![]() | 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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 49 |
I have raised the inclusion of comparison tables in the Business Jet article, opinions at Talk:Business jet#Tables welcome, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I better understood the stir caused by including values in comparisons when I was told in Talk:Business jet they were unexpected in "military aircraft articles, where there are far more enthusiasts". I understand military aircraft articles may have different objectives. There are much less enthusiasts for commercial aircraft, and economics there are more important, where value is an intrinsic property of an aircraft, like weight or wing area. My goal never was to build a buyers guide but to let readers interested in commercial aircraft have the best grasp of their economics, without going too far as if wikipedia was an accountant handbook.
I saw the hiding of prices as if they were taboo. I was surprised by WP:noprices taken literally as "no prices allowed" while it is a sales catalog/shopbot prohibition, not a price prohibition, and values are in almost every commercial aircraft infobox so it was not incongruous to group them.
Well, to go forward and leave this discussion, I won't oppose anymore any deletion of prices. Thanks.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 09:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
a justified reason for the mentioncould mean lots of things. - ZLEA Talk\ Contribs 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Probably upset some fans but I just deleted a huge section about failed bids and potential orders at the Eurofighter Typhoon most of this is part of the day to day marketing and selling of aircraft and not that noteworthy, it also takes up a large section of the article so is probably undue weight. I also note some of the other mainly modern "fighter" articles also spend more time on failed bids and possible sales than the actual operation of the aircraft, before I upset anymore people by deleting stuff I am looking for thoughts on this. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I have been trimming back the forked page a bit. In the light of the AfD decision to keep it, I would appreciate any comments on that at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon procurement#Unencyclopedic content — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Trying to knock Business aircraft into a better shape, I have had a go laying out the sections and adding some content but it needs more work. I feel it needs something on the development of aircraft for business use in the 1930s and some of sections are a bit thin yet. If anybody has some sources to add more than it would be appreciated. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to merge Aerodyne Jumbe, Aerodyne Shaman, Aerodyne Totem Bi, Aerodyne Yogi into Aerodyne Technologies. Interested editors may participate in the discussion at discussion at Talk:Aerodyne Technologies. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know much about the subject. Could someone please look at the history of Version 2 EAD Airframe? Many thanks.
See also: this Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Related to the above, comments are welcome at Talk:Ionocraft#Move suggestion. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 22:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Would really, really appreciate more eyes/hands at Eurofighter Typhoon procurement. I started deleting stuff, such as failed bids, but others are now adding them back in, especially Canada, Malaysia and Greece. Should they stay or should the go? Any replies, please post to thread at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon procurement#Unencyclopedic content. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure that the recent addition of 2018 selling value to most articles on Biz Jets is really relevant and why the 2018 price is more important that say the value in 2000. Just like to ask User:Marc Lacoste what the reasoning behind this as it is not clear to me as we are not in the business of selling aircraft, any other opinions welcome, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.Given that policy, I think we would need a very strong justification for keeping these. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
concerning all subjects, having comprehensive information or knowledge.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 22:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details,
...
WP:NOTEVERYTHING
Andrewgprout (
talk) 07:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Exactly the case here: summarising an economic asset depreciation over time in one sentence, without going in intricate details only useful to appraisers.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The reason to remove those would be mainly WP:Undue weight. Is it really the case?-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 21:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention(emphasis in original). It’s not enough to just have a source, or even many sources. There must be a compelling, meaningful (I used “noteworthy” above) reason for us discussing it. If for instance we can find a reliable source meaningfully discussing depreciation rates about particular models, (and by meaningfully I mean a lengthy discussion about how a particular model performs against its peers, etc.), then by all means, let’s talk about including a discussion of depreciation on that particular model's page. But we can’t just add 2018 pricing, or even historical pricing, to every article and expect readers to make their own comparisons (or worse, make our own in violation of WP:OR). CThomas3 ( talk) 09:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
[Wikipedia is not a] Sales cataloguesand indeed asset depreciation is more away from that than the price new in the infobox. Many bizjet articles include a used value and competition comparisons, and those which don't are not much more than stubs. I maintain the most apt policy here is WP:due weight.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 12:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. It is not the case in the articles, I made an example for Cthomas3 up with calculations but it is a the reader discretion, not provided as a referenced statement in articles.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 17:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand it is an unusual practice, and being conservative can be a virtue for coherence, but observations were answered :
reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy;
relevant to the topic of the article, not about something else;
sales catalogue;
a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject;
combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
The main objection would be
WP:Undue weight, which is the main
WP:content policy. I could totally understand stating 2d hand values could be given too much weight in aircraft articles, but no one seems concerned about this point.
I wish you all a very happy new year, towards a better Wikipedia each day! cheers,--
Marc Lacoste (
talk) 17:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
[Wikipedia is not a] Sales catalogues [or] a price comparison service. Maybe the discussion will be ended in a week but maybe not.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 23:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles?
editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.
a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, so a short line is welcome. I agree the intricate specs need to avoid growing too much, but the most specific policy is maybe WP:NOTMANUAL. For WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (
other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value), similar examples come from the operators survey of AvWeek's BCA: for the Nextant 400XT, CJ3, Hawker 400, Hawker 750/800XP, Learjet_60XR, Citation Sovereign, Challenger 604, Falcon 2000S, Global 5000, G550... -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 20:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me add my voice to those opposing the inclusion of these prices as per MilborneOne, Ahunt, Steelpillow and everyone else here so far except Marc Lacosta. Yes Marc, consensus is about more than just counting people, but when everyone else disagrees with you, maybe it is time to consider that consensus is against your position. You say that there is no consesnsus to remove the prices. I think you misread the situation, but regardsless, this is a backwards way of looking at it. Given WP:NOPRICES. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:UNDUE there needs to be a significant reason supported by consensus that including this information improves the encyclopedia. This has not been occurred and in fact consensus is very clearly against it. I think it might be time to cease assulting the deceased equine. - Nick Thorne talk 00:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises. I already answered the WP:NOPRICES and WP:NOTEVERYTHING objections, I'm glad you raise WP:UNDUE: could you explain to what too much weight would be given? Thanks. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 10:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
With no further discussion in the past two weeks, I think we can bring this to a conclusion and state that the project consensus is that these prices should not be included in the aircraft type articles, except in the sole specific case where there is a reliable source that specifically discusses depreciation for the aircraft type. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
A new template, {{ aerospecs}}, has been added to the style guide. It appears to be in use on thousands or articles. Now we have three templates in use for the same purpose, apparently indiscriminately. Has a consensus discussion for all this ever been held? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Taken a shot at it. A bit surprised to find that the {{subst:airspec}}
options invoked a deprecated template, but I guess those options are deprecated too. Any problems? — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 19:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Even worse, Aerospecs is broken as the bolded armament header is failing to show on a new line), and on 2200 pages - can anyone familiar with template editting fix it? - NiD.29 ( talk) 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Done Fixed!
Sario528 (
talk) 18:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
There has been a discussion on whether to rename the empennage article. It seems to have stalled lately, with a slight consensus for change but none as to what that change might be. Any further contributions may be made at Talk:Empennage#Suggested_move. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a pilot, so excuse me if this is a daft question. It relates to this edit on the Tailstrike article. The text in question is, "A tailstrike is physically possible only on an aircraft with tricycle landing gear; with a taildragger configuration, the tail is already on the ground." While I understand that a tailwheel configuration would rule out a tailstrike under most conditions, I can think of a few circumstances where it could happen, such as the tailwheel falling off before/during landing. Any thoughts from the pilots and aircraft mechanics among us? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need F-22 Raptor Demo Team? Seems like one short paragraph in the F-22 article,assuming we can find a secondary reliable source, would suffice. - BilCat ( talk) 22:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been recently learning about Sikorsky's Russky Vityaz and Ilya Muromets and their importance in the development of large aircraft. The Russky Vityaz was both the first airplane built with more than two engines and the first to have multiple engines whose thrust was not along the aircraft centerline, proving that such a configuration could work. The Ilya Muromets further confirmed the practicality of this approach and also served as the prototype of the heavy bomber, being introduced several years before the big German, British, and Italian machines. So both of these aircraft are important milestones.
Considering their importance, the imagery we have for these machines is pretty sad. I've tried to find additional photos from old magazines and books, and I achieved a bit of success with the Russky Vityaz, but the Ilya Muromets is more difficult, since there was a war on. :) Of course, I can find some nice photos online, such as one from airwar.ru (compare with our version), as well as three-view drawings like this one. My understanding was that sites like airwar.ru are verboten due to links to potential copyright infringement; yet when I checked Commons today, I found quite a few files that gave airwar.ru as the source. Was I mistaken? Are there circumstances where such sites can be used as image sources, such as for material too old to still be under copyright, or drawings which don't meet the U.S. threshhold of originality? -- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 20:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
In what appears to be a bit of promotional spamming of links to the Teal Group and in particular to Richard Aboulafia a so called analyst in the main body of the text. I have been reverted all over the place so need a bit of a sanity check please. Does the Teal Group external link actually add anything to the article, and is Richard Aboulafia name important that his opinion and name have to been on multiple aircraft articles. As far as I remember we dont particulary name analyst by name but sometimes the sources. Thanks.
User:Marc Lacoste thinks that "aboulafia is an interesting analyst" like to ask him why he needs his name apparently spammed on multiple articles. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
a 2020 final delivery, with unpleasant losses due to "hubris, shoddy market analysis, nationalism and simple wishful thinking"(pretty spot-on IMO). Removing the origin of the opinion would let it appear as a fact, but that's not the case ( Avoid stating opinions as facts). It's the option taken by the press, be it AvWeek or Flight, and it's not the publication's opinion. That said, if you think he does not deserve a short bio in wikipedia, I understand.
It would give a dangerous precedent if it is going to be deleted.
The photograph is of a model to which the photographer is unlikely to have copyright permission. The photograph was taken of a temporary installation.The source is given as "Own Work" while the focus of the photograph is the model, which is unlikely to be the photographers work.
I replied A photo of a model shown to the public, within a public airshow. The model may be the property of a company, but the photograph copyright belongs to the photographer, who can claim it's his own and put it in wikimedia if he wants. No photo interdiction in Airshows at my knowledge. Would lower drastically the attendance if it was forbidden. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
They are proposed for deletion in wikipedia, too.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 06:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Today's (February 23, 2019) Wikipedia Main Page "On This Day" section has a link to AEA Silver Dart. In the specifications, the powerplant description is rendered poorly: "Powerplant: 1 × Curtiss 50hp V-8 V-8 air-cooled piston engine, 50 hp (37 kW)" -- i.e., "V-8" is repeated, and "50hp" appears twice, apparently due to how the template fields (engine name, type and hp) were concatenated. I'm not sure how to fix this use of the Aircraft Specifications template. Harris7 ( talk) 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Having just chocked on my drink as the Dart Herald has been categorised as Category:Four-engined piston aircraft which has been created by User:Uli Elch I am pretty sure we discussed these expanding and duplicate categories and decided not to do it as they were all in "Four-engined tractor aircraft" and similar, anybody have any comments about duplicated category trees. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
There are a large number of entries in this category. Should it be renamed to Category:Four-engined jet aircraft, for the same reason that the quadjet article was renamed? OK we have Category:Twinjets and Category:Trijets but we also have Category:Single-engined jet aircraft. Nobody ever talks about "monojets" and not many RS talk about quadjets either. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Despite not being a fan of these multiplying categorisations, can we at least go as far as combining Category:Twin-engined tractor aircraft and Category:Twin-engined piston aircraft into Category:Twin piston-engined tractor aircraft (or some rational variant thereof).
Otherwise we're unable to sensibly categorise what's probably the second most common aircraft configuration in a single-step and we'll see an unending series of edits like this, which is 'correct', but an awfully long-winded approach to such an obvious goal.
Or else burn the lot (I really don't care). But this multiplication of the trivial is ridiculous. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Not all our readers live in Gloucestershire (local joke). What I mean is, "tractor" this and "tractor" that are pretty much superfluous. It should be sufficient to have Category:Flying pigs, Category:Jet flying pigs, Category:Pusher-driven flying pigs, Category:Piston-engined flying pigs, maybe Category:Electric flying pigs, but we really do not need Category:Piston-engined flying pigs with tractor propellers as nobody in the real world ever does it like that. WP:NOTANOBSESSIVECOMPULSIVEPLAYGROUND or something. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
I have recently reviewed 35 articles submitted by the same user, mostly stubs, regarding aircraft. I have tagged them as stubs. I do not know whether they all meet notability guidelines so I am leaving a message here to notify members in case anyone wants to take a second look. The list can be found at Special:Diff/885808590.
Many thanks,
SITH (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I have started a request for comments on the choice of images used in the article 1978 Finnish Air Force DC-3 crash. Participants of this project may be interested in the discussion and are invited to offer their opinion. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I recently claimed at Template Talk:Aircraft specifications was deprecated and they should use Template:Aircraft specs for new articles or ones with an issue. I have now been asked to prove that the template is deprecated, pretty sure this has been discussed here in the past. "Aircraft Specifications" is still used on 2691 articles ("Aircraft specs" on 6459). Can somebody refresh my memory on this and why we cant add a Template Deprecated tag, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a weight with a reference but the figure just disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.192.31 ( talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
For information I just proposed deletion of 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis as it clearly not a crisis but something that can be dealt with on the MAX and accidents pages. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
With much still to be learned about the Ethiopia disaster, safety experts are warning about drawing conclusions about the loss of the plane delivered to the airline in November. The jet’s last maintenance was on Feb. 4, and it had flown just 1,200 hours. There is no indication the anti-stall device was at fault in Sunday’s crash; the Ethiopian Airlines plane had passed all safety tests, whereas Lion Air pilots had previously reported problems with how that plane was responding to certain commands.National Post - Ahunt ( talk) 00:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Article has survived an AfD but it is turning into a pile of the proverbial, including maps, flags and fleet numers as well as other trivia. At least it is not a crisis anymore and it is keeping people busy who dont have a clear idea between a tabloid and an encyclopedia. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I have started a request for comments on the inclusion of certain surviving airframes in the article List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Participants of this project may be interested in the discussion and are invited to offer their opinion. – Noha307 ( talk) 04:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
For information the unused template Template:WWIIUSAircraft is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_13#Template:WWIIUSAircraft. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Israel F-16 Crash was recently created, and needs a lot of work. The title is vague, and we may have another article on the incident somewhere else already, but I don't know. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 14:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've moved it to Draft:Israel F-16 Crash. - BilCat ( talk) 14:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a vote at Talk:Boeing_737_MAX on whether to move the article from 737 MAX to 737 Max, on the basis of general article naming policy preferring Max. I think that the applicable more specific policy at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) is to use the MAX form. Please consider doing one or more of these things:
Thanks. Jamesday ( talk) 04:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jan, an employee of Northrop Grumman, and I am interested in helping the Wikipedia community to make relevant updates and improvements to the Northrop Grumman article. I will not be making direct edits, only posting to discussion pages. Is there an editor with an interest in aircraft that would be willing to take a look at my requested updates on the Northrop Grumman Talk page and put them into effect? If you have any questions, feedback, or comments, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you! JanAtNorthropGrumman ( talk) 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Done Thank you.
JanAtNorthropGrumman (
talk) 13:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
These have been a perpetual nightmare. There is now a TfD discussion to which you are invited to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a rejected draft at Draft:Aerocon Dash 1.6 wingship that is almost ready for mainspace. Any help on getting it ready would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
There a IPer adding Supersonic Transport fiction to some articles ( Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Boeing 777 and maybe others). I'll need to drop off for bed before long. Please help with these edits. Thanks, -Fnlayson ( talk) 03:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it too soon for Mitsubishi F-3. Most of the information is speculative, and I'm not sure this is a program of record at this point. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The advent of {{ Short description}}s has also brought {{ Annotated link}}s. I have never liked annotating links in "See also" sections except under very limited circumstances, so I'm not a fan of the new tag at all, as they aren't very informative, and look awful, in my opinion. I've heard from several other WPAIR members who don't like them either.
From Wikipedia:Short description#Annotated links:
"The template {{ Annotated link}} can be used to automatically annotate a link in a list using the associated short description. This can be used in outline and index lists, and in shorter lists in articles such as "see also" sections, which will be automatically populated with annotations using the associated short descriptions. These will remain up to date when the short description is edited. Annotated link does not work via redirects, so if the link is to a redirect, check if it is a redirect with possibility of becoming a full article. If so, add an appropriate short description to the redirect page – this will also help when someone wants to make it into an article – or change the link to a direct link. Both of these options can be appropriate, and it is a matter of judgement which is better in a specific case. ( Bold-Revert-Discuss applies)"
So, as a project, are annotations in See also sections something we want to endorse, forbid, encourage, or be ambivalent about? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
"Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent."The "Annotated links" template is just a way to semi-automate that. I think that gives us carte blanche to suppress it wherever we deem the relevance to be readily apparent, whether via aircontent or any other route. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Just for information I have proposed deletion of the article about Zlin D-EWOH, only four page watchers and little activity in the last ten years. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Do we ever add external links to YouTube videos? An IP editor added this one to the Hugo Wolf F/A-18C simulator but some bot reverted it. The editor was unimpressed by such a bot exercising its mandate and restored it. I gave a kneejerk support to the bot but am now wondering if I did the right thing? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:YOUTUBE, there is no blanket ban on YouTube videos, and many of them can be as reliable and worthy of inclusion (at least in the EL section) as any RS (there is even a dedicated template, {{ YouTube}}. For the Hugo Wolf F/A-18C simulator, an official documentary by the Swiss Air Force (or such it seems) that illustrates the device in question in a way that a written article will never be able to do, I don't see why it should not be linked. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 18:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
A while ago their was a discussion regarding adding the manufacturer to aircraft names in articles such as adding Bristol to a inline link which says "F.2 Fighter" and adding Douglas to "C-54 Skymaster" in the first instance.
I've checked the archive I can't find it, any ideas? Gavbadger ( talk) 17:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ANTLE is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANTLE until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BilCat ( talk) 03:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Any chance we can convert Military transport aircraft from a gallery page to an actual article? The huge galleries are bad enough, do we also need those tiny thumbnails in the tables? (I'm no good at editing tables, or I'd strip them out myself.) Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 16:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The List of military transport aircraft is a non-standard list table with rather a lot of columns. I have proposed removing some of them in this discussion. Comments welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
A "new" user User:Gordon Bloed has re-created:
and Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23 which all appear to be related to the interests of blocked user User:FFA P-16. Please keep an eye on these, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Also worth keeping an eye on the user's subpages via {{List subpages|Gordon Bloed|User}}
:
Pages with the prefix 'Gordon Bloed' in the 'User' and 'User talk' namespaces:
Gordon Bloed |
Gordon Bloed |
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
See here. The nominator doesn't seem to be aware of how many categories are in this format (hundreds?). I suggested discussion here if it is intended to rename all of them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the things you notice as your watchlist fills up with the category changes is that we use for example Category:2010s United States military aircraft rather than Category:2010s American military aircraft nearly all the others use British/French/Swiss etc. Another oddity is some but not all of the Taiwanese category use Republic of China rather than Taiwanese. Anybody know why these two should be an exception, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The redirects XJet and X-Jet, currently targeting Expressjet and Williams X-Jet have been nominated at RfD. You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#XJet and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#X-Jet. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I found these, but it's not immediately clear to me exactly which nav template in {{ Aircraft navigation see also}} is the best choice for each one. If I could get some guidance on what-should-be-used-where, I could easily do the minutiae of placing the appropriate ones via AWB. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Another month another article with a slightly different name:
Both as usual re-directed to Swiss Air Force#Air demonstration teams, suspected block evasion as the user has no other edits except to create and keep copies of these two article in user space. Appreciate others keeping an eye on this. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been ill for the past week and editing only sporadically, so if I missed something major, forgive me. Today,I reverted
User:Petebutt's unexplained removal of the See also section from
Aermacchi M-345. I was reverted
here with edit summary "the S.211 is already referenced in the text and infobox, apart from that the see also section is irrelevant and no longer used see Template:WPAVIATION creator"
.
I have no idea what the second part of his summary is talking about. As to the fisrt part, WPAIR have always placed related and comparable links in the See also section, regardless of whether or not they are used in the article. This was basically grandfathered in when we were forced to re-do Template:Aircontent, and has never been successfully challenged. So again, I have no idea what Pete is going on about this time. - BilCat ( talk) 18:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If it is mandatory, why is it not included in the new aircraft article template??-- Petebutt ( talk) 18:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd still like to see redundant links removed from See also.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Update: There is now a revised proposal and a new sub-thread on listing lists there. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to create some maintenance categories here. it would not affect the list display. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:Aviation maintenance categories now contains subcategories tracking usage of the various Template:Avilisthead options in lists of aircraft. Almost 50 articles currently use them. I hope it all proves useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 06:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been seeing a major effort recently to change "unmanned" to "uncrewed" on spacecraft-related articles, as NASA appears to be retroactively changing its usage of the terms, and it's now happening on Wikipedia also. So I've been expecting this to happen to the Unmanned aerial vehicle article at any moment.
Well,
it just happened:
User:Beland changed all mentions of "unmanned" to "uncrewed" in the article, with this edit summary: "unmanned -> uncrewed in appropriate places, for gender-neutral language
MOS:S/HE (both terms seems to be in use to expand UAV)"
. I reverted with the edit summary "a major change to the lead title and usage needs to discussed beforehand on the talk page, and a consensus reached - I've know objection to listing it as an alternative name,suitably sourced, which this change wasn't, but most defense industry sources still use "unmanned", so this is not a simple change - common name still applies, and a change to that needs discussion"
I did a quick Google search on "unmanned aerial vehicle" and "uncrewed aerial vehicle", and found the former had 4 million ghits, as compared to 2 thousand for the latter! This clearly establishes "unmanned aerial vehicle" as the common name, which is my sole objection to the changes.
I expect this to be a major issue that may drag on for some time, and it will probably be fought somewhere else besides here or Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle#Uncrewed vs. unmanned. - BilCat ( talk) 20:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"Man" does not unambibuously mean "male", in this case, it is a different word for "human". Interestingly, the German word for human, "Mensch", can also refer to "girl" as opposed to "boy". But that does not render all "Menschen" female. -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 14:30, 7 June 2019 (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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 49 |
I have raised the inclusion of comparison tables in the Business Jet article, opinions at Talk:Business jet#Tables welcome, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I better understood the stir caused by including values in comparisons when I was told in Talk:Business jet they were unexpected in "military aircraft articles, where there are far more enthusiasts". I understand military aircraft articles may have different objectives. There are much less enthusiasts for commercial aircraft, and economics there are more important, where value is an intrinsic property of an aircraft, like weight or wing area. My goal never was to build a buyers guide but to let readers interested in commercial aircraft have the best grasp of their economics, without going too far as if wikipedia was an accountant handbook.
I saw the hiding of prices as if they were taboo. I was surprised by WP:noprices taken literally as "no prices allowed" while it is a sales catalog/shopbot prohibition, not a price prohibition, and values are in almost every commercial aircraft infobox so it was not incongruous to group them.
Well, to go forward and leave this discussion, I won't oppose anymore any deletion of prices. Thanks.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 09:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
a justified reason for the mentioncould mean lots of things. - ZLEA Talk\ Contribs 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Probably upset some fans but I just deleted a huge section about failed bids and potential orders at the Eurofighter Typhoon most of this is part of the day to day marketing and selling of aircraft and not that noteworthy, it also takes up a large section of the article so is probably undue weight. I also note some of the other mainly modern "fighter" articles also spend more time on failed bids and possible sales than the actual operation of the aircraft, before I upset anymore people by deleting stuff I am looking for thoughts on this. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I have been trimming back the forked page a bit. In the light of the AfD decision to keep it, I would appreciate any comments on that at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon procurement#Unencyclopedic content — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Trying to knock Business aircraft into a better shape, I have had a go laying out the sections and adding some content but it needs more work. I feel it needs something on the development of aircraft for business use in the 1930s and some of sections are a bit thin yet. If anybody has some sources to add more than it would be appreciated. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to merge Aerodyne Jumbe, Aerodyne Shaman, Aerodyne Totem Bi, Aerodyne Yogi into Aerodyne Technologies. Interested editors may participate in the discussion at discussion at Talk:Aerodyne Technologies. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know much about the subject. Could someone please look at the history of Version 2 EAD Airframe? Many thanks.
See also: this Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Related to the above, comments are welcome at Talk:Ionocraft#Move suggestion. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 22:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Would really, really appreciate more eyes/hands at Eurofighter Typhoon procurement. I started deleting stuff, such as failed bids, but others are now adding them back in, especially Canada, Malaysia and Greece. Should they stay or should the go? Any replies, please post to thread at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon procurement#Unencyclopedic content. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure that the recent addition of 2018 selling value to most articles on Biz Jets is really relevant and why the 2018 price is more important that say the value in 2000. Just like to ask User:Marc Lacoste what the reasoning behind this as it is not clear to me as we are not in the business of selling aircraft, any other opinions welcome, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 22:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.Given that policy, I think we would need a very strong justification for keeping these. - Ahunt ( talk) 22:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
concerning all subjects, having comprehensive information or knowledge.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 22:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details,
...
WP:NOTEVERYTHING
Andrewgprout (
talk) 07:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Exactly the case here: summarising an economic asset depreciation over time in one sentence, without going in intricate details only useful to appraisers.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 21:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The reason to remove those would be mainly WP:Undue weight. Is it really the case?-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 21:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention(emphasis in original). It’s not enough to just have a source, or even many sources. There must be a compelling, meaningful (I used “noteworthy” above) reason for us discussing it. If for instance we can find a reliable source meaningfully discussing depreciation rates about particular models, (and by meaningfully I mean a lengthy discussion about how a particular model performs against its peers, etc.), then by all means, let’s talk about including a discussion of depreciation on that particular model's page. But we can’t just add 2018 pricing, or even historical pricing, to every article and expect readers to make their own comparisons (or worse, make our own in violation of WP:OR). CThomas3 ( talk) 09:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
[Wikipedia is not a] Sales cataloguesand indeed asset depreciation is more away from that than the price new in the infobox. Many bizjet articles include a used value and competition comparisons, and those which don't are not much more than stubs. I maintain the most apt policy here is WP:due weight.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 12:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. It is not the case in the articles, I made an example for Cthomas3 up with calculations but it is a the reader discretion, not provided as a referenced statement in articles.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 17:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand it is an unusual practice, and being conservative can be a virtue for coherence, but observations were answered :
reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy;
relevant to the topic of the article, not about something else;
sales catalogue;
a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject;
combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
The main objection would be
WP:Undue weight, which is the main
WP:content policy. I could totally understand stating 2d hand values could be given too much weight in aircraft articles, but no one seems concerned about this point.
I wish you all a very happy new year, towards a better Wikipedia each day! cheers,--
Marc Lacoste (
talk) 17:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
[Wikipedia is not a] Sales catalogues [or] a price comparison service. Maybe the discussion will be ended in a week but maybe not.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 23:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles?
editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.
a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, so a short line is welcome. I agree the intricate specs need to avoid growing too much, but the most specific policy is maybe WP:NOTMANUAL. For WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (
other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value), similar examples come from the operators survey of AvWeek's BCA: for the Nextant 400XT, CJ3, Hawker 400, Hawker 750/800XP, Learjet_60XR, Citation Sovereign, Challenger 604, Falcon 2000S, Global 5000, G550... -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 20:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me add my voice to those opposing the inclusion of these prices as per MilborneOne, Ahunt, Steelpillow and everyone else here so far except Marc Lacosta. Yes Marc, consensus is about more than just counting people, but when everyone else disagrees with you, maybe it is time to consider that consensus is against your position. You say that there is no consesnsus to remove the prices. I think you misread the situation, but regardsless, this is a backwards way of looking at it. Given WP:NOPRICES. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:UNDUE there needs to be a significant reason supported by consensus that including this information improves the encyclopedia. This has not been occurred and in fact consensus is very clearly against it. I think it might be time to cease assulting the deceased equine. - Nick Thorne talk 00:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises. I already answered the WP:NOPRICES and WP:NOTEVERYTHING objections, I'm glad you raise WP:UNDUE: could you explain to what too much weight would be given? Thanks. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 10:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
With no further discussion in the past two weeks, I think we can bring this to a conclusion and state that the project consensus is that these prices should not be included in the aircraft type articles, except in the sole specific case where there is a reliable source that specifically discusses depreciation for the aircraft type. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
A new template, {{ aerospecs}}, has been added to the style guide. It appears to be in use on thousands or articles. Now we have three templates in use for the same purpose, apparently indiscriminately. Has a consensus discussion for all this ever been held? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Taken a shot at it. A bit surprised to find that the {{subst:airspec}}
options invoked a deprecated template, but I guess those options are deprecated too. Any problems? — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk) 19:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Even worse, Aerospecs is broken as the bolded armament header is failing to show on a new line), and on 2200 pages - can anyone familiar with template editting fix it? - NiD.29 ( talk) 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Done Fixed!
Sario528 (
talk) 18:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
There has been a discussion on whether to rename the empennage article. It seems to have stalled lately, with a slight consensus for change but none as to what that change might be. Any further contributions may be made at Talk:Empennage#Suggested_move. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a pilot, so excuse me if this is a daft question. It relates to this edit on the Tailstrike article. The text in question is, "A tailstrike is physically possible only on an aircraft with tricycle landing gear; with a taildragger configuration, the tail is already on the ground." While I understand that a tailwheel configuration would rule out a tailstrike under most conditions, I can think of a few circumstances where it could happen, such as the tailwheel falling off before/during landing. Any thoughts from the pilots and aircraft mechanics among us? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need F-22 Raptor Demo Team? Seems like one short paragraph in the F-22 article,assuming we can find a secondary reliable source, would suffice. - BilCat ( talk) 22:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been recently learning about Sikorsky's Russky Vityaz and Ilya Muromets and their importance in the development of large aircraft. The Russky Vityaz was both the first airplane built with more than two engines and the first to have multiple engines whose thrust was not along the aircraft centerline, proving that such a configuration could work. The Ilya Muromets further confirmed the practicality of this approach and also served as the prototype of the heavy bomber, being introduced several years before the big German, British, and Italian machines. So both of these aircraft are important milestones.
Considering their importance, the imagery we have for these machines is pretty sad. I've tried to find additional photos from old magazines and books, and I achieved a bit of success with the Russky Vityaz, but the Ilya Muromets is more difficult, since there was a war on. :) Of course, I can find some nice photos online, such as one from airwar.ru (compare with our version), as well as three-view drawings like this one. My understanding was that sites like airwar.ru are verboten due to links to potential copyright infringement; yet when I checked Commons today, I found quite a few files that gave airwar.ru as the source. Was I mistaken? Are there circumstances where such sites can be used as image sources, such as for material too old to still be under copyright, or drawings which don't meet the U.S. threshhold of originality? -- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 20:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
In what appears to be a bit of promotional spamming of links to the Teal Group and in particular to Richard Aboulafia a so called analyst in the main body of the text. I have been reverted all over the place so need a bit of a sanity check please. Does the Teal Group external link actually add anything to the article, and is Richard Aboulafia name important that his opinion and name have to been on multiple aircraft articles. As far as I remember we dont particulary name analyst by name but sometimes the sources. Thanks.
User:Marc Lacoste thinks that "aboulafia is an interesting analyst" like to ask him why he needs his name apparently spammed on multiple articles. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
a 2020 final delivery, with unpleasant losses due to "hubris, shoddy market analysis, nationalism and simple wishful thinking"(pretty spot-on IMO). Removing the origin of the opinion would let it appear as a fact, but that's not the case ( Avoid stating opinions as facts). It's the option taken by the press, be it AvWeek or Flight, and it's not the publication's opinion. That said, if you think he does not deserve a short bio in wikipedia, I understand.
It would give a dangerous precedent if it is going to be deleted.
The photograph is of a model to which the photographer is unlikely to have copyright permission. The photograph was taken of a temporary installation.The source is given as "Own Work" while the focus of the photograph is the model, which is unlikely to be the photographers work.
I replied A photo of a model shown to the public, within a public airshow. The model may be the property of a company, but the photograph copyright belongs to the photographer, who can claim it's his own and put it in wikimedia if he wants. No photo interdiction in Airshows at my knowledge. Would lower drastically the attendance if it was forbidden. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 07:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
They are proposed for deletion in wikipedia, too.-- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 06:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Today's (February 23, 2019) Wikipedia Main Page "On This Day" section has a link to AEA Silver Dart. In the specifications, the powerplant description is rendered poorly: "Powerplant: 1 × Curtiss 50hp V-8 V-8 air-cooled piston engine, 50 hp (37 kW)" -- i.e., "V-8" is repeated, and "50hp" appears twice, apparently due to how the template fields (engine name, type and hp) were concatenated. I'm not sure how to fix this use of the Aircraft Specifications template. Harris7 ( talk) 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Having just chocked on my drink as the Dart Herald has been categorised as Category:Four-engined piston aircraft which has been created by User:Uli Elch I am pretty sure we discussed these expanding and duplicate categories and decided not to do it as they were all in "Four-engined tractor aircraft" and similar, anybody have any comments about duplicated category trees. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
There are a large number of entries in this category. Should it be renamed to Category:Four-engined jet aircraft, for the same reason that the quadjet article was renamed? OK we have Category:Twinjets and Category:Trijets but we also have Category:Single-engined jet aircraft. Nobody ever talks about "monojets" and not many RS talk about quadjets either. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Despite not being a fan of these multiplying categorisations, can we at least go as far as combining Category:Twin-engined tractor aircraft and Category:Twin-engined piston aircraft into Category:Twin piston-engined tractor aircraft (or some rational variant thereof).
Otherwise we're unable to sensibly categorise what's probably the second most common aircraft configuration in a single-step and we'll see an unending series of edits like this, which is 'correct', but an awfully long-winded approach to such an obvious goal.
Or else burn the lot (I really don't care). But this multiplication of the trivial is ridiculous. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Not all our readers live in Gloucestershire (local joke). What I mean is, "tractor" this and "tractor" that are pretty much superfluous. It should be sufficient to have Category:Flying pigs, Category:Jet flying pigs, Category:Pusher-driven flying pigs, Category:Piston-engined flying pigs, maybe Category:Electric flying pigs, but we really do not need Category:Piston-engined flying pigs with tractor propellers as nobody in the real world ever does it like that. WP:NOTANOBSESSIVECOMPULSIVEPLAYGROUND or something. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
I have recently reviewed 35 articles submitted by the same user, mostly stubs, regarding aircraft. I have tagged them as stubs. I do not know whether they all meet notability guidelines so I am leaving a message here to notify members in case anyone wants to take a second look. The list can be found at Special:Diff/885808590.
Many thanks,
SITH (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I have started a request for comments on the choice of images used in the article 1978 Finnish Air Force DC-3 crash. Participants of this project may be interested in the discussion and are invited to offer their opinion. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I recently claimed at Template Talk:Aircraft specifications was deprecated and they should use Template:Aircraft specs for new articles or ones with an issue. I have now been asked to prove that the template is deprecated, pretty sure this has been discussed here in the past. "Aircraft Specifications" is still used on 2691 articles ("Aircraft specs" on 6459). Can somebody refresh my memory on this and why we cant add a Template Deprecated tag, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a weight with a reference but the figure just disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.192.31 ( talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
For information I just proposed deletion of 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis as it clearly not a crisis but something that can be dealt with on the MAX and accidents pages. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
With much still to be learned about the Ethiopia disaster, safety experts are warning about drawing conclusions about the loss of the plane delivered to the airline in November. The jet’s last maintenance was on Feb. 4, and it had flown just 1,200 hours. There is no indication the anti-stall device was at fault in Sunday’s crash; the Ethiopian Airlines plane had passed all safety tests, whereas Lion Air pilots had previously reported problems with how that plane was responding to certain commands.National Post - Ahunt ( talk) 00:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Article has survived an AfD but it is turning into a pile of the proverbial, including maps, flags and fleet numers as well as other trivia. At least it is not a crisis anymore and it is keeping people busy who dont have a clear idea between a tabloid and an encyclopedia. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I have started a request for comments on the inclusion of certain surviving airframes in the article List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Participants of this project may be interested in the discussion and are invited to offer their opinion. – Noha307 ( talk) 04:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
For information the unused template Template:WWIIUSAircraft is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_13#Template:WWIIUSAircraft. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Israel F-16 Crash was recently created, and needs a lot of work. The title is vague, and we may have another article on the incident somewhere else already, but I don't know. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 14:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've moved it to Draft:Israel F-16 Crash. - BilCat ( talk) 14:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a vote at Talk:Boeing_737_MAX on whether to move the article from 737 MAX to 737 Max, on the basis of general article naming policy preferring Max. I think that the applicable more specific policy at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) is to use the MAX form. Please consider doing one or more of these things:
Thanks. Jamesday ( talk) 04:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jan, an employee of Northrop Grumman, and I am interested in helping the Wikipedia community to make relevant updates and improvements to the Northrop Grumman article. I will not be making direct edits, only posting to discussion pages. Is there an editor with an interest in aircraft that would be willing to take a look at my requested updates on the Northrop Grumman Talk page and put them into effect? If you have any questions, feedback, or comments, please do not hesitate to reach out. Thank you! JanAtNorthropGrumman ( talk) 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Done Thank you.
JanAtNorthropGrumman (
talk) 13:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
These have been a perpetual nightmare. There is now a TfD discussion to which you are invited to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a rejected draft at Draft:Aerocon Dash 1.6 wingship that is almost ready for mainspace. Any help on getting it ready would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
There a IPer adding Supersonic Transport fiction to some articles ( Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Boeing 777 and maybe others). I'll need to drop off for bed before long. Please help with these edits. Thanks, -Fnlayson ( talk) 03:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it too soon for Mitsubishi F-3. Most of the information is speculative, and I'm not sure this is a program of record at this point. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 21:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The advent of {{ Short description}}s has also brought {{ Annotated link}}s. I have never liked annotating links in "See also" sections except under very limited circumstances, so I'm not a fan of the new tag at all, as they aren't very informative, and look awful, in my opinion. I've heard from several other WPAIR members who don't like them either.
