Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 10

message: I'm not sure we need to be quite so aggressive with the archiving, especially since the last discussion you archived is from three days ago. ericg ✈ 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving 

message: I have just finished migrating about 180 "top priority" (in my honestly biased opinion) articles. User:Sylvain Mielot has been making good progress from the other end of the list. For an article written with any regard for WP:Air MoS (which is fortunately the vast majority), the migration takes maybe 2-3 minutes per article. I will make another "top priority" list -- this one will include a little bit of airliners and general aviation but my first objective is to migrate military aircraft simply because I find the (rather tedious) process more interesting. Like I said, I have my biases, if you want GA stuff done faster, get AWB and help out. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm randomly AWBing, mostly articles I've already contributed to or created, and I'll probably find my way into the GA sector in a week or two. Can you please shift all your AWB tools to a wp:air subpage? It'll be easier to find for new editors and myself alike ;) ericg ✈ 05:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure where to stick them. They are at User:Emt147/AWBsettings for the settings file and User:Emt147/AWBtasklist for the list. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For those of us who don't have the AWB, or can't get it working, I'm manually compiling a list using ; all articles in the category can be found at CAT:AWPS.  Please note, however, that I'm only tagging articles that I run across randomly.  I'm not making any effort to search for articles that need updating.  (This template was meant mainly to help myself, but I thought I should mention it here so others could make use of it.)  Ingoolemo talk 06:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template migration update 

message: I have designed a set of templates for navigation in certain aircraft categories.  The templates are Template:Milair ntd, Template:Milair nt, Template:Milair nd, Template:Milair td, Template:Civair ntd, and others.  I probably won't need help implementing them, but I just thought I should let y'all know.  I have TFDed the deprecated templates, but Netoholic has objected for their deletion, on the grounds that the new templates will interfere with ease of categorisation.  This in and of itself isn't a big deal, but with Netoholic's crusade against dynamic templates, we may have to deal with attempts by him to depopulate the templates in the future.  Ingoolemo talk 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool. Nicely done! - Emt147 Burninate! 23:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now finished implementing Template:Airntd, Template:Airnt, Template:Airnd, Template:Civairnd, and Template:Milairnd.  Template:Milairtd and Template:Civairtd still need to be put in place, but I should be able to take care of that on my own.  Ingoolemo talk 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The project is now complete, with the full implementation of Template:Milairtd and Template:Civairtd.  Ingoolemo talk 23:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft navigational templates 

message: Someone braver than I (and someone who cares about airliners) should tackle the specs for all the Airbuses and Boeings. Most articles have elaborate tables and complicated layouts covering all the subvariants, and I don't have the heart to nix them. IMHO the right thing to do is to cut down the specs on the main page to one specific variant only per MoS and move all the other information to a separate "Comparison of variants" page, as was done with Supermarine Spitfire, for example, and will be done with P-51 and Me 109. But that involves a lot of work, making tables, etc., and I'm just not that interested in airliners. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airliner specs 

message: I've written two templates for aircraft engine specs.
* Template:Jetspecs for gas-turbine engines, e.g. General Electric J79 for an example of use.
* Template:Pistonspecs for reciprocating engines, e.g. Rolls-Royce Merlin for an example of use.
- Emt147 Burninate! 23:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked over the templates, and they should work perfectly for what they've been designed to do.  Once again, kudos for Emt.  Ingoolemo talk 02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All done! - Emt147 Burninate! 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine specs templates 

message: just wondering whether it made sense to include fuel capacity in the template? Gzuckier 18:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh. It's a rare enough parameter that I don't think it would be worth the server load to do yet another qif check. Manually inserting the line works just as well. But others may disagree. :) - Emt147 Burninate! 22:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Emt147, doesn't make sense as a widespread item. ericg ✈ 00:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  aircraft specs template - fuel capacity? 

