Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 13

message: Hi all. I am totally new to wikipedia and slowly getting the hang of things around. I would like to join this project. Can someone help me out as to how I do this? Please leave an answer on my talk page and if possible, please email answer to stratoflyer@gmail.com . Thanks. --Stratoflyer 20:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I would like to help

message: I think there is a bit of growing need to be able to cross reference airplanes and the airlines that use them/have them ordered.  Right now you can go from an airline to an aircraft but not vice versa.  I think this need has come up in the 737 article (Example 1,Example 2)  Is there something snazzy that can be done with categories on the Airline pages to cross reference back to a category list of "737 Operators"?  Its not the most elegant solution, but its a whole lot better than manually gluing it together.  It could also be expanded to include pages for "Former 737 Operators" and "737 Orders"...  I'm going to also put a notice on the Wikiproject Airline page that this discussion is getting started -- since it really is something that affects both projects..  --Cliffb 05:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, few people object.  I've gone over what you propose, and it's the best idea I can think of.  Karl Dickman talk 02:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Way of Cross Referencing Aircraft/Airlines 

message: Need Help on Boeing 747 LCFYousaf465
:What are you looking for help on? ericg ✈
I dont know why we have this article. This is not a Boeing airplane. This is not a new variant or model. These are used planes converted in Taiwan to ship parts. Only 3 will be made. No airline will ever own or operate them. However, I will update the article and expand it.
--Bangabalunga 19:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boeing 747 Large Cargo Freighter

message: I came across the  template, which can provide autolinks to the FAA N-Number (or other national) registries.  It also has built-in the option of linking to airdisaster.com, which seems to overdo it on advertisements. I left some concerns and suggestions at Template talk:Airreg.  Rather than taking unilateral action (the template is used on nearly 100 pages), I would welcome input on the template talk page. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken this to WP:TFD.  Aside from the issue of linking to airdisaster.com, I can't possibly see this as a useful way of referencing Aircraft registration numbers. (even to official sources).  I would rather see referencing done the same way other references are with a ref tag, and links at the bottom in the references section. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am opposing this move at the moment. It is still useful. If you can produce a better template, then I may change my mind. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template restricts the choice of sources to those where you can incorporate the N-number into the URL. On Template talk:Airreg, I have searched for sources regarding United Airlines Flight 173.  On the template talk page, I documented three that I found.  For two (NTSB and aviation-safety.net), you can't incorporate the N-number.  These are arguably the more reliable sources, as one is official and the other does a good job of referencing its sources and presents (more) information in a clearer manner (and ad-free) than airdisaster.com.  So, in the case of United Airlines Flight 173, it's better just to use the ref tag and provide the source link in the references section.  This way, we are also not mixing references styles (embedded HTML links with the ref tag), as advised not to do by WP:CITE.  Anyway, I'd like to take each article on a case-by-case basis, weighing the available sources and choosing the most reliable.  This may vary from article to article, and there may be some situations where airdisaster.com is the best. But the template shouldn't restrict our choice of sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the FAA registry is not a good source.  The N-number has been reissued and is used now by another aircraft. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|Airreg}} template 

message: Some discussion has occurred over the past several days over how to advertise our project better off-site.  One way to do it might be to join some web rings, such as the UK aviation web ring.  Comments?  Ingoolemo talk 23:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit ambivalent about this -- if there are web rings I think it should drop onto a portal page -- perhaps even a "webring" portal page.  I am against linking directly to articles.  —Cliffb 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Webrings still exist? ericg ✈ 05:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web Rings 

message: Our "friend" is back, see his recent activity over there. --Denniss 17:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the recent block seems to have cooled his edits, if not his tongue; I seem to be attacked in each of his edit comments. However, despite the edit comments, some of his edits have amounted to scaling back his more outlandish comments. (e.g. "easily defeat the A-4" -> "trained to beat the A-4", which I find acceptable). However, some of his sources are just silly (freerepublic posts, concluding that the Navy rewrote its program specifications, based on the labeling of a model), and those citation tags have been replaced. I'll see how this plays out.--Mmx1 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[F-14 Tomcat]] 

message: I'm not that expert on these planes but they look very similar. The Arcturus seems to be a subvariant of the Aurora. Do we need separate articles for them ? Need expert option. --Denniss 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CP-140 Aurora]] and [[CP-140A Arcturus]] 

