers didn't provide Mach values on older planes, like 20+ yrs, e.g DC-10.  It's helpful to have the speeds listed for comparisons.  There's no problem for us to provide conversions and extra data. -Fnlayson 17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Consensous (spelling???) seems to be to include mph/kph then I can't disagree. My only argument would be to make sure the conversion from Mach number to velocity is done in a standard mannor (e.g. in a standard atmposhpere). -- Rehnn83 Talk 09:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruise Speed (Commercial Jets) 

message: There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Units on whether statute or nautical miles (mph v. kts, etc.) should be used as the standard Imperial units for aviation related pages. - BillCJ 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion I would use standard aviation units first and then SI units second. E.g. Plane X has a cruise ceiling of 40,000ft (12,000m) (I know Russia and soem parts of Chine use a metric levl system - but this is the exception rather than the norm). Or where there are three are more commoon measures in use (e.g. Speed kts/kph/mph) I would list the aviation standard first then the conversions (in paranthesis) e.g. Plane Y has a very low take-off speed 45 kts (83kph, 52mph). Just my two pence. -- Rehnn83 Talk 09:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, using a bit of OR as justification: I've worked on hundreds of aircraft over the years (and on every type out there except for blimps and hot air baloons), and every single one, no matter what nation of origin, had airspeed indicators in knots. Knots is the standard of aviation, thus should be the preferred usage here, with other units in parenthases, so that folks not familiar with kts can get a sense in their own frame of reference. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with knots is that Airspeed Indicators stayed with "miles per hour" until the 1960s.  Some aircraft (Grumman Traveller, for example) use "mph" until the very end of production in the late 1970's.  When listing specs for older aircraft, the AI will almost always be in "mph" Hoserjoe 07:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statute vs. nautical miles

message: There are currently two aircraft-related AfD nominations, in case anyone's interested in weighing in: N396JS and N135CR --Rlandmann 22:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: N202LF is a similar page that's not been nominated as yet. - BillCJ 22:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, in case anyone wants to put their endorsements in on that discussion. I've also left a note at the contributor's page, since he's a newbi, trying to explain why this all his happening.AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably another one: Eagle III --Denniss 23:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would respect the decision if someone sends this one to AfD, I do tend to disagree. While the individual helicopters aren't notable, the program could be considered so, and given the kind of news coverage medevac programs garner, references would probably be possible to come up with. FWIW, we have other precedent, ARCH Air Medical Service. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *This one might be salvageable if we can find third-party verifiable sources, and we could list the helicopters here, and include some of the legally-usable pics. Alan, you think it's salvagleable? (Written before Alan's comments were posted!) - BillCJ 18:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. The user has uploaded some good pics, but they aren't tagged properly. If he took them, or they are otherwise leagally usable, they need to be tagged. I don't know enough about uploading the pics to help a novice, but if someone could contact him and clarify the status of the pice, that would be good. - BillCJ 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Just out of interest I have just read 2006 Eagle III accident and cant find anything in it that makes it notable - aircraft goes up on a non-operational test flight - aircraft crashes ! Can anybody please explain why it is not an AfD candidate, or is somebody going to merge it into Eagle III, thanks. MilborneOne 11:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now a dozen references over a period of time, with multiple sources, including multiple bylines. Notability is not about some arbitrary standard of sensationalism, it's about whether there is sufficient source material to write a complete article. Besides that, the accident has several unique human-interest angles which make it an interesting story, beyond the mechanics of the accident sequence. As discussed on the AfD page, it is not a good merge candidate, because the accident details would overwhelm the Eagle III article and the result would not be balanced. Dhaluza 13:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have read the AfD (which was for the airframe not the accident!) had another look cant find anything notable about it - just another sad but fatal accident, which is well reported in the local press. If it was a commercial operator it would not meet any of the guidelines to notability. Dont agree that just because there is a lot of source material then there should be an article. You mention unique human-interest, which appears to be second-hand guess work that he missed some buildings on purpose - nice Journalism but as he crashed only 200yds from where he took-of I suspect he did not have many choices and had other things to worry about it. Sorry to say I am not convinced that this is notable outside of Green Bay. MilborneOne 13:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It clearly does meet WP:N, so regardless of what type of article it is, Notability is not an issue. Your arm chair analysis is only your somewhat informed opinion, and the article presents the more informed opinion of someone more qualified to render one. As for the human interest, you obviously missed: Air ambulance crashes at headquarters; rescue personnel accustomed to scooping up the broken bodies of strangers now must do the grim task on one of their own, vainly performing CPR in the ambulance on the way to the hospital with a full police escort typical of a police officer shot in the line of duty (and the pilot is honored after death in the same way). That's not something that happens every day. Dhaluza 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Still do not agree that it is notable, an opinion I am allowed to have, but as you are now starting to make personal remarks I will not persue the point at the moment. Everybody is equal on Wikipedia, nobody is more qualified than anybody else, please remember WP:AGF. Interesting to note that since my original comment the article has been edited 22 time and has been improved, with some points clarifed. MilborneOne 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: User:Java7837‎ has been unilaterally changing  tags to the  style in several WP:AIR project articles, and in others. A number of editors have tried to address this on his talk page, but he removed most of the comments, and appears to be continuing with his crusade. I don't know ifany formal actions have been taken as yet, but wanted to make the Project as a whole, and the resident admins in particular, aware of this. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reflist changes

message: With the US DOD's selection of the C-27J in the JCA contest on June 13, I have created the Alenia C-27J article. With the exception of the Lead paragraph and specs, most of the content is lifted whole from the Alenia G.222 page. Given the announcement, the page could draw some interest in the next few days. It could still use some clean-up, and the text could be rewritten. Please take a look, and feel free to pitch in. Thanks (and to Piotr, who has already helped!) - BillCJ 15:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alenia C-27J

message: We've got another editor on Chengdu J-7 who thinks he has to make the article conform to tthe WIki MOS. I could use some help on Talk:Chengdu J-7#Sections re-ordering. I've already reverted twice,and he shows no sign of relenting. Thanks. - BillCJ 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Style Manual conflicts

message: We have a single IP user (with multiple IPs who refuses to register) riding herd on the "Comparable aircraft field" in the Eurofighter Typhoon article. THis user refuses to accept that the Typhoon is comparable to the F-22, and keeps removing it every time iit is added. While I have not checked, he may be in violation of 3RR. Other editors and myself have tried to explain from the Page content guidelines that this field doesn't mean they are exactly equal in all areass, but he refuses to allow it. Any assistance, especially from an admin, would be appreciated. Thanks, - BillCJ 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I disagree myself with including the F-22. I think the key here, though, is to help encourage them to participate in the discussion with tags and such, like Fnlayson suggests, rather than shoot from the hip from the outside. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *A rather lengthy discussion has gone on for about a week and a half, with all sorts of tags being added. While I'm not personally a fan of the Typhoon, and think it's mostly euro-hype, it was designed in a similar period, and does fill similar roles. I think including the F-22 as a similar/comparable aircraft is inline with the purpose of the "similar aircraft" field. - BillCJ 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparable aircraft dispute

message: Velarus has recently been added, but it has no third-party verifiable sources. The company website seems to be soliciting investors, as the aircraft doesn't seem to be an actual design as yet. I have PRODed the article, but would welcome second opinions. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You might be looking for the AMD Alarus Hoserjoe 07:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article of questionable notability

message: Does anyone feel that the use of flags improves our list of aircraft engines?  To me, the added visual clutter is actually distracting, and I wonder if anyone else feels the same way? --Rlandmann 02:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: There is an interesting question on Talk:Lockheed Corporation#Lockheed Scandal regarding the Lockheed bribery scandal of the 1960s. Currently, there does not seem to be an article about this. Please comment on that talk page if interested. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1960s Lockheed scandal

message: This roadable aircraft design is now up for deletion. The article was apparently started by Robin Haynes, the machine's designer, in an apparent WP:COI, but it's now got external references. I'd definitely heard of this one before; if anyone can add anything to make the article more keepworthy ,  it'd be appreciated. --Rlandmann 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Haynes Aero Skyblazer]] 

