Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 12

message: On the grounds of my arguments above, (IBNLT redundancy), I would like to propose that we deprecate these templates as a whole.  I would also like to make separate motions to kill the 'X-planes' template, on the grounds that it's redundant with the existing category, the existing list, and the 'sequence' section of , and to kill the 7x7 Template, on the grounds that it does not accurately reflect Boeing's designation sequence.  Ingoolemo talk 22:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to deprecate said templates

message: I believe we should follow FAA-style formating for at least civillian aircraft, I also added role section which could be universal with perhaps slight modification
===Categories===
FAR (Federal Air Regulations) 1-3
Categories (Certification of Aircraft):
*1-Transport
*2-Normal (utlity, acrobatic)
*3-Limited
*4-Restricted
*5-Provisional
FAR 1-4
Categories of Rotorcraft:
*A-Transport Category Rotorcraft, means multiengine rotorcraft designed to meet PART 29
*B-Single Engine Transport Rotorcraft or multiengine rotocraft not meeting PART 29
===Class===
FAR 1-4
Class (Certification Of Aircraft)
*1-Airplane land
*2-Airplane sea
*3-Rotorcraft
*4-Glider
*5-Balloon
===Powering===
*1-Reciprocating
*2-Turboprop p.s. not a jet
*3-Jet
*4-Not Powered (like gliders)
*5-Other
===Role===
*1-Interceptor
*2-Bomber
*3-Military Transport (ex:C-130)
*4-Civillian Transport (ex:A380-f )
*5-Airliner (ex:A380)
*6-Trainer (ex:Cessna 172)
*7-Personal (ex:Cessna 172)
*8-Shows and competition (Pitts S-2-A)
Its clear that the roles can overlap expecially since multiroles are becoming more popular
===Explanation and Example===
*Piper Cherokee is under category normal and utility under certain loading, it is under class landplane and airplane powered by a Reciprocating engine, it is most populuar as a trainer and a personal airplane. 
:Normal
::Airplane (land)
:::Reciprocating
::::Trainer
:Normal
::Airplane (land)
:::Reciprocating
::::Personal
*Extra 300 is under category normal, utility and aerobatic under certain loading, it is under class landplane and airplane powered by a Reciprocating engine, it is most populuar as a aerobatic-trainer(2-seat) and a competition-aerobatic airplane.
:Normal
::Airplane (land)
:::Reciprocating
::::Trainer
:Normal
::Airplane (land)
:::Reciprocating
::::Shows and competition
*Airbus A380 is under category Transport, it is under class landplane and airplane powered by 4 Jet engines, it is most populuar as an Airliner and a Freight airplane. 
 
:Transport
::Airplane (land)
:::Jet
::::Airline
:Transport
::Airplane (land)
:::Jet
::::Civilian Transport
Since most countries have model their local CARs partly or wholly under the same categories and classes this should be universally acceptable.
This will create overlapping but will be the most user-friendly, I believe. Also we could add surveillance and I believe no more than 2 will be for each plane.
--raraa 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories and clasees

message: *Piper Cherokee is under category normal and utility under certain loading, it is under class landplane and airplane powered by a Reciprocating engine, it is most populuar as a trainer and a personal airplane. 
:Normal
::Airplane (land)
:::Reciprocating
::::Trainer
:Normal
::Airplane (land)
:::Reciprocating
::::Personal
*Extra 300 is under category normal, utility and aerobatic under certain loading, it is under class landplane and airplane powered by a Reciprocating engine, it is most populuar as a aerobatic-trainer(2-seat) and a competition-aerobatic airplane.
:Normal
::Airplane (land)
:::Reciprocating
::::Trainer
:Normal
::Airplane (land)
:::Reciprocating
::::Shows and competition
*Airbus A380 is under category Transport, it is under class landplane and airplane powered by 4 Jet engines, it is most populuar as an Airliner and a Freight airplane. 
 
