Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 8

message: right|70px|thumb|To those who have contributed significantly to aviation in wikipedia 
I think that we should have some way of rewarding our best editors. Hence I propose The Pioneer Medal (right), for the reasons given in the citation. Unless anyone has any complaints and/or suggestions?--Xiphon 17:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Before he left, Rlandmann would give out WikiWings on a monthly basis.  Ingoolemo talk 02:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. But has anyone taken his place as 'giver of the awards' since then, or are we just stagnating on this issue?--Xiphon 06:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think wikiwings is meant more like a barnstar, and anyone should feel free to give them out. But I have no idea if any have been given out since Rlandmann left. On another note, if we do continue to use wikiwings as the aviation award of choice, would anyone mind if we found or created a new image? I love the award and the concept of it, but I just personally dislike the current image. I was thinking something along the lines of a military-style wings badge, with the wikipedia sphere in the middle for an insignia. -Lommer | talk 22:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this strike you? Really rough concept, so if anyone likes the idea and wants things changed it's more than doable. ericg ✈ 00:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought (not voicing an opinion!) you could use a barnstar in the place of the wikilogo.  Ingoolemo talk 02:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I like it --Rogerd 04:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Very Nice, well done!--Xiphon 05:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! That's exactly what I had in mind. Personally I prefer the wikisphere over the barnstar as the award's name is wikiwings and has no mention of a star anywhere, also I like the no-colour image. I'd like to make a motion that we adopt this in the place of the old image, and previous recipients can change to the new image or keep the old at their preference. Way to come through once again Ericg, I love it. -Lommer | talk 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, replying to myself... I just read the description of Rlandmann's wikiwings award and maybe this doesn't have to replace it. This could become the official award of Wikiproject Aircraft (Though we might have to share it with airliners and airports :-/ ) and be distributed in a barnstar-like fashion, unlike Rlandmann's wings which were awarded monthly. -Lommer | talk 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm happy to support whatever consensus we arrive at. The image does need a little cleanup, so I'll work on it a little more this weekend. It's also a transparent png, so if viewed by a browser other than internet explorer it'll look nice over any color of background (example that may or may not work to right). ericg ✈ 20:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Should I take the lack of further discussion to mean that noone objects and I can go ahead and make this our official award? Or does anyone have further input before I do... -Lommer | talk 21:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: heh yea sorry, I've just been really busy lately. -Lommer | talk 18:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've done it. I added a note to our project page, to Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia, and notified wikiprojects airlines and airports on their talk pages. The award is now open. -Lommer | talk 19:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's been moved to the Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals page for discussion apparently.--Sylvain Mielot 20:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On a different note... 

