![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Someone just added a link to this article to the B-24 Liberator article - I'm not sure that a B-24 that "Little Eva" is notable - opinions? Nigel Ish ( talk) 13:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 3, a discussion is underway regarding the possible deletion of a category: Aircraft flown by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. The idea has been floated that many other similarly constructed categories could join this one, for example Category:Aircraft flown by Chuck Yeager or Category:Aircraft flown by Manfred von Richthofen. Please weigh in with your opinion. Binksternet ( talk) 01:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it too early for a Boeing 737 MAX article? We did merge the early attempts on the Airbus A320neo bac to the main article. So merge the 737 Max too, or re-create the neo? (The Aibus fanboys will surely demand that the neo have an article if the MAX does!) - BilCat ( talk) 19:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that although we have not yet been notified Ken keisel has requested a review of the project naming convention at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, in general and in regard to the ongoing move discussion at Talk:Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Airlines Flight 523 (2nd nomination). - Ahunt ( talk) 15:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Armed with Liron's book, I've started to fill some gaps in the set of Bernard aircraft. The three aircraft companies he ran sequentially are listed in Société des Avions Bernard. There is a naming issue here, so I'm seeking consensus before getting in too deep. The first machines from company#2, SIMB, appeared in 1922 and they stopped about 1927. I've only done two of these so far, Bernard V.1 and Bernard V.2, following the simple naming style that works OK for the earlier Avions Bernard aircraft like the Bernard AB 1 and explaining the SIMB name in the text. Since then, though I have seen that the name SIMB is often included, with or without Bernard. I'm sure there is no right answer (some folks even use the SIMB nickname Ferbois, as in Bernard-Ferbois V.2) but am beginning to think Bernard SIMB might be a better description, including the manufacturing company whilst noting the aircraft as part of the Bernard line and being fairly simple. It's one of several styles used in Liron, so not my invention.
What do you think? If you are content, I'll move those first two to Bernard SIMB Vn and use similar titles for new articles (explaining the alternative names in the text). The watershed between SIMB and SAB is not quite as clear as he AB/SIMB one, but I'll follow Liron on that later. TSRL ( talk) 09:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I noted this edit to the Harrier article. It is my understanding that we can link to aviation years in infoboxes using the 'avyear' template but we don't link dates anywhere else in the text by consensus. I believe 'Lightbot' is programmed to leave these links in place. In theory if all these links were removed the aviation year articles would become orphans. Strictly these are not linked dates but a link to a related list article (the Harrier does not currently appear in the 1967 list for first flights but it should be entered). I think the removal should be reverted as it is not a date formatting problem. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some contention about whether certain Lavochkin aircraft aritcles should be title Lavochkin La-xxx, Lavochkin Aircraft xxx, or Lavochkin aircraft xxx, with cross moves being made, and perhaps some dupicate articles created and/or redirected. - BilCat ( talk) 23:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what R4D-3 05078 (41-20124) is supposed to be, but it sure needs some help, and perhaps a better name. - BilCat ( talk) 06:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Icon A5 could use some attention and major clean-up, if anyone's interested. - BilCat ( talk) 15:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, does anyone know what kind of plane this is →
— Moebiusuibeom-en ( talk) 02:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that User:MatthewStevens is adding link to the USAF Transport nav box from the first occurence of the C- word in an article, I have reverted a few and left him a note to stop and discuss. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks. Finally back after an extended absence, just checking in to say yes, I'm still alive and I'll be getting back into the swing of editing forwith. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
During the GA review of the article, I discovered close to half a dozen individual events that may have put the HAL Dhruv helicopter in a bad light were completely unmentioned. It appears now that these efforts to evade negativity are deliberate, note the following paragraph switch:
Erased and replaced with:
While the good aspects of the project should not be left out, I don't see a valid reason for oblitorating accounts that customers have been experiencing a less than perfect situation. I fear that this situation may be an institution of the article, and will be extremely hard to combat. Kyteto ( talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I was looking through some photos (taken in Derbyshire last year) and came across one of what is a Piper Super Cub or close relative, with the serial N498H. Part of the serial is in shadow but I think that's right. Nothing on Google, not on FAA reg ... Anyone know it? TSRL ( talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Just ran across Helibras HM-1 Pantera. Does this really warrant an articvle separate from Eurocopter AS565 Panther? - BilCat ( talk) 21:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The A-class review for Boeing 767 is now open at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 767. Thanks in advance for any input! Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 19:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This looks like antoher copyvio image, but I've had trouble finding a internet source giving the copyright. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Template:Airtd seems to have a problem with the colours used. In, for instance, Category:Experimental aircraft 1980-1989 the headers appear as blue text on black background - ie almost invisible. Just me or something that can be fixed for everyone else. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 10:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to nominate the article The Galloping Ghost airplane as a member of both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. To support this, I have looked though several guidelines and policies and I believe that it seems to be notable enough for this to occur. To start with, this article is about an aircraft that crashed recently and was destroyed in the resulting impact. While not a policy, according to WikiProject Aviation section Aircraft accidents and incidents to be included, "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)" The pilot, Jimmy Leeward, was killed in the accident. In addition to him having been killed in the accident, he is also notable for having been an actor in several films. This means that the criteria for inclusion has been successfully proven.
In addition, the following section says that an article "may be notible enough for a stand-alone article" should it meet several other criteria. To start with the General notability guideline, the only criteria that it potentially not meet would be "Significant coverage" as the article is still a work-in-progress, like most articles, and I do not completely know if the criteria has been fulfilled. The criteria of "Reliable" and "Sources" seems to be fulfilled. The criteria for "Independent of the subject" seems to have been passed, with only using it as a reference to help support another reference and the notability of the article. While I do believe that the criteria of "Presumed" has been fulilled, though if someone could I would like someone else to make sure that it does pass this if the can.
For the guideline of Notability (Event), I would like to point out that the aircraft was involved with an accident that has killed one person and has recieved considerable attention in the media to warrant a page to be created about that accident, was flown by a person who has a biography page currently on Wikipedia, an aircraft that was the last of its type to be publicly sold, an aircraft that had prototype modifications made to it before the accident, and has broken a record in the past; 1947 - breaking the record for fastest closed-course speed.
Finally, for the guideline of the section Wikipedia is not a newspaper on what Wikipedia is not, I would like to mention that the article in question was created because of the crash. However, the article has since been improved to provide a partial history of the aircraft in question with sources that make it have a historical significance that is pointed out in the notabilities of the aircraft. The same goes for news reports in that the article was created for that and has been improved to show that it is notable. As for the third criteria, the person is notable enough for several different reasons and adheres to the core policies on content from what I see.
I would like to add that I am not familar with some of this projects policies and guidelines, so please correct me if I have made an error. In addition, I know that the article lacks a good deal of information and that it need inprovement in more than one section. However, I believe that it currently has meet the criteria to be made a member of both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. 204.106.252.64 ( talk) 05:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Dewoitine D.26 states that the last example was withdrawn from use in 1970, and was then put into a museum. However, the photo that I have just uploaded to the article is from Duxford in 1975. Would someone like to research that, and see if the 1970 date is in fact correct. Thanks, -- Russavia Let's dialogue 12:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I could use some help with Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche in regards to this Good Article nomination review. The GA reviewer asked for info on the program's problems be added. I have added more info on this. But have found nothing of real substance on who or what was to blame, etc. Try to help if you can. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 16:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
After a preliminary discussion, I've decided that it should be appropriate to suggest the removal of this redundant sub-article. It isn't typical to give aircraft's cockpits their own articles on their own, and it was in a shabby state of affairs, using non-RS refs and main details in excess of nominal levels on other articles. When put down to size (I have already sent the content to the Raptor page) it added less than 3kb to the main article; while the main is now approaching 120kb, I do have a suggestion for this problem as well. If necessary, a future of the F-22 article (rough name only) for all the procurement interest, continued upgrades and a possible export/bomber variant ect could be put together to act as a much more succulent and trafficked/useful spinoff; as opposed to the minor cockpit article that doesn't reduce the main article at all. Two seperate issues, but would people now see it as justified to initiate a move to delete the remnants of the Cockpit article now (or merge, although all useful content is already now intergrated into the main). Kyteto ( talk) 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the WPAVIATION template auto-fills in for C-class if B3, B4, and B5 are all filled in with 'yes', regardless of the state of B1 and B2. The Milhist project recently adopted C-class (after long being a holdout), but has the requirement of B3+B4+B5 and either B1 or B2 being met for an article to be rated as C-class. I was wondering if perhaps we might want to change our C-class standards to that as well? As it seems to be a better standard, IMHO (an article failing both B1 and B2 should, really, stick at Start until one or the other is met...) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
A new editor has created MJET an austrian biz jet operator, dont have a problem with that but they are adding MJET to the biz jet articles like Gulfstream IV, I have removed it twice so really needs somebody else to look at it, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It might interest some here that List of launch vehicle plans is currently at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This seems a little harsh. FlugKerl ( talk) 04:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that for some reason, there is no consistent naming of Piper aircraft. For example, the article names read Piper PA-31 Navajo, Piper Cherokee (nothing about PA-28 here) and just Piper PA-23 (without a name, though here it could be either Aztec or Arrow - on the other hand, the Navajo might also be called Chieftain). Don't you think that a consistent naming is desirable? -- AdAstra reloaded ( talk) 19:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
After much pondering, I came to the conclusion that 2008 Guam B-52 crash doesn't seem to meet the standards for inclusion, and have prodded it. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
