Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

RAF Museum web links

Happened to notice that the RAF museum website has had a re-shuffle so many of our citation and general external links are broken. Seems to apply mostly to the Cosford section of the website. Exhibits can still be found using the navigator but this gives only brief details, there were mini-articles that now seem to have disappeared. Much fun!! Happy New Year. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of the Cosford articles are still there, they can be found using the 'On display' search facility. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

They might be cached at Archive.org as well! - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, bit of a pain though. It's possible they are still writing them up or transferring them from the old location. There is the 'Checklinks' gadget which I've just discovered, some articles have already been fixed by editors using this tool. It can be set to routinely run on project pages (don't ask me how though!!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Airborne early warning and control

Blueredge is adding blatant Boeing propaganda to this article, and keeps reverting me - it needs other eyes on it. (Thanks). NiD.29 (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Blueredge is now in violation of the 3 revert rule, having reverted another editor as well.NiD.29 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

At the Airborne early warning and control, there is original reserch that "AWACS is the older term of AEW&C" without any citation. I think that is original reserch. Not only me but also some people have same doubt about it.

Accroding to the Boeing, AWACS and AEW&C is clearly different term. I just descripted it with citation.--Blueredge (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Epic Aircraft

We seem to have a COI editor bent on sanitizing this article of all controversy. Some extra eyes would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There is more information on this editor's representation of the company and his intent to remove all historical information from this article to present his company in a better light at User_talk:Ahunt#Epic_Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

On my watchlist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just done a draconian cleanup. I could have done a lot more. Or, have I gone too far? Another opinion or two would be nice. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The clean-up is helpful, but I think it did remove some cited text on the history of the company that should be restored. - Ahunt (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Cited does not necessarily mean notable and appropriate. Which bits need restoring? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite true. I thought that the text should reflect at least some of the turmoil and removal of the CEO around the bankruptcy. The refs show this was not a simple slide into Chapter 11, but that there was serious management issues involved. Also it looks like we have a request from a COI editor to add some more text as well. - Ahunt (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I took the fact of the CEO going as entirely non-notable for a difficult bankruptcy case like this. It would have been more notable if he had stayed. In like vein, show me a bankruptcy which was not preceded by a period of serious mismanagement. Have I missed something? Will reply on the COI comments separately. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a CEO resigning would have been normal in a bankruptcy case like this, but the events around his departure are more serious than that. He was not just a hired CEO, but the company founder, the refs say he was involved in financial improprieties and actually assaulted an employee prior to being fired by the board. It is quite unusual for a company founder to be fired by his own board in that manner and I think worth leaving in. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I give in. CEO shenanigans now restored. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks good. - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Air crash renamings en masse

A well-meaning user has renamed a massive number of air-accident articles for "consistency within category space" (paraphrasing), in complete disgegard of WP:AATF's naming convention. I've reverted as many moves as my sanity would allow, but can others help fix this please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Undercarriage and landing gear pages

There is a request for multiple page moves at Talk:Undercarriage#Multiple_pages_move_request. You are invited to participate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Empennage or tail

You are invited to join in the discussion at Talk:Empennage#Suggested_move, as to whether the Empennage article should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

List of most produced aircraft‎

We seem to have an IP editor determined to remove the helicopters from this list claiming that they are not aircraft. I have used up my two reverts and I am not getting anywhere. Can someone else review this, please? - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Although helicopters are certainly aircraft, it seems the real issue is that there are two most-produced lists where one is a subset of the other. Since there is a separate rotorcraft-only list, perhaps the first list should be limited to fixed-wing aircraft only? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well then it would need to be moved to List of most produced airplanes. The point of this list is that is encompasses and compares production of all aircraft, including airplanes, gliders, helicopters, balloons, airships, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

There would seem to be value in each of these lists. IMHO an overall List of most produced aircraft‎ should include weather balloons and the like, some of which must have been produced in large numbers. The choice is between whether this list is yet worth cloning (without helicopters) as a new List of aeroplanes (spelling to taste). Then there is the manned/unmanned debate. In the mean time this list should comprise what its title says it does. Have entered the fray, we'll see how the IP editor responds. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

I agree, thank you! - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Vihor

Just created Government Factories Type 213 Vihor as that is the name used by the reference I used, but being a nationalised industry then the aircraft appear to have been designed centrally but could be built by a number of government factories, the radial engines variant was built by Soko as the Soko 522 but I dont think they built the Type 213. If somebody has a reliable reference on who actually made them then perhaps we can move it to the correct name, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What do existing sources call it? bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The manufacturer appears to be UTVA, though whether it should be sentence-case, as "Utva" appears debatable. Article titles for the various products differ, so there's some research and tidying to be done there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The 56-57 Jane's just has it as the Type 213. Are you sure that the Type 522 is a variant of it? According to Jane's, the Type 213 had an all-wooden structure while the Type 522 was of all metal construction.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

My Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft says In February 1955 the prototype of new advanced trainer designated Type 522 was flown, this being intended as a replacement for the Type 213. Although appearing to be very different from the earlier trainer it was basically the same airframe, but of all-metal construction, and looked completely different because it was powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1340 radial engine instead of the inverted-vee Ranger. MilborneOne (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

More aircrash antics

This user has been editing the number-of-persons entries in aircrash-article infoboxes today, quite a bit. I was about to block for "sneaky numbers vandalism only account", but some of the earliest edits appear to have made legit numbers corrections. Can somebody check the more recent ones to see if they're actual corrections? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio situation

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 January 13.