message: Would it be possible to subst a hidden text note into articles? There are several versions of the following hidden disclaimer:
:Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content before adding any "Popular culture" items. Random cruft, including all Ace Combat, Battlefield, and Metal Gear Solid appearances and anime/fiction lookalike speculation will be removed.
It would be nice to have one primary version we could place into articles, though of course each disclaimer could be edited if certain other games or other cruft become a problem. - BillCJ 01:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the route, after the recent rounds of battling this stuff on the V-22 article, I whole heartedly agree. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alan, the text you added to the V-22 was good also, and we can add elements of what you wrote to the above text. - BillCJ 03:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alan's text: Please do not add the many minor appearances of the V-22 in various games. This section is only for major cultural appearancs where the aircraft plays a major part in the story line. Thank you. - BillCJ 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop culture disclaimer

message: (Copied from Talk:F-35 Lightning II)
With the image of poking a hornets' nest in mind, I still think there is an issue that should be mentioned.  WP:TRIV is a guideline which applies to every Wikipedia article, but WP:MILHIST#POP doesn't accurately reflect it, despite the citation: WP:TRIV is about how to handle lists of isolated facts (in a nutshell: integrate them within the context, if possible).  Cited facts are not meant to be removed, unless they stray from the article or there are too many isolated ones.  Somehow, WP:MILHIST#POP bends the inclusion-by-default guideline into a exclusion-by-default policy with some additional requirements (notable impact, prose discussion... etc.) and I am not sure how much authority such a WikiProject page possesses.  WP:AIR/PC bends the original meaning even further, again despite the citation: it now requires "especially notable" appearances.  Interestingly, WP:AIR/PC itself backs off through its claimer: "these are only suggestions...you should not feel obligated...".  If a consistent standard is desired here, this issue should be at least explained. EIFY 03:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop culture: standard consistency

message: Hi. With Regards to the timeline discussion at Talk:HAL Tejas#Timeline, I've created a demo project timeline table for the LCA project at User:Sniperz11/Sandbox 1. I'm adding it below. 
Light Combat Aircraft Timeline	Light Combat Aircraft Timeline	Light Combat Aircraft Timeline                                                                                                    	Light Combat Aircraft Timeline                                                    	Light Combat Aircraft Timeline	Light Combat Aircraft Timeline
Year                          	Date                          	Event                                                                                                                             	Remarks                                                                           	                              	
year                          	date                          	event                                                                                                                             	remarks                                                                           	                              	
1969                          	                              	Aeronautics Committee suggests a Fighter Aircraft Program                                                                         	Program under HAL                                                                 	                              	
1975                          	                              	Design studies completed, project shelved                                                                                         	Due to lack of proven engine                                                      	                              	
1982                          	date                          	event                                                                                                                             	remarks                                                                           	                              	
1983                          	                              	GoI sanctions LCA project through DRDO                                                                                            	Planned:  - 1st flight: 1990  - Production: 1994  - Induction: 1995	                              	
1984                          	                              	ADA set up                                                                                                                        	                                                                                  	                              	
1985                          	Oct                           	IAF ASR finalised                                                                                                                 	ASR Delayed                                                                       	                              	
1987                          	                              	Dassault chosen for Project Definition (PD) Phase                                                                                 	                                                                                  	                              	
1987                          	Oct                           	PD commences                                                                                                                      	                                                                                  	                              	
1988                          	Sep                           	PD completed                                                                                                                      	                                                                                  	                              	
1989                          	May                           	Review committee formed                                                                                                           	                                                                                  	                              	
1990                          	                              	LCA Design Finalised                                                                                                              	                                                                                  	                              	
1990                          	                              	FSED Phase I commences                                                                                                            	                                                                                  	                              	
1991                          	                              	Work on TD Aircraft begins. Fund Crunch slows work                                                                                	                                                                                  	                              	
1992                          	                              	CLAW Team set up                                                                                                                  	                                                                                  	                              	
1993                          	April                         	Full Funding Authorised                                                                                                           	                                                                                  	                              	
1993                          	June                          	Full scale work begins                                                                                                            	                                                                                  	                              	
1993                          	                              	BAe & Lockheed-Martin brought in to advise FCS development                                                                        	                                                                                  	                              	
1995                          	Nov 17                        	TD-1 rolled out                                                                                                                   	Aircraft Grounded                                                                 	                              	
1996                          	July                          	FCS tested on F-16 VISTA in USA                                                                                                   	                                                                                  	                              	
1998                          	May 11                        	Pokhran-II Nuclear test    - US announces Sanctions   - CLAW work in US ends,   - Material impounded	                                                                                  	                              	
2001                          	Jan 4                         	TD-1 First Flight                                                                                                                 	                                                                                  	                              	
2003                          	May 4                         	PM Vajpayee names LCA 'Tejas'                                                                                                     	link 1 link 2                                                                     	                              	
2003                          	Aug 1                         	TD-1 breaks Mach-1 speed                                                                                                          	                                                                                  	                              	
2004                          	Mar 31                        	TD phase ends. (FSED Phase II)? begins                                                                                            	                                                                                  	                              	
2005                          	Dec 1                         	PV-2 1st Flight                                                                                                                   	                                                                                  	                              	
2006                          	Dec 1                         	PV-3 1st Flight                                                                                                                   	                                                                                  	                              	
2007                          	Apr 25                        	1st Production Tejas, LSP-1 flies                                                                                                 	Reaches Mach 1.1                                                                  	                              	
Askari Mark had suggested that it be discussed here before adding to the page. Do you think it would be OK to add into the page? If so, are any changes needed? Does it need to be shortened? If so, how?
I have mostly used the information from the article page itself, which is quite detailed by itself. The reason I think this is needed is because the section on the page is quite detailed, and includes a lot of technical details along with the project history. 
Thanks & Cheers
Sniperz11 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh! - far to much non-notable information, lots of unexplained acronyms and abbreviations, I suspect you could remove 50% or more of the entries, most would be of little interest once the aircraft is in service. Might be better with a few lines of text. MilborneOne 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problems with the table itself, but agree that the level of detail is too fine - I would say unencyclopedic, in the same way that lists of every minor TV appearance of a film star are regarded as unencyclopedic. --Rlandmann 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Bump.... anyone, anyone? Any opinions on the above plz?? Sniperz11 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[HAL Tejas]] Timeline 

message: User:Anchor Link Bot (a bot of User:Android Mouse) has been adding hidden notices to articles saying "This section is linked from (article), such as here. Just curious as to if this is really necessary. I haven't seen it before, and it just seems like clutter to me. - BillCJ 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anchor link bot

message: A user has asked about the possibility of creating an articel on the  Lockheed 1960s bribery scandal. I am looking into doing that. If anyone is interested in participating, you can answer at Talk:Lockheed Corporation#Lockheed Scandal or my talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lockheed 1960s bribery scandal

message: Just discovered Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress serial numbers, look like a candidate for deletion, an attempt to list all the serial numbers of all the B-17s. This information is readily available on specialised websites and I would suggest Wikipedia is not the place for it. Any comments, should it be an AfD candidate ? MilborneOne 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree, such articles should be deleted. Wikipedia is not the place for entering all available info and for rewriting lists and tables from books. Piotr Mikołajski 11:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *On the other hand, the article is useful, at-hand information and does not reside in the main article. FWIW Bzuk 13:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're right but Wikipedia can't be replacement of all aviation related websites and paper articles. IMHO place for B-17 serials and other such detailed information is in magazine articles, books and on external websites. --Piotr Mikołajski 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with aviation websites, and books etc... is that the information on this wikipedia page is not found on other sites (especially the Foreign operators) - took four different searchs just to track down and pin down exactly which s s/n went with what aircraft for the IAF alone / same with Brazil AF.  Try finding one reference for the Naval B-17’s and what aircraft were assigned where – right now, this wikipedia article is the one source for this information.  
Davegnz 17:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *So merge the major, notable, prominent (however you want to describe it) ones to the main B-17 article. -Fnlayson 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Personally I don't see possibility to merge notable ones to main article because there is nothing notable in serial numbers. I think that some information can be moved to List of B-17 Flying Fortress operators article, especially those about foreign operators like Portugal, Brazil or Israel. --Piotr Mikołajski 15:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, I forgot how long the B-17 article is.  That sounds like the best plan. -Fnlayson 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to support Piotr Mikołajski last comments and suggestion. Lists of serial numbers are not really notable, I brought the matter up before somebody decides to list all 13,000 C-47s, 24,000 Spitfires, 10,000 B-25s etc. Davegnz point about finding reference for Naval B-17s as an example, there is no reason why the naval units should not be listed in List of B-17 Flying Fortress operators. If more details are required then if the aircraft are notable enough they should be mentioned under the unit/operators article, although I doubt just a list of serial numbers is notable in most cases. MilborneOne 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a serial number junky, but serial numbers are EXTREMELY useful to aviation historians.  There's all kinds of valuable uses for lists of numbers.  Since they don't require paper to print, and space is not an issue, why don't we just leave them alone.  Books of production lists (serial numbers) are expensive to buy and full of errors.  Wiki lists can be debugged and corrected with minimum hassle.  I vote to leave them alone Hoserjoe 08:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Going to pick on a couple of points
* 1 Never suggested doing all 13000 C-47's (my best guess each would need their own page)
* 2) When I started with the B-17 survivors list, had a lot of difficulties finding out where some of the survivors came from (accurate information) and the more I looked the more difficulties I found (as I mentioned the IAF and BAF are just a couple of examples)
* 3) hardly any B-17 s/n list give a corresponding c/n and except for what I put on the wikipedia article, I have yet to find an easy breakdown of s/n's to the corresponding F-9 / B-40 / B-17H's etc...  Davegnz 16:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - this is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, which is what we're supposed to be building here... --Rlandmann 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't get my hopes up like that! A 99% straight copy could be speedily deleted. Unfortunately, while this is based on Mr Baugher's work (and cites him), it isn't just a copy and must go through AfD to be removed. --Rlandmann 21:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not mine :)) big difference being my list has corresponding c/n's and is expanded to include PB-1's as well as foreign operators.Davegnz 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress serial numbers

message: The B-52 Stratofortress trivia page is up for AfD here. Please weigh in, whatever your view on the issue. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: B-52 Stratofortress trivia up for AfD

message: Is there anyone who would like to help with the writing of aviation articles? I have several sandboxes of articles I've created recently with text-dumps from several sources that need to be rewritten, but, for me, that is the most tedious part of creating an article. I now have 13 new articles that need text added, with several more to come. I keep finding new articles to create, and with watching my watchlist, I hardly have the energy to do the rewriting. While knowledge of aviation and aircraft would be helpful, I'm mainly in need of someone with decent-to-good writing skills, as I can handle the editing for factual accuracy. I know of many other articles that need to be expanded beyond the ones I'm working on (mostly experimental helicopters at this time), so if the work interests you, but you have other types of aircraft you'd rather work with, I'm sure we can find some of those too. This would be a good opportunity for some informal coaching on how to put together an aircraft article. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto Bzuk 17:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed your post on the 2nd, GL. Yes, go ahead and do whatever you can. Any help is appreciated. I've seen you've already addedn a good amout of info to the main articles, and it looks gret. Thank for the help, y'all. - BillCJ 00:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing help

message: I have put a temporary page to save the article Saab35 from a troll attack by Omar90. How can you help? This is a rabid troll, can he be blocked?. Bzuk 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been blocked by Rlandmann for now. Hopefully it won't continue after the block expires, but we'll keep watching. - BillCJ 20:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Immediate help needed on [[Saab 35 Draken]] article

message: I have created the new  template, which is designed to be "subst"ed into articles. Feel free to tweak it, but discuss major changes on the Template talk:NoMoreCruft page first. Thanks to all who contributed above. Hopefully this will help to standardize our anti-cruft notices. - BillCJ 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NoMoreCruft template

message: I've put together a draft notability guideline for aircraft here and would like to get feedback from project members before taking it out there to the more general community. Most of the wording is based heavily on the other specialised inclusion guidelines and is intended to reflect what our current practices here are. I'd very much appreciate any comments on the talk page (including any advice to the tune of "we don't need to do this yet" - I'm just floating it out there for comment at this stage) --Rlandmann 01:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft notability guideline for aircraft

message: Above, Dave mentioned using FAA and other agency type ceritifactes for SPecs info. I honestly didn't know these were publically available online. However, in all the specs I've seen on here, don't recall another user using a TC as a source. Is there a particular reason that TCs aren't used here, or are they, but I havn't seen them? - BillCJ 00:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason not to use them - I know I have from time to time. Their main limitation is the relatively few aircraft they're available for, and that the info contained in them is scanty indeed for many older types (very informative on control surface movements, while lacking overall dimensions of the aircraft, for example). FWIW, EASA's database is also publicly accessible here. --Rlandmann 00:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAA type certificates

message: Hello All.
A member Edwardlay wants to add the Boeing 787-10 under variants. My self and one other editor dont agree with this since this is not an official variant nor is it launched. One other editor agrees with Edward and would like to add this plane to the variants section. My argument is that if we add unlaunched planes to variants than this will disrupt almost all active Airbus and Boeing articles and maybe other manuafacturers as well. Currently all articles mention only existing models or confirmed upcomming models under variants and that is it. Please come to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boeing_787 for more information and voting. The outcome of this vote will allow for a standard format for all planes. A yes vote for variants may mean as an example adding A350R to A350 variants even though this is an unlaunched plane.--Bangabalunga 09:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeff, I've mostly seen the B7x7 format used in European aviation publications. If they want to print it that way, that's fine with me. However, it's quite strange when people try to tell Boeing what the correct designation of their aircraft is. That's a bit like me trying to telling you you spelled your own name wrong! "It's really Geoff, you know! Jeff is just the way dumb Americans spell it!" :) - BillCJ 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *While were correcting designations, don't forget about the Bell 206, 212, etc! It's really B206, B212 . . . - BillCJ 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I've seen B7X7 used in tables and graphs in NASA and FAA reports.  But that's mainly to save space.  Bell and other companies have similar designation schemes.  (You beat me to the Bell thing). -Fnlayson 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think the confusion is that Airbus and Boeing are different, The Airbus A320 is correct but Boeing B737 is not, bit like the BAC One-Eleven is the real name not the BAC 111. MilborneOne 12:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing 787 discussion 

message: History of the Armée de l'Air (colonial presence 1939-1962) in section 6 about Algeria may refer erroneously to the Martin B26 when the plane in use at that time by the Armée de l'Air was more likely the Douglas A26 (renamed B26 after WWII).  The picture shows a Martin plane in use by the Free French in WWII.  I’m not sure enough to make the correction, so I’m seeking advice.  --Kevin Murray 05:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: French Military Aviation published by Midland Counties Publications in Britain 1979 has a section on the campaigns in North Africa - As in Indochina, the B-26 Invader took-on much of the bombing.... I have corrected the article and removed the Maurader image, unless somebody else can prove otherwise! MilborneOne 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Free French AF used the B-26 Marauder, but the post-war FAF operated the B-26C Invader.  Although built as the A-26C, the variant with a glass nose, by the time deliveries to the FAF began in 1956, they had been redesignated B-26C, so that’s the designation which should be used in the article. I believe the French Invaders were only used in Indochina.  Askari Mark (Talk) 20:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to my last the full quote was As in Indochina, the B-26 Invader took-on much of the bombing and served with EB 1/91, ERP 1/32, GB 2/91 and EC2/6 at Bône and Oran-La-Sénia. if that helps placing the Invader in Algeria.MilborneOne 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, my beliefs have been expanded! ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic Warplane Question

message: Fellas, there is a newbie editor that has insisted that the flight of the Spirit of St. Louis was the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic and has constantly reverted the article to eliminate the word "solo". He has not responded to the discussion page or to the note left on his "talk" page. These are his only contributions to Wiki articles and he continues to make spurious claims, see:  He will not stop the reverting although he has been politely informed that constant reversions without explanation on the discussion page is not considered appropriate. Asking for help here. Thanks Bzuk 13:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? Was Lindbergh's flight the first flight from New York to Paris? Yes. Was it the first solo transatlantic flight? Yes. Was it the first transatlantic flight, as this edit states? No. That's the problem. If you can find reliable and verifiable sources that call the "1938-1946 conflict" "WW7", please add a redirect and fill this important gap in our coverage. --Rlandmann 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can not find the blasted article that lists the other 5 World Wars (excluding WWI) I know one of them was the American French & Indian Wars (it involved everyone fighting everyone else) - still like the title First Solo Trans-Atlantic Flight on 2 ham & cheese sandwiches Davegnz 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yeah, I don't remember those movies with the guys talking about how they fought in the "War To End All Wars" over in France - It was usually called "The Great War" on both sides of the Atlantic until WWII, and then it became known as WWI. "War To End All Wars" wasn't a name, just a description. Btw, the Soviets called there part in WWII "The Great Patriotic War", IIRC. I'm sure Russavia will correct me it I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, would be curious if it's still called that today. - BillCJ 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Spirit of St. Louis]]

