Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation: Difference between revisions

WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Wikipedia's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a question or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects: WikiProject Aircraft for an article about an aircraft WikiProject Airlines for an article about an airline WikiProject Airports for an article about an airport

Skip to Table of Contents • Add new section

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Aviation and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Aviation WikiProject Articles for review

Peer review Elm Farm Ollie Granville Gee Bee Model A 2013 Eberswalde-Finow Zlin crash Fresno Yosemite International Airport This box: view talk edit

Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page (talk) Announcements and open tasks (talk) → AfD record (talk) → Article alerts → Maintenance (talk) → New articles (talk) → Resources (talk) Notability and Style guide (talk) Showcase and Popular pages
Departments Assessment (Log) (talk) → B-Class / A-Class → Instructions Collaboration (NB: Inactive) (talk) Outreach department (talk) → Current newsletter → Contest (talk) Peer review (talk) The WikiEagle (talk) → Current issue
Project organization Coordinators (talk) Members (talk) Portals Project banner (talk) Project category (talk)
Templates Infobox templates → Aircraft begin infobox (talk) → Aircraft occurrence infobox (talk) → Airline infobox (talk) → Airport infobox (talk) → Aviator infobox (talk) → Company infobox (talk) Navigation boxes (talk)
Sub-projects Aircraft project (talk) → Engines task force (talk) → Rotorcraft task force (talk) Airlines project (talk) → Defunct Airlines task force (talk) Airports project (talk) Gliding project (talk) Aerospace biography task force (talk) Air sports task force (talk) Aviation accident task force (talk) Military aviation task force (talk) Soviet aviation task force (talk)
v t e

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

I don't know if somebody already made one for the Red Arrows but I did, to get this on your talkpage just add {{User:Nathan121212/userboxes/Redarrows}}

This user is a fan of the Red Arrows.