Aeromobil was a copyvio. I fixed it at Draft:Aeromobil. But Petebutt moved the draft to Klein Aeromobil, so we still have questions about Aeromobil. Will someone from this project please review the discussion on the copyvio page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hope you like my solution: now a WP:REDIRECT. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Supersonic aircraft

Just come across Supersonic aircraft which is a bit of a mess anybody have any kind suggestions to put it out of its misery. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It'd probably be easier to disband the Aircraft Project, and take up an easier hobby, like emptying out the Atlantic Ocean with a mesh thimble! Facepalm Btw, Subsonic aircraft has the opposite problem, but semi-protecting it might be a good idea - there's still a risk that it might be discovered by the IP user that added most of the lists to Supersonic aircraft. ; Seriously, I'd remove all the lists as a start. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the approach, however I'd rather see what a few of us can achieve without any page protection. Are the lists worth splitting off to a new List of supersonic aircraft? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we need either article? This seems like dictionary-definition stuff. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly think the supersonic aircraft article can be made useful. We already have supersonic speed, sound barrier and compressible flow (and there are probably more) but these are - or should be - rather different. Supersonic speed is a physical phenomenon and the article should pay as much attention to things like reaction propagation in an explosive, supersonic underwater torpedoes and unpowered missiles such as rifle bullets. The sound barrier is really a sub-topic of supersonic aircraft. Compressible flow focuses on the aerodynamics. An article which discusses the effect of these things on supersonic aircraft design - history, theory, examples, would be good. A useful scope for Subsonic aircraft is harder to identify: what principles apply only to aircraft whose speed range is limited to 600 mph or so? I would support deleting or perhaps redirecting it somewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Or strip it to just a list and rename.NiD.29 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Or not - hard to define the list - the CF-100 for instance was capable of supersonic flight, but only in a sustained power dive, as were a number of other contemporaries. I am sure examples of the Hawker Hunter went supersonic as well even if it couldn't do it in level flight. Subsonic aircraft is pretty much a redirect as it is.NiD.29 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

MilborneOne has ferreted out List of supersonic aircraft, btw. Problem is that the article title is too vague to be much use. Agree with Steelpillow that an article focussing on the history of supersonic flight & the technical problems involved would be useful-article as it stands is heavy on the design stuff but has no history that I noticed.TheLongTone (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to note it was Steelpillow who spun of the list I just tried to make some sense of it. It may actually take some effort to find a reliable source for most of them actually being supersonic! we may need as you suggest to tighten the definition for inclusion in the list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have adopted the definition as an aircraft that is capable of flying faster than sound in level flight. That is certainly what won the Bell X-1 its place in history. I have never see the likes of the Hunter classified as supersonic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

List of supersonic aircraft might work up to a cut-off date of about 1950. After that, going supersonic just wasn't so exceptional. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The future of WP:AIRCRASH

Since this standard we have been using is now being widely ignored I have started a debate on whether it should be retained at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents#The_future_for_WP:AIRCRASH. Interested editors are encouraged to participate in the discussion there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation help sought on English Electric Lightning

I've recently been working hard to develop and cite content on the English Electric Lightning article; it has led to some substantial changes and the addition of new content; but I doubt that I'll be able to resolve all of the outstanding citation demands currently listed on the Aircraft on display; the Notable appearances section has multiple entries but not a single cite behind them! The task is likely well beyond any one editor, but if we all chip away at it together we could likely make headway. Thanks in advance. Kyteto (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of "Notable Appearances" - while Thunder and Lightnings won the author recognition and an award., the others listed seem a poor collection. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the only aircraft article that I've seen with a notable appearances section. And, frankly, they're not all that notable or interesting; I'd delete the whole section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, anything referenced could have been moved to Aircraft in fiction as explained at WP:AIRPOP, but none of it is referenced so it should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur, that was my intention as well - If the content couldn't be cited in this final appeal to cite them, they should be disposed of. Some have now been cited, and one or two can be migrated over to the Fiction article. Kyteto (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Galloping Ghost (aircraft)

Tempted to prod this as I cant see why it is anymore notable than all the other converted P-51s. It appears to have been created as a result of an accident when it crashed but that doesnt make it notable, thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest merging it into 2011 Reno Air Races crash as while the plane probably isn't notable in isolation, the crash is. Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Boeing CIM-10 Bomarc

Wondering if a SAM (that was operated by two different air forces which assigned it to specific squadrons in a manner similar to aircraft) is applicable to this project - and am thinking this page should be named Boeing CIM-10 Bomarc instead of just CIM-10 Bomarc...NiD.29 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be "Boeing". - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved page, and added to aircraft project (it was designated as an interceptor as the F-99). I did not rate the page - I'll leave that for someone else.NiD.29 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