message: Given the limited horizontal space available for infobox entries, I'm wondering if we shouldn't limit entries to just the country name. Take a look at the current entries for Eurofighter Typhoon.  "Aeronautica Militare Italiana" is so long that it wraps, making "Italiana" look like a separate entry. "Ejército del Aire" fits — but doesn't identify which country it is. While clicking on the link will clarify the matter, the whole purpose of the infobox is to provide "quick-look" information, not to require further research but rather to enable it. A lot of Spanish-speaking countries have a "Fuerza Aérea" and if we start writing out full, long-form names, we get unsightly and possibly confusing wraps as for AMI. Using just the country name would seem to be cleaner and more to the purpose of an infobox. The only particular complication might be where multiple services are involved, but we could just identify them along the lines of "United Kingdom air force and navy", for which a wrap would be less unclear (particularly if the services are left uncapitalized). Askari Mark (Talk) 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the approach I was thinking of. I just wanted to get a consensus before making any wholesale changes. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that country names might be the most logical; if in the case of just one military force such as the Navy then that could appear in the operators. How many infoboxes use country names compared to unit names? Bzuk 17:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that we should have the country name unless there is only one operator, perhaps we should also remove Other users altogether (they are listed in the article anyhow) - could stop a lot of reversions! MilborneOne 20:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * People would then try to put their fav. user in the primary user field. ;)  I think we need to list the english translations for armed force or nation in the Infobox.  "Aeronautica Militare Italiana" and "Ejército del Aire" does not provide much info if I can't read that language. -Fnlayson 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "Primary users" entries 

message: Just been checking for new articles and came across Ilyushin Il-1 with a corresponding entry in List of NATO reporting names for bombers. Any comments ! MilborneOne 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the horse it came in on. FWIW, there was an Il-1; it was a fighter version of the Il-2. Thanks for the heads-up, guys. --Rlandmann 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks.  I was guessing the Il-1 was a prototype or something like that. -Fnlayson 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ilyushin Il-10 provides some info on the Il-1, and this page has some specs. --MoRsE 18:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article [[Ilyushin Il-1]] 

message: We currently have no pics avaiable of the first generation Harriers (GR1/GR3, AV-8A/C/S). If anyone has legally-usable pics of these aircraft, I would be grateful if you could post them to Hawker Siddeley Harrier or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier . RAF, USMC, SPanish Navy, or RT Navy, whatever you have. While we do have some Sea Harrier pics, more would be fine if you have them. - BillCJ 15:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! A bit dark on my screen, but it's a good start! - BillCJ 19:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just might be the screen illumination because it looks sharp and clear on my MacBook. FWIW Bzuk 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Harrier I pic needed

message: The article Helicopters in popular culture is up for deletion here.  Interested parties (either pro or against) may want to comment.  Nigel Ish 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As expected users are now adding pop culture trivia back into articles, just reverted an addition to CH-47 Chinook but it is a bit like the finger in the dyke holding back the flood! MilborneOne 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to add here is a source for putting the info back into articles User:Trashbag/Helicopters !!! MilborneOne 22:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks to Wafulz an archive copy of the Helicopters in Popular Culture article is available.  Contrary to MilbourneOne's belief Pop Culture sections are not going "back into articles" they have existed for quite some time in numerous articles. For me personally it was only until recently that BillCJ was kind enough to point me in the direction of the aforementioned, and now extinct, article.  I believe Pop Culture can provide a very important basis of historical documentation of the aircraft are recording.  Where else can you see a Boeing Vertol 107 flying in New York Airways colors other then in the movie Coogan's Bluff?  I suggest a discussion of this topic before any other members become "deletion happy."  This after all will be establishing quite a precedence of whether or not popular culture should exist in Wikipedia as a whole.  --Trashbag 22:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even tho it's not really notable as we define it, I don't mind including the Coogan's Bluff mention. However, I really doubt many people go the the Sea Knight page trying to find the movie it was in with Clint Eastwood, but many probably go to the Coogan's Bluff page to see what type of copter that was the CLint got out of in New York. All that is really needed in a link of the aircraft in the film article. 
But the real problem will be in explaing to every gamer out there why his favorite game can't be listed. I have actually had a user ask me why films are notable but games aren't! (I'll try to find the post; it's in one of the 1700 pages I watchlist!) We in WP:AIR work very hard to limit appearences to those that are truly notable, but that is becoming increasingly difficult. Remember, Wikipedia is NOT a collection of indiscriminate list. And since it's becoming increasingly apparant that users like you don't want to abide by the existing limits, you may well find no place for pop-culture on Wikipedia at all. Or at least no place in WP:AIR and MILHIST. - BillCJ 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the aircraft having a notable or major role covers largely covers everything.  Being one of several fighter options in a game or simulator and just seeing airplane in the background of a movie scene are minor. -Fnlayson 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helicopters in popular culture afd 

message: Just letting everyone know that Airframes is now up and running as a resource for individual airframe histories, serial numbers and registration numbers. I've started by moving the (deleted) B-17 serials article over there. Please come on over if you're interested in contributing there as well! --Rlandmann 23:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Should be a big help! Rland, what are the rules regarding linking to the new Wiki? Basically the same as for other ELs? - BillCJ 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look and it seems a good start, but I have a suggestion. Before there's an attempt to massively fill in data, some thought needs to be given to the format for how the entries are to be tracked — by construction numbers (which are often hard to track and correlate to other IDs) or by changeable devices such as registration numbers or service serial numbers. There are already differences for each of the aircraft listed so far. Cross-correlation of changing codes needs to be handled in a helpful manner, especially when there are multiples. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikia 

message: I'm proposing moving Martin 167 back to Martin Maryland, where it was until moved last week by another editor. Please weigh in, whatever your view. Thanks. - BillCJ 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since it was a US aircraft that actually had a US designation, the name most consistent with our conventions would be Martin XA-22. --Rlandmann 20:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I would agree with a move to Martin Maryland, Rlandmann has a valid point about the XA-22, although the RAF operated lot more aircraft and their was only one XA-22!. MilborneOne 21:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'll defer to MilborneOne's take on this - I was thinking in terms of the recent Douglas DB-7 → A-20 Havoc move, but with one and only one "XA-22" and with 450 "Martin Marylands", the analogy is closer to the Blackburn T.7B prototype discussed in the main Mitsubishi B2M article or the Gloster Gambet prototype in the Nakajima A1N article. --Rlandmann 01:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Martin Maryland would be preferable since it is a much more well-known appellation. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move poll

message: Is there a particular reason why we don't/can't/shouldn't have a "County of origin" field in the aircraft infobox? I've seen the filed in infoboxes of aircraft pages on interwikik's, and often wondered why we don't do that too. I ocassionally see "American" in the first line of some aircraft articles here, but I hardly ever see "French" or "British" in the first line. I have seen "Canadian" on one article, but it was in front of "Canadair", to distinguish it from the Nigerian Canadair, most likely :)  I would think Country of origin is an important fact, and is probably best indicatind in the infobox. SUre, we might have problems with some aircraft with mixed heritages (Harrier II, for example). For Airbus and other large collaborations, we could just use International. Comments? - BillCJ 00:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great suggestion! But please let's not wiki it to Country or stick a flag next to it! --Rlandmann 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Strange but I find that is mainly the American aircraft that do not give the country of origin, which I add into the intro text if I notice. But I support BillCJ it would be a lot easier to have a country of origin in the infobox, we could just use International if it has more than one. MilborneOne 11:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For aircraft developed by more than one country, we could do what Jane's does and note them as "International" (as BillCJ suggested). --Rlandmann 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support having country of origin. Heck, we already have that in the infoboxes for firearms   over at the Wikiproject Firearms. Although I think that putting international is unnecessary as you could just put the countries of origin separated by slashes.--LWF 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but if individual countries were named we should still note that it's an international joint venture, to avoid confusion with a design originating in one country but being manufactured in others. Given the limited space available in the infobox, "International" just seems neater to me. --Rlandmann 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "International" is what Jane's uses, but I think a more appropriate term would be "Multinational", since there really isn't a true "international" program anywhere. And may we avoid the rush by deprecating the use of flags in the infobox field for this? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Country of Origin

message: Having worked with the new Aviation accident Task force on several ariticle s and accidents, I think it might be helpful to add "Notable" to the headings covering accidents and incidents. This may help to alleviate the tendency to add non-notable incidents to these sections. - BillCJ 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable accidents 

message: On the F-22 Raptor page, user:90.240.101.73 added info here with this explanation: corrections from briefings at Paris by Programme Manager Larry Lawson. JN I have reverted it, and asked that he discuss it on the talk page. As I understand WP:ATTR and WP:V, this is not a verifiable source. Any help on Talk:F-22 Raptor would be appreciated (no discussion started yet). - BillCJ 00:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be a published version of the briefing (although it would have been prepared beforehand and might not address the point if it was raised during Q&A); if not, some secondary source is likely to report it sooner or later. Technically, though, the editor did not quite get it right. The F-22 can obviously transmit the sensor data; whether it can be received in a useful manner, however, depends on the receiving aircraft's datalinks and other systems. In time, I would imagine that other aircraft will receive system upgrades to enable them to do this, so it may be more a matter of "not yet" rather than "not ever". Askari Mark (Talk) 03:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable source? 

message: Can I ask if the production figures given in individual type entries be standardized to the info box rather then text, and also that a separate page written to address how total production numbers are determined (where known). As most will know the numbers often vary wildly due to miscalculations, adding in pre-production airframes, and adding in conversions of earlier blocks. Some entries are wonderful, but usually only for the more well known aircraft. --Mrg3105 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production data 

message: The Boeing 777 article has been nominated for Featured Article status.  Add comments or vote as you see fit at FA candidate: Boeing 777.  Thanks. -Fnlayson 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boeing 777 up for FA 

message: I've been reading various sources on this event in the Falklands War over the last 25 years and know just how complex and fraught a topic it is. Was the (at the time) longest bombing raid ever a decisive intervention, proving to the Argentines that Britain was serious and could strike at the mainland at will, or was it an over-hyped propaganda coup which actually achieved nothing when putting resources into more Sea Harriers would have been better? We seem to have a NPOV problem at Falklands War#Black Buck raids. Any expert help, by which I mean cool heads who understand the strategic complexity involved and preferably have access to good references (which I don't at present), would be gratefully received at Talk:Falklands War#Black Buck Raids. --John 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Buck 

message: Just found the Trek Aerospace Dragonfly page. It has only been edited once since Nov 05, and the only source is the company website. - BillCJ 17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly well-known among the personal air vehicle (PAV) crowd (a little-known field), but there doesn't seem to be much online about it, although I found a few.  Offline, there is apparently an SAE Aerospace Journal article on it. There was also a Discovery Channel segment on it a couple years ago. As for whether there's COI, I imagine it would take a checkuser to determine this; I imagine someone at WP:COIN could do this. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently 60 Minutes covered it too (or so the manufacturers say). I'd say this one is borderline, but worth seeing if there's anything else in print. --Rlandmann 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible corp-spam 

message: A new editor, Stefanomencarelli has started to do some editing, concentrating on Italian subjects. He seems to have a good grasp of the subject but not such a good grasp on English grammar. No problem here but there is also some sketchy knowledge about the normal writing/editing/referencing that needs to take place. I will help as much as I can but I would encourage other editors to look over the articles every so often and also help his contributions. FWIW Bzuk 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for help in [[Macchi MC.200]] and [[Macchi MC.205]]

message: Has anyone esle seen this? Someone converted :Template:Harrier variants to the "generic nav-box - ewwww, it's mud ugly! Are we going to have to use this new style, or can the project stick to the previous style? - BillCJ 19:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same with this edit in Template:RAF WWII Strategic Bombing. Of course I prefer previous style, like BillCJ. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 19:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Generic nav-box

message: Looks like the A-10 Thunderbolt II article got speedy deleted today because of a claim of copyright violation.  See Talk:A-10 Thunderbolt II.  Is there any way to recover it and fix things?  I'm inclined to think the similar info came from the same source.  Any help would be great. -Fnlayson 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. They quite clearly copied us. --Rlandmann 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-10 Thunderbolt II 

message: I created :Category:Helicopter accidents and seeded it with several articles. Please apply this tag to any other articles as appropriate. Dhaluza 01:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Helicopter accidents]] 

message: About two weeks ago, I removed an unsourced list of individual owners from the Bombardier Global Express page. In spite of the fact I asked it be discussed first, some re-added the list today, and then asked for discussion. I've removed it again, and my explanations of why are on the Talk:Bombardier Global Express page. As far as I know, this is the only business-type aircraft with such an extensive list. 
In general, it's my impression we haven't allowed such lists, mostly because they tend to be OR and non-notable. Feel free to commnet on the genreal ide here, and the specifics of the list in the Bombardier Global Express on that talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual owners list 

message: An IP user keeps changing the name in the BAC One-Eleven article infobox and intro, I have reverted twice put a note on the Talk page but he/she has changed it again. Anybody help please reverting the changes in the article and warning the IP user, thanks. MilborneOne 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, the proper designation is "BAC 1-11"; "BAC One-Eleven" is a colloquialism. The issue certainly should be resolved on the talk page. Unfortunately, not all IP users read it. The best we can do with them is keep reverting and in the edit comment continue inviting them to discuss it on the talk page. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The proper name in One Eleven which is why the article is so named. I have provided a reference to the UK type certificate on the talk page. Although as you say the IP user does not appear to read it. Interestingly he/she only changes the intro and infobox despite the fact that the term One-Eleven is use throughout the article. Have changed it back with comment as suggested. Anybody know of suitable template or words to put on the IP users talkpage to invite them to discuss. MilborneOne 07:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the reversions are made without explanation or clarification and certainly whenever a major change is made in an article, it should be first discussed on the "talk" page. Perhaps having the article temporarily protected from IP editing may alleviate the problem. I still find it irksome when "anons" hide behind IP addresses and yet make major revisions. IMHO (speaking from my god-like stature of course) [:¬∆ Bzuk 07:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[BAC One-Eleven]]

message: I recently discovered the Novi Avion page, and it needs a LOT of help. It lists two vague sources, and none are cited in the article. It doesn't specify who the manufacturer was, so I'm not able to find it in any of my printed sources. Then there's the fanboy IP who keeps adding stuff like (had not Yugoslavia being broken up and socialism having not collapsed two years earlier, and since not only would it have served Yugoslavia's airspace well. I could use some help from someone who is either more familar with the plane, or who has access to other material, perhaps even from non-English sources. Thanks. - BillCJ 04:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no manufacturer as the aircraft project never got so far. In Yugoslavia, the military's VTI R&D center designed and tested the aircraft, which would go to an aerospace manufacturer for production (in this case, probably Soko). I added a little more on VTI, but there is little available in English and I have no facility with Serbo-Croatian, I'm afraid. I can try to help answer specific questions there, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Novi Avion

message: I just came across some new Fokker articles created by Mark Lincoln from some limited info available to him. Despite the titles of two of these stub articles, all three actually address multiple aircraft designs. Anybody have further references to help him expand them?  They are Fokker V.17 (thru V.25), Fokker V.27 (thru V.37), and Fokker V.9, V.11, V.12, V.13. V.14, and V.16. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got these on the back burner. Some of the models described are prototypes or one-off developments of existing designs that should simply redirect to articles we already have; others can and should be at least stubbified as distinctive types of their own. For the time being, I was even wondering whether this information could simply be merged into the main Fokker article until someone has time to sort it all out? Any objections? --Rlandmann 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO that would be the best thing to do. Normally we wouldn't break them out into separate articles until there's sufficient information available to do so. Perhaps we should add a section (maybe someday to be a separate article) on "Fokker prototypes". Askari Mark (Talk) 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be enough significance for these designs to rate a separate article. They probably fit best within other major Fokker articles. FWIW Bzuk 05:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed in most cases; but there are a very few I noticed when I first ran my eye over them that are indeed unique breeds that would (all else being equal) be eligible for separate articles at some point in the future. But for now, I think I'll go ahead and merge them. --Rlandmann 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fokker ribs requiring some meat 