A user has requested a speedy rename of all the aircraft catgories to change the dash, this has been raised before and declined but keeps getting raised see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy MilborneOne ( talk) 05:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Due to my complaint the renaming of aircraft categories has been raised a CfD for further discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 20#Hyphenated aircraft categories, although it appears that we dont have any valid reasons as a project to ignore the power of the em-dash lobby. Any comment either for or against welcome at the CfD. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Now apparently AWB is enabling changing the cats to dashes, when the pages haven't been updated yet, per this diff. I hate MOS-cabals! I'm still looking for that dash key on my keyboard! - BilCat ( talk) 12:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The situation is now a right mess, the funny dash brigade only changed a few hundred cats but it has messed up all the templates and parent cats, others with good faith are changing them in articles and not a redirect in sight. Some of the empty normal cats are now at risk of being deleted as empty. Dont see any evidence of the funny dash team tidying anything up and we were clearly misled in previous discussions. Sigh MilborneOne ( talk) 09:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Northrop YF-23 is on the main page today. Try to help keep a eye on it and revert vandalism and unhelpful edits where needed. Thanks! - Fnlayson ( talk) 01:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
AeroUnion Flight 302 has been nominated for deletion. Question: should the project set up a deletion-sorting page a la WP:DELSORT/MIL et al? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation has now been created. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI. DexDor ( talk) 20:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobson Flare. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the articles on the Chengdu J-10 and Chengdu J-20 include, in the first line of the lede, translations of the "J" designation (i.e., "literally "Annihilator-Twenty") on the J-20's page). While this is in fact the direct translation of J-20...is this really necessary to be on the pages? Frankly it sounds fanboy-ish, and - aside from these two types (which, it could be argued, attract rather more of that type of editor) none of the other Chinese fightes translate the "J" designation. Nor do the Q- aircraft, or the H-...or the Y-, even though the Y-8's page spells out the "Yunshuji-8" designation. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Any French speakers know what this aircraft feature is, added to a little Bernard tourer in the 1930s? On a Bunsen burner it seems to be a shield around the outlet. TSRL ( talk) 09:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Ah! It means leading edge slat according to http://www.granddictionnaire.com. TSRL ( talk) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
For some reason Gossamer Condor has become a persistant target for vandals; more eyes on the article wouldn't hurt. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Upon reading article this all I could say was Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot. I can't tell what the point of this article, is unless it is to spam the two mostly non-related links. Some second opinions on what do do with this article would be most useful. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
A while a go we nuked some of the active aircraft of foo cats but I have noticed some of them creeping back in. Just sent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 7#Category:Fleet Air Arm aircraft and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 7#Category:Modern aircraft of the Australian Army to CfD. Noticed a few more around and have been removing some from articles but is it worth listing them all and do a joined-up CfD to have a big bonfire. Anybody who thinks they are a good idea are welcome to add the 70+ cats that the C-130 would need to categorise by user (probably hundreds for the C-47!), any thoughts, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for speedy deletion as A1 "no context". It could have been G1, too. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle control frame (2nd nomination). - Ahunt ( talk) 12:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
After the discussion here about whether or not to include unflown aircraft in the nation/type ("Fooian foofighters 1492-1776") categories, I decided to split "unflown" and "flown" abandoned/cancelled projects into seperate cateories, with "unflown" under "abandoned" and "flown" under "cancelled". It was pointed out to me that this might need discussion though, so I wondered what the project's opinion on this was? IMHO "abandoned" for everything is a bit nebulous, since some projects weren't truly "abandoned" but simply had their development stopped (then there were those that simply lost fly-offs, but that would definitly be WP:OC!). (I might also note that, outside of the Category:Abandoned military projects tree, "cancelled" is apparently the preferred term vs "abandonded" period for the WP:CFD people.) IMHO unflown types shouldn't be lumped in with those that were flown but didn't make the cut, but what do y'all think? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The CLT seems to be the big thing in small bombs.
Link dumped over at Talk:Small_Tactical_Munition, but still looking for details, such as say diameter. Hcobb ( talk) 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
For more madness at commons the A380 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Airbus%20A380 can now be categorised by airline or location or registration, would not be so bad but is still difficult to find images particularly with the registration categories. It has been discussed but nobody appears to listen. Any idea what http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lufthansa_Passage is ? MilborneOne ( talk) 17:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
While WikiGnoming about, I had a few ideas, but I think these should be run by y'all WP:BOLD notwitstanding. To wit, they are as follows:
Please have a look at this new article. Do we need this? - Ahunt ( talk) 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The ProD has been contested. Next stop AfD? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 15:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Question about definitions - if a Britten-Norman Trislander had the two wing engines drop off would it be a pusher because the remaining engine is rear of the wing? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure where the confusion seems to be coming from when defining a pusher - the definition is extremely clear and can only become muddled when one starts bringing in nobodies from the dawn of aviation when the mass of the engine represented the single largest item the aircraft would carry, thus limiting it to being near the CG. Only after horsepower rating shot up in the 1930's did the useful load finally exceeded the weight of the engine by enough of a margin that the designers had other options such as having tractor installations near the tail, or pushers mounted ahead of the wings. To use a definition that eliminates 90% of the history of aviation is foolish. If the propeller is mounted so it is pushing into its mounting or its engine, it is a pusher. Period. It does not matter in the slightest if it is mounted near the nose, the tail or on the wingtips - it is still a pusher. Likewise a tractor configuration is any installation where the propeller is pulling forward out of its mounting, even if it is mounted on the rudder. Likewise a ducted fan may replace a propeller in any location - a Brittan Norman Islander was fitted with ducted fans for a while - that does change it into something else. Autogyros aren't even in this category either - they are not fixed wing airplanes (even when they use stub wings). There should be a seperate section for push-pull installations. NiD.29 ( talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
A few more bodies could be used at the above Contributor copyright investigation dealing with user:Ken keisel's major contributions, some of which appears to involve rather too close paraphrasing of the sources claimed. Many of the editor's largest contributions come from book sources, so it could really do with someone with access to the sources claimed to have a look at the articles. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to rename Kyūshū Hikōki K.K. and all associated aviation pages to Kyushu Hikoki K.K. to better reflect common usage. Standard English usage and nearly every reference I have ever seen in English language publications is without the diacritical marks and most searches will end up being redirected, especially when such marks are a special character.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Naming_conventions WP:AVINAME In general, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. in this case WikiProject members would be considered specialists.
The non-standard use of diacritical marks fails this test. NiD.29 ( talk) 22:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a precedent for nav boxes for designers and designer/builders rather than manufacturers? Thought I might have seen one somewhere. I've just been working through some of Bill Manuel's aircraft, mostly gliders; there are about 8 of them. Must be a lot of folk who have worked in a similar way. TSRL ( talk) 08:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragliding (police work). - Ahunt ( talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion underway at AN/I that might be of interest to members of the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if we have an existing article, or a redlink, for the Short "Double-Engined Biplane". Two engines, and three propellers (or in the language of the day - one propeller and two tractor airscrews). I guess it was a way of doubling the power and thrust without having a whirling blade in front of the pilot. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for more referencing for the kytoon page and I found this 1920 article in Flight on "kite balloon"s. However the latter appears to be a form of non-rigid airship and less of a kite/balloon combination that the kytoon seems to be. Anyone able to elucidate the situation? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please note that World Paragliding Association has been created by a user with a conflict of interest and has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Paragliding Association, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 02:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Sp33dyphil © • © 05:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Just for info new article Landing flare has been proded, nothing that cant or is already in the Landing article. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Napier. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor is making significant changes to {{ Infobox aircraft occurrence}}. Has this been discussed somewhere? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Some more eyes are needed at Tupolev Tu-134 - one or several IP editor(s) keeps re-adding some POV statements about the aircraft being extremely dangerous (and that Russian pilots were sub-standard), and the rather bizarre and completely unsourced claim that the RAF and British Airways were operators. Some sort of protection may be needed. Nigel Ish ( talk) 16:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we stop determining costs through division please? That's what gets to $16 muffins.
If we haven't been given something labeled a "fly away cost", then we shouldn't just say...
http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/280-washington/113885-boeings-super-hornet-competes-for-sales-in-congress-and-abroad House budget request of about $2.3 billion for 28 Super Hornets and $1 billion for 12 Growlers
Okay that's a flyaway cost of $82 million for the first one and $83 million for the second one.
That doesn't work as there are additional support costs included with these numbers and they exclude parts bought in previous years for these aircraft. Hcobb ( talk) 16:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
A user has been adding three-view drawings to airliner articles, like File:B707-300v1.0.png to the Boeing 707 article. In my opinion they do not really add much to the article, ten were added to the 737 article which were feint and hard to see. Also concerned as being self-created that they may be considered original research! if they have been faithfully copied from somewhere then they could be derivative of somebody elses work. Just looking for a sanity check, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Several weeks ago, the British Airways article was listed for Reassessment; it is feared that its quality is no longer up to scratch after significant changes made since the last GA review. In particular, the article has become agressively slanted towards recent events, something to be discouraged; mundane information has piled up such as over the top detailing of the cabins. I've got my work cut out for me if I want to help it; but I will do my best to respond to the criticisms listed at: Talk:British Airways/GA3. If any editors can help me in this undertaking, it would be appreciated. Kyteto ( talk) 13:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
This will not be easy, but can anyone help me identify the aircraft in this image? The basic layout of the internals above the bomb aimer appear to suggest it is a larger aircraft, but the contour of the bombsight window seems very odd. Also note that the bombsight and it's mounting rails on the right side of the engine extend below the line of the fuselage, which either suggests this is an atypical installation for training purposes only, or the aircraft in question would normally have some sort of bubbled-out window in this location. Even then, I cannot see any obvious signs of a place where such a window would be attached, although I may not know what to look for. Thanks! Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, of those two I think I favour the Hudson. The Anson and Hudson both had window plates in the same position on the bottom of the aircraft, but the Hudson is much deeper -- I just can't get my head around there's enough room in the Anson for all that equipment space you can see. But then both share a problem as well, the "bottom windows" in both appear to be squarish, not the tear-drop shape in the picture. But then what do you think, could this be it? Any other trainers I might want to consider?