For some reason there is (or has been) resistance to using the manufacturer in the article titles of missiles/weapons. It looks very odd as pretty much all the aircraft articles are using the Manufacturer Designation Name (MDN) format now. A glance at Template:US missiles shows a mixture of both forms in use. If these articles come under the aircraft project scope then they should be changed surely? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 05:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming of missiles can be a bit inconsistent. Bristol Bloodhound was briefly at Bloodhound (missile) under the WP:Rocketry naming scheme (I moved it back under CommonName) but AIM-9 has never been at "Sidewinder (missile)". There's Vickers Vigilant and de Havilland Firestreak but Red Top (missile). GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit of a grey area that I've carefully navigated around!! Many (most?) of these articles have not been tagged as being under the aircraft project, which seems correct to me as lots of them don't actually fly as such, but aircraft project editors will have a good deal of sources on them. They use a different infobox as well don't they? The mixed naming convention looks even stranger in a company navbox where the aircraft are MDN and the missiles at DN, though the navbox itself often uses piped links so that visually at least the difference in naming convention is not apparent. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The matter of parentage was discussed in this thread from two years ago, closed with no consensus. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope I haven't opened a can of worms here - I see no reason why they shouldn't all follow MDN though, especially where the manufacturer's name is commonly used as with the Boeing Bomarc, nor why they can't fall into multiple projects (so long as some agreement can be reached to formatting).NiD.29 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

One reason that rockets and missile articles don't use manufacturer in the name is that, in many cases, a government agency was in effect the prime contractor, or that there were multiple manufacturers. The major exception to the rule of DN for missiles is the use of the MN or MD for British missiles, partly because they are well known under the manufacturers' names.

One major drawback with having a standard format for article names such as MDN for aircraft is that it frequently runs afoul of agressive proponents of COMMONNAME. There's probably always going to be some degree of tension between COMMONNAME and standardized formats, but I do personally lean toward standardization as it provides consistency in naming. More often than not, the standard format is common in many print sources on aircraft or missiles, even if a format individual types varys in several sources. Further, standard formats are allowed by WP's namining conventions if they are used in specific fields.

I don't have a problem with one format being used for aircraft while another is used for rockets and missiles. Yes, there will be overlap, as with the case of the Bomarc. However, I do believe that items specifically called or designated as missiles should follow the missile and rocket naming conventions. Specifically, any missiles assigned US military designations as rockets or missiles should use the DN format, especially if the article uses the missile designation in the article name. Of course there will be cases where multiple designations were assigned, as with the Bomarc. However, as long as it can reasonably proved that the item was inded a misslie, and not assigned a missile designation for subterfuge reasons, then I'd favor labeling the product a missile. As far as I know, most reliable sources classify the Bomarc as a missile, not as an aircraft. The Bomarc article should therefore be moved back to the DN format title. - BilCat (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at all the interwiki links for the AIM-7 and AIM-9 (well covered in other languages) and they all use the DN format only so the convention looks pretty well set. Perhaps it is straightforward for missiles and not so clear cut for weapons that have wings to keep them up. Not fussed either way but it is good to have a reminder why there are differences every now and again. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Granted that weapons with wings that provide most of their aerodynamic lift might be considered aircraft, but weapons that have wings are still guided missiles by most definitions. The WP article on missiles is clearly about guided missiles, and it's scope rightly includes winged missiles. - BilCat (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with Billcat. I'd add that we are not the only compilers to face the standardisation vs common name or aircraft vs. missile issues. IMHO the best approach is to follow what other reputable compliations do. For example Bill Gunston, The illustrated encyclopedia of the world's rockets and missiles, Salamander, 1979 (Leisure Books reprint), says of Bomarc that, "The missile has aeroplane configuration...." Manufacturers names are absent from all headings. A more marginal case is the GAM-67 Crossbow built by Radioplane. Missile books such as Gunston's describe it as an anti-radar missile which, either stated or implied, impacted its target, while Jones, U.S. Bombers, Aero, 1974 lists it aircraft-style as the "radioplane GAM-67 Crossbow" because it cruised around in ECM mode and landed via parachute and impact bags - in other words it was a pilotless aircraft. I'd hate to call that article title out! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Does Gunston list the Bomarc with the manufacturer's name or without? And which of its many designations does he use?