:Transport
::Airplane (land)
:::Jet
::::Airline
:Transport
::Airplane (land)
:::Jet
::::Civilian Transport
Since most countries have model their local CARs partly or wholly under the same categories and classes this should be universally acceptable.
This will create overlapping but will be the most user-friendly, I believe. Also we could add surveillance and I believe no more than 2 will be for each plane.
--raraa 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation and Example

message: Hi guys! we are translating article LAPA flight 3142 from Spanish into English and we're having a hard time finding some word in English. Could someone with technical knowledge give us a hand with the technical stuff? Please, take a look at the questions in Talk:LAPA flight 3142/Translation, and maybe keep it in your watchlist for future dubts. Thanks a bunch. Mariano(t/c) 10:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: I am interested in making units consistent and have taken part in discussions here. I have created a simple tool that makes the task quicker. If you want to use it, feel free. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. This will give you a 'units' tab to press in edit mode. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does 'winc' work in the Classic skin?  Ingoolemo talk 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. bobblewik 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making unit formats consistent 

message: I've had a 'go' at Junkers Ju52, Hawfer Hunter & Gloster Gladiator. Cheers - Ballista 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: A request for mediation has been filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#F-14_Tomcat, and editors are invited to participate.
--Mmx1 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we move to get a consenus to halt his editing while we sort out the whole VFAX/VFX/FX development story? He's pushing his personal opinion, based on selective use and quotation of sources (including usenet and forum posts - when I pointed this out to him, his reply was "sources are sources"). I've stopped edit warring with him (which you can see in the edit history of F-14, and the talk page), and requested mediation Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#F-14_Tomcat (which he's rewritten into an attack on me). The user has some serious misconceptions and some bizarre ideas (consult the bottom of the F-14 talk page) and we should sort them out. --Mmx1 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A cease-fire mandated by WP:Air, do you mean?  I like the idea, but there's absolutely no precedent for it.  However, before we discuss this further, I strongly recommend that we remove all of the above discussions about this dispute from this talkpage.  If a cease-fire measure is approved by enough people, the fellow will probably find his way to this talkpage, and if he sees what's been said behind his back it might make things difficult for you.  Ingoolemo talk 00:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't asking for a WP:Air-mandated action per se, but more of an active voice from editors in supporting mediation. So far, the editor's taken the collective unwillingness to edit war as implicit approval of his edits. There's nothing to hide, I haven't said anything here I haven't also brought up at the Wikiproject Military History page which he's participated in, or directly on his talk page. --Mmx1 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hiding it won't help at all. ericg ✈ 06:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update: Request for Mediation

message: With Mediation at an impasse, I have filed a Request for Comment on Wiarthurhu Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu. as the next step to resolving the issues on the F-14 Tomcat page. Your input is requested. --Mmx1 05:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update 2 - RfC

message: Something I've considered suggesting for some time, but never got around to, is holding deletion discussions here (on this talkpage).  For example, another option for Eric would have been to nominate those templates for deletion on WP:TFD.  There are a number of problems with this: firstly, my experience on TFD suggests that proposing the death of navigational templates almost never succeeds, even when such templates conflict with existing WikiProject standards; secondly, when deletion requests are posted on the standard pages, it's almost guaranteed that WP:Air members won't see it.
The primary solutions for this problem:
* Transclude TFD, CFD, and AFD subpages to this talkpage, or create a new project subpage to prevent cluttering this one.  An obvious problem is the rabid inclusionists who won't delete anything, even if members of this project don't want it.
* Hold discussions here and do not hold them on the official pages.  The obvious problem is that there could be significant backlash from the rest of the project if we bypass standard procedures.
I really hope that there will be some comments on my thoughts, because I consider them to be a fairly important suggestion.  WP:Air has 75 members, and its really not fair to everyone else when policy gets implemented based on input from Eric, Emt, and me.  Ingoolemo talk 23:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it probably would have been wise to wait. Still, the 'active US aircraft' navbox creator () understands the reasoning behind the change and supports it. ericg ✈ 03:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  Yes, you did jump the gun a bit, but seeing that there are no objections so far, it's no big deal.  Actually, the final paragraph in my previous post was mainly to urge feedback on my proposed system, not your proposed deletions.  Ingoolemo talk 02:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move deletion discussions here

message: I was just wondering, which Wiki Group covers air crashes, and related materiel? I know that there are templates out there, but I didn't know if there was anyone controling them.
This issue came up when I noticed Oceanic Flight 815, being the air crash from the TV series Lost sporting an official looking air crash template.  Personally, I feel that fictional crashes should not be published with that template included.  Since there is no one I can go to for an official opinion, I am posting here.  Any input will be appreciated.   --KPWM_Spotter 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Air Crashes