Actually I realize now that I was assuming the location had to be under the nose of the aircraft. Certainly if the bomb window is located amidships, then even the Anson would have room. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks like a Fairey Battle - the opening (on the underside of the fuselage) is the same shape, and the curved coaming over the bomb aimer is the same. The SAM Pub "Aviation Guide - Fairey Battle" by Ian Huntley has the same photo (albeit in poorer condition and more closely cropped), along with a second shot from further out that collaborates this. The caption does not say which version it is however. NiD.29 ( talk) 18:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Air Publication AP1730A? The RAF Museum will copy it for me, but it's 188 pounds plus postage, and I simply can't afford that right now. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
This post-war UK sailplane was designed by Operation Sigma Ltd and the flying version was known as the Operation Sigma Type C. We have an article on this aircraft (though the types are not mentioned) under Sigma (sailplane), which seems hard to find and non-standard. Is there support for a name change to Operation Sigma? Ellison, in British Gliders and Sailplanes, calls it that. I can hear that it sounds like an SAS op, but that was the company name.
I noticed the 2011 aircrash navbox is getting...large. I doubt a lot of those incidents are notable; I've started the cleanup by prodding Majuba Aviation crash. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Just reverted a change to Template:Infobox aircraft type by User:White Star Line Fan, it was to add a new field Aicraft family (no not a typo!) and change Built by to Builder. Has this been discussed anywhere? Just a thought but should we protect this template like the others due to the widespread use in aircraft articles and potential damage. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
These two English Electric/BAC Lightning (book)/ English Electric Canberra (book) books have just come to my notice again, I had proded them a while back as non-notable. They appear to be promotional and just like hundreds of others on our bookshelfs. Before I go to AfD anybody explain why these Bruce Barrymore Halpenny books are any more notable than the hundreds of others? MilborneOne ( talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Canadian Air Forces Ejections!! MilborneOne ( talk) 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
To paraphrase
Robert Calvert's work: There's only one course of action left..to take...I'd better make it straight into Ejection AFD ?
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I recently examined some of the project's older standing GA-quality articles, and came across this particular entry. While there is nothing radically lacking in terms of content, citation style is considerably poor. Books, rather than specific pages of books, are given in citations; and there are paragraphs completely lacking evidence. There's a handful of non-RS refs, but considering how few there are in numbers overall they make up a notable minority in terms of proportion. As I feel that the article isn't up to scratch, I firstly have placed a message here on this article's condition, hoping that some of the involved editors can help refit it to the higher standards of today; and secondly of a longer-term intention to list the article for a Reassessment of its quality if time passes with major issues remaining outstanding. It strikes me that in the long term, either the article should be overhauled, or it should not hold the status it currently has been designated. Kyteto ( talk) 22:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The article is in much better shape. But there are several tags remaining. About 4 cite needed and 4 page number needed tags. - Fnlayson ( talk) 20:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion at AN/I may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Keeping an eye on Dream Chaser might be a good idea - a clearly COI/promotional account tried to turn it into a spammy puff piece. The account has now been blocked but they could always try again. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier#Features may be of interest to project members. If the editor is correct that the Nimitz can't launch F-35Cs, that would certainly be relevant to the F-35 article. - BilCat ( talk) 11:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There's an editing squabble here over the role of S V Setty in Avro design. A third party, perhaps an early aviation expert, might provide moderation. There are declared family interests involved. TSRL ( talk) 08:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the use of this reference, which is used extensively in a number of aircraft articles, over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_Tradition_of_Excellence. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Those with more writing time than I have lately might be able to make a lot of hay out of this Retro Mechanix stuff from the National Archives! [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
While I applaud the efforts of Russavia to gain permission for new images to be uploaded to images and a some of them fill gaps in the coverage which is a good thing. But I am seeing a lot of image stuffing in articles that do not need more images and particulary worrying (and I have reverted some of them) is the replacement of perfectly good images with these newer images for no particularly good reason. Sorry just a moan. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, at Karhumäki brothers there is an image dated from 1927, showing the two in front of an aircraft, according to the caption the Karhu 2. Follow the link, and you will be redirected to Karhumäki Karhu 48B (the same with Karhu 1, and Karhu 3), which the article states had its first flight only in the 1950s. Where's the error here? -- AdAstra reloaded ( talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
We have a well-meaning but starting to get slightly tendentious editor who keeps insisting on adding "The" to the infobox name= parameter on AeroVironment Nano Hummingbird, off and on over a period of months. Additional eyes to catch that and to caution them that that's not how the parameter is used would be appreciated. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
While adding a infobox to Lucky Lady II I had a look at the image (it is also used in the B-50 article) labelled as an image of Lucky Lady II. Fairly certain it is NOT Luck Lady II which was an early B-50A 46-010, cant read the serial but looks like 8056 or similar so it could be 48-056 a B-50D with underwing tanks, I dont think the B-50A had these tanks but I dont know if Luck Lady II was modified for her around the world flight, certainly expect it to have 6010 or similar on the tail. Perhaps a bit of re-captioning required? MilborneOne ( talk) 23:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Just created PAM 100B Individual Lifting Vehicle - do we have an article on lifting vehicles, a platform with co-axial rotors at the bottom! or is it just an upside down helicopter? MilborneOne ( talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
A user has added a load of production lists as above, I have added proposed deletion tags as not encyclopedic or notable, normally best to leave production lists to enthusiast websites. I also removed similar lists in Lockheed L-649 Constellation and Lockheed L-1249 Super Constellation MilborneOne ( talk) 22:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm fazed by the lack of activity in the article
Aircraft design process! The article is missing some really essential headings, such as the actual design process. The article at present just revolves about the factors, constraints, design considerations and the sort, whereas the design process remains vague in its details. I understand after the AfD, there has been a lot of hesitation in its expansion and a dispute over the actual content and what not. But that's no reason to almost abandon an article that is most significant to
Wikiproject aircraft Does anyone have any suitable RSs on the topic? If anyone has any material or experience in the topic, please do come forward and add atleast two, referenced, exact lines. I've got it till C class from a stub of two lines, with only 2 against B class. But leave classes, nothing gained there.
Topics like Aircraft structure, I feel, has a potential to be an entirely new article on WP, so its best to mention a bit and leave a link to the main article. Materials, Non-conventional designs - see
http://www.unrealaircraft.com (yeah, not so 'reliable', but you get my point), modern CAD methods, famous prototypes, history and advancement of the design process through the ages *catches breath*, etc. Its simply ain't right for just 3-4 people actually watching and doing minor edits to an article of this significance. Forget the Afd, I don't want a kid stumped when he looks up ADP on Wikipedia for his homework and finds just two lines, trust me I've been there once. Let's do this.
Écrivain (
talk)
13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed merging the newish Boeing P-8 AGS article into Boeing P-8 Poseidon at here. After more a week only 1 user has commented. Interested editors are invited to comment there. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 17:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Aircraft,
Article: Ted W. Lawson.
In the above article, if you go to edit the contents of the article, you will see at the top two lines concerning your WikiProject Aircraft with "WikiProject Aircraft/content page". I would appreciate someone would be able to look at this and explain why it's there so I don't accidentally start something. Once again it would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 14:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that a well-meaning admin is tagging some aircraft articles' "See Also" sections as either Original Research or with {{cn}} tags. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Now, let's look at two examples:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Bushranger, I never wanted to be an admin for a number of reasons, anyway, I see now that you all are discussing this, so I can safely unwatch :) As long as FAs don't breach MOS, I don't have time to keep up, and I'm sure y'all can reason something useful up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice but it wouldn't work unless a reliable source has made the comparisons. There is a good guideline working for the aero engine articles and the edit warring problems are virtually non-existent. Comparison articles get deleted on sight and comparison text in articles is almost always removed as original research. Various editors have commented in the past on why we don't compare types, the reply has been that it is not our job to do that but we should/can provide links to allow the reader to do it themselves. The 'See also' section is the only place where this can be done and is really only a short version of the category that the type appears in (with the most obvious compared types listed).
Working comparable types into the text is not always possible, during improvement of the Rolls-Royce R article I noticed that the Mikulin AM-38 was remarkably similar, there is no relation between the two engine types AFAIK (apart from it might have been copied!) but I felt the need to include it in the 'see also' section. Most readers would regard that as thoughtful/clever to link to such a similar type, wiki editors seem to think this is a bad thing which I don't understand at all. I agree completely with trimming the crufty lists seen in popular articles like the F-16 or whatever, just needs the guideline tightening up a lot to avoid FAC delegates visiting here with reasonable observations. Experienced editors should be allowed to use editorial judgement (per WP:SEEALSO), inexperienced editor entries there should be examined in detail! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I take the argument to WT:V? Core content policy is less of a mess than review standards or guidelines, and my personal belief is that we're talking about core content policy here, in some cases. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Which, specifically, were objected to as "non-obvious" comparable aircraft for the AV-8B? Did it ever get to that level of detail? Honestly, the FAC people are arbitrary and capricious at times, and some of this may come back to what Dank and I've brought up: just because a reviewer challenges it doesn't mean it requires a citation. Honestly, the 737 article has a lot of comparablecruft in the list (e.g. the Tu-154, which is in the same ballpark but not within the diamond). SDY ( talk) 19:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, see what happens when you stay away for a few days ... (LOL) Bzuk ( talk) 20:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC).