message: In a similar vein...I put these two aircraft together, because they are pretty much internally identical - however some texts treat them separately - happy to spilt if there is any strong opinion Winstonwolfe 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vickers Vildebeest]] and Vincent

message: Center of pressure has been disputed and stagnant for a long time now. Could someone please give it some love? Thanks, Melchoir 04:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on this and have stubbed center of lift off to a new article. They're absolutely not the same thing, and center of pressure has no place in a discussion of center of gravity regarding aircraft. Lift != pressure. Anyway, a second or third set of eyes on this would be appreciated. ericg ✈ 05:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Center of pressure]] needs help 

message: At CAC Boomerang, there was a comparison table comparing its characteristics to other similar fighters.  The table, which I removed temporarily, can be found at Talk:CAC Boomerang#Comparison table.
What do y'all think?  Is it worthwhile to include that sort of thing at all?  If so, where?  In each individual article?  In a 'comparison tables' article?  Ingoolemo talk 01:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO tables could be an interesting (although simplistic) means of comparing aircraft. Separate pages, like "Comparison of WW2 fighters", make more sense than stuffing these tables into the articles. I can foresee extreme fanboyism and potential claims of original research with these though. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * They don't do a thing for me, personally. I don't see a need for them in the basic aircraft articles, but it might be useful in something like the fighter "generations" article as a way to compare "typical" fighters for each and contrast it with those of the preceding and succeeding generations. It might also be useful when discussing the progress of fighter capabilities during WWI & WWII from the respective start of the war to its end. --Askari Mark | Talk 02:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome to WP:Air! Why would anyone object to constructive editing? :) Performance envelope diagrams are indeed very interesting and also, as you correctly noted, exceedingly unavailable. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison tables 

message: An anonymous user has decided that all of the 'operators' sections in our articles need to have the countries listed, and not just the air forces, so they went through and replaced something like * Royal Canadian Air Force with* Canada
** Royal Canadian Air Force
I can certainly see the need for this if the list includes the Fleet Air Arm, RAF, USAF, USMC, and U.S. Navy.  But in most of these cases, only one operator was listed.  I think most of us are in agreement that in the latter case, the country need not be listed.
I would also like to note that our page content standards call for a list of all squadrons that use the plane in question.  In General, when we have a list of squadrons together, the operators list should be removed.
Comments?  Ingoolemo talk 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to rethink the operators section - it should list countries only, and squadrons should be in a separate list article a la List of PBY Catalina operators. ericg ✈ 19:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that squadrons should only be listed if there was some notability. Wikipedia is not a dump for information -- if the list of squadrons does not add anything to the article (and it rarely, if ever does), it does not need to be there. If the service was notable, like Dambusters or Tuskegee Airmen, that probably warrants a short paragraph in the text. The countries thing is annoying. So are the little flags. - Emt147 Burninate! 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would support the idea that the operators should not need the country name unless they are multiple users. Again not sure about listing all the the units that operate the aircraft and agree with Emt147 about notable units perhaps in a textual context not a list MilborneOne 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto Emt147 & MilborneOne. Askari Mark | Talk 17:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agree absolutely about the countries and flags (I have had to fix one article I wrote, where some enthusiastic user had decided if the type was used by a Chinese war lord in the 1920s it should have Users: followed by a Communist Chinese flag).  Personally I like the list of squadrons though, where this is going to be more than a half a dozen, they can be linked fromt hemain article rather than in it.  But I wouldn't delete that altogether - an encyclopedia is a dump for information - and there is value in collecting this sort of thing, which is not readily available elsewhere.  Winstonwolfe 02:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia is a purpose-based collection of information, not a dump for information. And Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Imagine if we collected information about each and every company/corporation that operated an aircraft and how unwieldy such articles would become. Because then, we might continue to distinguish them by type of operations and any other number of criteria, simply because someone may find value in the information. (Born2flie 13:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operators section 