message: I wasn't exactly sure where to pose this question / comment, but I hope here that lots of knowledgable and perhaps even interested contributors might read this. My main interest is in aircraft of the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm and I've made some contributions here. However one thing that I have noticed is that there seems to be no agreed upon way of how to quote the mark / designation system. For instance on the BAE Sea Harrier page the FA2 was reffered to as FA.2 (this is what I presumed to be correct, but official publications no longer use the period) and FA Mk.2. Is there an agreed representation of this for articles, as it seems to be just confusing (and to me, annoying) that there isn't, but I don't want to go removing every period or Mk I can find and get it wrong! I would appreciate any comments / answers anyone
may have. Emoscopes Talk 19:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern convention makes away with full stops in most abbreviation so what was U.K. a while back is now UK. Most of th eyoounger audience will be more familiar with the latter style. On the other hand the use of the full stop (period) does help break up the designations between the letters and numbers so FA.2 looks (and therefore reads better?) than "F.A.2" or "FA2". the contracted form is easier to write than FA Mark 2 - which is itself a contraction of "Fighter Aircraft Mark 2" if I recall correctly. The general rule with abbreviatiosn is spell it out once and include the abbreviated form in brackets then stick to the sabbreviated form - thus " in 1963 the Royal Air Force (RAF)...later that year the RAF..." Is that any help? GraemeLeggett 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking more along the lines of the designation system itself, and what the official parlance is. Over the years, things seem to have gone from (e.g) Mk.II to F Mk.II to F.2 to F2. Desingation letters seem to have come in around 1943, and the Mk. part seems to have been dropped in the 1960s in official literature. I know it's an utterly minor nitpick, just to my eyes articles look a bit sloppy with no set representation of the different model designations. Emoscopes Talk 17:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flight Global consistently refers to the Sea Harrier FA2. I'm not sure if you can get any more authoritative without going directly to the MOD and asking for a reference. ericg ✈ 23:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British military aircraft designations 

message: Have some pending work to do on that troublesome page but first I need to retitle to set the proper aim for the article. Please drop by and discuss: Talk:Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft#New_Title_-_collecting_points_from_above. --Mmx1 04:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I've nominated this article for deletion. It's utterly unencyclopedic and is unlikely to become so in the future, as it's almost entirely conjecture and original research. ericg ✈ 06:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, deletion seems to have been shouted down.  Still, Eric's right: this article needs some heavy pruning.  Ingoolemo talk 17:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, hopefully this kickstarts a massive cleanup into gear. It's an absolutely horrible article as it stands. Less talk page discussion, more action. ericg ✈ 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I renamed the article as a precursor to editing (otherwise the edits would have been rejected as out of line with the article), and got shouted down and reverted by people satisfied with the status quo. So I've been sitting on that rename discussion until I'm confident I won't get shouted down again. As a compromise, can we get a userfy to my space so I can edit and repost to a different name later? This way the content is available for editing but the article is deleted, which, given the invitation to OR, it should be.--Mmx1 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Comparison of 21st century fighter aircraft]] 

message: I propose renaming :Category:Cargo aircraft.  (To see our current category scheme, check out WP:Air/C.)  My reasoning is thus: 'Cargo aircraft' is meant to be the civil counterpart of :Category:Military transport aircraft; under its current name, however, the relationship is slightly ambiguous, because the civil category does not contain the word 'civil'.  I would like to rename it :Category:Civil transport aircraft (we might as well use 'civil transport' over 'civil cargo', to make it analogous with its counterpart military category, though I do foresee some objections and am not opposed to the latter option).  Ingoolemo talk 00:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that ‘transport’ will include passengers as well. I’d suggest :Category:Civil freighter aircraft, or maybe just :Category:Freight aircraft, as it would include cargo without being specific and still exclude passengers. Most publications - Jane’s, for example - at least occasionally refer to airliners as civil transports. ericg ✈ 01:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly true, but I think that our use of a special category for airliners will preclude any potential confusion.  However, I don't think the change to 'freight aircraft' is necessary.  If we choose to make the distinction between 'civil transport aircraft' and its subcategory, 'airliners', then the current 'cargo aircraft' scheme should work just as well as 'freight aircraft'.  Ingoolemo talk 18:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let's stick with cargo aircraft, shall we? ericg ✈ 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Is anybody able to verify the given stats and specify a version of the He 111 for these stats ? User:Kurt Leyman is constantly reverting the stats to a late version He 111 (bomb load, armament) but this does not match the DB 601 engine data given (maybe other data affected as well). --Denniss 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got my Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II open to the He 111H; the entry says the most common was the H-6, and provides specs. I'll throw these into the article with a citation and hopefully deter any further unverified claims. ericg ✈ 16:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heinkel He 111]] 