message: There is a lot of good categorization under :Category:Aircraft, but a lot of problems as well.  Many people have been trying to suggest clean-ups of problems on the WP:CfD pages, but it really needs a top down plan for better organization, and I would like to think WP:Air would be the right place to start that discussion.  One of the biggest problems seems to be the attempt to categorize the aircraft chronologically by using decade-based categories, for example :Category:Aircraft 1920-1929.  This is arbitrary and not necessarily conducive to researching the aviation of a particular time period or event.  For example, people will commonly want to browse World War II aircraft, but that involves at least three decades to look through to find most of the aircraft of that period, while many of the aircraft you see will not be World War II aircraft.  For example, in :Category:Ships, using simple named eras works much better, such as World War II, Cold War, Modern, etc.  I would like to see the chronological categorization change to this method, but want to hear what folks have to say. Joshbaumgartner 09:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with your opinion categorising by conflict.  A large number of World War II categories have now been deprecated and replaced by decade-based schema; some editors even argue that such conflict-based categories should be placed in templates rather than in the Category: namespace.  Ingoolemo talk 23:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The biggest problem I have with the decade-based system is that most people looking for aircraft chronologically will not know the exact year of its first flight, even if htey know generally when the aircraft was important.  What has worked well in other military equipment categories is to use the following eras for the period that aircraft articales would cover:  WWI (from the end of the Victorian Age to the end of WWI); WWII (from WWI to the end of WWII); Cold War (1945-1990); and Modern (1990 to present).  Given the fact that aviation, as opposed to most other military technology, may have a uniquely large number of articles from the Interwar period, perhaps adding such an era would be warranted, but these general eras are easily recognizable by most people without having to know much about the history of aviation specifically, and are delineated by major eras of aircraft development and use.Joshbaumgartner 01:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't categorizing what categories are for? Maybe I missed something, but I don't see why era or conflict categories are considered out of line. ericg ✈ 00:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not just do nation/type categories and do away with the year altogether. I fail to see what we are gaining by having 500 different subcategories. I went to see if an article was written about an aircraft today and it took me 5 searches to do it because the decades pages are a mess. Emt147 03:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a problem, although the era/type/nation format has worked pretty well on :Category:Ships.  Dropping chronological categorization altogether may work just fine though. Joshbaumgartner 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: What about creating some pages with side-by-side comparisons of specs of major adversaries or commerical competitors (e.g. Spitfire vs Me 109 vs FW 190 vs La 7 vs Yak-9 or F-4 vs MiG-21, etc.)? Emt147 06:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this is that the specs aren't the only factor in performance, especially when looking at fighter aircraft. There are plenty of sites around the internet with in-depth comparisons based on weight of fire, actual kill records, etc. - I think we'd do better to direct readers to these resources. Then there's the question of where we'd put these comparisons, certainly not in the aircraft articles themselves. It's a good idea, but I don't think we could pull it off without violating no original research. ericg ✈ 07:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. At a later date perhaps. Emt147 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, but think it is appropriate certainly to note important adversaries in the aircraft's article.  For example the Bf.109 article should explain its effectiveness against those it met such as the Hurricane and Spitfire, how it performed against them, and what the strongpoints and shortcomings that such a conflict made clear.  By the same token, the MiG-21 article would be incomplete without mention of its performance vs. the F-4.  Important stats could be mentioned in such text, thus putting them in the context of their role in the matchup.Joshbaumgartner 01:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! I think that's a much better solution; data tables are not always the best choice to convey information, and in the case of something like this, it makes more sense to describe the complexities. ericg ✈ 03:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice idea but it would be neigh impossible to pull off without being subjective unless you can find objective **official** published comparisons based on test flights (flight envelope charts would be even better). Pilots' accounts are an extremely subjective indicator of any aircraft's performance. Besides, combat performance is too operator-dependent (e.g. Cunningham entered an angles fight in F-4 against MiG-17 and won). Emt147 05:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison tables

message: Can be so bold as to point out a few things?
# If you are writing or editing an article, please take 5 seconds to calculate wing loading and power/weight ratios. It's only division. The same goes for not leaving imperial or metric units blank.
# Can we change the specs layout to make thrust/weight and wing loading links to pages explaining what they mean. These parameters can tell a lot about a/c performance but their meaning is not obvious to a layperson.
# Can we add a Mach number to all fast subsonic and supersonic a/c when the altitude for the max speed is known? Explanation for calculating the Mach number and the Mach vs altitude tables can be found here: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml
# Is there a reason why climb rate is listed in m/s and ft/min in the suggested specs layout or this a typo.
Emt147 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Feet per minute is the standard measurement of climb in non-metric countries. I can't vouch for the accuracy of m/s, but I believe previous discussion stated that european gliders and the like use m/s. ericg ✈ 19:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know that it is a good idea to encourage all contributors to enter information that they are not comfortable calculating.  While it is nice if everyone would completely fill out the spec sheet on an aircraft, if the person is not comfortable doing the conversions and calculations you mention, they may not be accurate with them.  Instead, I would encourage editors to learn about the different stats and do what they are comfortable doing, but in cases where they aren't sure they are putting the right information down, they should leave it to someone like you who is better equipped to provide accurate data.  Remember, it may be only simple division, as you point out, but if the person doesn't truly understand the hows and whys of what they are doing, the potential for inaccuracy is great. Joshbaumgartner 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rate of climb in m/s was from the votes table at the top. Are we going by units used on VSI (vertical speed indicator) instruments in imperial vs metric aircraft? Either way, IMHO m/s and ft/min on the same line looks sloppy. If I was reading the article, I wouldn't know which number to believe -- the logical assumption is that both are per second or per minute. Good point on erroneous calculations. There isn't a way to make automatic unit conversions with a template, is there? Emt147 05:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, templates can't do that. I don't really see it as sloppy, though, and it's not really any different than comparing lbf to  kN. It's using a different scale of units to compare the same concept, something seen in most metric-imperial comparisons. ericg ✈ 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point with units is to ensure that our readership understands what's being described.  According to discussions had previously, as noted by Eric, m/s and f/min should make the most sense to the respective audiences for which they're intended.  Ingoolemo talk 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. :) Thanks! Emt147 04:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the book I use to write articles uses "Time to Climb", not rate of climb in some articles. Guapovia 10:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specs revisited