A distinction should perhaps be made between munitions (AIM-7, AIM-9) and systems like the Bomarc that are more analogous to aircraft. A weapon system is more likely to have a manufacturer's name, while one cannot expect the same for a munition.NiD.29 (talk)

Like I said, manufacturers names are absent from all headings, and that includes Bomarc. He avoids type designations where possible and just uses names, for example plain Bomarc. He provides two photos of Bomarc examples, one of an IM-99A and another of a CIM-10B. So clearly, at least some device families have multiple type designations and it is sensible to omit that complication from the heading. However some titles differ, for example Soviet systems are headed with the type designation and NATO codename, e.g. SA-6 Gainful, some systems only ever had a designator and never a name, etc. Gunston's system is based more on common sense than on pushing any given rule beyond its comfort zone. Munitions - I'd suggest that they often do have names, e.g. Sidewinder, Seawolf, Hellfire, .... — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile Jane's Pocket Book of Missiles (1978) is much more Byzantine in its titles, for example using "Polaris A-3 (UGM-27C)" as against Gunston's plain "Polaris". Scope for much wiki bickering, I fear. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC) [Update] Jane's approach is partly due to their describing one variant, the A-3 (UGM-27C), and not the earlier A-1 or A-2. Logically one might suppose that for a the generic type they would title it "Polaris (UGM-27)." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that regardless of how the Bomac entries in these sources are titled, it's still called a missile, ie guided missile, by all these sources, correct? Are there any reliable sources that classify the Bomarc as an aircraft outright? - BilCat (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

None that do so in outright contrast to a missile. Several describe Bomarc as a missile having an airplane configuration, while this page on the California State Military Museum web site says, "The BOMARC program was the Air Force's contribution to air defense missile systems and dated to Boeing's 1946 GAPA - Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft - program. What resulted was a large, nuke-tipped missile...." This appears to support a view that the terms "missile" and "aircraft" are not mutually exclusive and some missiles, or sometimes certain stages of a multi-stage missile, are also aircraft. Recall the Crossbow above, which does appear in both kinds of source, so I'd hate to be dogmatic that Bomarc has never appeared in a work on aircraft. IMHO, provided we stick to the approach we have seen in reliable references, which primarily classify Bomarc as a missile but also allude to its aircraft characteristics, we should be OK. Don't know if that helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• I really don't see the issue here. Rockets and missiles do not use manufacturer in the title because WP:COMMONNAME. Aircraft use the manufacturer in the title because WP:COMMONNAME. The exception would be where UAVs were designated in the missile sequence as they were for years, when they should be titled as aircraft - this is why "A glance at Template:US missiles shows a mixture of both forms in use.". BOMAC, however, is not usually referred to as "Boeing Bomarc", so I have reverted the undiscussed move. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

While I do agree with move revert, for the reasons that you've stated, it was briefly discussed here first before being moved, which came after the first two posts in this section, though the move was made on the same day as the second post. The remainder of the discussion didn't begin until four days later, which is yesterday. - BilCat (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the move was discussed here briefly. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• My apologies for having missed that and not having been clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In any case, in hindsight I should have waited a bit longer - I figured if there had been no response in that length of time, then there wouldn't be much after that.NiD.29 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Eurocopter aircraft article renamings

An editor has moved the bulk of Eurocopter-titled aircraft articles to Airbus Helicopters titles. I've already reverted a few of them as anachronistic, as the bulk of their production has occurred under Eurocopter. Are there any others that need to be moved back? Should we moved all of them back? See Template:Eurocopter aircraft for a list of the aircraft. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly made a bit of a mess, just found a dab page Eurocopter Ecureuil has been moved to Airbus Helicopters Ecureuil which now doesnt make sense if you are searching for the Eurocopter Ecureil name. Not sure why the user moved all these changing the company name doesnt mean a change in all its past products, which is why we done have BAES Spitfire or Boeing DC-8. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Probably the only title I would keep is the Airbus Helicopters EC175, which is still under development. - BilCat (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in the process of moving most of these back. However, I didn't pay enough attention to one of the user's titles, so we now have Eurocopter Tiger EC665! It was originally at Eurocopter Tiger, as EC665 isn't a very common designation. Milb1, could you fix this? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK - took me a while to find out where the actual talk page was! MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Pipistrel Virus

This article has recently seen attempts by IP editors and, more recently, by a manufacturer's representative to remove sourced and balanced criticism of the aircraft design from the article. The ensuing vandalism of the article has been reverted by six different editors, showing a strong consensus to not permit the article to be sanitized. The article is currently locked from editing until 7 February for discussion at Talk:Pipistrel Virus, but so far has only attracted comments from the company, me and one brand new editor, making his very first edit. Some review and additional comment from project members would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing multiplanes

You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Multiplane aircraft#Subcategories. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Aurel Vlaicu

After editors added a gallery of 28 photos to this article, in addition to the rather large number (9) of photos already in the article, I removed the gallery as they are all linked in the commons link anyway. We are now having a discussion on the gallery at Talk:Aurel Vlaicu. Interested editors are invited to comment there. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