message: This has been a hard one to figure out - we've had them in the section title for a while, and that's just messy. So, here's what I did: If you add |ref= to the template, it will output whatever you enter below all of the specs. If left blank, nothing will show! I'm using the source title, followed by a cite.php tag for the full citation. It's currently in place at Heinkel He 111 and PBY Catalina right now. Here's how it looks in use:
Specification data from Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II
General characteristics
* Specs: are down here
* Then: later on, you'll see:
References
If you've got changes or suggestions, go for it. I'd eventually like to see a majority of our specs fully sourced. In the meantime, new articles should be sourced as they're created for maximum awesomeness. ericg ✈ 16:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works as well as anything else we've done, though I think the reference note should be moved directly below ==Specifications==; this will obviate the need for the ----, which most readers will see only under the primary headers.  Also, I think it simply makes slightly more sense that way—though that's just personal opinion.  Ingoolemo talk 01:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome power! Nicely done. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Ingoolemo's suggestion is implemented, though it needed some css tweaking to the H3 to make it work. Should be fine now! ericg ✈ 17:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing sources in the specs template 

message: I've been building aircraft 3-views with Photoshop (Lockheed Constellation, Martin-Baker M.B.5) and licensing them under cc-by-sa. So... if anyone has requests, let me know on my talk page or here, and I'll add it to the list. ericg ✈ 06:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so everyone's aware, the current de facto standard, which I think works very well, is to have the image in the upper-right of the specifications section, with no formatting (such as thumbnails or captions).  Ingoolemo talk 18:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: However, there's nothing wrong with including a caption, because even if the image isn't in a frame you'll still be able to see the caption in the tooltip.  Ingoolemo talk 19:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that’s a good point. I have been including your caption as I add new 3-views. Also, the schematics on RAF pages, as well as NASA images and some older views from USAF recognition guides, are public domain (either US PD or UK Crown Copyright). If anyone spots these, grab them and upload them! ericg ✈ 20:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-view images 

message: I was updating Abrial A-2 Vautour, a French sailplane, and I noticed some specs unique to gliders that might be worth adding to Template:Airtemp:  and .  Comments?  Ingoolemo talk 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd use |more performance= for those. ericg ✈ 00:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, there are few enough gliders that it's probably not worth the special code. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glider specs 

message: :Category:Russian and Soviet aircraft engines seems to be the only one of our categories following the 'Russian and Soviet' scheme.  All others are 'Soviet and Russian', which also sounds better to my ear.  I propose we rename the engine category to bring it in line with the others.  Ingoolemo talk 17:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, that makes sense. ericg ✈ 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine_category 

message: It was recently proposed that Quickie Aircraft be merged with their product, the Rutan Quickie on the basis that only one aircraft model was produced and that the leading sentences are nearly identical. If anyone would like to help me flesh out the articles, rather than allow them to be merged, please lend a hand (or any other useful limb). Thanks. ericg ✈ 00:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed aircraft/manufacturer article merger 

message: Just so you guys know, there are a lot of public domain images available to us. If the picture is WWII and of a British aircraft, chances are it qualifies as ; if it's Italian, you can use . German images from 70 years ago (that's 1936 or earlier as of this year; use ) are public domain as well. If you've got any other relevant tags - or sources - list them here and I'll dump them onto the project page content page for future reference. ericg ✈ 04:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the vast majority of images of the old aircraft photos fall under Fair Use even if they are not explicitly in public domain since many of these aircraft no longer exist which means there is no source for free images and it is reasonable to use such an image for illustrative purposes. Some of the aircraft photos are obviously publicity shots and as such could also be claimed under Fair Use ( tag). - Emt147 Burninate! 05:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way it works. Photographs are covered by copyright. Fair use doesn't include putting them up on website, even the wikipedia, until copyright is exhausted.WolfKeeper 06:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD images 