message: Could someone else please have a look at Special:Contributions/128.170.208.100 and help sort out all the stubs? I've lost the will. Melchoir 00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that I've finished.  Ingoolemo talk 05:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good! Melchoir 06:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  128.170.208.100 

message: What do you all think would be more useful for the project right now -- writing new articles or expanding stubs to make them full-fledged articles (or as full-fledged as some of the rare/prototype aircraft would allow)? Stubs linked through the aero-stubs page number in the thousands, so there's plenty of work. A lot of articles on the New Aircraft page need to be copyedited as well. The copyedit tag has not produced the best results in my experience since it draws well-meaning wikipedians who are not necessarily versed in aviation history and a lot of weird language remains. So, expand or make new?
- Emt147 Burninate! 06:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any opinions at all? Anyone? FWIW, my preference would be to fix the stubs and messy articles first. We have all the biggies covered and most of Jane's claimed great number of aircraft consists of one-liners that make Wikipedia stubs look encyclopedic. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally, I'd opt for cleaning up messy articles and stubs first as well. McNeight 23:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the feedback McNeight! One more thing -- if you do major updates, please note them on the New articles (aircraft) page. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's probably safe to say that nearly all of the most important aircraft have been covered by Wikipedia, so the main focus should be on expanding our coverage and quality in existing articles.  Of course, the choice of which approach to focus on is left mainly to individual editors.  Ingoolemo talk 20:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Write new articles or expand stubs? 

message: Looking at some of Fir002's new photos on Commons, I came across :Image:Detail of g for george.jpg, a closeup of the nose markings on a preserved Lancaster in Australia.
It occurred to me that a short article on the tradition of putting bomb marks on aircraft, and the similar practice of kill markings on fighters, wouldn't go amiss - but what to call it? I can't seem to figure out a good general term for the concept... anyone here have an idea? Shimgray | talk | 20:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For bombers, they're a record of missions flown, and I've seen that referred to as a "mission tally". For fighters I believe they're simply "kill markings". It's a hard one to look up. ericg ✈ 20:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The practice possibly dates back to cutting notches on a rifle stock for kills made (both hunters and soldiers used them, I believe), called "notches" or "hash marks". Possibly look under that? McNeight 22:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen reference to "kill marks" on knives, in various cultural contexts, as well. A surprisingly broad thing to look into... hmm, will put it on the back burner for now pending inspiration, it's just that we had such a good article to illustrate it :-) Shimgray | talk | 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idle thought 

message: There's a discussion going on at Talk:Circuit (airfield) about which article the merge should terminate at. I feel traffic pattern should be the destination, but I'd like to gather opinions and get some consensus on this before we continue. ericg ✈ 23:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge of [[circuit (airfield)]] and [[traffic pattern]] 