NOAA One

Is NOAA One really needed? Neither NOAA One nor NOAA Two have ever been used, nor do they seem likely to be. Should we send it to AFD, and/or merge to Transportation of the President of the United States? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd send it to AFD along with Coast Guard One. We don't want every nation of the world to plaster its unused/standby callsings all over the main namespace. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think, because this has never been actually used that it really comes under WP:CRYSTALBALL and should be sent to AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Coast Guard Two has been used, so that's why Coast Guard One has survived previous merge attempts. Other attempts to merge several of the callsign articles have also failed. In the case of NOAA One/Two, one sentence at Transportation of the President of the United States is probably call that's needed, as it really doesn't pass GNG at all. Btw Steel, did you note who created NOAA One? :) Anyway, I have an AFD-creation deficiency, so if someone else could file it for me, I'd be grateful. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have PRODed the article as "speculative article on the unlikely use in the future of a non-notable callsign", the reference used was bogus as it doesnt mention "NOAA One" in the quoted paragraph (or in the other 600 pages either) so I have removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Just out of interest from an ignorant non-American as part of the civilian department of commerce why does the NOAA appear in Template:United States Armed Forces, or for the same reasons the United States Public Health Service either ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Militarized nation? Seriously it doesn't belong there! - Ahunt (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The USPHS uses military ranks and commissioned officers.--v/r - TP 18:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So does the Salvation Army . - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The concept of "uniformed services" has to do with providing protection to commissioned officers of a country under the Geneva conventions. And officers of the Salvation Army aren't issued commissions by the US Congress, so that's a bit different :) - BilCat (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Uniformed services of the United States sheds a little light - both the NOAA and the USPHS have branches which are considered "uniformed services", which is not quite "armed forces" but do have a quasi-military status. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course, lots of government branches wear uniforms, including the post office, but they aren't military. Why put them in Template:United States Armed Forces? - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"Uniformed services" seems to be a legal term of art for quasi-military branches; it's not simply "wears uniforms". As noted, the article does go into a bit more detail ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess from an American perspective that makes a kind of sense. Every American has a right to bear arms, so "armed services" doesn't mean so much on its own. Not like here in the UK where even policemen are unarmed. But then, by your logic it should be called Template:United States Uniformed Forces. I mean, is there a difference between armed and uniformed or isn't there? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's a bit of a silly-seeming concept (but then, so is considering the Coastguard an armed force, and let's not go into that...). However, the template doesn't actually describe these as "armed forces" - it labels them correctly as "other uniformed services". The template is intended to draw together articles related to the topic of the US armed forces, and it's clear that these two organisations are treated both in theory and practice as closely linked/related to the armed forces. (Note that the next line of the template covers other non-AF organisations such as the United States Merchant Marine). Andrew Gray (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on a slightly off topic thing, to us foreigners it appears a bit strange that just wearing a uniform makes you an armed force, in the UK even some charities like the RSPCA wear uniforms and have ranks! but nobody would even consider them as part of the armed forces. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Chengdu J-20

Just had a look at Chengdu J-20 as it has had a lot of speculative content added some from blogs and noticed the lead image was a bit iffy, the rationale doesnt stand up and although hard to do it is replacable with a free image. After removing it twice I am now being accused of vandalising the article. I have tagged the image with a "di-replaceable fair use" tag, (Oh and the user has now reverted all my changes and given me a final last warning that I may be blocked!) Other eyes may be of help, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Watched - Ahunt (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, had another look at it today and made the mistake of reading the references, in a lot of cases they just dont support the text in the article. I have not got time to look at some of sections but more than one or two references always rings bells, if one or two sources are reliable and cover the points then you dont need to add another four or five mostly lower quality ones. We appear to be filling in the gaps with a lot of armchair speculation, (its painted blue so must be like a Wombat F-68Y which is also painted blue type stuff). Although some of the political and military speculation and commentary is warranted making guesses by looking at pictures is not. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole article needs a careful clean up to remove the WP:fancruft sort of stuff. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Just chipped away at a few things. On my watchlist now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks better already! - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And it's funny how a certain very active user account has suddenly been replaced by equally active IP editors since they got challenged. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And the certain very active user account has only been very active since February 2014. It might be useful to check out which other very active user accounts that are no longer very active due to having been blocked/banned, and see if there are any similarities in editing and user interaction styles. While I'm trying to assume good faith, certain things in their activities have raised some red flags. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Aviation History navbox

You might like to comment on the suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#History_navboxes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/P-8I NEPTUNE

Dear aircraft experts: The above is an old draft that was never submitted for review at Afc. Is this a notable aircraft which should have its own article? Right now there is a short section about it at Boeing P-8 Poseidon. Should the article be kept, or allowed to fade away under db-g13 as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

An article about the Neptune has already been merged once, see the P-8 article's Talk page. Fade away, fade awaaayyy..... YSSYguy (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Fade to black. - BilCat (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Also agreed. Sub-types such as this can merit seperate articles - but only when the subtype is remarkably different from the primary type. This is not one of those cases; the P-8I is a P-8 with Indian kit, and it's appropriately summarised in the main article where the previous article on the subtype was merged. I assume this AfC came about because P-8I Neptune, without the manufacturer, was a redlink; I've rectified that with the creation of a redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's gone. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

List of United States naval aircraft

The List of United States naval aircraft appears to be breeding random additions of retired aircraft, perhaps as it should be a list of active aircraft it is redirected to List of active United States military aircraft, any thoughts? MilborneOne (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The more logical redirect, IMHO, would be List of military aircraft of the United States (naval). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Today's ruling on Unmanned aerial vehicles

Calling for a second look on my latest add to Unmanned aerial vehicle. The sourcing seems solid, but the impact might be more broad than I've written. Hcobb (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Peripheral vision horizon display an orphan

So I was just casually leafing through the SR-71 manual online ( http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/manual/1/1-138.php ) , and happened upon a most unusual instrument. Looking it up on wikipedia at: Peripheral vision horizon display , it turns out that the page has been marked as orphaned since 2009. I'm not really sure what it fits under (SR-71 stuff being somewhat unusual to begin with of course) , but it obviously could use some love :-) .

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting bit of kit: surely the mentioned blip would indicate the aircaft heading though, what's there doesn't make sense.TheLongTone (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As described, the system does not indicate heading or yaw, so the blip would stay centrally in the display zone and move only vertically. In the SR-71 reference given there is no mention of a blip, but the system is more sophisticated and includes heading. The heading is given by variations in the intensity of the horizon line. One might guess that the blip is not as effective as a heading indicator, especially with the blanking of the display when it falls across something else important. As the device is in that instance used for refuelling, I also suspect that it quickly becomes obvious which way up the plane is cruising and the blip is not needed for that, either. Other implementations might not give a lateral heading indication at all, and if the thing is intended as an aid when manoeuvring rapidly then even a simple blip attached to the middle of the line might be useful. I think the article makes sense as it stands, but the SR-71 system needs adding. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting device. Could be linked to spatial disorientation as that's what it seemed to be designed to prevent. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

SS- and NS-class airships

You are invited to comment on a suggested move at Talk:SS-class blimp#Suggested move, but what to?. This also applies to the UK NS-class blimp article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hybrid airship PoV editor

Hi, we have a new single-topic editor at Hybrid airship, pursuing the line that hybrid airships are useless. I believe that the article should be more neutral but this editor has twice reverted me (and responded to me rudely on both the article's talk page and their own). Any help in assessing/addressing these article edits and discussion comments would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:United States military helicopters

I see that User:Julien1978 has just created Category:United States military helicopters as a sub-category of Category:Military helicopters. I understand that the idea was not to break this down into Foo military helicopters as we already have a Foo helicopter 1900-2000 type structure. Articles have now been added to this category replacing Category:Military helicopters, but I suspect it may not be long before we find other Foo military helicopters categories created. Should this category be deleted ? MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I prefer more monolithic categories over fine-grained ones. I think the page hits list clearly shows that readers don't use categories in any significant numbers (for instance even Category: Military Helicopters shows only an average of 80 hits per day in Feb 2014. In comparison my own user page averaged 25 hits per day, so 80 is not much interest!!). Breaking it down further is going to result in even less interest by readers. - Ahunt (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I, personally, support this move, as Category:Military helicopters is too broad a category not to require some degree of diffusion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

RAF aircraft by user navboxes

Four aircraft by user navboxes for the RAF (Typhoon, Tornado, Nimrod and Tutor) have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 March 29#RAF aircraft by user navboxes. Your a welcome to comment MilborneOne (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft warning paint

Thought Aircraft warning paint may have been created on 1 April but it was a few hours to early! MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good grief! The Canadian AIM has a section on this, but I am not sure it is suitable as the subject for an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Would a rename to Obstruction Marking and Lighting give it any more scope? MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OR perhaps Aviation Hazard Warnings? Note that aside from paint and lights, large plastic balls are strung from power lines to make them more visible to aircraft, particularly seaplanes, and major hazards are often noted on charts.NiD.29 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft warning paint - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposals

Navy One and Coast Guard One have been nominated for merging to Transportation of the President of the United States. The discussions are at Talk:Transportation of the President of the United States. Comments are welcome. - BilCat (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Mass blacklist taggings

A bot has been adding a blacklist tag to all articles with web pages ending with -technology[dot]com, with prefixes such as navy and airforce. Discussions at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist indicate this is because of link spamming by IP users from the web site of these sites' parent company, Kable. These links probably should be reduced/cleaned-up, but it seems somewhat extreme to remove all these sites for some link spamming. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems a bit over the top to add the tag to the actual article rather than a talk page note as well. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked a number of the refs and they seem reliable enough, unless I missed a copyright violation issue or something similar. - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to matter here. The links are apparently being spammed by a small group of IPs on behalf of the site owner, and thus the sites have been blacklisted because of that behavior. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The bot is continuing to add the warnings to many pages. Can the bot be blocked or otherwise shut down? - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think they may have left the doors open at the mad house, the bot is flagging the official Airbus Military website http://www.airbus[The System What let me type then name as it is blacklisted]military.com as bad! MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have left a message at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist but I dont expect a positive response. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason that airbusmilitary should be blacklisted. Perhaps we need to find a Wikimedia sysop if they prove unwilling to change that one particularly. - BilCat (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've put in a request in the section for asking that site be removed from the blacklist. - BilCat (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Airbusmilitary is a mistake, but there is no reason for the Foo-technology sites to be used - there are better sources out there than enabling spammers! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, mad bots on the loose. - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the -technology ones I have looked at are not the best quality they scoop up content and in some instances they dont have a clear provenance, it will take a while but as the Bushranger says they are better sources. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

airbusmilitary.com has now been removed from the blacklist. - BilCat (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguating article titles

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Disambiguating_article_titles — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD notice

This discussion at CfD regarding subcategories of Category:Multiplane aircraft may be of interest to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Category by user (and conflict)

I have removed some of the clearly non-Chinese aircraft from Category:World War II Chinese fighter aircraft and have been challenged by User:Andy Dingley as he says that the category would only have one entry if all the foreign aircraft removed. I was sure that nearly all the By User and By Conflict categories have already been deleted perhaps it is time to nominate some of the odd ones still around? MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 11#Category:World War II Chinese fighter_aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:WWIIUSSRAF

Also found Template:WWIIUSSRAF an aircraft by conflict/user navbox which I dont think we normally have, any comments, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Citing issues on Avro Shackleton

I have been trying to patch up the Avro Shackleton article in the last 24 hours in response to a long-standing tag for referencing issues present; while there has been some good progress, there is just some information that the material I have available just does not contain, in particular, the squadrons that operated the Shackleton and the numbers build of the various variants. The variants section as a whole seems a little confusing to me, the sources I've read seem to treat the 'phases' as programs that were applied across all marks of the aircraft in service at the time, not just to the MR 3. Perhaps I've got that wrong, it doesn't help that it hasn't said where it was getting any of this information from though! If anyone has the sources and/or the time to help put the article to rights, it would be greatly appreciated by me. Kyteto (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

List of large aircraft and Template:Giant aircraft nominated for deletion

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of large aircraft
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_20#Template:Giant_aircraft

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelpillow (talk • contribs) 13:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC) ‎

Panorama images of Lightning and Canberra

A user has been trying to add panorama images for the English Electric Lightning and English Electric Canberra that he created himself and are on his website. I suggested to the user to raise it on the talk page and see if anybody else thinks it is of value, and he has done that on the Canberra talk page. Any comments and views are welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Military in Connecticut

Just challenged an addition of Category:Military in Connecticut to Sikorsky Aircraft as clearly not a military organisation or installation, category was added again with the logic that they are military contractors, removed cat again (and from Pratt & Whitney) as the last thing anybody would expect a Military in foo category to include, just looking for a sanity check, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup that sounds crazy all right! - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The user has added it again and raised it on tyhe Sikorsky Aircraft talk page, clearly of the view that defence contractors are part of the military (but only in Connecticut!) comments either way welcome on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rocketplane Lynx (spacecraft)

The name of this article is under discussion, as well as which MOS guides are applicable, as this is an airplane, you may be interested. See talk:Lynx (spacecraft) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Also been raised at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#NATURALDIS and company names. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 747-8 article

I don't understand why some information is not being kept or allowed into this article, such as names of VIP operators of BBJ and sub-operators of 748F are removed when added, even as small text as Note with citations. Also cancelled orders are removed, why cant they be kept and tagged cancelled, so people can know who all had ordered and operated the 748 and its variants, yet the article entertains information that Emirates and British Airways had showed interest in the aircraft even though they never ordered any, but some real operators and cancelled orders are not worthy of any mention, strange logic. 115.167.89.134 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should cancelled orders be removed from history? Certainly they don't belong in a description of current order books, but it seems reasonable enough to discuss them in a narrative. It's not as though this is some popular airliner with hundreds of different buyers; we can spare a few words to mention customers who backed out. bobrayner (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a little odd that, while mention of cancelled customers is being removed from the 747-8, cancellations on the A380 article seem to be generously covered. Perhaps a trite comparison, but certainly there is precedence to cover major cancellations in full prose. Kyteto (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it a feature of a sub-article List of Airbus A380 orders and deliveries where we have room to cover more, the Boeing 747-8 info is in the parent article so we tend to be more restricted. Perhaps a List of Boeing 747-8 orders and deliveries is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• There was a List of Boeing 747-8 orders page, but it was merged back to the main 747-8 article in 2009. There does not seem like enough orders activity to justify a separate page, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Narrative would be great, sub operators of the 748F are British Airways World Cargo, Panalpina and DHL all wearing their branding/livery on the aircraft, so its odd that one finds these in aviation photography sites or at airports in real, but when you look it up in 747-8 article they aren't listed, same for the VIP operators all of whom are now identified i.e Abu Dhabi, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the cancalled customers are Emirates SkyCargo, Dubai Aviation Enterprise and Guggenheim Aviation possibly Arik Air too if they switch order to 773ER, just a handful names that nee to be included, as bobrayener said this is not a popular aircraft so whatever little operaters and cancellad customers it has should be included with a brief narrtitive in relative sections, as I mentioned earlier if British Airways and Emirates simply having considered the type but never ordered them is mentioned in the article, why not these, there's also an MoU or LoI for fifteen 748i by Hong Kong Airlines since 2011, not sure if its still valid though. 139.190.231.126 (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Because, put simply, British Airways and Emirates are more significant airlines than the others; so while it's notable that they have expressed interest, it is less notable that those other airlines have cancelled orders. That said, some mention should probably be made. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Flight Global says Arik have converted their 748i order to 773ER with first delivery in 2016, this was added with ref to article but was removed. 139.190.174.250 (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's what the media have reported, but Boeing currently lists it as a 747-8I order here. Eventually they are still negotiating terms to convert the order to 777s. I have added/adjusted text in the 'Sales and marketing' in an attempt to clarify this. The Orders table matches Boeing's data from that web page (or should match). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This article needs a small table or paragraph like sales section for the handful of operators, the prose version is not looking good and former operators need to be mentioned as from 30 April GSS/BA world cargo is shutting down, 777 operators page has three sets of tables plus those for other data, whats the big deal in having one for this as long as its cohesive? 175.110.250.59 (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Created table but Fnlayson is not letting it be, why is this person controlling the article? 175.110.250.59 (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• The Operators section is a main section in this project's layout guidelines. A table of operators is non-standard and no reason was provided for it. Major changes should be discussed on the article talk page to get a consensus/agreement first. The 777 article and several other airliner articles list operators in prose; some aircraft articles do have a bulleted list of operators. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