message: Recently I went to a local airshow and took pictures of a bunch of airplanes.  I've been able to identify most of them, but there are a few, mostly World War II-era, that I haven't.
*Mystery aircraft 1, front corner view
*Mystery aircraft 2, front corner view Front view Detail of stenciled lettering
*Mystery aircraft 3, front corner view Side view
*Mystery aircraft 4, front corner view Back corner view Front view Side view
*Mystery aircraft 5, front corner view Front view Rear view Side view
*Mystery aircraft 6, side view
Thanks for any help identifying them. --Carnildo 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 and 2 are the Yakovlev Yak-18 (or whatever its Chinese Nanchang equivalent was called, CJ-5 or CJ-6); 3 and 4 are the Navion (aka North American L-17); 5 is a Cessna O-2 Skymaster; 6 is an A-1 Skyraider. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've updated the commons images stuck through above. using EMT147's info and N-number registry information. No tail number visible on the other two, so I'm not sure I want to update those since I can't tell Russian from Chinese. For future reference you could use the Canadian aircraft registry and the FAA N-number registry. Dual Freq 04:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm good at taking pictures of things, but not so good at identifying what they are, which is why I haven't uploaded more images.  I'll get the images cleaned up, renamed, and put in the appropriate articles. --Carnildo 06:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery aircraft 

message: This isn't strictly aircraft-related (in the sense of relating to a specific make and model article) but I think I'm probably safe in assuming that most participants over here are aviation enthusiasts. There's currently an RfC filed to get some outside input on Comair Flight 5191, specifically whether or not certain facts reported by the media (but as yet unrelated to the crash) should be included in the article. Thanks for any help my fellow aviators can provide, and sorry for the semi-spam. I'll go improve an article or two as penance. :) --chris.lawson 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unh-uh! I ain't getting involved in that mess. :) (Born2flie 03:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Comair Flight 5191]] 

message: Should the E-767 be listed as a section on the E-3 page (since the E-767 is is a modified 767 with E-3 equipment), or does it deserve its own page?
Musashi1600 06:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there are significant differences between them that you haven't mentioned/I don't know about, the E-767 should be part of the E-3 article.  Comments, anyone else?  Ingoolemo talk 07:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with MilborneOne.  The E-767 needs its own article.  Ingoolemo talk 03:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed some of the bits about the E-767 on the E-3 page on 6 September because the E-3 article is about a variant of the Boeing 707 aircraft - The E-767 is a variant of the Boeing 767 and should be on that page or even an article of its own. There is still a note on the E-3 page about the mission package being fitted to the E-767 under future developments. MilborneOne 11:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this move until a proper E-767 article is created. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to put this discussion into perspective- the only thing that has been deleted is the title Units using the E-767 the text was not deleted just moved under Future Direction. MilborneOne 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[E-3 Sentry]] and [[E-767]] 

message: I'm having a little trouble conveying the importance of the Piper Cub over at the talk page. If someone has links to 'famous aircraft' polls or anything, please chime in (but don't make it an attack! that sometimes happens). ericg ✈ 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd little back and forth 

message: This article is talking about probable events in 2005 (e.g. may happen in the future in the year 2005). We're in September of '06. Can you get some people into that article? Colonel Marksman 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article exactly? I searched for White Night One and came up empty. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: White Knight One (Born2flie 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: White Night One Article

message: I've been adding some data to the List of military aircraft of Japan and I am curious as to whether there has ever been any discussion of a standard format, content, listing order (alphabetical by manufacturer/by IOC/or whatever)? These lists are a mess and no two appear to take the same approach.  The Japanese list, for instance, starts with "1945 to date" and then goes to all older aircraft; the German list starts from the beginning.  Any thoughts? Askari Mark | Talk 00:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be interested in views on this -  I (half) did the List of aircraft of the RNZAF and RNZN and would be first to admit it looks messy.Winstonwolfe 03:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as Mark says above, the list of U.S. military aircraft is aweful.  A much better system, for American aircraft at least, is to list aircraft according to the respective service's designation systems, as at my yet-unfinished User:Karl Dickman/Projects/Aircraft/LMAUS.  Ingoolemo talk 04:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National aircraft lists 

message: Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
*Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
*Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
*About the plugin
*About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
*User guide
*About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 11:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