message: Are there any guidelines for the names of countries in Operators section? I couldn't find and I would like clear situation like this or another edits without edit war.
My proposals:
# We shouldn't use full and official name of countries:
#*United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a little bit longer than usual United Kingdom.
#*Republic of Poland next to Polish People's Republic are both less known than Poland.
# We should use the different name of country for highlighting major differences like:
#*British India vs India (colonial / independent)
#*German Empire vs Nazi Germany vs Germany (the same country in different timeline)
#*Republic of Vietnam vs Socialist Republic of Vietnam (separate parts of the same country)
#*Spanish State (Franco's one) vs Spanish Republic (before Spanish Civil War)
Any ideas, comments, opinions etc.? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. - BillCJ 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No guidelines that I'm aware of. I'd say that #1 is obvious and #2 makes good sense. In both cases, I think you've also illustrated what most of us have been doing most of the time anyway. --Rlandmann 20:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear that. Who will revert changes in both Defiant articles to fit to this standard? I don't want to do that because it could be considered as an edit war. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 22:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the simplest forms best - just the country names are all that is needed in an infobox. In the Operators section itself, the country name is all that is necessary, but if used by multiple services (RAF & RN) or government faction (Free French AF), it would be fine to note that as well. Long forms of country names should be left "for official use only." Askari Mark (Talk) 01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted Boulton Paul Defiant. I won't do it a second time. Is this what is called a POV issue?  I see that he is changing a number of instances of British India to India. Perhaps there is no real answer to this one. I do prefer the extra information conveyed by the descriptive version (British India), over what may be the simple version. This is the reason why Wikipedia will never be accepted universally, becaues even the Wikipedia editor community can't agree on the intent. I prefer Vichy French and Free French over French for those periods of World War Two (which is also called many things). Just like there was once a Republic of Texas where it is now the State of Texas, a distinction should be made. What does the source say? --Colputt 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I had been informed that there was a consensus discussion going on so that i would be able to post my explanation.  The following is what i had posted in my talk page to the message left by Ptior . - Reg the point India Vs British India  Even in the time of the British - they never called it "British India" or "British Raj" - Everything went by the name India. Forexample, the government was "Government of India" and not "Government of British India" or "Government of British Raj". Similarly there as the "Indian Railways" and the "Indian Air Force" and not the "British Indian Railways / British Raj Railways" or "British Indian Air Force". Even when the Brits created the Indian Air Force they never called it "Royal Indian Air Force" but simply "Indian Air Force". We can argue about the semantics of who ruled what. but as far as terminology is concerned. only "India" existed and not "British India" or "British Raj".  jaiiaf 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of countries in Operators section

message: We currently have separate articles for the Kamov Ka-50 and the closely-related Kamov Ka-52. There is a merge proposal at Talk:Kamov Ka-50#Requested merger 2. Any participation in the poll and discussion is welcome, whatever your ultimate view on the issue. - BillCJ 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kamov Ka-50/Ka-52

message: The template could use some improving but I don't know how to do that. Who could I talk to? Marine57 20:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aircraft Specifications

message: Ash sul asked me to look at massive changes to this article, chiefly by two anon IPs. A quick look through these shows that there's a lot of POV being inserted (often with weasel words instead of sources), large blocks of material being summarily deleted, and POV "reallocations" of aircraft among "generations" — along with some actually useful contributions.  If you'll look at the history since my last change on 17 August 2007 at 12:51, you'll see what I mean. Ash sul thought I might semi-protect it, but I'm not an admin. I'd like someone here who is an admin to look at the situation and see what's best. At least one of the anons will go to the talk page, if you have his attention. (He's the one who has been edit-warring over whether F-22 should be considered a "similar aircraft" to the Typhoon.) Askari Mark (Talk) 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend semi-protection and thorough check of the article for WP:OR. Personally, I think it needs an extensive re-write.--Dali-Llama 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Problem going on with [[4th generation jet fighter]] 

message: Since not everyone has the Units tab on their watchlist, I thought I'd drop this here as well...there's now a template that will do some of the units conversions that we need. I've added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Units, and full instructions are at . AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Units

message: Given the recent fracas over the 4th generation jet fighter article, the inherent nebulousness of the definitions of “jet fighter generations”, and the excessive overlap of material between that article and the jet fighter portions of Fighter aircraft (which means the same problems crop up in both), I’d like to propose a restructuring and overhaul of both these articles.  
“Fighter aircraft” would be revamped to focus more on the history of fighter evolution, with an emphasis on the significant tactical and technological developments which have advanced their capabilities.  (This would include important prototypes and technology demonstrators where appropriate.)  The jet fighter section would be reworked toward this end with minimal reference to “generations” (and no listings of aircraft in particular generations), but linking (where relevant) to a new article, “Jet fighter generations”.  
This new article would be a complete reworking of the “4th generation jet fighter” article to discuss the concept and how and why such “consensus” definitions have arisen, and identify those aircraft and which of their technologies have come to “define” each generation.  I feel this would be a much more encyclopedic article, as well as a way to better showcase, if you will, articles on those most important technologies and their impacts on tactics and operations.  If the community thinks this is a good idea, I’m willing to work on a draft version.  (My discussion of these generations in the talk page of Fighter aircraft could be the basis of an outline.)  Comments?  Askari Mark (Talk) 20:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes much more sense than what is there now. I'm all for it. --Colputt 04:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul of [[Fighter aircraft]] and [[4th generation jet fighter]] articles? 

message: How do we handle aricraft that have been re-branded by their manufacturer? With older aircraft that have been re-branded years before, it's not much of a problem - DC-9 Super 80 to MD-80 isn't a problem for us, everything we've written says MD-80. Recently, AgustaWestland has re-branded a few of its helicopters, including the AB 139 to AW 139. THat was an easy one, since it wasn't that widespread in use, and had fewer mentions. 
But now that AW has rebranded the EH101 as the AW101, what do we do? It's been called the EH101 for over 20 years now. Do we change every mention on en.wiki to AW101, other than to mention it used to be the EH101? DO we move the page now, or wait till AW101 becomes more common? I know this is better asked on the EH101 talk page, but I'm also asking about re-branding in general, and how we should handle such a thing. - BillCJ 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that this is a solution but the most commonly known name should predominate with a note  that the type has also been re-named or "re-branded" (neat name, I like that). When and if the new name becomes the most common name, then changes would be required. FWIW Bzuk 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to belabour the topic, but the most recognizable name will "win out." Even though Boeing used the "717" designation for essentially the family of Douglas DC-9/MD-80/90, most observers still use the DC-9 appellation. FWIW Bzuk 17:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * 717 only for former MD-95, not the MD-80/90 etc. -Fnlayson 20:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rebranding is a recurring and thorny problem indeed. Gulfstream’s bizjets are another good example.  My preference would be to cover them as they are most well-known, unless there is a significant redesign associated with the new brand.  Redirect the rebrand to the main article and add a para. or subsection noting the change and explaining the reasons (if known), and mention it in the intro lead.  (BTW, w.r.t. BillCJ’s example, I flew on a Super 80 during a business trip last week.  It’s interesting to note that the only designation exposed to the flying passenger is “Super 80”.) Askari Mark (Talk) 22:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the C-130 is now built by Lock-Mart, but by general consensus and common use, it is still known as the "Lockheed" Hercules. Mark Sublette 19:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aircraft re-branding

message: * Boeing B-17 Survivors
* Boeing B-47 Stratojet Survivors
* F-101 Voodoo on display
* List of surviving A-26 Invader airframes
* List of surviving B-29 Superfortresses
* List of surviving CH-54 Tarhes
Just some examples - not very consistent naming policy - any chance of a consensus and make them all the same ? MilborneOne 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: added CH-54... Yeah there are quite a few article/list/etc of these out there.  --Trashbag 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I created some of my survivors listings (B-17, B-24, P-47, A-20, B-47) tried being consistant - but editors being editors did not like my formate as so after a period of 1-3 months they got screw'd-up.  One of the reasons the P-38, P-38 survivors listings have not been posted - btw, since I started the survivors seriers it was ment to be MFG, designation, popular name then SurvivorsDavegnz 14:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Survivors