message: Just a random idea that I thought might be worth putting up for discussion - how about setting up either a sub-project or a sister project to concentrate on the flight technology aspects? I'm a university student from the UK studying Aerospace Engineering, and it seems that a lot of the flight tech articles could use some work. Opinions on this idea (for and against) would be most welcome. Chrisd87 14:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was quite shocked at the quality and accuracy of some of the articles on aerospace engineering topics when I was er, using Wikipedia to cram for my exam in it, and I'd happily lend a hand to any project to improve those articles. ZoFreX 16:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthering this idea, I have created a project proposal, which you can view here. --Chrisd87 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't pan out, I think all of us at WP:Air would gladly allow you to come up with some standards and some suggestions.  I fully support the idea, however.  Ingoolemo talk 02:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a suggestion... 

message: I believe (and I am going to make this proposal at each aviation related WikiProject) that this wikiproject should get in on Wikipedia:Vesion 1.0. Specifically the aricle assesment by WikiProjects part. I have three reasons for proposing this.
# There are a lot of articles that need attention, in every facet of aviation, whether that be aircraft, airports, etc. No system is in place at the WikiProject level to let people know the current status of aviation pages.
# We need to bring aviation to the masses. Right now it feels like aviation/aircraft/airport articles have their own editors, forming a clique that is seperate and isolated from the rest of Wikipedia. It's almost on the verge of becoming fancruft!
# This one is why I am proposing this specific couse of action - Aviation related articles need a presence at WP:1.0, and right now it takes a lot of work to find an aviation article on any list anywhere in regards to 1.0, print versions, etc.
This will accomplish the following:
# Eliminate the under-maintained and badly formatted "Pages needing attention" section at each project (updated by a bot (not very well) and created by Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal).
# Create a centralized list of articles, ordered by quality and perfectly indicating what work needs done, and where.
# Completed work can be transfered to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPTechnology for inclusion in the future WP:1.0.
I'm going to go ahead and create any required subpages and templates and leave instructions for everyone on the project page. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining in WP:1.0 

message: I have created a template for automatic processing of civil aircraft registrations. At best (eg. the FAA), this provides an abbreviation for the authority and hot-links directly into their search engine. Otherwise, it uses airfleets.net. To check it out, please see . Example usage is at Boeing 777, Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne, Scaled Composites White Knight, and Gimli Glider. It's just a start, and a lot needs to be added to it. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, but where on a page would we use the above template? Should it be added to any general format, or should it just be placed wherever there is a reg. number mentioned within an article?  --KPWM_Spotter 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I half-assed it and gave us at least some functionality. The problem is, to bring a specific entry up directly requires that you supply a date and airline. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft registration template 

message: Maybe an aircraft is something more complicated than a movie, and more details should be useful
12:02, 12 July (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surcouf (talk • contribs) 
:What does this mean? ericg ✈ 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or to put it another way: can you explain in more detail what problems you see?  What specific things need more attention?  Which need less?  Which articles need more attention?  But thanks for voicing your opinion.  Ingoolemo talk 00:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe more detailed... 

message: Another nav template that doesn't fit into articles very well.  I was trying to figure out what to do with it when the answer finally occurred to me: make it into a Portal.  If there are no objections, I will be doing that at some point in the future when I get around to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ingoolemo (talk • contribs) 
:I really don't understand the need for nav templates fitting every possible subject. It's kind of mind-boggling. ericg ✈ 05:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:RAF WWII Strategic Bombing]] 

message: On a lighter note, I have uploaded :Image:Editbutton aircraft.gif, which will provides an aircraft image.  By copying User:MarkS/Extra edit buttons, we can create editbuttons for one-click insertion of major aircraft templates.  Ingoolemo talk 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editbuttons 