message: Short question: Macchi MC.20x or Macchi C.20x ? We currently have both. AFAIR it is Macchi C.20x or MC.20x  because M=Macchi but I'm not sure. 
* Macchi C.200, Macchi MC.202, Macchi C.205 --Denniss 12:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen both but it's easy enough to adopt one and create redirects from the other. - Emt147 Burninate! 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy yes but we should know it for sure, it seems it's a common problem throughout the web, one calls it Macchi MC.xxx and the other Macchi C.xxx --Denniss 22:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "The Complete Book of Fighters" by Green and Swanborough (1994) has it as C.200, C.202, and C.205V and C.205N. Just to make it confusing. (There was also a C.200Bis, but that was a one-off. Guapovia 10:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macchi aircraft designation 

message: I recently updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content to include the newer templates. If anyone needs further clarification (or thinks it would help) on how the  and  templates work, let me know, and I'll try to do some more thorough walkthroughs. ericg ✈ 23:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  updates to page content and other project guidelines 

message: I've been trying to get a concrete sequence for internal Lockheed aircraft project numbers, and it's tough. If anyone can dig up some more information, that would be great - I've been working on a series cheat sheet of sorts for a while now, and anyone who finds more is welcome to add to it. Thanks! ericg ✈ 21:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Man! That cheat sheet's handy. Thanks for letting us know, I'm sure I'll make regular use of it. -User:Lommer | talk 02:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad it's useful - I'm going to merge it into a WP:Air subpage eventually. For now, if anyone can fill in gaps (Liason in particular is awful, and Cargo and Attack are missing altogether) that would be great. ericg ✈ 20:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lockheed internal designation series 

message: Is there an easy way to update this? Were does the count of 1000 planes come from?--Technosphere83 22:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Counting the number of links to the Aviation lists template might give you some idea. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Project status

message: I get so tired of seeing entries in articles about aircraft (and other topics) like this .  I really don't think this kind of stuff belongs in articles about the aircraft.  By the way, I reverted this particular edit.  Is there a concensus that this kind of crap doesn't belong in an encyclopedia?  --rogerd 03:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if the aircraft played a major role in a major film/book/whatever, then I could see adding a line or two, but as it stands its getting way out of hand with even the tiniest mention of an aircraft in some obscure work apparently meriting inclusion. A quick look at buddy's contribs  reveals that the C-5 wasn't the only aircraft he added that to; it looks like he's on a mission... -User:Lommer | talk 05:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * A lot of those anime/video game references are too specific/obscure, could be a Namco employee doing advertising for all I know. I agree with nuking those changes. - Emt147 Burninate! 08:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia and video games 

message: Just signed on in WikiProject Aircraft. I've submitted articles on the Albratros D.i, D.II, D.IV, and D.V. Also the Fokker D.I. I'm also goign through tech specs and histories on other aircraft. My source for fighter aircraft is "The Complete Book of Fighters" by Green and Swanborough (1994). I have a lot of aviation magazines, too - might as well put them to work. Drop a note on my talk page or here if there's anything I can do to help. Until then, I'll just be working my way through the book. I'm doing WWI fighters right now...progressing mostly chronologically. Kick the tires and light the fires! Guapovia 10:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi, Guapovia here! 

message: Anyone willing to make a guestimate of how close we are to complete coverage, at least in stub form? The list of US military aircraft still shows a lot of red but other countries don't have exhaustive lists like that which makes it harder to track the progress. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly? Just my fighter encyclopedia claims to have 1700 entries. Given that we also have bombers, transports, airliners, and other small civilian aircraft, the 2100+articles I saw claimed for aircraft somewhere on these pages is just scratching the surface. Guapovia 08:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How complete are we? 

message: I have created List Of Air Ministry Specifications, though its rather stubby, to list those specs issued and the aircraft that were built and accepted for them. If any one comes across one while going through the aircraft articles it would be appreciated if they added it/cross referenced it to the list. Ta. GraemeLeggett 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, will do. Guapovia 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Ministry Specifications 

message: I just looked at the Wild Weasel article and it's pretty abysmal. Would anyone be up for a concerted effort to turn it into something special? - Emt147 Burninate! 04:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll watch it, and do some copyediting and formatting, but I don't know enough about the topic or have the resources to put out new content. Either way, it would be an appreciated improvement. ericg ✈ 06:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At your service, amigos. Big expansion of the Wild Weasel article done. Also, there's an article called SEAD which should be merged with Wild Weasel. After all, Wild Weasel is essentially a nickname for SEAD. Perhaps the Wild Weasel information could be merged into SEAD, with WW redirecting to SEAD? This way we could put in information about Navy and international SEAD efforts. Cheers, Guapovia 08:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with merge/redirect. I'll take a look at the article after my brain recovers from rewriting the F-4 page. :p Thanks for jumping in on the WW project! - Emt147 Burninate! 09:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sincerest pleasure. Let me know if there's anything else I should take a gander at. :) Cheers, Guapovia 07:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild Weasel - a call for collaboration 

message: There are apparently problems with using qif and templates within templates. This has recently been  brought up on the {aircontent} talk page, and will probably spread to  soon. I feel both templates are valid, convenient, and important, but others do (or likely will) disagree – including developers. Discuss. ericg ✈ 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential template issues 

message: I'd like to reopen discussion on using bold for specs. IMHO it creates a lot of clutter. Opinions? - Emt147 Burninate! 23:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolded specs 

message: The A-10 Thunderbolt II article has as much information about movies and computer games as it does about the actual aircraft. The aircraft info reads like a copyvio and there is not a single word about the development history of the type. The A-10 is a bit too new for my interests (I'd rather write about older birds) -- would anyone be interested in making an AIRPLANE (rather than a computer game) article out of it? I'll be happy to throw in bits and pieces of info as needed. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would. In fact, I have a magazine around with some details about an experimental 2-seat version of the A-10. I'll try a cleanup, first. Guapovia 07:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, there's now a section on "origins" and I broke up the "description" page. I put some of the info on the GAU-8 into "Trivia" and put in a section on nicknames. The TV, Games, and Whatnot I kept, because it's on the end, and who knows? someone might be curious someday. So what do you think? Guapovia 08:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, check out a guy who has way too much time on his hands - http://www.brickfrenzy.com/index.php?m=a10 :) Guapovia 09:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-10 Thunderbolt II 

message: Please note that all of the 'U.S. aircraft' categories have been nominated for renaming to 'American aircraft' on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.  Make sure to voice any opinion on this matter there within the next week. Josh 08:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I opposed. I think it's not needed. Also, a lot of people use "U.S." to talk about "U.S. Forces" or "U.S. President" or something like that. Join me in opposition. :) Guapovia 09:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I opposed. I encorage everyone to voice your opinions. Bear in mind that the name change will disrupt over 2,000 articles and I suspect the proponents of the rename who have nothing to do with this project will not be up until 5 am fixing the links (yes, I know bots do the renaming... when they work correctly. It's still US-centric.). - Emt147 Burninate! 03:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category rename 

message: It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_aviation_task_force - and I've been asked by the project's coordinator to see if any of us are interested in joining this TF. I feel that the military aviation is rather neglected in the Military History Wikiproject. Not though anyone's fault, really - it's just that Military History, conventionally, has been about battles and soldiers and guns. 
This task force would be a joint effort between MH and WP:AIR. Here in WP:AIR we have the expertise and the resources to really bring military aviation up to speed in Wikipedia. We could provide the aviation background of the airplanes and the men who designed them; Project MH has the background in history that could show how these "fabulous men in their flying machines" really came about. 
I think it's a great opportunity to show that Wikiprojects can collaborate on items of mutual interest. So come on down, click the link, sign up your name, and let's make history! :) Guapovia 03:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this different from what we are already doing with WP:Air (which is VERY military-heavy, by the way)? If you adhere to WP:Air guidelines, you should be writing about the aircrafts' development and service history anyway. I suppose I should ask this on that project's page. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replied on the project page. Guapovia 11:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military History has a new Task Force: Military Aviation 