I like Bzuk's idea of requesting a justification, though I don't see why it has to be invisible. The "comparable" at the P-38 Lightning article hints at a way we could do this. SDY ( talk) 23:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
That was me ... that was an experiment that I've tried exactly once in 4 years. I get that so-called spotchecks are useful, but currently, that requirement is the bottleneck at FAC, and we need to find some kind of fix for that. On the general point: some people believe that FAC is the place where all the cool kids hang out, where bad articles are exposed for what they are and Wikipedia aspires to something higher. I agree that there are a lot of smart people who work at FAC, but neither I nor anyone else at Milhist AFAICT thinks of FAC as the magical place where all the problems get solved. (A-class, on the other hand, feels slightly magical to me; it works much better than it should.) Milhist uses FAC for the benefits we get from it: our articles routinely show up in the weekly Signpost, we get access to more reviewers (and we don't ourselves have all the reviewers we need to get everything done that everyone has agreed needs doing), and it forces writers to think about how readers not familiar with military history are thinking about our articles. But there are minefields at FAC, and if articles seem to blow up at FAC, then I totally agree that it's best to stay away. Nigel, what you're saying is very similar to what WP:SHIPS editors tended to say two years ago. I don't know of anyone from SHIPS who feels the same way today. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
What if we just moved the whole related and similar fields from the See also section to a navbox in with the other avitation navboxes that we use? I was looking at Template:Rolls-Royce Trent series, and even questioned its usefulness on the talk page. But then I thought, why not create a generic navbox/infobox where we can add in the links on each article? Is this idea worth pursuing? - BilCat ( talk) 01:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A number of articles mention this construction method, but I found no article to link to. I thought Fuselage might be a good place, but it's not really covered there (no pun intended), and the method might (for all I know) be applicable to the wings and empennage as well. This seems like a nice short project for a knowledgeable editor. I'll be glad to help with links and hyphens afterwards. Chris the speller yack 15:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Related to that is the type of truss used - Pratt trusses were the most common until bracing wires were dispensed with, then warren trusses became common. The Fokker Super Universal used Warren truss for the forward fuselage, and a Pratt truss for the rear fuselage. NiD.29 ( talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Even when an aircraft has a valid permit to fly etc it may have ceased to be active. Informally, I'd try to determine activity by finding a reliably dated photo of it in the air, possibly one carefully logged as by AirBritain. Would this be acceptable as a cite on "the X-plane G-WAAH was still active as late as dd Month yyyy", do you think? Dating might alternatively come from the EXIF data, if available. TSRL ( talk) 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thrust to weight is a number that changes every minute in flight and depends greatly on the mission the aircraft is to perform. Interested readers can simply take the max weight, combat weight, max weight minus half fuel or whatever and compare this against the listed thrust. Combat radius is also strongly mission related and should only be noted when we have a well referenced mission profile for the radius. And even in such a case the aircraft will generally be noted as having met or exceeded a requirement. Really, enough OR please. Hcobb ( talk) 17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
So anywhere I find these numbers calculated rather than cited I can delete? Hcobb ( talk) 18:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll drop cn tags then? Hcobb ( talk) 02:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've often wondered why I could not enter a note about a prop at |prop note=, e.g. say "fixed pitch, wooden". I used the get-around of adding the comment to the prop name. Having finally taken a look at the code, it's clear why prop note does nothing: it's not in the code. What is in the code is prop dia note and if you add prop dia note= fixed pitch, wooden, the comment appears after the word diameter. I'm minded to change the variable name, ie. del |prop note= and add |prop dia note= in the template, leaving its code untouched, if no-one can see a problem.
Whilst chasing this issue via the code and testing the template, I came up with another oddity: if you add a comment at |more power=, this adds to the end of prop diameter. It looks rather as if the code fragment that deals with more power has got split away from its natural position at the end of eng3, perhaps when the prop section was added. I'll check the history. If right, and if no-one can see trouble from this I'll experiment. I've not edited code here before but there's only one way to learn! TSRL ( talk) 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a notice that at Talk:AIRCRASH I have proposed a change to simplify the inclusion standard for accidents in aircraft type articles. Please add comments over on that talk page. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
A user has been using images (and blogs) as referencing (for example to count the number of T-50 aircraft in use), they have been told it is original research etc I have had a bit of a tidy up but the article has loads of refs, some for the same thing so any help with a look at the article might help, perhaps one of our article improvement guys can have a look. One source of referencing is the use of images of display boards used by the company and then photographed, they have textual information on them but I am not sure if they are reliable refs? MilborneOne ( talk) 09:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Vought XF5U bears watching - a new editor is adding images (including one copyvio) and spurious "related aircraft" entries (apparently the Flying Flapjack is related to the Harrier and V-22 Osprey, who knew!). - The Bushranger One ping only 19:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Just found this article B-25 Mitchell aircraft in Catch-22 (film) an interesting subject but appears to have fallen into the fanboy universe! MilborneOne ( talk) 21:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Petebutt has copy and pasted the Boeing KB-29 article into the Boeing B-29 Superfortress variants at the same time as making a move request which I have reverted. I dont have a problem with discussing these moves but it looks like a big mess is being created. With move request tags everywhere and no actual discussion. You cant really merge a type article and a variant article without some work as to what is relevant, and you cant copy and paste without some attribution, can project members keep an eye on the B-29 articles, thank you. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I point out a discussion I started here about Boeing YB-9 article. I suggest the name should be changed. Thank you. -- Leo Pasini ( talk) 07:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I created a list of Douglas DC-4 operators to tie in with the Douglas DC-4 article, user User:Petebutt has renamed it List of Douglas DC-4 variant operators and added in stuff to do with C-54 and the Canadair variants. The intention of the article was as a child article of DC-4 and it was not to cover the C-54, so the article been renamed to a title that really doesnt make sense and a bit of a mess. It really needs a clean up possibly to move the article back to a sensible name and clean up the mess of navboxes and stuff in the article. Should we have combined operator articles when the type has multiple variant articles? appreciate if somebody can have a look at the article please because I have not got time to create stuff and then have it messed up, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Several editors have decided to start a Commons Aviation WikiProject which is going to be devoted to aviation-related content on Commons; Commons:Commons:WikiProject_Aviation. Some of the main tasks for the project include maintaining and sorting aviation content, as well as working on obtaining permission from photographers to upload their photos to Commons, in addition to working on introducing photographers to Commons to get them to upload photos directly to Commons. There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation at which we are trying to ascertain what the needs of the community-at-large are, so please feel free to join in the discussion. Also, if there are any project members who are willing to do some translation work for us that would be great. See Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Translations for more info. Also, anyone with scripting knowledge would be welcome, as there are some ideas which would require such expertise. Look forward to hearing from project members over on Commons with any ideas, etc. Please feel free to translate this message as needed. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Aircraft. I've been putting the finishing touches on a significant overhaul of the Panavia Tornado article. While it is now larger, signficantly better cited and has a far superior Design section; not all of the long term issues have been completely resolved. Specifically, German and Italian operational history is pretty skant compared with the RAF's large section, it would be nice to recieve help expanding these. There are citation tags in the Design Overview section, the Design Upgrades section, German operational history, and the entire Operators section has had a huge banner demanding citation for years now. If anybody can help lessen or absolve these weaknesses, it would be greatly appreciated. Kyteto ( talk) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has recently split the material on the recent Iranian capture of a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel from the article on the UAV to create the new United states unmanned aerial vehicle seizure by Iran article. I've restored this material to the UAV article, but left the new article alone and started a discussion at Talk:Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel#Separate article for the Iranian incident?. All comments on this would be great. Nick-D ( talk) 10:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Boeing 767 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 22:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This article's a FA over at ru.wiki now - perhaps some cross-pollination back our way could be done by those who know the language? - The Bushranger One ping only [posted 13 Dec. 2011]
An editor has now several time removed cited text and quotes criticizing the noise output of this aircraft and replaced it with uncited and previously challenged text. There is now a discussion on this at Talk:Piaggio_P.180_Avanti#Noise_signature_and_objective_measurement_of_disturbance_created. I would appreciate the input of other editors from this project on the issue. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Users might be interested in the deletion discussion for Boeing 797. — Compdude123 ( talk) 22:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Could some other editors look at this article. Looks like to me a lot of biased/pro-Rafale text was added over the past week. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thia article is currently under AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1974 Dan-Air Luton incident (2nd nomination), does anybody else have any input? Petebutt ( talk) 01:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at AN/I that may interest the project is located here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only editor assessing aircraft / aviation articles. Very few of the articles I have created have been elevated above start, even though a high proportion of them qualify for at least C-class. There was also a huge backlog of completely un-assessed articles until I whittled it down, so who isn't pulling their weight and why aren't authors self classifying up to start class? Petebutt ( talk) 17:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
For information the Current weapons of the United States Air Force navbox (actually called USAF weapons) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 27#Template:USAF weapons. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The Category:2010s aircraft stubs template has been proposed for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor just created this cat and is populating it. Thoughts? - Ahunt ( talk) 20:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Davegnz has left behind a lot (47) of draft psuedo-articles in user space about survivors and such like, those with a long memory will remember that the format he used was never really accepted by the project so he created his own little wiki in userspace. Anybody agree they are not really needed and if so what is the best way of dealing with them, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a convention for also known as names to raise a re-direct at the time of writing an article. If not, I propose that it be introduced into an appropriate guideline. Unless there is a separate article for the alternative name it makes sense to allow enquirers to get straight to the relevant article, when searching for the alternative. Petebutt ( talk) 17:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Petebutt for some reason has been removing the aircraft project tag from within the aviation project headers on talk pages. Articles like Airbus Military for example are clearly in scope of the project. He has been asked to stop and explain. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Someone just added a link to this article to the B-24 Liberator article - I'm not sure that a B-24 that "Little Eva" is notable - opinions? Nigel Ish ( talk) 13:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 3, a discussion is underway regarding the possible deletion of a category: Aircraft flown by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. The idea has been floated that many other similarly constructed categories could join this one, for example Category:Aircraft flown by Chuck Yeager or Category:Aircraft flown by Manfred von Richthofen. Please weigh in with your opinion. Binksternet ( talk) 01:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it too early for a Boeing 737 MAX article? We did merge the early attempts on the Airbus A320neo bac to the main article. So merge the 737 Max too, or re-create the neo? (The Aibus fanboys will surely demand that the neo have an article if the MAX does!) - BilCat ( talk) 19:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that although we have not yet been notified Ken keisel has requested a review of the project naming convention at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, in general and in regard to the ongoing move discussion at Talk:Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Airlines Flight 523 (2nd nomination). - Ahunt ( talk) 15:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Armed with Liron's book, I've started to fill some gaps in the set of Bernard aircraft. The three aircraft companies he ran sequentially are listed in Société des Avions Bernard. There is a naming issue here, so I'm seeking consensus before getting in too deep. The first machines from company#2, SIMB, appeared in 1922 and they stopped about 1927. I've only done two of these so far, Bernard V.1 and Bernard V.2, following the simple naming style that works OK for the earlier Avions Bernard aircraft like the Bernard AB 1 and explaining the SIMB name in the text. Since then, though I have seen that the name SIMB is often included, with or without Bernard. I'm sure there is no right answer (some folks even use the SIMB nickname Ferbois, as in Bernard-Ferbois V.2) but am beginning to think Bernard SIMB might be a better description, including the manufacturing company whilst noting the aircraft as part of the Bernard line and being fairly simple. It's one of several styles used in Liron, so not my invention.