message: My final opinion: we should refer to ratios only (as in thrust/weight) rather than to thrust/mass.  This is because even though the latter is slightly more correct from a physics/engineering standpoint, the former is very clearly the industry standard, as demonstrated by Wolkeeper in his multiple links above, and through a goole test:
* "thrust/weight ratio" -wikipedia: 11,500 hits
* thrust/weight N/kg -wikipedia: 303 hits
Also, we have an admittedly flimsy form of verification in the oldest version of thrust-to-weight ratio, created by User:Flemnira, who as far as I can tell has never been involved in any discussions here, and therefore can be considered impartial.
Should values in lbf/lb and in N/kg be included as suplemental units to the thrust/weight ratio?  I say yes.  I oppose lbf/lb, because it is numerically identical to the ratio and therefore not directly useful for anything the ratio isn't.  However, the N/kg value is very useful, because from that value one can calculate a plane's maximum horizontal acceleration.
Now, I very much agree with Eric that this discussion is far too heated for the minor quantity it discusses, so I think it's time that the debate be put aside.  The idea that a thrust/weight ratio is conceptually incorrect is patently wrong—though wholly understandable.  Let's just add the N/kg value to the specs and move on with our lives.  Ingoolemo talk 00:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I retract my suggestion of a united form of thrust/weight, because there is no easy Imperial equivalent to N/kg that could be used—which I consider necessary.  We could of course do lbf/slug, but that would be rather absured given that all other masses are given in lb.  Also, as I discovered later, N/kg is a measure of thrust/mass, not thrust/weight.  Ingoolemo talk 01:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I'm {#if:}ing the thrust/weight and power/mass lines in the template. ericg ✈ 04:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the N/kg, the English equivalent generally isn't used, so there wouldn't be any particular need to include it.  But it would be 1 ft/s² = 1 lbf/slug (or in the less used absolute fps system, 1 pdl/lb, etc).  You just multiply the "dimensionless" or lbf/lb or kgf/kg number by 32.174 to get this ft/s²=lbf/slug value, just as you multiply the "dimensionless" or lbf/lb or kgf/kg number to get N/kg = m/s².  Or 1 N/kg = 1 m/s² = (1/0.3048) ft/s² = 3.28 ft/s² = 3.28 lbf/slug. Gene Nygaard 06:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you ericg. Getting rid of derived values improves Wikipedia. I note that many respectable websites do not bother with them either. bobblewik 13:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read them as "getting rid" of them, but rather just dropping them if no values were entered in those parameters.  That would also get rid of the problem of a ":1" standing alone, when no entry is put in for them. Gene Nygaard 14:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. That is a smaller, but still welcome, improvement. bobblewik 15:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Gene is correct. ericg ✈ 17:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thrust/weight

message: There are precisely zero articles using that template. Do we really need it? It takes 30 seconds to swap the units around. With the current complex formatting using the "more" parameters, simply switching the units around will get you a big fat mess anyway. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least six articles have historically used this template; they have apparently been migrated to Airtemp, but doing so wasn't really necessary.  An update may take 30 seconds, but appending -switch is even easier.  I do support using a single template, maybe even taking care to depopulate -switch regularly, but it won't hurt to keep -switch for now.  Ingoolemo talk 22:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I'll keep depopulating it though. :) - Emt147 Burninate! 02:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airtemp-switch 

message: I've made a proposal at the village pump. A number of editors are using a cite.php tag wrapped in container divs (ie ) for their references section, and I've suggested that the stylesheet should be updated to include it instead of page-specific cruft. Everyone's input would be appreciated. ericg ✈ 02:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed monobook.css update for .references 

message: There's a lot of inconsistency in 3-view placement - to help, I've created  . The way it works is you add two parameters - the first is the image's name (ie what comes after image:), the second is what you want the 3-view described as. So,   creates the image to the right. Make sure to use subst: to reduce unnecessary server load.
Also, there are a bunch of aircraft plan views on the commons that I've started adding to articles. Some of them are higher resolution than existing ones, so don't hesitate to replace what is already in an entry. ericg ✈ 21:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer something like 'orthographically projected diagram' over 'orthographic projection' because it seems slightly more correct.  However, my proposal is unnecessarily verbose, so I would welcome an alternative before any changes are made.  Ingoolemo talk 22:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to mess with the wording - I'm mostly just using this as an easy way to get consistent sizing, style, and placement. The caption/alt is less important. ericg ✈ 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed 300px to 300px, which will allow us to prevent distortion of images smaller than 300 pixels wide.  Ingoolemo talk 00:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a good addition— but please make sure to  rather than include the template. ericg ✈ 00:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding 300px to control size wound up breaking the substitution. I've removed it; you can change image size manually. ericg ✈ 06:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more easy convenience 

message: I have nominated an article I created a long time ago for deletion, and I believe I explained my rationale very well on the AFD subpage.  I just simply feel that it's not an encyclopedic article.  Ingoolemo talk 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5653.  Ingoolemo talk 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug request to deal with redlinks in navboxes