Tell me if you want one for another team. P.S. I'm quite new at this so tell me if it can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan121212 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An issue is being discussed at talk:2014 Olsberg mid-air collision. Members of this Wikiproject are invited to voice their opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Just for information a request for comment has been raised that effects a project template at Template talk:Aviation lists#RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles.3F. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Personally, I never use the navabox to navigate, but others may. Is there a way to track if the box is actually used for navigation by users? If not, maybe would should get rid of it, or at least make substantial changes to it. By the way, the user behind the RFC is a member of the film and TV projects, and he and his cronies rule those projects with an iron hand. I've had several run-ins with the user in the past. In particular, it took several years to force the Film project to "allow" articles on films which had not actually begun filming, even if they otherwise met all other requirements for GNG,, and even now they'll try to get all such articles deleted. It's quite funny to see him trying to enforce a minor guideline when he regularly ignores major ones! - BilCat (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember the template was created as a compromise due to earlier objections to the way we did see also and the Template:Aircontent. I think I would be more open to critical coments about the way the project works with navboxes and templates when they remove the exemption for some projects not to use infoboxes against a shed full of objections, appears we dont have a level playing field. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we find and link to some of those discussions? It might be helpful in making the case that the navbox is basically grandfathered in. - BilCat (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point, I will have a search around later to see if I can find it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if there is another template then it is OK to remove this one when the article is not mentioned in this navbox. We have too many templates in some articles. While not needed, and it is the only template, I favor removing it. But if someone really wants to keep it, I'm not sure how hard I would object. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is really on principle for a template that has been used for many years without raising a particular problem, I dont have a problem with using Template:Aircontent for the lists but like all these flyby raised issues they will not be the ones that stick around to amend 17,000 articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an option, we could covert the navbox to a list article. As to adding the link in the See also section, there might even be a way to automatically include it in {{aircontent}} so it is automatically added to articles that use it, as that isn't substituted in all articles that use it (mostly aircraft and aircraft engine articles). - BilCat (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if an all encompassing list is added to the see also section of large numbers of articles, then the same people who want to delete the navbox will want it removed for the same reasons Nigel Ish (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true, but I don't believe there is a bi-directional "requirement" for links in See also sections, so that should be to our advantage. To be frank, I don't think we're going to be able to keep the navbox, and if it is kept, we'll probably face the same opposition in a few months. As such, I think we should be prepared for other options. - BilCat (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What most projects do when this has happened in the past was to create and index or outline article (that dont get nominated by deletionists anymore ) Outline of Aviation and/or Index of Aviation-related articles ...dont make List of Aviation-related topics these get deleted because many think the title is to broad and leads to random article getting listed. Then just add one link to see also section instead of template spaming....yes it sucks when an outsider tells you all whats best and makes the group work off content for a bit...but just move forward ...build an index/Outline that is better then the template ever was. -- Moxy (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Portal, though collapsed. So worth checking that aviation pages do have the portal in their "see also" section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are forbidden to link to the content via a navbox because it isn't closely related enough, then it is likely that we will also be forbidden from linking to the content via See also sections or Portals. Is there any point in maintaining any of the lists if no one is allowed to link to them, or will they be deleted as part of the same campaign?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They can try that, but WP:BIDIRECTIONAL doesn't apply to See also links. That's the primary bludgeon being used in this case. That doesn't mean they won't find one, or make a new one up, given WP's tendency to increase guidelines by the shipload every year, but a link should be more defensible anyway. - BilCat (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on MilborneOne's comment "they will not be the ones that stick around to amend 17,000 articles." If that is the case, the outcome of the RFC will be ineffectual - unless we feel honour-bound to carry out the determined wisdom of the RFC. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to its Infobox, the Fly Synthesis Catalina is developed from the Fly Synthesis Storch - this takes some imagination. Wouldn't it rather be developed from the Fly Synthesis Wallaby ? Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturer themselves make this claim on their website. I have added a direct ref to it to the article and provided more details on the article talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking onto the matter; yet I regret you failed to convince me. Even if the manufacturer's website is to be taken encyclopedically (you are only citing the commercial blurbs, not the "facts" page - and from certain countries or regions or cultures even the "facts" pages are to be taken with some reserve) still I only read that "the wing bases upon that of the Storch" and also that "the design makes use of experience gained with the seagoing version of the Storch" - but no claim of direct descendance. So I am still not taking it, that the Catalina was developed from the Storch - it seems too much a different design, even a different basic concept, carrying its engine above the cockpit rather than before it. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panel two of the manufacturer's website says "The Catalina NG project evolved from the Storch amphibious aircraft experience". If you don't take the manufacturer's word for it, then I am not sure any other ref would convince you. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the experience, yes yes, I stated as much. But not from the design. And again: all that is only commercial peptalk - I can well imagine they want to give this two-stroke powered plaything credibility by making it a descendent of the much more solid four-stroke engined Storch (a very nice plane to fly, indeed!). But not even the manufacturer makes any such statement on a "facts" page. No, I will not take a single word from an advert as encyclopedical. Not even from Germany or Scandinavia; much less from Italy. I suggest the "developed from" stance be removed from the infobox altogether, since no encyclopedically sound source is available. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well since we have a reliable source, I'll move it to the article text instead to give it some more context. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't consider that source reliable, but will not go to war over such a petty detail either. Thank you for discussing openly and politely, and for bringing up an acceptable compromise. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed this. Thoughts? - Ssolbergj (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect air traffic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for National Board of Study and Aerospace Research to be moved to ONERA. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the GAF Nomad mentions a restart of production in 2013-2014. It would be nice to have the actual state of matters mentioned: did this really work out? Are any newly-built samples flying? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GippsAero's website mentions that they plan to bring the GA18 (i.e. Nomad) to market in 2015 after an extensive development, testing and certification programme. The website has no news of flights etc. of new-built GA18s and interestingly, only shows computer renders rather than actual photographs, which strongly suggests that they may not have cut metal yet.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt appear to be any reference to the development aircraft since it arrived in Australia as VH-XGZ in 2011. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to have certified the GippsAero GA10 yet, which I suspect may be a higher priority.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that JamesG2000 (talk · contribs) has been adding flags across a number of aviation-related articles. I've given them a final warning.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a revert of him in an airline/destination article. He did a lot of airport route statistics table too, but I can't find any WT:AIRPORT discussion against it. (And it's tolerable to me, especially if country names are removed from the table.) HkCaGu (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we are not using flags on the statistics table for USA states. I am not sure about international routes but many of the European airport pages have flags on their statistics table. However, per WP:AIRLINE-DEST-LIST and MOS:Flags no flags in the airline destinations page. Citydude1017 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the user at WP:ANI [1].--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In File:China Airlines Flight 140 EN.svg I'm trying to find the definition of a bustle. Does it mean a kind of cover on machinery? This is important because I want to translate this image into Chinese. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not heard of it but as "B" doesnt actually appear in the diagram it probably doesnt matter. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume it just means "a cover of an electronic component" - I'll try to find a Chinese person to translate the legend so the Chinese version can be made. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The good news: The maps are now internationalized into Chinese. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, did you ever find out what Bustle was or even where it was ? MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It referred to the cover of the escape slides. Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2015_June_2#Requested_translation:_What_are_the_terms_in_File:China_Airlines_Flight_140_EN.svg__in_Chinese.3F ("I can't answer your main question, but I think bustle refers specifically to the cover of the stored evacuation slide. See the second paragraph of the linked article.") WhisperToMe (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 3D-printed spacecraft has been requested to be renamed to "aerospace industry" -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:3D-printed spacecraft for the discussion -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See "this edit"<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotax_912&curid=4627435&diff=667871307&oldid=667752122> I reverted the nonsense but the IP-user re-reverted. What can be done except a revert war? Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is continued disruptive editing, the article can be semi-protected. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty easy, really. I have found and added a reliable ref (the operators manual) and then adjusted the text to conform to the cited ref. Any changes that contradict the cited ref are basically vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dank u wel! And I will gladly agree that an operator's manual does constitute encyclopaedical value. Jan olieslagers (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't get any more "expert" on engines than the manufacturer! - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KreyszigB (talk · contribs) has produced Draft:Maurice Brennan. Brennan was a British aircraft designer, he worked at Saunders-Roe on helicopters and then the SR53 and 177 mixed power interceptors. He took over at Folland after Teddy Petter left then later worked at Avro and Hawker Siddeley. Could someone look it over with a view to promotion to article space - it seems good to me (some fettling needed but only stylistic issues) but I'm not acquainted with the process. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New article - experienced eyes needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on Russian hypersonic military platforms? (ie. Yu-71, Project 4202) like the Chinese WU-14, the U.S. DARPA Falcon Project/Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, the Indian Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, the red links say we don't.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they are spelled in the manner in which I wrote them, and if they're not covered in some other article as parts of a section who no one created redirects for. Since there are US and Chinese articles, I'd figure that Russia would have gotten attention as well. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The non-notable Ryanair Flight 296 was redirected per a decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 296 (2nd nomination) but continues to be restored by Ridland as an article, I doubt it has become notable in time so I have been changing it back to a redirect per the previous decision, any comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I have suggested to User:Ridland to take the original decisions for Ryanair Flight 296 and KLM Flight 1673 to Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than continually restore them, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a notice at Template talk:Rocket Engines that concerns this project -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on List of aircraft of the Swiss Air Force regarding the use of images in tables listing the equipment used by various air forces. As it stands there is something of a mess with these pages - some air forces have images in the table, some alongside, some have no images at all, and some have straight lists with or without images. Some degree of uniformity should be carried out across all of these pages especially as they are likely to be compared to each other. In addition, some air forces have separate pages for current and historic, others combine them into a single page, but as separate lists, and others have them in a single table. So far the discussion has just been about the use of images.

The points I have laid out so far are thus:

1. Many aircraft lack images or lack images for the appropriate air force leaving blanks or photos of inappropriate aircraft (wrong AF mostly).
2. Images are of random sizes, messing up table formatting.
3. The purpose of the table is to provide information, not be a gallery. Wikimedia is for galleries.
4. They take up a lot of space, stretching even fairly short lists into unmanageable ones.
5. Images in tables are too small to see properly on smaller screens such as cell phones.
6. If someone is interested in what the aircraft looks like there is already a link to that aircraft's page.
7. The tables that have images are almost all for current inventory, which covers a small number of types - historical listings rarely have images inline, not least because they are less likely to be the focus of nationalistic zealotry, and they have a lot more entries and would be unmanageable for even a medium sized air force. A small air force like Switzerland is not the place to set such a rule. They should however be consistent, and the likelihood of finding appropriate images for even a majority of historical listings is very low. Images should be used sparingly, and should actually add something to the article beyond making it look pretty (which they don't) - in fact there is a wiki rule against that being the sole purpose for images.
8. Of all the information one can put in a table, an image is a long way down the useful list - when it entered service is far more important but there is no room for that in the current table, nor is there room to give each entry a single line.
9. Because other lists have them is no reason at all (another wiki rule). Many lists are not infected by useless clutter such as:

List of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Navy

List of historic aircraft of the People's Liberation Army Air Force

List of military aircraft of Japan

List of historical aircraft of the Indian Air Force

List of Regia Aeronautica aircraft used in World War II

List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force

List of military aircraft of Sweden

List of military aircraft of the Soviet Union and the CIS

List of Albanian Air Force aircraft

List of aircraft of Argentine Naval Aviation

Belize Defence Force Air Wing

List of active Brazilian military aircraft

List of aircraft of the Brazilian Navy

List of active Bulgarian military aircraft

List of former Bulgarian military aircraft

List of active People's Liberation Army aircraft

List of military aircraft of Denmark

List of active Egyptian military aircraft

List of aircraft of the Egyptian Air Force

List of military aircraft of Finland

List of aircraft of Canada's air forces

And on, and on... indeed more of these air force lists lack images than have them. NiD.29 (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]