message: I have just thrown together the above userbox for WikiProject aircraft.  It is currently located at User:KPWM_Spotter/WPAir_Userbox, you can link to it on your userpage using the template .  I haven't uploaded this to it's own mainspace page yet, due to the current controversy over userboxes, but if anyone else feels like it, go ahead and put it there.   Enjoy! --KPWM_Spotter 17:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, but I'd find a different pic before the image patrollers find it being used beyond its licence. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, take two.  I had mis-read the liscence for screenshots when I first uploaded.   Now replaced with a public domain image I found on the Aviation portal. Now at   --KPWM_Spotter 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, before we even have a vote, how many people will actually be using a userbox?  Userboxen don't fit into the layout of my userpage, and I very deliberately do not use them.  Ingoolemo talk 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the answer is...no one...  I'll just leave them on my namespace for anyone who wants them to use. Other than that, I guess there's no need to formally adopt them or anything...--KPWM_Spotter 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: Could we get some opinions towards which userbox to adopt as official?   (Or, we could just keep all of them?)
:Well, before we even have a vote, how many people will actually be using a userbox?  Userboxen don't fit into the layout of my userpage, and I very deliberately do not use them.  Ingoolemo talk 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the answer is...no one...  I'll just leave them on my namespace for anyone who wants them to use. Other than that, I guess there's no need to formally adopt them or anything...--KPWM_Spotter 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: I'm slowly working on documenting all of Burt Rutan's aircraft with articles, and would like to find an editor or two to help with a second set of eyes and copyedit my articles. Anyone interested? Akradecki 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be willing to look over anything you're working on.  If you could post an overview of what you're doing, and what pages you're working on, I'll take a look at what you have right away.   --KPWM_Spotter 19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, KPWM Spotter! So far I've created these new pages: Scaled Composites ATTT, Toyota TAA-1, NASA AD-1, and added or edited these to a fair degree: Rutan VariViggen, Rutan VariEze, Rutan Defiant. One the Scaled Composites page itself, I've added more of their aircraft, and started adding to the page content. I've got a ton of material, and really need to sit down and write a thorough history of both RAF and Scaled. I'll drop you a note on your talk page, too, and let you know as I do more. Thanks! Akradecki 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work so far, Akradecki. I did a bit of cleanup on the Defiant article - all I'd recommend is giving the WikiProject's page content article a once-over as far as sections go. Glad to see another Rutan afficionado working on the 'pedia! ericg ✈ 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scaled Composites / Burt Rutan project

message: When we did our specifications survey a while back, some respondents complained that abbreviations such as mi (for statute mile) and nm (for nautical mile) were not clear in meaning.  Ericg suggested using tooltips to prvent disambiguation.  For example, nm generates the text 'nautical mile' when you hover over the link: 180 nm.  However, others saw some problems with this approach.  For example, Special:Whatlinkshere/Nautical mile would include just about every aircraft article.  Myself, I find the colouration visually distracting.
I think I have found a solution: .  Rather than a hyperlink, it uses the title attribute of the  element to generate a tooltip.  It is also much less visually obtrusive: 180 .  Ingoolemo talk 02:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta say, that I had done that previous tip on one or two articles, but can see how that would overwhelm anyone looking for related articles on nm. So, I think I'm gonna use the  thing from now on. (Born2flie 04:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:H:title|h:title]]}} 

message: I think the use of the Importance scale is bogus. I just noticed some controversy over the "top" rating assigned to SS1. Someone else changed it to "high," arguing that it wasn't as important as WWII fighters.
I believe that, at best, this is a difficult thing for us to ascertain, and at worst, PoV. While I agree that some of the WWII fighters were crucial, and changed history in significant ways, who is to say that SS1 won't change history by ushering in a new era? I'm not poking at just this instance...but using it as an example of why I think the ratings scale is bogus. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 11:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with what your saying, but it's important to remember that the ratings scale is nothing more than meta-data.  Its sole purpose is to help us budget our efforts as we work to improve articles—nothing more, nothing less.  If people want to waste their time in a pissing war over this, that's their loss.  The highest priority is always article quality.  Ingoolemo talk 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: Im fairly new to editing the templates used on en, and the airspec-imp suggested this page. Could someone take a look at the spec table in P-26 Peashooter, please? --AndersL 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your involvement in the project.  As a kind of stopgap tutorial, you can see what I did to complete your edits at .  In the meantime, I think I'll have to write a tutorial for .  Ingoolemo talk 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  specs template

message: I have not fully written up my proposal yet, and I don't intend to invite formal discussion until I have a list of specific changes, but a working draft of a new category scheme has been posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories/Proposed update.  Ingoolemo talk 04:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated category scheme