message: I have noted that a number of references other than English-language sources have appeared in the references and notes sections of various articles. What is the usual standard for acceptance of these sources? Is an English-language source considered primary while other language sources are secondary? In some cases, for example, on a Swedish or Finnish aircraft, I assume that the best sources may even be in Swedish or Finnish. Then again, there are fantastic series of reference materials in Polish and Japanese that provide authoritative information and would be suitable as references. What do others think? On another peripheral issue, do book references have a greater precedence than magazine/journal/other media sources? FWIW Bzuk 12:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would like to know what sources are preferred. I tend to prefer subject dedicated books first (such as ME-109 by Martin Cadin), then encyclopedia books (like The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft), then non-fiction accounts (such as Biplane to Monoplane Aircraft Development 1918-1939). Magazines and Journals are cool, but I don't have much access to those. I don't like advertisements, like the 8x11 picture cards that Lockheed puts out to jazz up their fighters. They usually have some odd information on them. What about un-published sources, like national archives or Military General Orders? Is that a bad thing? I read somewhere that Wikipedia prefers error-prone "published" sources over original research. If you don't research and find original sources to validate the "published" stuff, don't you just end up with a bunch of junk? I would always assume the best source is the one closest to the subject by local locale or language, translated to English sources would be worse by definition. What we do here looks just like the "Research Papers" I wrote in school, isn't that the very definition of original research? --Colputt 18:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's where to get started! Wikipedia:Citing sources Emoscopes Talk 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Bzuk’s original questions, the answer to the first can be found at WP:RSUE and the last at WP:RS. With respect to the latter, in general, it’s not so much in what form it is published, but the expertise and professionalism of the author and the “forum” in which the source is found.  Scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals are considered best, along with books by recognized experts in the field; online discussion forums and blogs are considered unreliable (although they may have experts commenting in them) because there is no independent, third-party review of the author’s writings.  Sources like national archives or Military General Orders one has to be careful with, since they are what are known as "primary sources". Wikipedia prefers we write about what others – typically experts in the evaluation and critiquing of such sources – have written about them and the subject matter to which they attest. In essence, yes, what we write here is very much like the research papers written in school, but what is different is that we do not make original observations or conclusions; we write instead about what experts and professionals have written on the subject, since they are (usually) better qualified than we are. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference sources in other languages

message: Given the large number of categories and sub-categories involved with these category renames, and especially since this project seems to use templates for many more purposes than most projects, I thot it would be good to post it here, so project members could be involved, at least to make sure that whatever bot operator dares tackle this catches/knows everything that needs to change, including all the templates involved. Hellosandimas 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding initials in US and PRC aviation cat names listed at CfR-speedy

message: I asked this over on the subpage, my most people probably don't have it on their watchlists, so, I'll ask again here: Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Assessment is basically a sub-set of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment page, is there any objection to merging/redirecting it page to that one? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/redirect Aircraft/Assessment page 

message: I'd like to formally request that the F-22 Raptor and Eurofighter Typhoon pages be fully protected so that the experienced editors here can try to work on a solution to the ongoing edit disputes. This fan-boy edit war has gone on for several weeks now, and shows no sign of letting up. Most of the participants in the daily reverts (save a few hot-headed regulars such as myself) are IPs or new users. I think it's time the "grown-ups" settle this. - BillCJ 06:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support BillCJs request - it is all getting a bit silly. MilborneOne 11:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody needs to protect these pages for a few days. This is getting ridiculous, none of the edits is even trying to be constructive. --McSly 22:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: New trick is randomly entering arguments at the top of the page and in the middle of previous discussions which makes it even more nonsense on the talk page. Can somebody archive the talkpage block the IP users and we can start again with improving the article.MilborneOne 11:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Support BillCJs request - I'm beginning to think any article with a B class or greater rating should be locked from anon editing. And I'm a new guy. --Colputt 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't yet made up my mind on Bill's request, but if it's enacted, it needs to cover the 4th generation jet fighter article as well. I'm finding it's best to doublecheck all IPs' posts there as the reasons given in the edit tags often do not reflect what's actually being done in the edits. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please notice this intelligent edit summary? How long does this silliness have to go on? - BillCJ 03:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How long? Oh, as long as Wikipedia allows unregistered editors to edit ... and then only by editors who do register. Sigh. My only reservation against protection is that there are some IPs who are actually making constructive contributions (including reverting the bad ones); seems a shame to punish them along with the trolls. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is a shame, but I'm not proposing permanent protectionk, just one long enough for the serious editors to work out a solution. The edit warriors are doing most of their "discussions" in edit summaries right now. Hopefully a lockdown will encourage them to use the talk page more constructively, and if not, at least they won't be able to revert the good changes for a time. - BillCJ 04:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: NP...Keep an eye out for User:Wikzilla...he dropped a hot-headed response on my talk page, threatened sockpuppetry, vandalized my user page and got himself a 48 hour block. He's been making questionable edits to the affected pages, but I'm leaving fixing the content up to you folks...that way I won't compromise my ability to work administratively if the need arises. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Kitplane01 is still at the edit-warring, adding the disputed info again. Can something be done? Thanks. - BillCJ 06:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I need a favor from you guys...Wikzilla turned out to be a somewhat prolific sockpuppeteer, and has now been blocked indef. However, he's decided that his purpose in life is to bombard my talk page with messages while IP hopping (Bill...you know what that's like, eh?). I'm protecting my user page for now, but I really have to leave my talk page open. It's about bed-time here in SoCal, and I'll be working on the helo in the morning, so if ya'll would do me the favor of reverting any IP crap that shows up on my talk page, I'd be much obliged. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: F-22/Typhoon fan-boy war

message: List of what you can put on aircraft in popular culture. Even Transformers is a demonstration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.144.73 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of what you can put on popular culture 

message: A recurring problem where flags are being used to indicate or highlight nationality occurs whenever a multinational consortium designs, develops and coproduces an aircraft. A good case in point is with Eurofighter, for which some editors are choosing to use the EU flag (). Since Eurofighter GmbH is not an "EU" entity, per se, I believe this is an improper approach. However, the only other obvious options are to use the flags of all the consortium members (in this case four) – which really clutters up vertical lists and tables (especially when the country names are included) – or to leave the entry without a flag at all (only a blank field or the notation "N/A"). Any thoughts on what the best approach might be?  Askari Mark (Talk) 23:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support adding the 4 flags rather than using EU flag . Estonia is an EU member , Adding the EU flag means Estonia is an Air crafts manufacturer. And this is false. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 07:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the EU flag is not appropriate. I dont like adding lots of flags - we should use the flag of the country where the aircraft is built and flown from. The Saudi typhoons will come from the UK production line. Have the same problems with Airbus the A319 for example is German and the A340 is French. With Eurocopter the EC155 is German but the EC725 is French. Sites like the UK Civil Aviation Authority aircraft register use this convention as the country of origin. MilborneOne 10:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, if you add only one flag, editors will keep adding the others (or substitute the EU flag in this instance). In most cases, the flag tends to be "tied" to the company, rather than the airplane.  Occasionally there are also multiple production lines involved; Egyptian F-16s, for instance, came from both US and Turkish lines (and the early EPG deliveries are even more complex). Askari Mark (Talk) 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Askari Mark is right , if we add only one flag we will never stop the random editors from keepin adding other flags . But whats wrong with adding 4 flags anyways ? there is room enough in the table. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In that table on the article , the Column's name is Origin . That means GmbH or BAE systems are not the correct data type for this column's fields . Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * Uh, the manufacturer is already identified with the model in the Aircraft column there.  Why repeat the manufacturer in another column?  If it is a problem, just remove the Origin column. Its benefit is marginal, imo. -Fnlayson 17:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Flags and Multinational Consortia 

message: *
:: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add a hold-on tag, and then the discussion will go to AFD. That will give time to discuss what can be done, and improve the article in the meantime. I don't know righyt off, but is there another topic this could be merged into, or even covered elsewhere already, perhaps in more detail? - BillCJ 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hold-on" is meant for speedy-deletion candidates.  In the case of PROD-candidates, just remove the PROD tag and provide a reason in the edit summary (and the talk page if you feel diligent).  An AFD action would only ensue if someone still felt it should be deleted and felt strong enough about it to initiate the AFD action. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, I mixed the two up. Thanks! - BillCJ 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions 

message: It seems to me that the Aircraft dope page could be expanded into something worth keeping. For example a bit of history, from the doped linen of the WWI era to modern synthetic fabrics. Then, there is the contrast between the usual technique of colouring the dope vs. the German use of printed fabrics in WWI. Room for a bit more on compositions and methods of application, too. The snippet on the LZ 129 Hindenburg page about loading it with graphite also bears reference. I'd suggest re-identifying it as a stub. Any more opinions? -- Steelpillow 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add a hold-on tag, and then the discussion will go to AFD. That will give time to discuss what can be done, and improve the article in the meantime. I don't know righyt off, but is there another topic this could be merged into, or even covered elsewhere already, perhaps in more detail? - BillCJ 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hold-on" is meant for speedy-deletion candidates.  In the case of PROD-candidates, just remove the PROD tag and provide a reason in the edit summary (and the talk page if you feel diligent).  An AFD action would only ensue if someone still felt it should be deleted and felt strong enough about it to initiate the AFD action. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, I mixed the two up. Thanks! - BillCJ 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aircraft dope