message: I am working on the F-35 JSF, to help bring it up to featured article quality, It is already listed as a good article. Can anyone who knows more about it help me? Thanks! --The1exile 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One useful tool is Wikipedia:Peer review.  Ingoolemo talk 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was also going to mention its failed FAC, but you seem to have seen those comments already.  (You said that you had addressed the concerns of those commenting.)  Ingoolemo talk 08:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's back on the Featured Articles list --PopUpPirate 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[F-35 JSF]] 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend F-35 JSF as it has already been rated as a good article and is currently undergoing Peer review so it can be pushed up to featured article standard. --The1exile 18:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Convair B-36 has been Featured, but I feel that in its current version it needs a lot of work before it can even be considered good.  Ingoolemo talk 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I wil ad them to this table when I have time (or your group can). :) Thank you!  Gflores Talk 00:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: I submitted F-4 Phantom II for peer review. Please jump in with feedback! - Emt147 Burninate! 04:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phantom peer review 

message: PopUpPirate submitted this article for FAC again, after being voted a good article and having gone through PR. So far we have 4 supports and no objections. Take a look at the article, and if you think it's good support it! --The1exile 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations to all those contributed.  I promised to do an extencive review of the article myself, and am currently working on it.  When completed, I will post a full explanation of my changes at Talk:F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.  Ingoolemo talk 04:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats to all who contributed and/or supported! --The1exile 21:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[F-35]] for Featured Article again! 

message: Because there's no such thing as "too many projects," could anyone help to expand/complete the List_Of_Air_Ministry_Specifications? Thanks! - Emt147 Burninate! 23:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Ministry specifications list 

message: On a nudge from User:Petersphilo, I wrote a rough page on NACA airfoil sections. I think it would be nice to add the airfoil information, where available, to the specs because it gives a huge amount of information about the aircraft's wings (or helicopter rotors) and because for 4- and 5-digit NACA sections you can actually plug them into a java program and see what the wing looks like for yourself! 
Yes, it is a bit technical but it's only an extra line of information per page and from the standpoint of describing performance, the airfoil shape is as informative as wing loading and power loading. I propose this format:
* Airfoil (wing root/tip): NACA 12345 / NACA 67890 (yes, that is a very strange-looking wing :)).
This page has a ton of airfoils. I checked a few of them against my refs and they are spot-on.
http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html
Thoughts? - Emt147 Burninate! 04:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airfoils 

message: User:Christopher Mahan brought up a problem with Template:Aircontent. It places External links as a sub0-section at the end of Related content rather than as a separate section following  References. This is in conflict with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content as well as the general manual of style. Unfortunately, because the template is called following the Related content tag hard-coded into each page, there is no way to rewrite the template to place the External links above it. Any suggestions short of manually editing every page using the template? (I'd advocate for replacing it with conventional text). There are several hundred pages using this template... I'd appreciate the help! - Emt147 Burninate! 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to help.  Thanks for your concern.  Ingoolemo talk 06:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken care of all the planes from the PB4Y Privateer to the end of Special:Whatlinkshere.  Ingoolemo talk 07:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Have now made it to A2D Skyshark.  Ingoolemo talk 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Finished the first 50 (787 was the last one I did). - Emt147 Burninate! 22:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did the next 50, Tupolev Tu-204 is the last one I did. --Sylvain Mielot 05:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I'm starting at the end and working my way towards the beginning.  Ingoolemo talk 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reached the A2D Skyshark from the other end, so I guess we're done. --Sylvain Mielot 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with aircontent template