message: Currently many of the aircraft pages contain the Template:Aircraft specifications, producing message "For an explanation of the units and abbreviations in this list, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Units key".
It may be useful, however there are a few problems with it. First of all, it is somewhat self-referencing, pointing to WP:AIR subpage. That is generally considered undesirable, since Wikipedia mirrors might skip Wikipedia namespace contents. I don't see reasons to keep this out of the main namespace. Maybe it would be better to move it to the main namespace, calling something like "Aircraft units", or was it already discussed?
Second, the page itself doesn't really give an explanation, and not even conversion coefficients. I think it could be improved, at least by giving definitions to some units and explaining their meaning for an aircraft. I could do some of that. Any objections/suggestions? --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea, go for it. I'd suggest a move to something like aviation-related units. ericg ✈ 16:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections.  Ingoolemo talk 03:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units key 

message: No project page. Is this a reality or a suggestion? And how is this not under the purview of WP:Air's stated purpose? (Born2flie 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject: Aviation History?? 

message: There's been a discussion going on over at Talk:X-38 Crew Return Vehicle that I'd like to invite other project folks to take a look at and weigh in on. It started with a merge of two articles, then a debate what the article should be named. A recent input from an editor called into question the wisdom of the merge. Problem is, there just hasn't been really enough people reviewing the situation to come up with a good consensus, which is what's really needed. We could use the wisdom of the project to help with the discussion! Thanks! Akradecki 18:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: X-38 discussion

message: Just wondering how much of the specifications template the rest of the editors feel should be filled out before the  template is removed. I think there should be some sort of quantifiable idea that certain numbers are more critical than others, and when the critical information is filled out, then the template should be removed. (Born2flie 13:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit difficult to say since the specs cover all aircraft. Some factors, like "Not to exceed speed" are less relevant today than they were in the early decades of aviation and can be challenging to find data for in any case. As a practical consideration, I'd suggest an upper bound of around 75-80% of the data entries should be a good indication that a solid effort has been made to date to satisfy the data requirements. Askari Mark | Talk 18:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to point out, never exceed speed is always relevant. Every pilot's operating handbook and airspeed indicator out there has a value for VNE, and faster jets have limiting Mach numbers. What does exist is an increasing level of confusion in publications and existing resources between maximum cruise and never exceed speeds. ericg ✈ 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: True, but it's a lot farther away from stall speed than it used to be, and modern flight controls tend to be coded to prevent you from reaching VNE. Furthermore, the operating handbook isn't readily available for a great many aircraft (and are classified for not a few military aircraft).  For an encyclopedia, it seems to me to be a "nice-to-have" but not an essential metric ... unless you're going to fly the aircraft from what you learn on Wikipedia. ;) Askari Mark | Talk 03:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say that the general Wikipedia user would expect to see the same types of information as would be found in popular books on aircraft, such as those by Bill Gunston. That would include all of what's currently "mandated" except for VNE (and, of course, Power/mass and Thrust/weight are an either/or). Others sometimes lacking include various of the given weight and speed categories ... but several range categories are commonly seen (and it is quite unclear which is - or are - preferred here). Askari Mark | Talk 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft Specs Incomplete 

message: Hi everyone. Air Force One is up for featured article review as it lacks inline citations. It can be found here. If anyone is able to provide sources for it or any other improvements, please do so. Marskell 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Air Force One]] Featured article review 

message: My significant edits to Boeing 747SP (including removing specifications for 3 other 747 models and citing sources for the 747SP data) were recently reverted by an anonymous editor who believes I made it worse. Please review and add your input. ericg ✈ 05:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My feedback is on the talk page. Akradecki 15:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  747SP 

message: F-35 Lightning II is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[F-35 Lightning II]]

message: An increasing number of airliners (Boeing 747SP, for example) have cropped up with specifications in a table format that cover multiple variants, often differing only in engine and weight figures. Additionally, they're missing quite a bit of the content present in the standard template. The project guideline is to only list specifications for one most popular variant of an aircraft, rather than all of them, describing the others in the text.
What action should be taken on this? Any change away from the table seems to prompt a rapid revert. ericg ✈ 07:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  several airliner specifications sections 

message: I've just created this Article, could I please have some help with it?  Thanks, Dfrg.msc  1 . 2 . 3 23:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your contribution! However, there is already an article on that airplane, Ilyushin Il-2. Please see what new material you have that can be added to the original article. Best wishes, Askari Mark | Talk 23:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Il-2 Stormovik]] 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory