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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The following has been copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
A funny idea has been floating around in my head lately. Wikipedia has no Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. A lot of the stuff this project takes care of (such as Federal Aviation Administration, and Douglas Aircraft Company) don't follow our stated page content guidlelines, and would be better served under that project, if it existed. If that project was created, the Aircraft Project would naturally seem to be a sub-project of it. The best way to have interaction between a sub-project and a parent project is, I think, have the sub-project become a "task force". Since we now have a "Rotocraft task force", a "Fixed-wing task force". That would free up editors involved in airplanes to focus on airplane articles. I'm not suggesting destoying this project, but what if this project was renamed "WikiProject Aviation", and any project work specifically aimed at fixed wing aircraft was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Fixed-wing task force. Crazy idea, I know, and would involve a lot of work moving pages and reorganizing content, but an idea none the less. Comments? *flinch from expected attack* Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I created WikiProject Gliding primarily to bring people from the Gliding community into the WP community, so I would prefer it remains a separate project with it's own identity. Gliding is a sport organized internationally under the FAI Gliding Commission. The scope of the project includes gliders, which is a category of aircraft, but that is only one small part. The current project scope covers:
I do think we could have joint task forces to work on areas of overlap such as airports/gliderports and aircraft/gliders, as well as aviation in general. Dhaluza 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's my idea of how the various project should be organized. This is just one idea (my original was, by the way, to have just one project, Aviation, and anything sub that a task force), but I think its a good framework to work on:
Would fixed wing aircraft benefit from a task force, or is having WP:Air separate from WP:Aviation enough. Are there other areas of focus that would benefit from a task force? - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to take this section to discuss which task forcese would seem appropriatl to have under a WP:AVITION, should it come into existence. I would like the outcome of this discussion to be included in the proposal/plans for creaton of a Wikiproject aviation. Listed below is what we have now. If you have one you would like to propose, add it to the list and creat a heading for it! Explain why you think it should be included. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that, since Airlines (note it's Airlines as in the companies, not Airliners as in the aircraft type) and Gliding already have their own projects they should remain such and not require a task force. As part of this edit, I've clarified my links in the project organization chart above. Also, I only consider WP:Aviation to be a sub-project of WP:Transportation in Wikipedia organization only. It will likely not have any overlap in members/rules/policies etc.- Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so this is how I see the discussion heading so far:
Let's modify this list. Are there any topics missing? -
Trevor
MacInnis (
Contribs) 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As part of the discussion below, each project's scope may need tweaking, so that the project templates can be used effectivly. Does anyone see any problems with the list above? Are there areas that are overlapping than can be fixed? For example, currently Talk:Federal Aviation Administration is tagged with Airports, and Aircraft project tags, but I think it falls under, and only needs, the aviation project tag. And Non-directional beacon? It involves both the airport ground equipment (transmitter) and the aircraft equipment (receiver). So should it be tagged by both projects? What if we modify the aviation tag so that if it falls in a sub-projects scope as well as the aviation projects, it will tag and categorize it for both. Sort of how the military history project does it for its task forces. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally like the page top tabs located at WP:AIRCRAFT. anyody have feelings about useing them here too? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Trevor MacInnis. I appreciate your proposal to take the WikiProject Red Bull Air Race World Series under the WikiProject Aviation umbrella, which has already been done. I believe that the deep knowledge of the members of various task forces within the parent project will surely contribute to the enhancement of the articles related to Red Bull Air Race World Series.
Maybe in some time, a Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation competitions can be established, being the immediate parent project of RBARWS project and comprising similar other aviation events. CeeGee 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but I’m coming into this change a bit cold. I see a “Military aviation” entry under the “Task forces and sub-projects lists” drop-menu. I presume this refers to the Military aviation task force of WikiProject Military history, and I’m wondering what the relationship will be. Does it remain with WP:MilHist or move to WP:Aviation or does it somehow become a shared task force? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through tagging and retagging some articles. I found a few interesting questions, and would like to propose a consistent approach to dealing with these issues.
-- Dhaluza 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no consistency in the terms used to disambiguate aviation terms in Category:Aviation terminology. For example:
One of the things projects are set up to do is to standardize things like this, and now that we have a unified project, we may as well put this on the table. We should work on a guideline on how to use disambiguation terms consistently. The easiest thing to do might be to just use the more generic term aviation in most cases. Or, if not, we should decide when to use aircraft vs. aviation, and probably not use flight or aeronautics at all. Dhaluza 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should start attaining some featured article goals. I was just recently perusing articles on Scouting with 17 ga and fa articles (just listed in the template at the bottom). I guess, what i am proposing we do is first, determine whoich articles are core to the topic of aviation. Extremly famous historical aviations, perhaps amelia earhart or the wright brothers and define a list of articles we would like to reach featured status. Then, get working on them. Do any other members have ideas on this? or prosed articles to push towards featured status? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've created a project banner at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. This banner can replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses, such as categorizing articles under specific projects. It is based on the banner user by the Military history project ({{ WPMILHIST}}). An example of it in use is at User talk:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner, and you can see that by using the various parameters, all aviation articles will be combined under the aviation project at Category:WikiProject Aviation articles and when tagged properly, in their respective Category:Rotorcraft task force articles, etc. It will also allows us to introduce other areas of the Wikiproject, such as "collaboration of the month", and take advantage of the larger total number of users throughout the projects. Please comment here, and make any suggestions for other options to include in the banner- Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick summary on the assessment process to keep people up to speed.
With this system in place, no article should be able to be rated too high. If there are any questions about this sytem, or comments on how to improve it, I'd love to hear it. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Will this project replace WP:Air? If so, all the redirects should be made here, including the beleaguered aircraft specs templates. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
About this message in the newsletter:
- {{ WPAVIATION}} is the project banner for use by all aviation related projects. All links to the old templates need converting to the new one.
I can have my bot change any references to old templates, just let me know which templates need changing. — METS501 ( talk) 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm running my bot on the 3400ish references to {{AirportProject}}. Should be done later today. ^ demon [omg plz] 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion / vote to move the page (Australian) List of aircraft of the RAAF to List of aircraft of the ADF. See Talk:List of aircraft of the RAAF. The main reason is to cover the Army and Navy aircraft already in the list and for future Navy/Army aircraft to be included. - Ctbolt 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I am working in Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles and came across a couple of things some of you may care to comment on:-
I'd like to volunteer for any task that this project might lack. Wikimachine 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the old WikiProject:Airports was now within the scope of WP:AVIATION, but I don't see it listed as such on this project's page. Someone should maybe fix that if I'm remembering right ;)
Secondly, I'd appreciate it if some other aviation folks could take a look at this WP:Airports discussion about whether or not to disambiguate Liberia, Costa Rica, from the country Liberia in a list of destinations served from LAX. There is nothing even remotely approaching consensus at the moment, but some people seem to think a discussion with two (plus a comment from an individual who is otherwise not participating in the discussion) on one side and two on the other amounts to consensus.-- chris. lawson 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am just curious about something. Recently, a few unregistered users have edited the Skybus Airlines article with information that I could not verify at all after hours of search. I am not saying the info is false, but I think it should be verified somehow. I do not know how to go about talking to an unregistered editor, so I am not sure what to do. The reason I am concerned is because this came soon after someone added malicious information to the article. This info isn't malicious, but isn't exactly raving either. If someone can either verify what was recently added or suggest a course of action, please do. Thank you. Polypmaster - Talk
List of most successful aircraft seems to be a rather vague list with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. No definition of success and probably has an English speaking county / US bias. It's basically uncited and probably unverifiable for the aircraft listed. Is there any opinion here on deletion of the article, cleanup etc? It was prod'd but de-prod'd by an anon user. Initial contributor of the article is now indef blocked. -- Dual Freq 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Insert non-formatted text here
Since there has been a fair amount of edit-warring regarding what aircraft belong to what jet fighter "generation" (especially in the 4th generation jet fighter article), I've produced a "description", based on my professional experience, to serve as a guideline to help reduce, if not eliminate, the feuding. The problem is, there is no official definition and few published ones to go on — yet the terminology is so widely employed that it's hard not to treat in Wikipedia. While my contribution can only be treated as OR, my intent and hope is that it can serve as a guideline that editors can refer to in order to resolve disputes.
I would like to invite other knowledgeable editors to review and comment on what I've posted at Talk:Fighter aircraft#Defining Jet Fighter Generations so that we can have, as a guideline, something that is well-rounded and represents a consensus of our "in-house" experts. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I created the Columbus Regional Airport Authority article recently as it is the overseeing body to Port Columbus International Airport, Rickenbacker International Airport, and Bolton Field. I am curious if this article should be covered under {{WPAVIATION}}. It is certainly involved in aviation, but it doesn't fall directly into any of the subcategories. Polypmaster 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on some new infoboxes for commercial aircrafts. So far I've done:
Someone asked me to do the same for military aircrafts, which I'd be glad to, but I don't know anything about military aviation. So if you want me to do any new infobox for either type of plane, just tell me the manufacturer and give me a list of models. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think that aircraft engines and their manufacturers are covered by WP:AVIATION but they currently do not display as such. What is the verdict on this? Thanks. Polypmaster 02:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that when looking at the Midway Airport and O'hare International Airport articles the Airport Infobox has changed. There was a new airport statistic section. When did this start? Marcusmax 01:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just joined up here, so please forgive me if i've posted this in the wrong place. I wanted to start a page on Diverterless Supersonic Inlets (DSI) which are being used on the F-35 and JF-17. I'm hoping for your help, especially since, frankly, my aeronautics related knowledge is almost zero. I hope you'd be able to do so. I've created a user sandbox page at Diverterless Supersonic Inlet Sandbox, which i'm hoping can become a suitable page. Hope you'd be able to help edit it and expand it. I need any info possible, especially the basic science behind engine inlets (which i'm not really able to find). Thanks and cheers. Sniperz11 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I started this List of airliners by Maximum Take-Off Weight,if you are interested,get involved.-- Ksyrie 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Given the crash today, a lot of IP editors have been adding to the Blue Angels article...I've been trimming back and trying to keep it orderly, but I'm off to bed. If there are any other project members editing, you might want to watchlist this one. Akradecki 05:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm traducing the aircraft specifications template to the spanish Wikipedia, but I don't understand what exactly is Disc area? Someone can you help me?
Please answer in Elkan76
Many thanks
Elkan76 04:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering, with regard to the Ilyushin Il-76 superfreighter, is Il-76 or IL-76 correct? Or is it both? Particularly, it's one point on the GA hold for this article, which I'd like to see listed. Thanks, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brisbane Light Plane Crash is about a general aviation aircraft crash. We do not, at this point, have notability criteria that can be applied directly, but we probably should come up with something. I'd appreciate it if members would take a look, voice their opinion, and consider how this can lead us to better criteria. Thanks! Akradecki 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if members of the project would like to have a userbox to add to their Userpage, as many other projects do. If so, I've created one for comment here before submitting it as a User Template. JGHowes talk - 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Could you give me a hand with the article about Texlond? It's a recently founded aircraft manufacturer. Information about it can be found at texlond.com or press releases that can be googled, thanks! -- Hetfield1987 ( Wesborland | James Hetfield) 22:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Good day all, I have started a List of private-use airports in Oregon. In addtion, I will be updating the List of Airports in Oregon soon as I get it completed. (I have not segregated them into types or added IATA/ICAO data). Feel free to take a look and pitch in all you like. Any advice or input would be appreciated. -- Trashbag 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Montréal-Mirabel International Airport has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Article was reviewed as a Start-class article by the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Review and listed as a vital article for the Wikipedia. I think we've brought it along, but I don't quite feel it is a B-Class article due to some gaps and lack of citations. If anyone gets a chance, look it over and put your two cents, tuppence, opinion, whatever, on the Talk:Helicopter page. -- Born2flie 18:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Our Emirates Airline article has been the subject of a concerted campaign to add copyvio and really blatantly spammy content for several weeks, to such an extent it's now a jumbled unencyclopedic mess. The help of members of this Wikiproject in helping rescue this once proud article (while spotting any future incarnations of the spamvertiser should he return) would be very welcome. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — -- Aude ( talk) 19:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Could editors please drop off comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Adam Air Flight 574/archive1 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air West Flight 612? Thanks Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
When the Aviation project was reconstituted a few months ago, provision was made for an "Air accident task force", but the task force was not formally established at that time. Since we seem to have a fairly dedicated group of editors who are spending time on this subject, and since there's been discussion of developing some notability and other guidelines, I thought it was time to start putting electrons on screen to establish the task force. Currently, I've started the group's page at one of my sandboxes, and I'd like to invite any and all interested folk to join in drafting the material. Since this task force stradles the line between this WikiProject and WikiProject Disaster management, I'm starting this out as a joint effort between the two Projects. Akradecki 16:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Aviation lists is so general, that it's utility as a desired navigation resource borders on distraction, in many contexts. Do I really want to see its tangential choices unfurled every time I click on Lodz Wladyslaw Reymont Airport? It suffices that it's there, collapsed. Could we have it recast as navbar generic, in collapsed state by default? It looks no different than now, only ....out of the way slightly. See my yesterday's edits, reversed. -- Mareklug talk 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've looked today on the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article and IMHO this one needs cleanup urgently:
Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, WikiProject Aviation!,
A confused MfD couldn't quite decide what to do with these "airport destination lists" (which, somewhat inexplicably, had been marked as guidelines.) Assuming there is some use for them, they have been moved to WikiProject:Aviation subpages. Should the consensus here find them extraneous or bothersome, I'll be happy to delete them. May you all fly high and land safely, Xoloz 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of aviation specific terms that are capitalized in the article title when they don't need to be. I realize that they usually are better known as acronyms, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) calls for us to use lowercase, unless it is a proper name that is normally capitalized in the middle of a sentence. The reason is that when they are used in wikilinks in text, they are capitalized, and it looks silly. Yes, we could pipe the links, but if the term should be in caps, then it should appear that way always, and vice versa. Dhaluza 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
For example, see:
These are correct (but it seems they all were moved from all caps):
Could everyone have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal, and make any comments there. This is an idea that the Military History project uses, and their production of high quality articles far exceeds ours. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Given that there have been a number of AfD discussions relating the borderline notable aviation accidents and incidents (such as United Airlines Flight 897 and especially Brisbane Light Plane Crash), I've initiated a discussion of developing some project-based notability criteria over at the Aviation accident task force talk page. Though this is a task force project, because the issue is fairly significant, I am seeking input from the entire project. Thanks! AKRadecki Speaketh 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have created a List of runway overshoots in my userspace, to add to the lists already in Category:Lists of aviation accidents. I would like to ask the participants in this WikiProject to help me expand and improve the list, so that it can be moved to the mainspace. A ecis Brievenbus 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There are 32 red links to the phrase Utility aircraft. You guys need to either create an article, or create a redirect to the most appropriate page. Willy turner 09:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
While patrolling new pages recently, I noticed Air Ivoire destinations and another new destinations article lacked verifiable reliable sources. I pointed this out by placing the "sources" template on the articles.
A user I think must be a part of this project asked me about the template I applied, pointing out that these articles routinely lack sources. He also removed the templates, and I haven't replaced them because it became apparent to me that the issue is one with what appears to be the whole class of destinations articles.
I think we all accept that there are official policies of this project we must abide by like WP:V and WP:OR. I'm concerned that these pages do not live by that standard. I have noticed that they have been to AfD on at least two occasions and have survived, so my intention here is not to march them back to that possible status. Instead, I thought I'd raise the issue here to see if there is a project consensus as to what to do. It just seemed a better course of action than a Request for Comment, but that may be the next necessary step. Erechtheus 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This article needs you attention. Can anyone take a look and advise, or better still, lend a hand? Aditya Kabir 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
A user has asked about the possibility of creating an articel on the Lockheed 1960s bribery scandal. I am looking into doing that. If anyone is interested in participating, you can answer at Talk:Lockheed Corporation#Lockheed Scandal or my talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Should our project be represented there? AKRadecki Speaketh 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyone who would like to help with the writing of aviation articles? I have several sandboxes of articles I've created recently with text-dumps from several sources that need to be rewritten, but, for me, that is the most tedious part of creating an article. I now have 13 new articles that need text added, with several more to come. I keep finding new articles to create, and with watching my watchlist, I hardly have the energy to do the rewriting. While knowledge of aviation and aircraft would be helpful, I'm mainly in need of someone with decent-to-good writing skills, as I can handle the editing for factual accuracy. I know of many other articles that need to be expanded beyond the ones I'm working on (mostly experimental helicopters at this time), so if the work interests you, but you have other types of aircraft you'd rather work with, I'm sure we can find some of those too. This would be a good opportunity for some informal coaching on how to put together an aircraft article. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I listed Biman Bangladesh Airlines for an A-class review a long time back, and the issues raised there, though pretty minor has been addressed long since. But, the review has not progressed a bit. What happened? Lack of volunteers? That part of project abandoned? Can someone take a look? Cheers. Aditya Kabir 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can I have some input over at the above article regarding notability please? See also the relevant discusion at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This story has been placed in the Cessna 310 article. On the face of it, it seems notable due to who was killed, and that several on the ground were killed also. We might want to get ahead of the curve on this one, especially if it's not notable. - BillCJ 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so i'm no pilot and I don't know enough to write this section of the article. We're improving the article even further based on some suggestions from a peer review. I'm looking to include something not too dissimilar to this section of London Heathrow Airport. If there is a topic expert or pilot who knows where to find the information and write it up into something sensable I'd really appreciate the assistance. Thewinchester (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I could use some help with the List of works with the equal transit-time fallacy. The equal transit-time fallacy is a common misconception of how lift is produced, and I was surprised to find how many sources turned up in a Google Books search. Many of these are textbooks, training manuals, and government publications. Some were even published by a university press, or in just the last few years! Perhaps you have a book with this incorrect explanation and you can add a citation to the list. I am particularly interested in encyclopedias, school textbooks, and military training manuals, as well as very old and international works. For books with an ISBN number you can use ottobib or Wikipedia template filling to generate a quick citation, just add a page number and a one-sentence quote that captures the equal transit-time fallacy. Dhaluza 12:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Aircraft Disinsection, I'm assuming it should be "disinfection", however I want to give notice to the AV group before it gets deleted or something. 68.39.174.238 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a new article, Airport Signage. Talk about it can be made on the Talk:Airport page. Thanks -- Pilotboi | talk 05:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, I was thinking of creating something that is similar to the Runway article, only about airport signs instead of runway markings and runway lights. The article could also include airport lighting and other aviation-related lighting, but would keep runway approach systems to the Runway article and other articles specific to that. -- Pilotboi | talk 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Tu-134 says "The Tu-134 was the first Soviet airliner to receive international certification from the International Civil Aviation Organization, which permitted it to be used on international routes.", but there's no template or category linking to other planes that have received international certification. Should there be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosfilaes ( talk • contribs)
I would like to see noise ratings (if these are available) in the statistics tables for each plane (e.g. alongside max pax, range, weight etc). Uncoolbob 09:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Need some help with populating {{ Infobox Aviator}} onto the articles dealing with aviators... If anyone has time on their hands, help will be appreciated. Cheers. -- Dark Falls talk 10:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
We have a conflict going on with the World's largest airlines page. The main editors involved appear to be newbies, and there's been more reverting than discussing going on. The discussions that have occured at Talk:World's largest airlines haven't accomplished much. Mediation is not my strong suit, and I really don't have a good idea of what the article should be. We could use a few experienced editors (and perhaps admins) to step in here, and get things moving in the right dierection. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Few days ago i started the collaboration with Wiki.en. I have a lot of articles and stuff about italian aircrafts, that here are not much known. My english is not too good, but i don't think that is so bad either. Now, since i started i have the 'sweet' attenction of user (Admin?) Bzuk, a guy that have no problem to delete entire contributions, even more than 20Kb, because 'there are no references,' there are too many herrors, and obviousely, since i am also a liar, i write NNPOV statements. So i wuold understand: is there some place that can establish if this guy is a lot exaggerating with his censorship? Is it possible that every thing i write, in this 'free' encyclopedia is censurable with every 'arguments'? Is an Harvard graduate needed to write in this encyclopedia? So i ask you. Modiphics made by this guy are simply made without even contact me, so do are these good manners? If yes, i am of the opinion, that wiki is unuseful for me to continue: what's the point when every stuff i pose is 'no good'? When it's not grammar, nor NNPOV, not reference, now i discover, it's also good enough arguments like 'too combat histories', 'too histories' and so on. So at these terms i am already sicked. Really. Wiki.en rests as well with its gross lack of information in these parts, so there is Bzuk that solve every problem, decides, every stuff and insult newcomers. Amused.-- Stefanomencarelli 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Just check about P-39s: i wrote that they had 2-4 mg. in the wings. This is so easy to check for anyone, even in the page itself, that ask 'citation needed' is simply laughable. Bzuk has done it. And cut to half -atleast- the history of italians P-39s as well,amd i failed to see how describe in details such operations is a bad for wiki.en...
To add insult to injury, in the page Spitfire, i wrote an article about Italian career of spits. I posted well in evidence the source from wich i extract such infos. Every bit of such infos. And what happened? I find Spitfire and from one side, the source posted is vanished, OK, but from another side, oooops, there is a citation needed. Bzuk strikes again. I have given a precise source for everything i wrote, and a-this is vanished, and b-apparead 'citation needed'. So what? Is it a joke?
Another case, Macchi C.202. I wrote everything i had at hand to descrive such fighter, that is it cleary not so known outside Italy (mind you, i am not acting for chauvinism, i am not a nationalist fanatic, just a guy that noticed how italian aircrafts are not so developed, expecially with all the stuff i have to contribute!). And what happens? Deleted more and more, because: 1-too herrors, then 2-too sintax errors, 3-NNPOV, 4-I find, Bzuk rates 'too historical airbattles' in what i wrote. And he treats to have just start to 're-write' my contributions. So i am well aware that there is GFDL, but still, this manner to strike with a hammer all i write is a very bad thing IMHO. I am really surprised and amused how this guy acts, w/o any respect for me and my willing to contribute in wiki. I strongly protest with this 'grizzly bear' kind touch with my posts. I have asked to handle me with a grain of salt, but Bzuk thinks that he is even too good with me. I rate this unaccetable.-- Stefanomencarelli 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont' understand well all your posts, perhaps i need a wikidecoder for that. However, i would remark that yes, no articles but edits butchered, and then, let me say that Bzuk has fullfilled of citation needed everything i wrote. This is disturbing also because 'presume good faith' should means something, or not? As Spitfire example, i repeat, first, i posted cleary references, then they vanished but insthead compared c.needed. So what's the point? I can proof everything i post and even references are vanishing? And so, how i can be accused to write pov and so on statements? The most irriting thing is Macchi 202: 20kb totally butchered. So, if in wiki.en the standard is before shoot and then ask, let me know. I leave and i'll make better things in my time, that lost xx hours to write my posts and then, because 'they talk too much about air combats (IDIOTIC reason, don't you?) Bzuk or other guys (happy to live in ignorance abotu some stuff) arrives and deleting all the stuff? Well, i know you are 2 millions users, so no fear to waste nothing. But still, wikipedia leaves a lot to desire in many sectors, one of wich are italian aircrafts. So make you counts about: i must be forced to leave, or someone ends to treat me as troll? Just tell me.-- Stefanomencarelli 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked over this as well. I can't even see a case of biting the newbie. Stefano's additions were interesting, but barely ledgable. But BZ didn't revert these, nor did he, as Stefano claims, remove 20kb, the removal was about 3k of completely off-topic material. BZ then went out of his way to explain, in detail, what was wrong with it, and suggestions about how to improve it. It's all right there on Stefano's talk page. I'm sorry Stefano, but you have not been wronged here, and are pointing fingers at the wrong guys. As you say, we "dont' understand well all your posts". Maury 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, We would benefit from your input at this CfD. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have created a set of Boeing airliner userboxes indicating the user's favorite Boeing airliners. I have created all of them except for the 737 and 787 ones.
Here they are: User:Andros 1337/Boeing airliner Userboxes
It would be nice if someone could also make some for Airbus and McDonnell Douglas. ANDROS1337 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, I think it is seriously time we start updating our old pages here at WikiProject Aviation. We need a new Collaboration of the month. Old Reviews need to be archived. And old Talk page comments need to be Archived. Feel free to help maintain Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. Marcusmax 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to letting User:MiszaBot_II automatically archive the contents of this talk page? Vegaswikian 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This article needs some attention, starting with the title. I don't know what the policy is, but going by Tenerife disaster, maybe this article should be "Charkhi Dadri disaster"? - PatrikR 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Coordinators who, will help promote and improve aviation articles with the interest required in maintaining the various areas and sub projects of WikiProject Aviation can sign up now at this talk page. Any member of WikiProject Aviation is welcome to join. Marcusmax 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I want to create a List of Flight Schools. Category 1: Flight schools from an airline; Category 2: General flight school. Is the CAAC a flight school? If not explain how chinese people become pilot. Dagadt
Many of the entries in Category:Aviation navigational boxes add one or more templates and tables. The introductions on category pages are not articles. The introductions should be short and about what the category contains, but the name should generally do that. Adding navigation templates, especially multiple ones is not proper for categories. Can someone fix these? Otherwise they will be cleaned up over time by others. Using the templates to correctly categorize the categories is acceptable, adding tables and navigation boxes is where the the problem is. If this needs to be discussed, try Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Vegaswikian 19:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
In Kawasaki Ki-61 page it's coming out a new edit war between me and Bzuk. I have explained how and why i had written such things. I know, oooh,,, Bzuk only do its 'job', But still i have really enough. This guy treat me as a vandal, and this is not a thing i have to support to stay in wiki? Where is his autority to delete almost i write? Go figure. Cerebral activity is a guilth here in wiki? Just to understand. -- Stefanomencarelli 13:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Noooo problem, guys. Bzuk is always allright, and all you make is right and juste. So, no problem: my manners and my problems on wiki.it are use even here to make your dirty accusation on myself. Sadly, you good boys have missed had also 31 USER have considered the accuses on my side TOTALLY BS. But obviousely, you preferred to count your interests alone, right boys?
And for istance of my articles, i have 3 in evidence in wiki.it. and nobody, differently to here, has EVER QUESTIONED COPYRIGHT to me. Differently by your accusations, obviousely based on non-existent facts. So for strange reasons, i am sicked by your chensorship manners and your continous vandalizing my posts 'because this and that'. ALl excuses and nothing else. But if you, rlandmann, thinks that Bzuk 'improves' my contribution DELETING TOTALLY AT HIS OWN JUDICE, so you are only cleary kidding me. And Reggiane RE.2001 is the non-return point: still deleted totally what i wrote there, as 'improvement'. -- Stefanomencarelli 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
After blocking this long-time abusive user I received an e-mail from him containing a lengthy diatribe against me and BZuk. It was written with my name in the 3rd person, as if he were talking about me to someone else. The subject also suggested it was a letter he had sent to other people, which he described as the "wiki tribunal".
When I asked what he was talking about and who he had sent it to, he refused to clarify and then finally responded with a simple "Shut up". Great way to get unblocked, Opus.
My gut feeling is that he has done nothing, or at most send it to a drop-box where it will be ignored. There is, however, a chance that he is using the e-mail links within the wiki to spam other editors. Just a heads up, everyone. If this does happen, let me know and I'll turn on the "block e-mail" checkbox too.
Maury 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
After watching Aircraft Disinsection be abandoned by the creator, and inspite of the efforts of others to improve it, it still has no sources, among other problems. As such, I've put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft Disinsection. - BillCJ 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Can I ask if this wikiproject is a child project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport as I am trying to establish which projects are, so that the list on the main page can be sorted out. Thanks. Tbo 157 talk 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
While adding the new Simple label, I noticed something strange. Category:WikiProject Aviation members has only one member listed, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Members has many. The userbox {{ Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Userbox}} says that displaying the userbox will add you to the category page, but none of the members from the member page are listed there. I'm not really sure why this is, or if the members simply have all chosen to not use the userbox, but there are so many members I'd think at least some have the box on their page. Maybe someone could please take a little peek at this and see why the category is (nearly) empty? Ariel♥ Gold 19:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone taking care of flarecraft or I create a page? I couldn't find any Heltzen ◩ 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There are some consideration that i would pose:
the articles are not still a real 'mature' template'. While veicles and ships have it, the specifications of aircrafts are still written at he foot of the page. Why? I found easy to read these numbers, because they aere bigger than template have. But still i cannot understand this lack of a real 'total' template.
In contrast, the photos are real small. Maybe that i miss something, but the reader should be pleased to read the article, and with aircrafts he should been also pleased to 'see' it and appreciate the particulars that only a quite big picture can gives: force him to click over the photo every one that he want to not see the aircraft in the same manner that he would see it at 1 km distance is really a loss. By Zeus, some care for graphic and some care also for the pleasure to have at the hands (expecially if one want to print the article...) a fair article. Is it so difficult to understand this? I wuold not been interested in aircrafts seen in a 100px photo.
Another thing: the tecnical section. This is not an trascurable one in articles related to aircrafts. There must been one in every article, not a confuse scattering of engines, electronics and so on all over the stuff. This is the 'professional' way to do, as i have already said. The articles and monographies i have on the hands are all built in history, tecnical and then versions and service. This is a rational way to do IMO.
At the end, i would also object to the selectivity of sources. I already protested about the lack of credibility tributed to T.Cooper. I rate IMO unaccettable that an author unliked is trown out of this enciclopedy only because he said that not only Tom 'Maverick' Cruise Tomcat made havoc of MiGs. I like MiGs so imagine if i am happy. But the NPOV way should been not worse served than this shows.-- Stefanomencarelli 23:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Even though I'm not a member of this Wikiproject, I added some information to this page and it looks like it is still in dire need of an update. I hope the "(dba *AIRLINE*)" additions [when pertinent] were okay. -- CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There's an interesting conversation here. I'd be grateful for some wider input to it. -- John 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Folks around here might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airship Management Services, Inc. AKRadecki Speaketh 23:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Just dropping a line to say that I created a new article; Air Transport in the United Kingdom, which seems relevant to this project, if anyone is interested in helping out. -- FactotEm 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I just ran across this article, List of people who have died in incidents involving DC-3 aircraft. It needs alot of help, esp refernecing, and might be better off merged with another page (possibly a list of DC-3 incidents). - BillCJ 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are appreciated on this proposal. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 21#Template:Aircontent O 2 ( 息 • 吹) 02:24, 21 October 2007 (GMT)
I just updated the intructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review, making them very simple to use. If there is an article you are hoping to get to FA quality, or want to help someone else get their favorite article up to par, try using this page. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, I have just added a new article, the Lockheed XF-104. I felt this prototype deserved a page of its own. Need to tidy specifications etc. but I think the bones are there. Will work on linking it to other relevant articles. Cheers Nimbus227 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Bill. Afraid I'm very new to Wiki editing but creating this article has helped with the learning process. The reference/citation linking is my next hurdle, I would like to include quotes from Kelly Johnson that are referenced, just a matter of learning the technology, thanks for your help. Nimbus227 00:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought it would be helpful to post a map indicating the locations of the dead of Singapore Airlines Flight 006 in 2000. The problem is that the map from the final report (Seen here [1]) is from a Taiwanese government, NOT the US Federal Government. In other words, the report here is likely copyrighted and we may have to make our own map.
Is anyone willing to make an original map of the disaster using the Taiwan document as a source? WhisperToMe 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Someone removed references to the Tango Squadron Museum in Chiang Mai where William McGarry's P40 wreckage is displayed. It now simply reads, "Today the wreckage is displayed on the floor of a building on the Air Force Base in much the same condition and arrangement as it was found." The museum is in fact located in a restricted section of the Chiang Mai International Airport used by the Royal Thai Air Force. Access to the public is available but arrangements must be made in advance. The person apparently makes occasional revisions operating from an IP. They have no user page so I have no opportunity to enter a talk page. Being a new editor, how does the footnote template work? I wanted to reenter the information with a reference from a local newspaper cited so hopefully it will remain. Thanks NYerkes 00:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
There is now a new page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance, that lists backlogged areas needing work, articles not covered under the assessment, etc. It is automatically updated by a bot daily. If your looking for something to do, check it out. If there is anything that you would like to see covered, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
|needs-infobox=yes
. If an article has been assessed, it cannot be in
Category:Unassessed aviation articles, unless it was assessed in another projects banner, but not in {{
WPAVIATION}} (class=
) If it does have all the proper specs, remove {{
aero-specs}}, from the page, if it has been updated to the current specs template, {{
aircraft specifications}}, then remove {{
aero-table}}. -
Trevor
MacInnis (
Contribs) 15:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Aha, got it now thanks. Only a few more to go then! Nimbus227 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Kara Hultgreen is in need of attention. A user has been adding info of late - some unsourced, some from her bio book - but alot of it is poorly-writtena dn extraneous. This seems to be a pattern with the user on other article. Any help with this one would be apprecuiated. - BillCJ 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As a courtesy I have tagged the article 7th Airlift Squadron as being within your scope, but the article really needs help; could someone here eyeball it and see about cleaning it up some? TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What is Tag & Assess 2007? It's a Wiki-wide call for volunteers. To explain ... a month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where youcan help.
Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks. -- ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Please look at this article; it seems to be assembled under a {{ WIP}} tag and may need revision but where to start? FWIW Bzuk 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
I found a Pam Ann comedy sketch parodying SQ006 - I saw it on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8AFpso1X3M
How do I cite the actual sketch? What show does it appear on? Which episode? WhisperToMe 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A new article on a putative Chinese bomber called the Xian H-8 has been created but might just be speculation. Could somebody with some knowledge in the area take a look at it? Tim Vickers 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I want an image of a Singapore Airlines 747 using the tropical color scheme seen on 97SPK, the plane that crashed as SQ006.
The image is significant as the crash forced SQ to retire the paint scheme;9 VSPK wore the paint scheme when it was broken into pieces. WhisperToMe 05:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I also wonder what to do with these names.. Usually if I find the name of a plane crash victim, it redirects to the crash.
However...
WhisperToMe 05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should go, as it seems this airline never got off the ground. I searched the FAA Certificate database and found no AOC for either Colorado Airways or its parent Bobrel Leasing. Bobrel Leasing owns no aircraft according to the FAA register database, nor does CA. I did find reference to a route application pre-dating the article, for services from Lamar, Colorado; but nothing on the airline being awarded the service; and also an old registration to Bobrel of a Cessna 402, which was sold in 2005. I found reference to a trading name for Bobrel Leasing as FBO Northeast Planes in Akron, Colorado; it has no aircraft either and its website is defunct. Lastly, the route mentioned in the article is being flown by another airline, and the Wikipedia article and the website for the Central Nebraska Regional Airport make no mention of Colorado Airways. YSSYguy 02:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Whilst going through the list of articles needing infoboxes (did about 10)I noticed that the Piper range article naming is a bit messy, we have Piper PA-12 (Super Cruiser), Piper Saratoga (PA-32) etc. So some with names, some without and some with numbers, some without. I think Piper PA-30 Twin Comanche is the accepted convention. Perhaps this has been spotted. Is there an easy way to sort this out? I realise it could affect links to lists. Nimbus227 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
After a peer review of Manchester Airport, it was suggested that the terminal destination lists be split into specific terminal articles. That was done - List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 and List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 were created and links to them are in the Manchester Airport article. Since then, all the terminal articles went to AfD. It seems a mess.
See deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination). -- Oakshade 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Snowman ( talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking whether there should be an article about the World's busiest air routes. Something like the World's busiest airport, etc. Will it satisfy the relevant wiki guidelines? There are some data here: oag.com kawaputra torque 09:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any consensus as to whether we use official full names for titling ( Newark Liberty International Airport), or perhaps the names represented in the codes? Tewfik Talk 12:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The {{ WPAVIATION}} template does not list an importance field. Has that been done away with? Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Victor N ( contribs) has been creating massive amounts of made-up junk regarding his fantasy Bromo Airlines and Roro Anteng Airport, as well as adding nonexistent flights to Surabaya and Malang for actual airlines like SQ, Silkair, Shenzhen Airlines, etc. I've reverted most of it, but please keep an eye on the guy and help me double-check his edits. Jpatokal ( talk) 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The specifications table at the bottom of the page Boeing 367-80 is not showing properly, but instead displaying as code. Can someone from here take a look at the section and see about fixing it? TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm kinda surprised that we didn't have an article on this; any help would really be appreciated. Zaku Talk 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been noticing this on a lot of aviation-related articles recently, and I have to break it to everyone that adding unnecessary spacing is an MOS breach. Clearly, we should be focusing on optimising the load times for users who might not have as fast of a connection or CPU as we do, since most people only read articles. The cleared bytes caused by unnecessary spacing should be used for prose development rather than satisfying an editor's preferences. Comments? 哦, 是吗?( review O) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (GMT)
Jack Real is going to be speedily deleted. I'll remove the speedy and give you time to assess. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked on the page user:O linked to above, and couldn't find the rule he is reffering too. However, I did find a link to {{ Edit-first-section}}, which seems like it could be very useful to the project on long article pages. I've wanted a feature like this for a long time, so it was good to finally find it. It was apparently created back in June 2007, but I've never seen it used on a page. I am trying it out on the very-long Atlanta, Georgia page. And, no, I don't know how many bytes it adds, but if it helps cut loading time when all you want to edit is Section 0, then I'm for it! - BillCJ ( talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the snipe, then, O. I would like to see it built in to all en.wiki pages, but this is a good first step. I think I'll try it out on the Concorde and Airbus A380 pages, and those are getting to be very long too. - BillCJ ( talk) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Moving it below the infobox defeats one major purpose for the edit tag, as the Infobox is one of the more-edited items on aircraft pages. I didn't have any problems on WinXP SP2 using IE6, so I wasn't aware some others might have problems with it. Perhaps it's just a small number of systems that are effected, so I'd like to heare from others if they've had problems with it. It might also be something that can be fixed or tweaked in the template formatting. - BillCJ ( talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is up for Featured Article. Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 747, and maybe lend a hand. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 03:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
User:O has commented "Please reorder the last three sections so that they follow the global guidelines. It doesn't matter what the Aircraft WikiProject guidelines say; they're supposed to follow the MOS anyway"
I believe the comment is directed at this type of section [2] .
My response was that there should be discussion at the WikiProject level. If it is at the article level, this creates a difficult situation trying to address the criticism of the "related content (similar aircraft list)" section, which is common to WikiProject Aviation articles and the purported Manual of Style violation. Since this is more of a policy decision, it may be better discussed here or at some other larger forum, rather than having the same question come up in every article. Archtransit ( talk) 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed this dilemma with the assistant who helps the Director of featured article selection on following WikiProject guidelines and having a section that is not mentioned in the Manual of Style (possibly interpreted as a violation of MOS). The advice was to look at previous FA (they have that last section). The advice also was to see if we can meld the appendices so there is not a non-standard appendix.
To avoid a heated argument about FA's, I propose to do it on the F-4 Phantom II article (which is already an FA and where changing the appendix will not ruin the article to the point of removing it's FA star). Then you can comment on whether the meld is acceptable. If so, the meld could be a proposed new guideline for WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. Archtransit ( talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Could someone from this project have a look at Air_force#The_two_World_Wars? It says that WWI aircraft could only do 50 mph, which I'm pretty sure is wrong. You may want to look at the rest of the article, too, as it's not one of the better ones I've seen on Wikipedia. Also it's not included in this project, yet, and you may want it to be. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you perform a
Google search you will see there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles that discuss airlines having 'options' to buy further aircraft, but the use of the word 'options' for aircraft purchases has not been clearly defined for the general public to understand. So I started a new article
Option (aircraft purchasing) so other aviation articles can link to it when talking about aircraft purchasing options.
First, you may want to check this article and expand it (using references, please). Second, someone has called for it to be merged with another legal article about legal options. Please comment on the
article talk page. I personally feel this article can be expanded to include reasons why the manufacturers include options, and why airlines take them up. A separate article allows for future expansion. Regards,
Lester 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe this user is making unconstructive edits to aircraft pages and others, the IP has been warned numerous times at USER talk:195.110.70.55, the last warning said that they would be blocked if it continued. Many thanks Nimbus227 ( talk) 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The airline destination lists are really magnificent, I didn't know they existed and they are very useful, because on the separate country airport lists, it is not clear which airports are commercially served and which are not.
To help you finishing this great work, I posted a little comment on the talkpage of your Oceania section.
Friendly greetings, 84.195.51.99 ( talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) ( User:Belgian man)
The well written article on Situation Awareness is tagged as an aviation article. However I feel it belongs in the Psychology domain where it is obviously being well cared for. Question: shall I drop the WPAVIATION tag and add the Psychology tag? Carl M. Anglesea ( talk) 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
From Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction: "(Pakistani Air Force aircraft include) the Mirage IIIOs, Mirage IIIODs and Mirage IIIEs. The Pakistani Air Force, currently, operates some 156 Mirage (III & V) aircraft." -- Can anyone straighten out those redlinks? ( WP:REDLINK). Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 ( talk) 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
{moved from my user talk page, to keep conversation together)
You removed redlinks on Mirage jets from
Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction -
[3]
I personally don't know anything about the Mirage jets in question, which is why I asked others to take a look at the page.
IMHO, just removing redlinks from an article is contrary to Wikipedia policy (
WP:REDLINKS), unless we're sure that an article will never be created about the subject, or they can't be redirected to an existing article that covers the subject.
Could you please add a quick note on
Talk:Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on why you think it's appropriate to remove these redlinks in this case?
Thanks --
201.37.229.117 (
talk) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I have PRODded the following articles about recent accidents:
The last two articles have blue links to politicians. In the case of the Berlin accident, the blue link is to an article on the German WP. In the case of the Brazilian crash, the article about the person was created as a result of the article about the crash and is basically a repeat of the info in the crash article. YSSYguy ( talk) 04:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the Manaus Cleiton article as an uncontested PROD, and then recreated it as a redirect to Cinthia Régia Gomes do Livramento. Mjroots ( talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The following has been copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
A funny idea has been floating around in my head lately. Wikipedia has no Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. A lot of the stuff this project takes care of (such as Federal Aviation Administration, and Douglas Aircraft Company) don't follow our stated page content guidlelines, and would be better served under that project, if it existed. If that project was created, the Aircraft Project would naturally seem to be a sub-project of it. The best way to have interaction between a sub-project and a parent project is, I think, have the sub-project become a "task force". Since we now have a "Rotocraft task force", a "Fixed-wing task force". That would free up editors involved in airplanes to focus on airplane articles. I'm not suggesting destoying this project, but what if this project was renamed "WikiProject Aviation", and any project work specifically aimed at fixed wing aircraft was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Fixed-wing task force. Crazy idea, I know, and would involve a lot of work moving pages and reorganizing content, but an idea none the less. Comments? *flinch from expected attack* Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I created WikiProject Gliding primarily to bring people from the Gliding community into the WP community, so I would prefer it remains a separate project with it's own identity. Gliding is a sport organized internationally under the FAI Gliding Commission. The scope of the project includes gliders, which is a category of aircraft, but that is only one small part. The current project scope covers:
I do think we could have joint task forces to work on areas of overlap such as airports/gliderports and aircraft/gliders, as well as aviation in general. Dhaluza 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's my idea of how the various project should be organized. This is just one idea (my original was, by the way, to have just one project, Aviation, and anything sub that a task force), but I think its a good framework to work on:
Would fixed wing aircraft benefit from a task force, or is having WP:Air separate from WP:Aviation enough. Are there other areas of focus that would benefit from a task force? - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to take this section to discuss which task forcese would seem appropriatl to have under a WP:AVITION, should it come into existence. I would like the outcome of this discussion to be included in the proposal/plans for creaton of a Wikiproject aviation. Listed below is what we have now. If you have one you would like to propose, add it to the list and creat a heading for it! Explain why you think it should be included. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that, since Airlines (note it's Airlines as in the companies, not Airliners as in the aircraft type) and Gliding already have their own projects they should remain such and not require a task force. As part of this edit, I've clarified my links in the project organization chart above. Also, I only consider WP:Aviation to be a sub-project of WP:Transportation in Wikipedia organization only. It will likely not have any overlap in members/rules/policies etc.- Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so this is how I see the discussion heading so far:
Let's modify this list. Are there any topics missing? -
Trevor
MacInnis (
Contribs) 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As part of the discussion below, each project's scope may need tweaking, so that the project templates can be used effectivly. Does anyone see any problems with the list above? Are there areas that are overlapping than can be fixed? For example, currently Talk:Federal Aviation Administration is tagged with Airports, and Aircraft project tags, but I think it falls under, and only needs, the aviation project tag. And Non-directional beacon? It involves both the airport ground equipment (transmitter) and the aircraft equipment (receiver). So should it be tagged by both projects? What if we modify the aviation tag so that if it falls in a sub-projects scope as well as the aviation projects, it will tag and categorize it for both. Sort of how the military history project does it for its task forces. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally like the page top tabs located at WP:AIRCRAFT. anyody have feelings about useing them here too? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Trevor MacInnis. I appreciate your proposal to take the WikiProject Red Bull Air Race World Series under the WikiProject Aviation umbrella, which has already been done. I believe that the deep knowledge of the members of various task forces within the parent project will surely contribute to the enhancement of the articles related to Red Bull Air Race World Series.
Maybe in some time, a Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation competitions can be established, being the immediate parent project of RBARWS project and comprising similar other aviation events. CeeGee 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but I’m coming into this change a bit cold. I see a “Military aviation” entry under the “Task forces and sub-projects lists” drop-menu. I presume this refers to the Military aviation task force of WikiProject Military history, and I’m wondering what the relationship will be. Does it remain with WP:MilHist or move to WP:Aviation or does it somehow become a shared task force? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through tagging and retagging some articles. I found a few interesting questions, and would like to propose a consistent approach to dealing with these issues.
-- Dhaluza 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no consistency in the terms used to disambiguate aviation terms in Category:Aviation terminology. For example:
One of the things projects are set up to do is to standardize things like this, and now that we have a unified project, we may as well put this on the table. We should work on a guideline on how to use disambiguation terms consistently. The easiest thing to do might be to just use the more generic term aviation in most cases. Or, if not, we should decide when to use aircraft vs. aviation, and probably not use flight or aeronautics at all. Dhaluza 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should start attaining some featured article goals. I was just recently perusing articles on Scouting with 17 ga and fa articles (just listed in the template at the bottom). I guess, what i am proposing we do is first, determine whoich articles are core to the topic of aviation. Extremly famous historical aviations, perhaps amelia earhart or the wright brothers and define a list of articles we would like to reach featured status. Then, get working on them. Do any other members have ideas on this? or prosed articles to push towards featured status? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've created a project banner at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. This banner can replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses, such as categorizing articles under specific projects. It is based on the banner user by the Military history project ({{ WPMILHIST}}). An example of it in use is at User talk:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner, and you can see that by using the various parameters, all aviation articles will be combined under the aviation project at Category:WikiProject Aviation articles and when tagged properly, in their respective Category:Rotorcraft task force articles, etc. It will also allows us to introduce other areas of the Wikiproject, such as "collaboration of the month", and take advantage of the larger total number of users throughout the projects. Please comment here, and make any suggestions for other options to include in the banner- Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick summary on the assessment process to keep people up to speed.
With this system in place, no article should be able to be rated too high. If there are any questions about this sytem, or comments on how to improve it, I'd love to hear it. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Will this project replace WP:Air? If so, all the redirects should be made here, including the beleaguered aircraft specs templates. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
About this message in the newsletter:
- {{ WPAVIATION}} is the project banner for use by all aviation related projects. All links to the old templates need converting to the new one.
I can have my bot change any references to old templates, just let me know which templates need changing. — METS501 ( talk) 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm running my bot on the 3400ish references to {{AirportProject}}. Should be done later today. ^ demon [omg plz] 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion / vote to move the page (Australian) List of aircraft of the RAAF to List of aircraft of the ADF. See Talk:List of aircraft of the RAAF. The main reason is to cover the Army and Navy aircraft already in the list and for future Navy/Army aircraft to be included. - Ctbolt 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I am working in Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles and came across a couple of things some of you may care to comment on:-
I'd like to volunteer for any task that this project might lack. Wikimachine 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the old WikiProject:Airports was now within the scope of WP:AVIATION, but I don't see it listed as such on this project's page. Someone should maybe fix that if I'm remembering right ;)
Secondly, I'd appreciate it if some other aviation folks could take a look at this WP:Airports discussion about whether or not to disambiguate Liberia, Costa Rica, from the country Liberia in a list of destinations served from LAX. There is nothing even remotely approaching consensus at the moment, but some people seem to think a discussion with two (plus a comment from an individual who is otherwise not participating in the discussion) on one side and two on the other amounts to consensus.-- chris. lawson 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I am just curious about something. Recently, a few unregistered users have edited the Skybus Airlines article with information that I could not verify at all after hours of search. I am not saying the info is false, but I think it should be verified somehow. I do not know how to go about talking to an unregistered editor, so I am not sure what to do. The reason I am concerned is because this came soon after someone added malicious information to the article. This info isn't malicious, but isn't exactly raving either. If someone can either verify what was recently added or suggest a course of action, please do. Thank you. Polypmaster - Talk
List of most successful aircraft seems to be a rather vague list with no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. No definition of success and probably has an English speaking county / US bias. It's basically uncited and probably unverifiable for the aircraft listed. Is there any opinion here on deletion of the article, cleanup etc? It was prod'd but de-prod'd by an anon user. Initial contributor of the article is now indef blocked. -- Dual Freq 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Insert non-formatted text here
Since there has been a fair amount of edit-warring regarding what aircraft belong to what jet fighter "generation" (especially in the 4th generation jet fighter article), I've produced a "description", based on my professional experience, to serve as a guideline to help reduce, if not eliminate, the feuding. The problem is, there is no official definition and few published ones to go on — yet the terminology is so widely employed that it's hard not to treat in Wikipedia. While my contribution can only be treated as OR, my intent and hope is that it can serve as a guideline that editors can refer to in order to resolve disputes.
I would like to invite other knowledgeable editors to review and comment on what I've posted at Talk:Fighter aircraft#Defining Jet Fighter Generations so that we can have, as a guideline, something that is well-rounded and represents a consensus of our "in-house" experts. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I created the Columbus Regional Airport Authority article recently as it is the overseeing body to Port Columbus International Airport, Rickenbacker International Airport, and Bolton Field. I am curious if this article should be covered under {{WPAVIATION}}. It is certainly involved in aviation, but it doesn't fall directly into any of the subcategories. Polypmaster 23:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on some new infoboxes for commercial aircrafts. So far I've done:
Someone asked me to do the same for military aircrafts, which I'd be glad to, but I don't know anything about military aviation. So if you want me to do any new infobox for either type of plane, just tell me the manufacturer and give me a list of models. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think that aircraft engines and their manufacturers are covered by WP:AVIATION but they currently do not display as such. What is the verdict on this? Thanks. Polypmaster 02:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed that when looking at the Midway Airport and O'hare International Airport articles the Airport Infobox has changed. There was a new airport statistic section. When did this start? Marcusmax 01:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just joined up here, so please forgive me if i've posted this in the wrong place. I wanted to start a page on Diverterless Supersonic Inlets (DSI) which are being used on the F-35 and JF-17. I'm hoping for your help, especially since, frankly, my aeronautics related knowledge is almost zero. I hope you'd be able to do so. I've created a user sandbox page at Diverterless Supersonic Inlet Sandbox, which i'm hoping can become a suitable page. Hope you'd be able to help edit it and expand it. I need any info possible, especially the basic science behind engine inlets (which i'm not really able to find). Thanks and cheers. Sniperz11 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I started this List of airliners by Maximum Take-Off Weight,if you are interested,get involved.-- Ksyrie 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Given the crash today, a lot of IP editors have been adding to the Blue Angels article...I've been trimming back and trying to keep it orderly, but I'm off to bed. If there are any other project members editing, you might want to watchlist this one. Akradecki 05:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm traducing the aircraft specifications template to the spanish Wikipedia, but I don't understand what exactly is Disc area? Someone can you help me?
Please answer in Elkan76
Many thanks
Elkan76 04:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering, with regard to the Ilyushin Il-76 superfreighter, is Il-76 or IL-76 correct? Or is it both? Particularly, it's one point on the GA hold for this article, which I'd like to see listed. Thanks, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brisbane Light Plane Crash is about a general aviation aircraft crash. We do not, at this point, have notability criteria that can be applied directly, but we probably should come up with something. I'd appreciate it if members would take a look, voice their opinion, and consider how this can lead us to better criteria. Thanks! Akradecki 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if members of the project would like to have a userbox to add to their Userpage, as many other projects do. If so, I've created one for comment here before submitting it as a User Template. JGHowes talk - 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Could you give me a hand with the article about Texlond? It's a recently founded aircraft manufacturer. Information about it can be found at texlond.com or press releases that can be googled, thanks! -- Hetfield1987 ( Wesborland | James Hetfield) 22:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Good day all, I have started a List of private-use airports in Oregon. In addtion, I will be updating the List of Airports in Oregon soon as I get it completed. (I have not segregated them into types or added IATA/ICAO data). Feel free to take a look and pitch in all you like. Any advice or input would be appreciated. -- Trashbag 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Montréal-Mirabel International Airport has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Article was reviewed as a Start-class article by the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Review and listed as a vital article for the Wikipedia. I think we've brought it along, but I don't quite feel it is a B-Class article due to some gaps and lack of citations. If anyone gets a chance, look it over and put your two cents, tuppence, opinion, whatever, on the Talk:Helicopter page. -- Born2flie 18:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Our Emirates Airline article has been the subject of a concerted campaign to add copyvio and really blatantly spammy content for several weeks, to such an extent it's now a jumbled unencyclopedic mess. The help of members of this Wikiproject in helping rescue this once proud article (while spotting any future incarnations of the spamvertiser should he return) would be very welcome. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — -- Aude ( talk) 19:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Could editors please drop off comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Adam Air Flight 574/archive1 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air West Flight 612? Thanks Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
When the Aviation project was reconstituted a few months ago, provision was made for an "Air accident task force", but the task force was not formally established at that time. Since we seem to have a fairly dedicated group of editors who are spending time on this subject, and since there's been discussion of developing some notability and other guidelines, I thought it was time to start putting electrons on screen to establish the task force. Currently, I've started the group's page at one of my sandboxes, and I'd like to invite any and all interested folk to join in drafting the material. Since this task force stradles the line between this WikiProject and WikiProject Disaster management, I'm starting this out as a joint effort between the two Projects. Akradecki 16:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Template:Aviation lists is so general, that it's utility as a desired navigation resource borders on distraction, in many contexts. Do I really want to see its tangential choices unfurled every time I click on Lodz Wladyslaw Reymont Airport? It suffices that it's there, collapsed. Could we have it recast as navbar generic, in collapsed state by default? It looks no different than now, only ....out of the way slightly. See my yesterday's edits, reversed. -- Mareklug talk 17:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I've looked today on the Messerschmitt Bf 109 article and IMHO this one needs cleanup urgently:
Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, WikiProject Aviation!,
A confused MfD couldn't quite decide what to do with these "airport destination lists" (which, somewhat inexplicably, had been marked as guidelines.) Assuming there is some use for them, they have been moved to WikiProject:Aviation subpages. Should the consensus here find them extraneous or bothersome, I'll be happy to delete them. May you all fly high and land safely, Xoloz 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of aviation specific terms that are capitalized in the article title when they don't need to be. I realize that they usually are better known as acronyms, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) calls for us to use lowercase, unless it is a proper name that is normally capitalized in the middle of a sentence. The reason is that when they are used in wikilinks in text, they are capitalized, and it looks silly. Yes, we could pipe the links, but if the term should be in caps, then it should appear that way always, and vice versa. Dhaluza 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
For example, see:
These are correct (but it seems they all were moved from all caps):
Could everyone have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation Project Coordinator Proposal, and make any comments there. This is an idea that the Military History project uses, and their production of high quality articles far exceeds ours. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 23:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Given that there have been a number of AfD discussions relating the borderline notable aviation accidents and incidents (such as United Airlines Flight 897 and especially Brisbane Light Plane Crash), I've initiated a discussion of developing some project-based notability criteria over at the Aviation accident task force talk page. Though this is a task force project, because the issue is fairly significant, I am seeking input from the entire project. Thanks! AKRadecki Speaketh 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have created a List of runway overshoots in my userspace, to add to the lists already in Category:Lists of aviation accidents. I would like to ask the participants in this WikiProject to help me expand and improve the list, so that it can be moved to the mainspace. A ecis Brievenbus 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There are 32 red links to the phrase Utility aircraft. You guys need to either create an article, or create a redirect to the most appropriate page. Willy turner 09:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
While patrolling new pages recently, I noticed Air Ivoire destinations and another new destinations article lacked verifiable reliable sources. I pointed this out by placing the "sources" template on the articles.
A user I think must be a part of this project asked me about the template I applied, pointing out that these articles routinely lack sources. He also removed the templates, and I haven't replaced them because it became apparent to me that the issue is one with what appears to be the whole class of destinations articles.
I think we all accept that there are official policies of this project we must abide by like WP:V and WP:OR. I'm concerned that these pages do not live by that standard. I have noticed that they have been to AfD on at least two occasions and have survived, so my intention here is not to march them back to that possible status. Instead, I thought I'd raise the issue here to see if there is a project consensus as to what to do. It just seemed a better course of action than a Request for Comment, but that may be the next necessary step. Erechtheus 04:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This article needs you attention. Can anyone take a look and advise, or better still, lend a hand? Aditya Kabir 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
A user has asked about the possibility of creating an articel on the Lockheed 1960s bribery scandal. I am looking into doing that. If anyone is interested in participating, you can answer at Talk:Lockheed Corporation#Lockheed Scandal or my talk page. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Should our project be represented there? AKRadecki Speaketh 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyone who would like to help with the writing of aviation articles? I have several sandboxes of articles I've created recently with text-dumps from several sources that need to be rewritten, but, for me, that is the most tedious part of creating an article. I now have 13 new articles that need text added, with several more to come. I keep finding new articles to create, and with watching my watchlist, I hardly have the energy to do the rewriting. While knowledge of aviation and aircraft would be helpful, I'm mainly in need of someone with decent-to-good writing skills, as I can handle the editing for factual accuracy. I know of many other articles that need to be expanded beyond the ones I'm working on (mostly experimental helicopters at this time), so if the work interests you, but you have other types of aircraft you'd rather work with, I'm sure we can find some of those too. This would be a good opportunity for some informal coaching on how to put together an aircraft article. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I listed Biman Bangladesh Airlines for an A-class review a long time back, and the issues raised there, though pretty minor has been addressed long since. But, the review has not progressed a bit. What happened? Lack of volunteers? That part of project abandoned? Can someone take a look? Cheers. Aditya Kabir 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can I have some input over at the above article regarding notability please? See also the relevant discusion at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This story has been placed in the Cessna 310 article. On the face of it, it seems notable due to who was killed, and that several on the ground were killed also. We might want to get ahead of the curve on this one, especially if it's not notable. - BillCJ 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so i'm no pilot and I don't know enough to write this section of the article. We're improving the article even further based on some suggestions from a peer review. I'm looking to include something not too dissimilar to this section of London Heathrow Airport. If there is a topic expert or pilot who knows where to find the information and write it up into something sensable I'd really appreciate the assistance. Thewinchester (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I could use some help with the List of works with the equal transit-time fallacy. The equal transit-time fallacy is a common misconception of how lift is produced, and I was surprised to find how many sources turned up in a Google Books search. Many of these are textbooks, training manuals, and government publications. Some were even published by a university press, or in just the last few years! Perhaps you have a book with this incorrect explanation and you can add a citation to the list. I am particularly interested in encyclopedias, school textbooks, and military training manuals, as well as very old and international works. For books with an ISBN number you can use ottobib or Wikipedia template filling to generate a quick citation, just add a page number and a one-sentence quote that captures the equal transit-time fallacy. Dhaluza 12:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Aircraft Disinsection, I'm assuming it should be "disinfection", however I want to give notice to the AV group before it gets deleted or something. 68.39.174.238 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a new article, Airport Signage. Talk about it can be made on the Talk:Airport page. Thanks -- Pilotboi | talk 05:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, I was thinking of creating something that is similar to the Runway article, only about airport signs instead of runway markings and runway lights. The article could also include airport lighting and other aviation-related lighting, but would keep runway approach systems to the Runway article and other articles specific to that. -- Pilotboi | talk 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Tu-134 says "The Tu-134 was the first Soviet airliner to receive international certification from the International Civil Aviation Organization, which permitted it to be used on international routes.", but there's no template or category linking to other planes that have received international certification. Should there be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosfilaes ( talk • contribs)
I would like to see noise ratings (if these are available) in the statistics tables for each plane (e.g. alongside max pax, range, weight etc). Uncoolbob 09:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Need some help with populating {{ Infobox Aviator}} onto the articles dealing with aviators... If anyone has time on their hands, help will be appreciated. Cheers. -- Dark Falls talk 10:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
We have a conflict going on with the World's largest airlines page. The main editors involved appear to be newbies, and there's been more reverting than discussing going on. The discussions that have occured at Talk:World's largest airlines haven't accomplished much. Mediation is not my strong suit, and I really don't have a good idea of what the article should be. We could use a few experienced editors (and perhaps admins) to step in here, and get things moving in the right dierection. Thanks. - BillCJ 23:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Few days ago i started the collaboration with Wiki.en. I have a lot of articles and stuff about italian aircrafts, that here are not much known. My english is not too good, but i don't think that is so bad either. Now, since i started i have the 'sweet' attenction of user (Admin?) Bzuk, a guy that have no problem to delete entire contributions, even more than 20Kb, because 'there are no references,' there are too many herrors, and obviousely, since i am also a liar, i write NNPOV statements. So i wuold understand: is there some place that can establish if this guy is a lot exaggerating with his censorship? Is it possible that every thing i write, in this 'free' encyclopedia is censurable with every 'arguments'? Is an Harvard graduate needed to write in this encyclopedia? So i ask you. Modiphics made by this guy are simply made without even contact me, so do are these good manners? If yes, i am of the opinion, that wiki is unuseful for me to continue: what's the point when every stuff i pose is 'no good'? When it's not grammar, nor NNPOV, not reference, now i discover, it's also good enough arguments like 'too combat histories', 'too histories' and so on. So at these terms i am already sicked. Really. Wiki.en rests as well with its gross lack of information in these parts, so there is Bzuk that solve every problem, decides, every stuff and insult newcomers. Amused.-- Stefanomencarelli 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Just check about P-39s: i wrote that they had 2-4 mg. in the wings. This is so easy to check for anyone, even in the page itself, that ask 'citation needed' is simply laughable. Bzuk has done it. And cut to half -atleast- the history of italians P-39s as well,amd i failed to see how describe in details such operations is a bad for wiki.en...
To add insult to injury, in the page Spitfire, i wrote an article about Italian career of spits. I posted well in evidence the source from wich i extract such infos. Every bit of such infos. And what happened? I find Spitfire and from one side, the source posted is vanished, OK, but from another side, oooops, there is a citation needed. Bzuk strikes again. I have given a precise source for everything i wrote, and a-this is vanished, and b-apparead 'citation needed'. So what? Is it a joke?
Another case, Macchi C.202. I wrote everything i had at hand to descrive such fighter, that is it cleary not so known outside Italy (mind you, i am not acting for chauvinism, i am not a nationalist fanatic, just a guy that noticed how italian aircrafts are not so developed, expecially with all the stuff i have to contribute!). And what happens? Deleted more and more, because: 1-too herrors, then 2-too sintax errors, 3-NNPOV, 4-I find, Bzuk rates 'too historical airbattles' in what i wrote. And he treats to have just start to 're-write' my contributions. So i am well aware that there is GFDL, but still, this manner to strike with a hammer all i write is a very bad thing IMHO. I am really surprised and amused how this guy acts, w/o any respect for me and my willing to contribute in wiki. I strongly protest with this 'grizzly bear' kind touch with my posts. I have asked to handle me with a grain of salt, but Bzuk thinks that he is even too good with me. I rate this unaccetable.-- Stefanomencarelli 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont' understand well all your posts, perhaps i need a wikidecoder for that. However, i would remark that yes, no articles but edits butchered, and then, let me say that Bzuk has fullfilled of citation needed everything i wrote. This is disturbing also because 'presume good faith' should means something, or not? As Spitfire example, i repeat, first, i posted cleary references, then they vanished but insthead compared c.needed. So what's the point? I can proof everything i post and even references are vanishing? And so, how i can be accused to write pov and so on statements? The most irriting thing is Macchi 202: 20kb totally butchered. So, if in wiki.en the standard is before shoot and then ask, let me know. I leave and i'll make better things in my time, that lost xx hours to write my posts and then, because 'they talk too much about air combats (IDIOTIC reason, don't you?) Bzuk or other guys (happy to live in ignorance abotu some stuff) arrives and deleting all the stuff? Well, i know you are 2 millions users, so no fear to waste nothing. But still, wikipedia leaves a lot to desire in many sectors, one of wich are italian aircrafts. So make you counts about: i must be forced to leave, or someone ends to treat me as troll? Just tell me.-- Stefanomencarelli 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked over this as well. I can't even see a case of biting the newbie. Stefano's additions were interesting, but barely ledgable. But BZ didn't revert these, nor did he, as Stefano claims, remove 20kb, the removal was about 3k of completely off-topic material. BZ then went out of his way to explain, in detail, what was wrong with it, and suggestions about how to improve it. It's all right there on Stefano's talk page. I'm sorry Stefano, but you have not been wronged here, and are pointing fingers at the wrong guys. As you say, we "dont' understand well all your posts". Maury 22:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, We would benefit from your input at this CfD. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have created a set of Boeing airliner userboxes indicating the user's favorite Boeing airliners. I have created all of them except for the 737 and 787 ones.
Here they are: User:Andros 1337/Boeing airliner Userboxes
It would be nice if someone could also make some for Airbus and McDonnell Douglas. ANDROS1337 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, I think it is seriously time we start updating our old pages here at WikiProject Aviation. We need a new Collaboration of the month. Old Reviews need to be archived. And old Talk page comments need to be Archived. Feel free to help maintain Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. Marcusmax 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to letting User:MiszaBot_II automatically archive the contents of this talk page? Vegaswikian 07:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This article needs some attention, starting with the title. I don't know what the policy is, but going by Tenerife disaster, maybe this article should be "Charkhi Dadri disaster"? - PatrikR 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Coordinators who, will help promote and improve aviation articles with the interest required in maintaining the various areas and sub projects of WikiProject Aviation can sign up now at this talk page. Any member of WikiProject Aviation is welcome to join. Marcusmax 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I want to create a List of Flight Schools. Category 1: Flight schools from an airline; Category 2: General flight school. Is the CAAC a flight school? If not explain how chinese people become pilot. Dagadt
Many of the entries in Category:Aviation navigational boxes add one or more templates and tables. The introductions on category pages are not articles. The introductions should be short and about what the category contains, but the name should generally do that. Adding navigation templates, especially multiple ones is not proper for categories. Can someone fix these? Otherwise they will be cleaned up over time by others. Using the templates to correctly categorize the categories is acceptable, adding tables and navigation boxes is where the the problem is. If this needs to be discussed, try Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Vegaswikian 19:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
In Kawasaki Ki-61 page it's coming out a new edit war between me and Bzuk. I have explained how and why i had written such things. I know, oooh,,, Bzuk only do its 'job', But still i have really enough. This guy treat me as a vandal, and this is not a thing i have to support to stay in wiki? Where is his autority to delete almost i write? Go figure. Cerebral activity is a guilth here in wiki? Just to understand. -- Stefanomencarelli 13:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Noooo problem, guys. Bzuk is always allright, and all you make is right and juste. So, no problem: my manners and my problems on wiki.it are use even here to make your dirty accusation on myself. Sadly, you good boys have missed had also 31 USER have considered the accuses on my side TOTALLY BS. But obviousely, you preferred to count your interests alone, right boys?
And for istance of my articles, i have 3 in evidence in wiki.it. and nobody, differently to here, has EVER QUESTIONED COPYRIGHT to me. Differently by your accusations, obviousely based on non-existent facts. So for strange reasons, i am sicked by your chensorship manners and your continous vandalizing my posts 'because this and that'. ALl excuses and nothing else. But if you, rlandmann, thinks that Bzuk 'improves' my contribution DELETING TOTALLY AT HIS OWN JUDICE, so you are only cleary kidding me. And Reggiane RE.2001 is the non-return point: still deleted totally what i wrote there, as 'improvement'. -- Stefanomencarelli 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
After blocking this long-time abusive user I received an e-mail from him containing a lengthy diatribe against me and BZuk. It was written with my name in the 3rd person, as if he were talking about me to someone else. The subject also suggested it was a letter he had sent to other people, which he described as the "wiki tribunal".
When I asked what he was talking about and who he had sent it to, he refused to clarify and then finally responded with a simple "Shut up". Great way to get unblocked, Opus.
My gut feeling is that he has done nothing, or at most send it to a drop-box where it will be ignored. There is, however, a chance that he is using the e-mail links within the wiki to spam other editors. Just a heads up, everyone. If this does happen, let me know and I'll turn on the "block e-mail" checkbox too.
Maury 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
After watching Aircraft Disinsection be abandoned by the creator, and inspite of the efforts of others to improve it, it still has no sources, among other problems. As such, I've put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft Disinsection. - BillCJ 23:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Can I ask if this wikiproject is a child project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport as I am trying to establish which projects are, so that the list on the main page can be sorted out. Thanks. Tbo 157 talk 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
While adding the new Simple label, I noticed something strange. Category:WikiProject Aviation members has only one member listed, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Members has many. The userbox {{ Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Userbox}} says that displaying the userbox will add you to the category page, but none of the members from the member page are listed there. I'm not really sure why this is, or if the members simply have all chosen to not use the userbox, but there are so many members I'd think at least some have the box on their page. Maybe someone could please take a little peek at this and see why the category is (nearly) empty? Ariel♥ Gold 19:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone taking care of flarecraft or I create a page? I couldn't find any Heltzen ◩ 14:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There are some consideration that i would pose:
the articles are not still a real 'mature' template'. While veicles and ships have it, the specifications of aircrafts are still written at he foot of the page. Why? I found easy to read these numbers, because they aere bigger than template have. But still i cannot understand this lack of a real 'total' template.
In contrast, the photos are real small. Maybe that i miss something, but the reader should be pleased to read the article, and with aircrafts he should been also pleased to 'see' it and appreciate the particulars that only a quite big picture can gives: force him to click over the photo every one that he want to not see the aircraft in the same manner that he would see it at 1 km distance is really a loss. By Zeus, some care for graphic and some care also for the pleasure to have at the hands (expecially if one want to print the article...) a fair article. Is it so difficult to understand this? I wuold not been interested in aircrafts seen in a 100px photo.
Another thing: the tecnical section. This is not an trascurable one in articles related to aircrafts. There must been one in every article, not a confuse scattering of engines, electronics and so on all over the stuff. This is the 'professional' way to do, as i have already said. The articles and monographies i have on the hands are all built in history, tecnical and then versions and service. This is a rational way to do IMO.
At the end, i would also object to the selectivity of sources. I already protested about the lack of credibility tributed to T.Cooper. I rate IMO unaccettable that an author unliked is trown out of this enciclopedy only because he said that not only Tom 'Maverick' Cruise Tomcat made havoc of MiGs. I like MiGs so imagine if i am happy. But the NPOV way should been not worse served than this shows.-- Stefanomencarelli 23:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Even though I'm not a member of this Wikiproject, I added some information to this page and it looks like it is still in dire need of an update. I hope the "(dba *AIRLINE*)" additions [when pertinent] were okay. -- CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There's an interesting conversation here. I'd be grateful for some wider input to it. -- John 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Folks around here might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airship Management Services, Inc. AKRadecki Speaketh 23:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Just dropping a line to say that I created a new article; Air Transport in the United Kingdom, which seems relevant to this project, if anyone is interested in helping out. -- FactotEm 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I just ran across this article, List of people who have died in incidents involving DC-3 aircraft. It needs alot of help, esp refernecing, and might be better off merged with another page (possibly a list of DC-3 incidents). - BillCJ 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are appreciated on this proposal. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 21#Template:Aircontent O 2 ( 息 • 吹) 02:24, 21 October 2007 (GMT)
I just updated the intructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Peer review, making them very simple to use. If there is an article you are hoping to get to FA quality, or want to help someone else get their favorite article up to par, try using this page. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, I have just added a new article, the Lockheed XF-104. I felt this prototype deserved a page of its own. Need to tidy specifications etc. but I think the bones are there. Will work on linking it to other relevant articles. Cheers Nimbus227 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Bill. Afraid I'm very new to Wiki editing but creating this article has helped with the learning process. The reference/citation linking is my next hurdle, I would like to include quotes from Kelly Johnson that are referenced, just a matter of learning the technology, thanks for your help. Nimbus227 00:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought it would be helpful to post a map indicating the locations of the dead of Singapore Airlines Flight 006 in 2000. The problem is that the map from the final report (Seen here [1]) is from a Taiwanese government, NOT the US Federal Government. In other words, the report here is likely copyrighted and we may have to make our own map.
Is anyone willing to make an original map of the disaster using the Taiwan document as a source? WhisperToMe 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Someone removed references to the Tango Squadron Museum in Chiang Mai where William McGarry's P40 wreckage is displayed. It now simply reads, "Today the wreckage is displayed on the floor of a building on the Air Force Base in much the same condition and arrangement as it was found." The museum is in fact located in a restricted section of the Chiang Mai International Airport used by the Royal Thai Air Force. Access to the public is available but arrangements must be made in advance. The person apparently makes occasional revisions operating from an IP. They have no user page so I have no opportunity to enter a talk page. Being a new editor, how does the footnote template work? I wanted to reenter the information with a reference from a local newspaper cited so hopefully it will remain. Thanks NYerkes 00:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
There is now a new page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance, that lists backlogged areas needing work, articles not covered under the assessment, etc. It is automatically updated by a bot daily. If your looking for something to do, check it out. If there is anything that you would like to see covered, let me know. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
|needs-infobox=yes
. If an article has been assessed, it cannot be in
Category:Unassessed aviation articles, unless it was assessed in another projects banner, but not in {{
WPAVIATION}} (class=
) If it does have all the proper specs, remove {{
aero-specs}}, from the page, if it has been updated to the current specs template, {{
aircraft specifications}}, then remove {{
aero-table}}. -
Trevor
MacInnis (
Contribs) 15:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Aha, got it now thanks. Only a few more to go then! Nimbus227 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Kara Hultgreen is in need of attention. A user has been adding info of late - some unsourced, some from her bio book - but alot of it is poorly-writtena dn extraneous. This seems to be a pattern with the user on other article. Any help with this one would be apprecuiated. - BillCJ 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As a courtesy I have tagged the article 7th Airlift Squadron as being within your scope, but the article really needs help; could someone here eyeball it and see about cleaning it up some? TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What is Tag & Assess 2007? It's a Wiki-wide call for volunteers. To explain ... a month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where youcan help.
Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks. -- ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Please look at this article; it seems to be assembled under a {{ WIP}} tag and may need revision but where to start? FWIW Bzuk 12:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
I found a Pam Ann comedy sketch parodying SQ006 - I saw it on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8AFpso1X3M
How do I cite the actual sketch? What show does it appear on? Which episode? WhisperToMe 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A new article on a putative Chinese bomber called the Xian H-8 has been created but might just be speculation. Could somebody with some knowledge in the area take a look at it? Tim Vickers 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I want an image of a Singapore Airlines 747 using the tropical color scheme seen on 97SPK, the plane that crashed as SQ006.
The image is significant as the crash forced SQ to retire the paint scheme;9 VSPK wore the paint scheme when it was broken into pieces. WhisperToMe 05:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I also wonder what to do with these names.. Usually if I find the name of a plane crash victim, it redirects to the crash.
However...
WhisperToMe 05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should go, as it seems this airline never got off the ground. I searched the FAA Certificate database and found no AOC for either Colorado Airways or its parent Bobrel Leasing. Bobrel Leasing owns no aircraft according to the FAA register database, nor does CA. I did find reference to a route application pre-dating the article, for services from Lamar, Colorado; but nothing on the airline being awarded the service; and also an old registration to Bobrel of a Cessna 402, which was sold in 2005. I found reference to a trading name for Bobrel Leasing as FBO Northeast Planes in Akron, Colorado; it has no aircraft either and its website is defunct. Lastly, the route mentioned in the article is being flown by another airline, and the Wikipedia article and the website for the Central Nebraska Regional Airport make no mention of Colorado Airways. YSSYguy 02:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Whilst going through the list of articles needing infoboxes (did about 10)I noticed that the Piper range article naming is a bit messy, we have Piper PA-12 (Super Cruiser), Piper Saratoga (PA-32) etc. So some with names, some without and some with numbers, some without. I think Piper PA-30 Twin Comanche is the accepted convention. Perhaps this has been spotted. Is there an easy way to sort this out? I realise it could affect links to lists. Nimbus227 20:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
After a peer review of Manchester Airport, it was suggested that the terminal destination lists be split into specific terminal articles. That was done - List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 and List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3 were created and links to them are in the Manchester Airport article. Since then, all the terminal articles went to AfD. It seems a mess.
See deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 (2nd nomination). -- Oakshade 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Snowman ( talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking whether there should be an article about the World's busiest air routes. Something like the World's busiest airport, etc. Will it satisfy the relevant wiki guidelines? There are some data here: oag.com kawaputra torque 09:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any consensus as to whether we use official full names for titling ( Newark Liberty International Airport), or perhaps the names represented in the codes? Tewfik Talk 12:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The {{ WPAVIATION}} template does not list an importance field. Has that been done away with? Thanks. - Fnlayson ( talk) 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Victor N ( contribs) has been creating massive amounts of made-up junk regarding his fantasy Bromo Airlines and Roro Anteng Airport, as well as adding nonexistent flights to Surabaya and Malang for actual airlines like SQ, Silkair, Shenzhen Airlines, etc. I've reverted most of it, but please keep an eye on the guy and help me double-check his edits. Jpatokal ( talk) 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The specifications table at the bottom of the page Boeing 367-80 is not showing properly, but instead displaying as code. Can someone from here take a look at the section and see about fixing it? TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm kinda surprised that we didn't have an article on this; any help would really be appreciated. Zaku Talk 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been noticing this on a lot of aviation-related articles recently, and I have to break it to everyone that adding unnecessary spacing is an MOS breach. Clearly, we should be focusing on optimising the load times for users who might not have as fast of a connection or CPU as we do, since most people only read articles. The cleared bytes caused by unnecessary spacing should be used for prose development rather than satisfying an editor's preferences. Comments? 哦, 是吗?( review O) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (GMT)
Jack Real is going to be speedily deleted. I'll remove the speedy and give you time to assess. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked on the page user:O linked to above, and couldn't find the rule he is reffering too. However, I did find a link to {{ Edit-first-section}}, which seems like it could be very useful to the project on long article pages. I've wanted a feature like this for a long time, so it was good to finally find it. It was apparently created back in June 2007, but I've never seen it used on a page. I am trying it out on the very-long Atlanta, Georgia page. And, no, I don't know how many bytes it adds, but if it helps cut loading time when all you want to edit is Section 0, then I'm for it! - BillCJ ( talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the snipe, then, O. I would like to see it built in to all en.wiki pages, but this is a good first step. I think I'll try it out on the Concorde and Airbus A380 pages, and those are getting to be very long too. - BillCJ ( talk) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Moving it below the infobox defeats one major purpose for the edit tag, as the Infobox is one of the more-edited items on aircraft pages. I didn't have any problems on WinXP SP2 using IE6, so I wasn't aware some others might have problems with it. Perhaps it's just a small number of systems that are effected, so I'd like to heare from others if they've had problems with it. It might also be something that can be fixed or tweaked in the template formatting. - BillCJ ( talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is up for Featured Article. Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 747, and maybe lend a hand. - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 03:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
User:O has commented "Please reorder the last three sections so that they follow the global guidelines. It doesn't matter what the Aircraft WikiProject guidelines say; they're supposed to follow the MOS anyway"
I believe the comment is directed at this type of section [2] .
My response was that there should be discussion at the WikiProject level. If it is at the article level, this creates a difficult situation trying to address the criticism of the "related content (similar aircraft list)" section, which is common to WikiProject Aviation articles and the purported Manual of Style violation. Since this is more of a policy decision, it may be better discussed here or at some other larger forum, rather than having the same question come up in every article. Archtransit ( talk) 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed this dilemma with the assistant who helps the Director of featured article selection on following WikiProject guidelines and having a section that is not mentioned in the Manual of Style (possibly interpreted as a violation of MOS). The advice was to look at previous FA (they have that last section). The advice also was to see if we can meld the appendices so there is not a non-standard appendix.
To avoid a heated argument about FA's, I propose to do it on the F-4 Phantom II article (which is already an FA and where changing the appendix will not ruin the article to the point of removing it's FA star). Then you can comment on whether the meld is acceptable. If so, the meld could be a proposed new guideline for WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. Archtransit ( talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Could someone from this project have a look at Air_force#The_two_World_Wars? It says that WWI aircraft could only do 50 mph, which I'm pretty sure is wrong. You may want to look at the rest of the article, too, as it's not one of the better ones I've seen on Wikipedia. Also it's not included in this project, yet, and you may want it to be. -- Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you perform a
Google search you will see there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles that discuss airlines having 'options' to buy further aircraft, but the use of the word 'options' for aircraft purchases has not been clearly defined for the general public to understand. So I started a new article
Option (aircraft purchasing) so other aviation articles can link to it when talking about aircraft purchasing options.
First, you may want to check this article and expand it (using references, please). Second, someone has called for it to be merged with another legal article about legal options. Please comment on the
article talk page. I personally feel this article can be expanded to include reasons why the manufacturers include options, and why airlines take them up. A separate article allows for future expansion. Regards,
Lester 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe this user is making unconstructive edits to aircraft pages and others, the IP has been warned numerous times at USER talk:195.110.70.55, the last warning said that they would be blocked if it continued. Many thanks Nimbus227 ( talk) 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The airline destination lists are really magnificent, I didn't know they existed and they are very useful, because on the separate country airport lists, it is not clear which airports are commercially served and which are not.
To help you finishing this great work, I posted a little comment on the talkpage of your Oceania section.
Friendly greetings, 84.195.51.99 ( talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) ( User:Belgian man)
The well written article on Situation Awareness is tagged as an aviation article. However I feel it belongs in the Psychology domain where it is obviously being well cared for. Question: shall I drop the WPAVIATION tag and add the Psychology tag? Carl M. Anglesea ( talk) 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
From Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction: "(Pakistani Air Force aircraft include) the Mirage IIIOs, Mirage IIIODs and Mirage IIIEs. The Pakistani Air Force, currently, operates some 156 Mirage (III & V) aircraft." -- Can anyone straighten out those redlinks? ( WP:REDLINK). Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 ( talk) 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
{moved from my user talk page, to keep conversation together)
You removed redlinks on Mirage jets from
Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction -
[3]
I personally don't know anything about the Mirage jets in question, which is why I asked others to take a look at the page.
IMHO, just removing redlinks from an article is contrary to Wikipedia policy (
WP:REDLINKS), unless we're sure that an article will never be created about the subject, or they can't be redirected to an existing article that covers the subject.
Could you please add a quick note on
Talk:Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on why you think it's appropriate to remove these redlinks in this case?
Thanks --
201.37.229.117 (
talk) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I have PRODded the following articles about recent accidents:
The last two articles have blue links to politicians. In the case of the Berlin accident, the blue link is to an article on the German WP. In the case of the Brazilian crash, the article about the person was created as a result of the article about the crash and is basically a repeat of the info in the crash article. YSSYguy ( talk) 04:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the Manaus Cleiton article as an uncontested PROD, and then recreated it as a redirect to Cinthia Régia Gomes do Livramento. Mjroots ( talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)