What do you think? If you are content, I'll move those first two to Bernard SIMB Vn and use similar titles for new articles (explaining the alternative names in the text). The watershed between SIMB and SAB is not quite as clear as he AB/SIMB one, but I'll follow Liron on that later. TSRL ( talk) 09:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I noted this edit to the Harrier article. It is my understanding that we can link to aviation years in infoboxes using the 'avyear' template but we don't link dates anywhere else in the text by consensus. I believe 'Lightbot' is programmed to leave these links in place. In theory if all these links were removed the aviation year articles would become orphans. Strictly these are not linked dates but a link to a related list article (the Harrier does not currently appear in the 1967 list for first flights but it should be entered). I think the removal should be reverted as it is not a date formatting problem. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some contention about whether certain Lavochkin aircraft aritcles should be title Lavochkin La-xxx, Lavochkin Aircraft xxx, or Lavochkin aircraft xxx, with cross moves being made, and perhaps some dupicate articles created and/or redirected. - BilCat ( talk) 23:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what R4D-3 05078 (41-20124) is supposed to be, but it sure needs some help, and perhaps a better name. - BilCat ( talk) 06:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Icon A5 could use some attention and major clean-up, if anyone's interested. - BilCat ( talk) 15:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, does anyone know what kind of plane this is →
— Moebiusuibeom-en ( talk) 02:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that User:MatthewStevens is adding link to the USAF Transport nav box from the first occurence of the C- word in an article, I have reverted a few and left him a note to stop and discuss. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi folks. Finally back after an extended absence, just checking in to say yes, I'm still alive and I'll be getting back into the swing of editing forwith. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
During the GA review of the article, I discovered close to half a dozen individual events that may have put the HAL Dhruv helicopter in a bad light were completely unmentioned. It appears now that these efforts to evade negativity are deliberate, note the following paragraph switch:
Erased and replaced with:
While the good aspects of the project should not be left out, I don't see a valid reason for oblitorating accounts that customers have been experiencing a less than perfect situation. I fear that this situation may be an institution of the article, and will be extremely hard to combat. Kyteto ( talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I was looking through some photos (taken in Derbyshire last year) and came across one of what is a Piper Super Cub or close relative, with the serial N498H. Part of the serial is in shadow but I think that's right. Nothing on Google, not on FAA reg ... Anyone know it? TSRL ( talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Just ran across Helibras HM-1 Pantera. Does this really warrant an articvle separate from Eurocopter AS565 Panther? - BilCat ( talk) 21:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The A-class review for Boeing 767 is now open at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 767. Thanks in advance for any input! Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 19:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
This looks like antoher copyvio image, but I've had trouble finding a internet source giving the copyright. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 23:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Template:Airtd seems to have a problem with the colours used. In, for instance, Category:Experimental aircraft 1980-1989 the headers appear as blue text on black background - ie almost invisible. Just me or something that can be fixed for everyone else. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 10:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to nominate the article The Galloping Ghost airplane as a member of both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. To support this, I have looked though several guidelines and policies and I believe that it seems to be notable enough for this to occur. To start with, this article is about an aircraft that crashed recently and was destroyed in the resulting impact. While not a policy, according to WikiProject Aviation section Aircraft accidents and incidents to be included, "the accident involved the death of a person of sufficient individual notability to have their own biography page in Wikipedia (and the biography is not solely due to them being an accident victim)" The pilot, Jimmy Leeward, was killed in the accident. In addition to him having been killed in the accident, he is also notable for having been an actor in several films. This means that the criteria for inclusion has been successfully proven.
In addition, the following section says that an article "may be notible enough for a stand-alone article" should it meet several other criteria. To start with the General notability guideline, the only criteria that it potentially not meet would be "Significant coverage" as the article is still a work-in-progress, like most articles, and I do not completely know if the criteria has been fulfilled. The criteria of "Reliable" and "Sources" seems to be fulfilled. The criteria for "Independent of the subject" seems to have been passed, with only using it as a reference to help support another reference and the notability of the article. While I do believe that the criteria of "Presumed" has been fulilled, though if someone could I would like someone else to make sure that it does pass this if the can.
For the guideline of Notability (Event), I would like to point out that the aircraft was involved with an accident that has killed one person and has recieved considerable attention in the media to warrant a page to be created about that accident, was flown by a person who has a biography page currently on Wikipedia, an aircraft that was the last of its type to be publicly sold, an aircraft that had prototype modifications made to it before the accident, and has broken a record in the past; 1947 - breaking the record for fastest closed-course speed.
Finally, for the guideline of the section Wikipedia is not a newspaper on what Wikipedia is not, I would like to mention that the article in question was created because of the crash. However, the article has since been improved to provide a partial history of the aircraft in question with sources that make it have a historical significance that is pointed out in the notabilities of the aircraft. The same goes for news reports in that the article was created for that and has been improved to show that it is notable. As for the third criteria, the person is notable enough for several different reasons and adheres to the core policies on content from what I see.
I would like to add that I am not familar with some of this projects policies and guidelines, so please correct me if I have made an error. In addition, I know that the article lacks a good deal of information and that it need inprovement in more than one section. However, I believe that it currently has meet the criteria to be made a member of both WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. 204.106.252.64 ( talk) 05:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Dewoitine D.26 states that the last example was withdrawn from use in 1970, and was then put into a museum. However, the photo that I have just uploaded to the article is from Duxford in 1975. Would someone like to research that, and see if the 1970 date is in fact correct. Thanks, -- Russavia Let's dialogue 12:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I could use some help with Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche in regards to this Good Article nomination review. The GA reviewer asked for info on the program's problems be added. I have added more info on this. But have found nothing of real substance on who or what was to blame, etc. Try to help if you can. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 16:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
After a preliminary discussion, I've decided that it should be appropriate to suggest the removal of this redundant sub-article. It isn't typical to give aircraft's cockpits their own articles on their own, and it was in a shabby state of affairs, using non-RS refs and main details in excess of nominal levels on other articles. When put down to size (I have already sent the content to the Raptor page) it added less than 3kb to the main article; while the main is now approaching 120kb, I do have a suggestion for this problem as well. If necessary, a future of the F-22 article (rough name only) for all the procurement interest, continued upgrades and a possible export/bomber variant ect could be put together to act as a much more succulent and trafficked/useful spinoff; as opposed to the minor cockpit article that doesn't reduce the main article at all. Two seperate issues, but would people now see it as justified to initiate a move to delete the remnants of the Cockpit article now (or merge, although all useful content is already now intergrated into the main). Kyteto ( talk) 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the WPAVIATION template auto-fills in for C-class if B3, B4, and B5 are all filled in with 'yes', regardless of the state of B1 and B2. The Milhist project recently adopted C-class (after long being a holdout), but has the requirement of B3+B4+B5 and either B1 or B2 being met for an article to be rated as C-class. I was wondering if perhaps we might want to change our C-class standards to that as well? As it seems to be a better standard, IMHO (an article failing both B1 and B2 should, really, stick at Start until one or the other is met...) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
A new editor has created MJET an austrian biz jet operator, dont have a problem with that but they are adding MJET to the biz jet articles like Gulfstream IV, I have removed it twice so really needs somebody else to look at it, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
It might interest some here that List of launch vehicle plans is currently at AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This seems a little harsh. FlugKerl ( talk) 04:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that for some reason, there is no consistent naming of Piper aircraft. For example, the article names read Piper PA-31 Navajo, Piper Cherokee (nothing about PA-28 here) and just Piper PA-23 (without a name, though here it could be either Aztec or Arrow - on the other hand, the Navajo might also be called Chieftain). Don't you think that a consistent naming is desirable? -- AdAstra reloaded ( talk) 19:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
After much pondering, I came to the conclusion that 2008 Guam B-52 crash doesn't seem to meet the standards for inclusion, and have prodded it. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
A user has requested a speedy rename of all the aircraft catgories to change the dash, this has been raised before and declined but keeps getting raised see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy MilborneOne ( talk) 05:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Due to my complaint the renaming of aircraft categories has been raised a CfD for further discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 20#Hyphenated aircraft categories, although it appears that we dont have any valid reasons as a project to ignore the power of the em-dash lobby. Any comment either for or against welcome at the CfD. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Now apparently AWB is enabling changing the cats to dashes, when the pages haven't been updated yet, per this diff. I hate MOS-cabals! I'm still looking for that dash key on my keyboard! - BilCat ( talk) 12:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The situation is now a right mess, the funny dash brigade only changed a few hundred cats but it has messed up all the templates and parent cats, others with good faith are changing them in articles and not a redirect in sight. Some of the empty normal cats are now at risk of being deleted as empty. Dont see any evidence of the funny dash team tidying anything up and we were clearly misled in previous discussions. Sigh MilborneOne ( talk) 09:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Northrop YF-23 is on the main page today. Try to help keep a eye on it and revert vandalism and unhelpful edits where needed. Thanks! - Fnlayson ( talk) 01:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