message: I just ran across the Jet airliner page, and it is a mess: No sources whatsoever, yet it reads as a well-written, though very biased in places, article in certain parts, leading me to believe it's based on another article from somewhere else. It's been around for about 4 years, but had no project tag at all. I've done alot of clean-up, but more eyes and heads would be useful. Feel free to check the previous versions to see what I deleted, and restore anything you believe is worth keeping if you can source it. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The history bit is could make a good article but the more modern bits probably need some work, the language is a bit wierd. Jet airliner is not a common phrase but would be alright for describing the history, never heard the term Jetliner used (must be a north-americanism).MilborneOne 11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * Probably.  Jetliner is just a shortened form of the other.  Both are not common now with almost all airliners are jets, except for regional turboprops. -Fnlayson 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I just read the article, it reads like someone "cribbing" from another source. BTW, MilborneOne, "jetliner" came from the Avro Jetliner but was commonly applied to the de Havilland Comet in its early years, as well as other jet airliners. The term fell out of favour later but its origins were indeed, from North America. FWIW Bzuk 13:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about the cribbing, but I suspect that the "period jet-set" bit is absolute tosh. I googled "747 jet airliner" and got "about 414,000" hits, so the term evidently is still in common use and the bit about it not applying to modern widebodies is, er, wide of the mark (grin). I'd say put down those scalpels and grab your chainsaws. --- Steelpillow 20:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion was about the term "jetliner" not necessarily "jet airliner" but surprisingly, the term is still in common usage if not in use by the aviation community. A google search I did on "jetliner" today had 803,000 hits! FWIW Bzuk 22:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up help request

message: I know what to do for an aircraft page, but what is the guideline for an engine article? What is a good example of an engine article? Rolls-Royce Model 250 needs some help. --Born2flie 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that the same basic outline would also apply: Introductory paragraph, Infobox, Design and development, Operational history, Variants, Operators, Specifications. I like the Rolls-Royce Merlin as an example. FWIW Bzuk 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine article guideline? 

message: Boeing 747 article is up for Good Article review now.  Needs some work to address review comments.  I could use some help crafting a Design section.  I think a lot of the info is in the article, but various places.  Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First impression- it looks very good, accurate, well-referenced and a large amount of graphic and textual information. The citations are a bit "wonky" and the references were all wrong. I fixed the format, but do you want me to go further? FWIW Bzuk 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: * Sure, do what you can.  Any help is appreciated.  Only book titles are italized in references, right?  And article titles are in quotes.  I started removing the excess italics. -Fnlayson 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boeing 747]] up for GA 

message: This article needs some attention as it appears to be the rubber ball between some editors' feuding over WP:SPAM claims. Need some other people's opinions. Maury and Alan have already tried to help the situation but have run into a tagteam from the "spam cops." FWIW Bzuk 17:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bede BD-5]]

message: Does anyone have any sources they could add to the Allison T40 article? It was created in May 2007 by a user who has not edited in over 4 weeks. It is an engine that is worth covering, and I'd hate to see it deleted just because it has no sources. Also, I am considering moving the page to Allison T38, and expanding it to cover that engine. Given that the T40 is basiacally two T38s in a twin-pack (much like the PT6T), I think this is the better name. We'd need some good sourced info on the T38 before moving it tho. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allison T40

message: Hi guys, I have created a new article on the Lockheed XF-104 if you would like to stop by and fix/add things, cheers Nimbus227 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of a problem here- it is an good article, well written and illustrated with a suitable reference list but here are the issues:
# It is not adequately referenced in that I mean there are no citations provided. 
# It is not linked to the main F-104 article; and 
# I am not sure why there is so much detail on what was essentially the prototype aircraft? FWIW Bzuk 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A first article- are you kidding- it was great and the subtle changes now incorporated have made it even stronger. FWIW Bzuk 13:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks and thanks for the three view drawing. Lockheed used to have a historic photo archive on their website but seem to have only the more modern aircraft now, I have a photo of the wooden mock up which would be nice to post if I could get the proper clearance. Cheers Nimbus227 15:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lockheed XF-104

message: MILHIST has put together a MILHIST MOS that they are taking comments on. I think WPAIR, and perhaps even WPAVIATION, should take a look at this. Perhaps we can join/adopt the MOS, if it can work for us as-is, or with a few adjustments. If it needs more changes to suit us, perhaps we can use it to dorm our own MOS. SOme of what the MILHIST MOS covers is already in our Page content guidelines, but there are some areas we haven't dealt with yet, such as Notability (tho som guidelines for this have been proposed). Any comments?
* That'd be something good to have.  At least outline the basics.  Copy their pop culture requirements to cover commercial only aircraft.  Include guidelines for notability (does this model/variant get its own article?). -Fnlayson 18:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MILHIST MOS

message: I just ran across this article, List of people who have died in incidents involving DC-3 aircraft. It needs alot of help, esp refernecing, and might be better off merged with another page (possibly a list of DC-3 incidents). - BillCJ 16:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Found page

message: OK I grabbed a few books more or less at random, let's see what they have:
*Barrie Hygate, British experimental jet aircraft, Argus Books (1990).
:Page 11, De Havilland 108: "Originally planned as a half-scale model of the proposed DH.106 airliner, which ... was of tail-less layout".
*Lloyd S. Jones, U.S. Fighters, Aero Pub. (1975).
:Page 142, Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet: "The third radical design resulting from the Army's proposal R-40C was Northrop's N2B tail-less fighter".
:Page 317, Douglas F-6 Skyray: "All the horizontal flying controls were attached to the wing trailing edge, classifying the Skyray as 'tailless'."
*A. H. Lukins, The book of Westland aircraft, Harborough (date not recorded).
:Page 41, Pterodactyl 1A and 1B: "TYPE—Two-seat sude-by-side tailless 'pusher' monoplane".
So there we have it - "tailless" and "tail-less" used interchangeably, even within the same book, but definitely used in the sense defined on Tailless aircraft.
Sorry to take so long about it. -- Steelpillow 17:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the XP-55 Accender and the Do335 Arrow or the Me163 KometDavegnz (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tailless references

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lockheed XF-104 - BillCJ 20:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal AFD notice

message: Your comments are appreciated on this proposal. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed generic structure for "XYZ Air Force" articles 

message: This is probably not a new subject but we were having a light hearted discussion in Talk:Lockheed XF-104 as I started the article in British English and discovered that the apparent convention is to use the form of English of the country that the aircraft belongs to, e.g. US in the case of the F-104. It has been suggested that an icon or template (perhaps one exists) be placed on the talk page to denote which form of English will be used throughout the article. Perhaps others would like to comment or advise on this idea and clarify the convention at the same time. Cheers Nimbus227 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not just for this particular article BTW but intended for future articles or even to be applied to existing articles where there could be some 'transatlantic spelling' inconsistences going on. Nimbus227 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is a WP:Aircraft convention; articles on aircraft from non-English-speaking nations follow the "first author" rule. This actually follows from the standard WP:MOS which prefers the "native English" of the subject article, if there is one. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd support a template header to go at/near the top of the talk page with the other templates. It could be a simple text template statin: "This article is written in (parameter) English. Please try to conform to this variant's spelling and grammar." THere could be a simple parameter to insert a specifed country into the template. Alternativley, we could add a few icons/graphics, or even mroe text such as "If you are not familiar with the variant's grammar and spelinng rules, do the best you can, but indicate in your edit summary that you need help in that area." I am sure someone could come up with flags that are displayed for each country when it's selected, but right now I think we ought to just come up with a simple, functional template we can use right way, and then discuss changes and tweaks later. PS, I have no clue how to write the program at this point, but could adapt an existing one if it had similar parameters. - BillCJ 05:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: English/American spellings etc.

message: I need help with sourcing this image which is from the Israeli Air Force site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 October 2007
::The IAF website the picture is from has the following license: 
::Doesn't look like you'll be able to use the pic unless the IDF and Department of Security release it into the public domain. --Born2flie 15:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this picture record one of the Lavi test flights, I assume that I can use the Israel Aerospace Industries pictures-or that it the same problems as the IAF one's?--Gilisa 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't assume anything, it is the user's responsibility to research the license of images. I just went and checked what kind of license IAI puts on their website, and it says, "No content from this Website may be copied, reproduced , republished, modified, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way." So unless you get the image from a different IAI source, and that source has a very specific license that allows it to be used, you're pretty much out of luck. Sorry. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: Here is another F-104 related article for you guys to look at, hopefully it will not get nominated for AFD like the last one. It could use a three view of the type, cheers. Nimbus227 19:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article, [[Lockheed NF-104A]]