From Wikipedia:Short description#Annotated links:
"The template {{ Annotated link}} can be used to automatically annotate a link in a list using the associated short description. This can be used in outline and index lists, and in shorter lists in articles such as "see also" sections, which will be automatically populated with annotations using the associated short descriptions. These will remain up to date when the short description is edited. Annotated link does not work via redirects, so if the link is to a redirect, check if it is a redirect with possibility of becoming a full article. If so, add an appropriate short description to the redirect page – this will also help when someone wants to make it into an article – or change the link to a direct link. Both of these options can be appropriate, and it is a matter of judgement which is better in a specific case. ( Bold-Revert-Discuss applies)"
So, as a project, are annotations in See also sections something we want to endorse, forbid, encourage, or be ambivalent about? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 00:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
"Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent."The "Annotated links" template is just a way to semi-automate that. I think that gives us carte blanche to suppress it wherever we deem the relevance to be readily apparent, whether via aircontent or any other route. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 12:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Just for information I have proposed deletion of the article about Zlin D-EWOH, only four page watchers and little activity in the last ten years. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Do we ever add external links to YouTube videos? An IP editor added this one to the Hugo Wolf F/A-18C simulator but some bot reverted it. The editor was unimpressed by such a bot exercising its mandate and restored it. I gave a kneejerk support to the bot but am now wondering if I did the right thing? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:YOUTUBE, there is no blanket ban on YouTube videos, and many of them can be as reliable and worthy of inclusion (at least in the EL section) as any RS (there is even a dedicated template, {{ YouTube}}. For the Hugo Wolf F/A-18C simulator, an official documentary by the Swiss Air Force (or such it seems) that illustrates the device in question in a way that a written article will never be able to do, I don't see why it should not be linked. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 18:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
A while ago their was a discussion regarding adding the manufacturer to aircraft names in articles such as adding Bristol to a inline link which says "F.2 Fighter" and adding Douglas to "C-54 Skymaster" in the first instance.
I've checked the archive I can't find it, any ideas? Gavbadger ( talk) 17:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ANTLE is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANTLE until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BilCat ( talk) 03:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Any chance we can convert Military transport aircraft from a gallery page to an actual article? The huge galleries are bad enough, do we also need those tiny thumbnails in the tables? (I'm no good at editing tables, or I'd strip them out myself.) Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 16:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The List of military transport aircraft is a non-standard list table with rather a lot of columns. I have proposed removing some of them in this discussion. Comments welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
A "new" user User:Gordon Bloed has re-created:
and Swiss American Aircraft Corporation 23 which all appear to be related to the interests of blocked user User:FFA P-16. Please keep an eye on these, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 12:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Also worth keeping an eye on the user's subpages via {{List subpages|Gordon Bloed|User}}
:
Pages with the prefix 'Gordon Bloed' in the 'User' and 'User talk' namespaces:
Gordon Bloed |
Gordon Bloed |
— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
See here. The nominator doesn't seem to be aware of how many categories are in this format (hundreds?). I suggested discussion here if it is intended to rename all of them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the things you notice as your watchlist fills up with the category changes is that we use for example Category:2010s United States military aircraft rather than Category:2010s American military aircraft nearly all the others use British/French/Swiss etc. Another oddity is some but not all of the Taiwanese category use Republic of China rather than Taiwanese. Anybody know why these two should be an exception, thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The redirects XJet and X-Jet, currently targeting Expressjet and Williams X-Jet have been nominated at RfD. You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#XJet and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#X-Jet. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I found these, but it's not immediately clear to me exactly which nav template in {{ Aircraft navigation see also}} is the best choice for each one. If I could get some guidance on what-should-be-used-where, I could easily do the minutiae of placing the appropriate ones via AWB. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 22:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Another month another article with a slightly different name:
Both as usual re-directed to Swiss Air Force#Air demonstration teams, suspected block evasion as the user has no other edits except to create and keep copies of these two article in user space. Appreciate others keeping an eye on this. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been ill for the past week and editing only sporadically, so if I missed something major, forgive me. Today,I reverted
User:Petebutt's unexplained removal of the See also section from
Aermacchi M-345. I was reverted
here with edit summary "the S.211 is already referenced in the text and infobox, apart from that the see also section is irrelevant and no longer used see Template:WPAVIATION creator"
.
I have no idea what the second part of his summary is talking about. As to the fisrt part, WPAIR have always placed related and comparable links in the See also section, regardless of whether or not they are used in the article. This was basically grandfathered in when we were forced to re-do Template:Aircontent, and has never been successfully challenged. So again, I have no idea what Pete is going on about this time. - BilCat ( talk) 18:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If it is mandatory, why is it not included in the new aircraft article template??-- Petebutt ( talk) 18:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd still like to see redundant links removed from See also.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 19:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Update: There is now a revised proposal and a new sub-thread on listing lists there. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to create some maintenance categories here. it would not affect the list display. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 08:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:Aviation maintenance categories now contains subcategories tracking usage of the various Template:Avilisthead options in lists of aircraft. Almost 50 articles currently use them. I hope it all proves useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 06:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been seeing a major effort recently to change "unmanned" to "uncrewed" on spacecraft-related articles, as NASA appears to be retroactively changing its usage of the terms, and it's now happening on Wikipedia also. So I've been expecting this to happen to the Unmanned aerial vehicle article at any moment.
Well,
it just happened:
User:Beland changed all mentions of "unmanned" to "uncrewed" in the article, with this edit summary: "unmanned -> uncrewed in appropriate places, for gender-neutral language
MOS:S/HE (both terms seems to be in use to expand UAV)"
. I reverted with the edit summary "a major change to the lead title and usage needs to discussed beforehand on the talk page, and a consensus reached - I've know objection to listing it as an alternative name,suitably sourced, which this change wasn't, but most defense industry sources still use "unmanned", so this is not a simple change - common name still applies, and a change to that needs discussion"
I did a quick Google search on "unmanned aerial vehicle" and "uncrewed aerial vehicle", and found the former had 4 million ghits, as compared to 2 thousand for the latter! This clearly establishes "unmanned aerial vehicle" as the common name, which is my sole objection to the changes.
I expect this to be a major issue that may drag on for some time, and it will probably be fought somewhere else besides here or Talk:Unmanned aerial vehicle#Uncrewed vs. unmanned. - BilCat ( talk) 20:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"Man" does not unambibuously mean "male", in this case, it is a different word for "human". Interestingly, the German word for human, "Mensch", can also refer to "girl" as opposed to "boy". But that does not render all "Menschen" female. -- Johannes ( Talk) ( Contribs) ( Articles) 14:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)