AeroUnion Flight 302 has been nominated for deletion. Question: should the project set up a deletion-sorting page a la WP:DELSORT/MIL et al? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation has now been created. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI. DexDor ( talk) 20:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobson Flare. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the articles on the Chengdu J-10 and Chengdu J-20 include, in the first line of the lede, translations of the "J" designation (i.e., "literally "Annihilator-Twenty") on the J-20's page). While this is in fact the direct translation of J-20...is this really necessary to be on the pages? Frankly it sounds fanboy-ish, and - aside from these two types (which, it could be argued, attract rather more of that type of editor) none of the other Chinese fightes translate the "J" designation. Nor do the Q- aircraft, or the H-...or the Y-, even though the Y-8's page spells out the "Yunshuji-8" designation. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Any French speakers know what this aircraft feature is, added to a little Bernard tourer in the 1930s? On a Bunsen burner it seems to be a shield around the outlet. TSRL ( talk) 09:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Ah! It means leading edge slat according to http://www.granddictionnaire.com. TSRL ( talk) 14:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
For some reason Gossamer Condor has become a persistant target for vandals; more eyes on the article wouldn't hurt. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Upon reading article this all I could say was Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot. I can't tell what the point of this article, is unless it is to spam the two mostly non-related links. Some second opinions on what do do with this article would be most useful. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
A while a go we nuked some of the active aircraft of foo cats but I have noticed some of them creeping back in. Just sent Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 7#Category:Fleet Air Arm aircraft and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 7#Category:Modern aircraft of the Australian Army to CfD. Noticed a few more around and have been removing some from articles but is it worth listing them all and do a joined-up CfD to have a big bonfire. Anybody who thinks they are a good idea are welcome to add the 70+ cats that the C-130 would need to categorise by user (probably hundreds for the C-47!), any thoughts, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for speedy deletion as A1 "no context". It could have been G1, too. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangle control frame (2nd nomination). - Ahunt ( talk) 12:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
After the discussion here about whether or not to include unflown aircraft in the nation/type ("Fooian foofighters 1492-1776") categories, I decided to split "unflown" and "flown" abandoned/cancelled projects into seperate cateories, with "unflown" under "abandoned" and "flown" under "cancelled". It was pointed out to me that this might need discussion though, so I wondered what the project's opinion on this was? IMHO "abandoned" for everything is a bit nebulous, since some projects weren't truly "abandoned" but simply had their development stopped (then there were those that simply lost fly-offs, but that would definitly be WP:OC!). (I might also note that, outside of the Category:Abandoned military projects tree, "cancelled" is apparently the preferred term vs "abandonded" period for the WP:CFD people.) IMHO unflown types shouldn't be lumped in with those that were flown but didn't make the cut, but what do y'all think? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The CLT seems to be the big thing in small bombs.
Link dumped over at Talk:Small_Tactical_Munition, but still looking for details, such as say diameter. Hcobb ( talk) 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
For more madness at commons the A380 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Airbus%20A380 can now be categorised by airline or location or registration, would not be so bad but is still difficult to find images particularly with the registration categories. It has been discussed but nobody appears to listen. Any idea what http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Lufthansa_Passage is ? MilborneOne ( talk) 17:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
While WikiGnoming about, I had a few ideas, but I think these should be run by y'all WP:BOLD notwitstanding. To wit, they are as follows:
Please have a look at this new article. Do we need this? - Ahunt ( talk) 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The ProD has been contested. Next stop AfD? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 15:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Question about definitions - if a Britten-Norman Trislander had the two wing engines drop off would it be a pusher because the remaining engine is rear of the wing? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure where the confusion seems to be coming from when defining a pusher - the definition is extremely clear and can only become muddled when one starts bringing in nobodies from the dawn of aviation when the mass of the engine represented the single largest item the aircraft would carry, thus limiting it to being near the CG. Only after horsepower rating shot up in the 1930's did the useful load finally exceeded the weight of the engine by enough of a margin that the designers had other options such as having tractor installations near the tail, or pushers mounted ahead of the wings. To use a definition that eliminates 90% of the history of aviation is foolish. If the propeller is mounted so it is pushing into its mounting or its engine, it is a pusher. Period. It does not matter in the slightest if it is mounted near the nose, the tail or on the wingtips - it is still a pusher. Likewise a tractor configuration is any installation where the propeller is pulling forward out of its mounting, even if it is mounted on the rudder. Likewise a ducted fan may replace a propeller in any location - a Brittan Norman Islander was fitted with ducted fans for a while - that does change it into something else. Autogyros aren't even in this category either - they are not fixed wing airplanes (even when they use stub wings). There should be a seperate section for push-pull installations. NiD.29 ( talk) 21:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
A few more bodies could be used at the above Contributor copyright investigation dealing with user:Ken keisel's major contributions, some of which appears to involve rather too close paraphrasing of the sources claimed. Many of the editor's largest contributions come from book sources, so it could really do with someone with access to the sources claimed to have a look at the articles. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to rename Kyūshū Hikōki K.K. and all associated aviation pages to Kyushu Hikoki K.K. to better reflect common usage. Standard English usage and nearly every reference I have ever seen in English language publications is without the diacritical marks and most searches will end up being redirected, especially when such marks are a special character.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Naming_conventions WP:AVINAME In general, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. in this case WikiProject members would be considered specialists.
The non-standard use of diacritical marks fails this test. NiD.29 ( talk) 22:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there a precedent for nav boxes for designers and designer/builders rather than manufacturers? Thought I might have seen one somewhere. I've just been working through some of Bill Manuel's aircraft, mostly gliders; there are about 8 of them. Must be a lot of folk who have worked in a similar way. TSRL ( talk) 08:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragliding (police work). - Ahunt ( talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion underway at AN/I that might be of interest to members of the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if we have an existing article, or a redlink, for the Short "Double-Engined Biplane". Two engines, and three propellers (or in the language of the day - one propeller and two tractor airscrews). I guess it was a way of doubling the power and thrust without having a whirling blade in front of the pilot. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for more referencing for the kytoon page and I found this 1920 article in Flight on "kite balloon"s. However the latter appears to be a form of non-rigid airship and less of a kite/balloon combination that the kytoon seems to be. Anyone able to elucidate the situation? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please note that World Paragliding Association has been created by a user with a conflict of interest and has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Paragliding Association, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 02:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Sp33dyphil © • © 05:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Just for info new article Landing flare has been proded, nothing that cant or is already in the Landing article. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Napier. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor is making significant changes to {{ Infobox aircraft occurrence}}. Has this been discussed somewhere? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Some more eyes are needed at Tupolev Tu-134 - one or several IP editor(s) keeps re-adding some POV statements about the aircraft being extremely dangerous (and that Russian pilots were sub-standard), and the rather bizarre and completely unsourced claim that the RAF and British Airways were operators. Some sort of protection may be needed. Nigel Ish ( talk) 16:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we stop determining costs through division please? That's what gets to $16 muffins.
If we haven't been given something labeled a "fly away cost", then we shouldn't just say...
http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/280-washington/113885-boeings-super-hornet-competes-for-sales-in-congress-and-abroad House budget request of about $2.3 billion for 28 Super Hornets and $1 billion for 12 Growlers
Okay that's a flyaway cost of $82 million for the first one and $83 million for the second one.
That doesn't work as there are additional support costs included with these numbers and they exclude parts bought in previous years for these aircraft. Hcobb ( talk) 16:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
A user has been adding three-view drawings to airliner articles, like File:B707-300v1.0.png to the Boeing 707 article. In my opinion they do not really add much to the article, ten were added to the 737 article which were feint and hard to see. Also concerned as being self-created that they may be considered original research! if they have been faithfully copied from somewhere then they could be derivative of somebody elses work. Just looking for a sanity check, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Several weeks ago, the British Airways article was listed for Reassessment; it is feared that its quality is no longer up to scratch after significant changes made since the last GA review. In particular, the article has become agressively slanted towards recent events, something to be discouraged; mundane information has piled up such as over the top detailing of the cabins. I've got my work cut out for me if I want to help it; but I will do my best to respond to the criticisms listed at: Talk:British Airways/GA3. If any editors can help me in this undertaking, it would be appreciated. Kyteto ( talk) 13:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
This will not be easy, but can anyone help me identify the aircraft in this image? The basic layout of the internals above the bomb aimer appear to suggest it is a larger aircraft, but the contour of the bombsight window seems very odd. Also note that the bombsight and it's mounting rails on the right side of the engine extend below the line of the fuselage, which either suggests this is an atypical installation for training purposes only, or the aircraft in question would normally have some sort of bubbled-out window in this location. Even then, I cannot see any obvious signs of a place where such a window would be attached, although I may not know what to look for. Thanks! Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, of those two I think I favour the Hudson. The Anson and Hudson both had window plates in the same position on the bottom of the aircraft, but the Hudson is much deeper -- I just can't get my head around there's enough room in the Anson for all that equipment space you can see. But then both share a problem as well, the "bottom windows" in both appear to be squarish, not the tear-drop shape in the picture. But then what do you think, could this be it? Any other trainers I might want to consider?
Actually I realize now that I was assuming the location had to be under the nose of the aircraft. Certainly if the bomb window is located amidships, then even the Anson would have room. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks like a Fairey Battle - the opening (on the underside of the fuselage) is the same shape, and the curved coaming over the bomb aimer is the same. The SAM Pub "Aviation Guide - Fairey Battle" by Ian Huntley has the same photo (albeit in poorer condition and more closely cropped), along with a second shot from further out that collaborates this. The caption does not say which version it is however. NiD.29 ( talk) 18:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Air Publication AP1730A? The RAF Museum will copy it for me, but it's 188 pounds plus postage, and I simply can't afford that right now. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
This post-war UK sailplane was designed by Operation Sigma Ltd and the flying version was known as the Operation Sigma Type C. We have an article on this aircraft (though the types are not mentioned) under Sigma (sailplane), which seems hard to find and non-standard. Is there support for a name change to Operation Sigma? Ellison, in British Gliders and Sailplanes, calls it that. I can hear that it sounds like an SAS op, but that was the company name.
I noticed the 2011 aircrash navbox is getting...large. I doubt a lot of those incidents are notable; I've started the cleanup by prodding Majuba Aviation crash. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Just reverted a change to Template:Infobox aircraft type by User:White Star Line Fan, it was to add a new field Aicraft family (no not a typo!) and change Built by to Builder. Has this been discussed anywhere? Just a thought but should we protect this template like the others due to the widespread use in aircraft articles and potential damage. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Hawke's Bay. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
These two English Electric/BAC Lightning (book)/ English Electric Canberra (book) books have just come to my notice again, I had proded them a while back as non-notable. They appear to be promotional and just like hundreds of others on our bookshelfs. Before I go to AfD anybody explain why these Bruce Barrymore Halpenny books are any more notable than the hundreds of others? MilborneOne ( talk) 22:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Canadian Air Forces Ejections!! MilborneOne ( talk) 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
To paraphrase
Robert Calvert's work: There's only one course of action left..to take...I'd better make it straight into Ejection AFD ?
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I recently examined some of the project's older standing GA-quality articles, and came across this particular entry. While there is nothing radically lacking in terms of content, citation style is considerably poor. Books, rather than specific pages of books, are given in citations; and there are paragraphs completely lacking evidence. There's a handful of non-RS refs, but considering how few there are in numbers overall they make up a notable minority in terms of proportion. As I feel that the article isn't up to scratch, I firstly have placed a message here on this article's condition, hoping that some of the involved editors can help refit it to the higher standards of today; and secondly of a longer-term intention to list the article for a Reassessment of its quality if time passes with major issues remaining outstanding. It strikes me that in the long term, either the article should be overhauled, or it should not hold the status it currently has been designated. Kyteto ( talk) 22:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The article is in much better shape. But there are several tags remaining. About 4 cite needed and 4 page number needed tags. - Fnlayson ( talk) 20:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This discussion at AN/I may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Keeping an eye on Dream Chaser might be a good idea - a clearly COI/promotional account tried to turn it into a spammy puff piece. The account has now been blocked but they could always try again. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier#Features may be of interest to project members. If the editor is correct that the Nimitz can't launch F-35Cs, that would certainly be relevant to the F-35 article. - BilCat ( talk) 11:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
There's an editing squabble here over the role of S V Setty in Avro design. A third party, perhaps an early aviation expert, might provide moderation. There are declared family interests involved. TSRL ( talk) 08:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the use of this reference, which is used extensively in a number of aircraft articles, over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_Tradition_of_Excellence. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Those with more writing time than I have lately might be able to make a lot of hay out of this Retro Mechanix stuff from the National Archives! [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
While I applaud the efforts of Russavia to gain permission for new images to be uploaded to images and a some of them fill gaps in the coverage which is a good thing. But I am seeing a lot of image stuffing in articles that do not need more images and particulary worrying (and I have reverted some of them) is the replacement of perfectly good images with these newer images for no particularly good reason. Sorry just a moan. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, at Karhumäki brothers there is an image dated from 1927, showing the two in front of an aircraft, according to the caption the Karhu 2. Follow the link, and you will be redirected to Karhumäki Karhu 48B (the same with Karhu 1, and Karhu 3), which the article states had its first flight only in the 1950s. Where's the error here? -- AdAstra reloaded ( talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
We have a well-meaning but starting to get slightly tendentious editor who keeps insisting on adding "The" to the infobox name= parameter on AeroVironment Nano Hummingbird, off and on over a period of months. Additional eyes to catch that and to caution them that that's not how the parameter is used would be appreciated. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
While adding a infobox to Lucky Lady II I had a look at the image (it is also used in the B-50 article) labelled as an image of Lucky Lady II. Fairly certain it is NOT Luck Lady II which was an early B-50A 46-010, cant read the serial but looks like 8056 or similar so it could be 48-056 a B-50D with underwing tanks, I dont think the B-50A had these tanks but I dont know if Luck Lady II was modified for her around the world flight, certainly expect it to have 6010 or similar on the tail. Perhaps a bit of re-captioning required? MilborneOne ( talk) 23:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Just created PAM 100B Individual Lifting Vehicle - do we have an article on lifting vehicles, a platform with co-axial rotors at the bottom! or is it just an upside down helicopter? MilborneOne ( talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
A user has added a load of production lists as above, I have added proposed deletion tags as not encyclopedic or notable, normally best to leave production lists to enthusiast websites. I also removed similar lists in Lockheed L-649 Constellation and Lockheed L-1249 Super Constellation MilborneOne ( talk) 22:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm fazed by the lack of activity in the article
Aircraft design process! The article is missing some really essential headings, such as the actual design process. The article at present just revolves about the factors, constraints, design considerations and the sort, whereas the design process remains vague in its details. I understand after the AfD, there has been a lot of hesitation in its expansion and a dispute over the actual content and what not. But that's no reason to almost abandon an article that is most significant to
Wikiproject aircraft Does anyone have any suitable RSs on the topic? If anyone has any material or experience in the topic, please do come forward and add atleast two, referenced, exact lines. I've got it till C class from a stub of two lines, with only 2 against B class. But leave classes, nothing gained there.
Topics like Aircraft structure, I feel, has a potential to be an entirely new article on WP, so its best to mention a bit and leave a link to the main article. Materials, Non-conventional designs - see
http://www.unrealaircraft.com (yeah, not so 'reliable', but you get my point), modern CAD methods, famous prototypes, history and advancement of the design process through the ages *catches breath*, etc. Its simply ain't right for just 3-4 people actually watching and doing minor edits to an article of this significance. Forget the Afd, I don't want a kid stumped when he looks up ADP on Wikipedia for his homework and finds just two lines, trust me I've been there once. Let's do this.
Écrivain (
talk)
13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed merging the newish Boeing P-8 AGS article into Boeing P-8 Poseidon at here. After more a week only 1 user has commented. Interested editors are invited to comment there. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 17:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Aircraft,
Article: Ted W. Lawson.
In the above article, if you go to edit the contents of the article, you will see at the top two lines concerning your WikiProject Aircraft with "WikiProject Aircraft/content page". I would appreciate someone would be able to look at this and explain why it's there so I don't accidentally start something. Once again it would be appreciated. Adamdaley ( talk) 14:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads-up that a well-meaning admin is tagging some aircraft articles' "See Also" sections as either Original Research or with {{cn}} tags. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Now, let's look at two examples:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Bushranger, I never wanted to be an admin for a number of reasons, anyway, I see now that you all are discussing this, so I can safely unwatch :) As long as FAs don't breach MOS, I don't have time to keep up, and I'm sure y'all can reason something useful up. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice but it wouldn't work unless a reliable source has made the comparisons. There is a good guideline working for the aero engine articles and the edit warring problems are virtually non-existent. Comparison articles get deleted on sight and comparison text in articles is almost always removed as original research. Various editors have commented in the past on why we don't compare types, the reply has been that it is not our job to do that but we should/can provide links to allow the reader to do it themselves. The 'See also' section is the only place where this can be done and is really only a short version of the category that the type appears in (with the most obvious compared types listed).
Working comparable types into the text is not always possible, during improvement of the Rolls-Royce R article I noticed that the Mikulin AM-38 was remarkably similar, there is no relation between the two engine types AFAIK (apart from it might have been copied!) but I felt the need to include it in the 'see also' section. Most readers would regard that as thoughtful/clever to link to such a similar type, wiki editors seem to think this is a bad thing which I don't understand at all. I agree completely with trimming the crufty lists seen in popular articles like the F-16 or whatever, just needs the guideline tightening up a lot to avoid FAC delegates visiting here with reasonable observations. Experienced editors should be allowed to use editorial judgement (per WP:SEEALSO), inexperienced editor entries there should be examined in detail! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I take the argument to WT:V? Core content policy is less of a mess than review standards or guidelines, and my personal belief is that we're talking about core content policy here, in some cases. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Which, specifically, were objected to as "non-obvious" comparable aircraft for the AV-8B? Did it ever get to that level of detail? Honestly, the FAC people are arbitrary and capricious at times, and some of this may come back to what Dank and I've brought up: just because a reviewer challenges it doesn't mean it requires a citation. Honestly, the 737 article has a lot of comparablecruft in the list (e.g. the Tu-154, which is in the same ballpark but not within the diamond). SDY ( talk) 19:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, see what happens when you stay away for a few days ... (LOL) Bzuk ( talk) 20:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC).
I like Bzuk's idea of requesting a justification, though I don't see why it has to be invisible. The "comparable" at the P-38 Lightning article hints at a way we could do this. SDY ( talk) 23:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
That was me ... that was an experiment that I've tried exactly once in 4 years. I get that so-called spotchecks are useful, but currently, that requirement is the bottleneck at FAC, and we need to find some kind of fix for that. On the general point: some people believe that FAC is the place where all the cool kids hang out, where bad articles are exposed for what they are and Wikipedia aspires to something higher. I agree that there are a lot of smart people who work at FAC, but neither I nor anyone else at Milhist AFAICT thinks of FAC as the magical place where all the problems get solved. (A-class, on the other hand, feels slightly magical to me; it works much better than it should.) Milhist uses FAC for the benefits we get from it: our articles routinely show up in the weekly Signpost, we get access to more reviewers (and we don't ourselves have all the reviewers we need to get everything done that everyone has agreed needs doing), and it forces writers to think about how readers not familiar with military history are thinking about our articles. But there are minefields at FAC, and if articles seem to blow up at FAC, then I totally agree that it's best to stay away. Nigel, what you're saying is very similar to what WP:SHIPS editors tended to say two years ago. I don't know of anyone from SHIPS who feels the same way today. - Dank ( push to talk) 12:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
What if we just moved the whole related and similar fields from the See also section to a navbox in with the other avitation navboxes that we use? I was looking at Template:Rolls-Royce Trent series, and even questioned its usefulness on the talk page. But then I thought, why not create a generic navbox/infobox where we can add in the links on each article? Is this idea worth pursuing? - BilCat ( talk) 01:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A number of articles mention this construction method, but I found no article to link to. I thought Fuselage might be a good place, but it's not really covered there (no pun intended), and the method might (for all I know) be applicable to the wings and empennage as well. This seems like a nice short project for a knowledgeable editor. I'll be glad to help with links and hyphens afterwards. Chris the speller yack 15:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Related to that is the type of truss used - Pratt trusses were the most common until bracing wires were dispensed with, then warren trusses became common. The Fokker Super Universal used Warren truss for the forward fuselage, and a Pratt truss for the rear fuselage. NiD.29 ( talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Even when an aircraft has a valid permit to fly etc it may have ceased to be active. Informally, I'd try to determine activity by finding a reliably dated photo of it in the air, possibly one carefully logged as by AirBritain. Would this be acceptable as a cite on "the X-plane G-WAAH was still active as late as dd Month yyyy", do you think? Dating might alternatively come from the EXIF data, if available. TSRL ( talk) 17:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thrust to weight is a number that changes every minute in flight and depends greatly on the mission the aircraft is to perform. Interested readers can simply take the max weight, combat weight, max weight minus half fuel or whatever and compare this against the listed thrust. Combat radius is also strongly mission related and should only be noted when we have a well referenced mission profile for the radius. And even in such a case the aircraft will generally be noted as having met or exceeded a requirement. Really, enough OR please. Hcobb ( talk) 17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
So anywhere I find these numbers calculated rather than cited I can delete? Hcobb ( talk) 18:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll drop cn tags then? Hcobb ( talk) 02:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I've often wondered why I could not enter a note about a prop at |prop note=, e.g. say "fixed pitch, wooden". I used the get-around of adding the comment to the prop name. Having finally taken a look at the code, it's clear why prop note does nothing: it's not in the code. What is in the code is prop dia note and if you add prop dia note= fixed pitch, wooden, the comment appears after the word diameter. I'm minded to change the variable name, ie. del |prop note= and add |prop dia note= in the template, leaving its code untouched, if no-one can see a problem.
Whilst chasing this issue via the code and testing the template, I came up with another oddity: if you add a comment at |more power=, this adds to the end of prop diameter. It looks rather as if the code fragment that deals with more power has got split away from its natural position at the end of eng3, perhaps when the prop section was added. I'll check the history. If right, and if no-one can see trouble from this I'll experiment. I've not edited code here before but there's only one way to learn! TSRL ( talk) 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a notice that at Talk:AIRCRASH I have proposed a change to simplify the inclusion standard for accidents in aircraft type articles. Please add comments over on that talk page. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
A user has been using images (and blogs) as referencing (for example to count the number of T-50 aircraft in use), they have been told it is original research etc I have had a bit of a tidy up but the article has loads of refs, some for the same thing so any help with a look at the article might help, perhaps one of our article improvement guys can have a look. One source of referencing is the use of images of display boards used by the company and then photographed, they have textual information on them but I am not sure if they are reliable refs? MilborneOne ( talk) 09:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Vought XF5U bears watching - a new editor is adding images (including one copyvio) and spurious "related aircraft" entries (apparently the Flying Flapjack is related to the Harrier and V-22 Osprey, who knew!). - The Bushranger One ping only 19:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Just found this article B-25 Mitchell aircraft in Catch-22 (film) an interesting subject but appears to have fallen into the fanboy universe! MilborneOne ( talk) 21:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Petebutt has copy and pasted the Boeing KB-29 article into the Boeing B-29 Superfortress variants at the same time as making a move request which I have reverted. I dont have a problem with discussing these moves but it looks like a big mess is being created. With move request tags everywhere and no actual discussion. You cant really merge a type article and a variant article without some work as to what is relevant, and you cant copy and paste without some attribution, can project members keep an eye on the B-29 articles, thank you. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I point out a discussion I started here about Boeing YB-9 article. I suggest the name should be changed. Thank you. -- Leo Pasini ( talk) 07:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I created a list of Douglas DC-4 operators to tie in with the Douglas DC-4 article, user User:Petebutt has renamed it List of Douglas DC-4 variant operators and added in stuff to do with C-54 and the Canadair variants. The intention of the article was as a child article of DC-4 and it was not to cover the C-54, so the article been renamed to a title that really doesnt make sense and a bit of a mess. It really needs a clean up possibly to move the article back to a sensible name and clean up the mess of navboxes and stuff in the article. Should we have combined operator articles when the type has multiple variant articles? appreciate if somebody can have a look at the article please because I have not got time to create stuff and then have it messed up, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Several editors have decided to start a Commons Aviation WikiProject which is going to be devoted to aviation-related content on Commons; Commons:Commons:WikiProject_Aviation. Some of the main tasks for the project include maintaining and sorting aviation content, as well as working on obtaining permission from photographers to upload their photos to Commons, in addition to working on introducing photographers to Commons to get them to upload photos directly to Commons. There is a discussion at Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation at which we are trying to ascertain what the needs of the community-at-large are, so please feel free to join in the discussion. Also, if there are any project members who are willing to do some translation work for us that would be great. See Commons:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Translations for more info. Also, anyone with scripting knowledge would be welcome, as there are some ideas which would require such expertise. Look forward to hearing from project members over on Commons with any ideas, etc. Please feel free to translate this message as needed. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Aircraft. I've been putting the finishing touches on a significant overhaul of the Panavia Tornado article. While it is now larger, signficantly better cited and has a far superior Design section; not all of the long term issues have been completely resolved. Specifically, German and Italian operational history is pretty skant compared with the RAF's large section, it would be nice to recieve help expanding these. There are citation tags in the Design Overview section, the Design Upgrades section, German operational history, and the entire Operators section has had a huge banner demanding citation for years now. If anybody can help lessen or absolve these weaknesses, it would be greatly appreciated. Kyteto ( talk) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor has recently split the material on the recent Iranian capture of a Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel from the article on the UAV to create the new United states unmanned aerial vehicle seizure by Iran article. I've restored this material to the UAV article, but left the new article alone and started a discussion at Talk:Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel#Separate article for the Iranian incident?. All comments on this would be great. Nick-D ( talk) 10:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The featured article candidacy for Boeing 767 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 22:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This article's a FA over at ru.wiki now - perhaps some cross-pollination back our way could be done by those who know the language? - The Bushranger One ping only [posted 13 Dec. 2011]
An editor has now several time removed cited text and quotes criticizing the noise output of this aircraft and replaced it with uncited and previously challenged text. There is now a discussion on this at Talk:Piaggio_P.180_Avanti#Noise_signature_and_objective_measurement_of_disturbance_created. I would appreciate the input of other editors from this project on the issue. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Users might be interested in the deletion discussion for Boeing 797. — Compdude123 ( talk) 22:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Could some other editors look at this article. Looks like to me a lot of biased/pro-Rafale text was added over the past week. Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gripen vs Rafale vs Typhoon. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thia article is currently under AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1974 Dan-Air Luton incident (2nd nomination), does anybody else have any input? Petebutt ( talk) 01:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion at AN/I that may interest the project is located here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only editor assessing aircraft / aviation articles. Very few of the articles I have created have been elevated above start, even though a high proportion of them qualify for at least C-class. There was also a huge backlog of completely un-assessed articles until I whittled it down, so who isn't pulling their weight and why aren't authors self classifying up to start class? Petebutt ( talk) 17:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
For information the Current weapons of the United States Air Force navbox (actually called USAF weapons) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 27#Template:USAF weapons. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The Category:2010s aircraft stubs template has been proposed for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor just created this cat and is populating it. Thoughts? - Ahunt ( talk) 20:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Davegnz has left behind a lot (47) of draft psuedo-articles in user space about survivors and such like, those with a long memory will remember that the format he used was never really accepted by the project so he created his own little wiki in userspace. Anybody agree they are not really needed and if so what is the best way of dealing with them, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a convention for also known as names to raise a re-direct at the time of writing an article. If not, I propose that it be introduced into an appropriate guideline. Unless there is a separate article for the alternative name it makes sense to allow enquirers to get straight to the relevant article, when searching for the alternative. Petebutt ( talk) 17:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Petebutt for some reason has been removing the aircraft project tag from within the aviation project headers on talk pages. Articles like Airbus Military for example are clearly in scope of the project. He has been asked to stop and explain. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)