But there is no prose anywhere here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Boeing_777_operators nor in this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/747-400. 175.110.250.59 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• We were only talking about aircraft articles. Prose is generally preferred according to Wikipedia guidelines at WP:USEPROSE. The list of operators pages are separate articles. They follow different guidelines and are typically lists and tables. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Fnlayson wants a concensus wether article should have the small operators table, which he calls large and keeps removing, many articles have multiple tables, whats the problem with having a small one in this article, please add your views, the manner is which operators have been listed with an almost year old reference is just unacceptable when it can be better. 175.110.250.59 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• And that really belongs on the article's talk page (Talk:Boeing 747-8) where it'll have better visibility. Not everyone who watches the 747-8 page will see discussion here. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Done https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Boeing_747-8#Concensus_on_table_listing_former_and_current_operators. 175.110.250.59 (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Others are welcome to provide input there. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft names in infobox

Wondering what the protocol is for this, as I added Goblin (the RCAF name) to the box for the Grumman FF-1, which was then removed citing the F4F Wildcat, however that didn't answer the question since Goblin was the ONLY name the aircraft was known as in Canadian service, and the FF-1 designation was limited to only the USN. At the same time its entirely unofficial nickname was left there, which I am not sure if that is even appropriate.NiD.29 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The guidance material is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Infobox but it not clear on the exact issue you are asking about. It says about the name used: "For the most part, as there is an appropriate field in the infobox itself, including the manufacturer in the "name" field is not necessary. Some exceptions exist, such as aircraft which only have model numbers." That seems to imply that the name field should have designation and name, which is how most of us do it. In many cases the model number doesn't make sense without the manufacturer's name or the word "model", like Cessna Model A. If there is more than one name covered in the article I often put them in the box separated by a break" tag, although in some cases editors use a "&" instead or both, like Cessna 140 does. - Ahunt (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) The name field is generally only for notable/well-known designations and names, e.g Merlin in AgustaWestland AW101. I don't know anything about the Grumman FF to say what should or should not be listed there. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't usually include every minor user's names in the infobox, just the primary user or manufacturer's name and/or designations. The name "FiFi" is quite well-known, even if it is unofficial, and I see no problem keeping it in the infobox. I'd ebven support moving the article to include the nme in the title, as we've done with other unofficial names such as with the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. - BilCat (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As Bil mentioned, the aircraft is commonly known as "Fifi". "Goblin" was, however, a name of a minor variant bestowed by a minor user (who didn't even want the things in the first place); adding it to the infobox would be giving it undue weight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

28 FFs and 35 SFs (both of which warrant mention) vs. 57 Goblins is hardly undue weight, and the user was major enough to warrant being listed under users in the infobox, and while I doubt "Fifi" ever received as much official recognition as "Blackbird" did, I have no problem with that being there. OTOH I would argue it is giving the USN versions undue weight to only have them listed there. I recognize that not every user's names should be listed - neither the Japanese designation for 1 aircraft, or Delphin for the last 8 is terribly significant, however the RCAF was not an inconsequential user, and regardless of whether it was known in the US, it was the name those assembled in Canada were known by in Canada, which just happened to be nearly half of all the airframes built.NiD.29 (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The USN was the original and primary user. That's why it's the only one in the infobox. Canada's use was incidential - and non-operational, only being used for training. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The Goblins were not used as trainers, but as fighters, equipping 118 (Fighter) squadron, formed in Rockcliffe, ON (Ottawa) before moving to Halifax/Dartmouth, NS, until the type was replaced with Curtiss Kittyhawks, and from May 1940 until November 1941, the Goblin was the sole RCAF operational fighter aircraft on Canada's east coast. (per Kostenuk, S.; Griffin, J. (1977). RCAF Squadron Histories and Aircraft: 1924–1968. Toronto, ON: Samuel Stevens, Hakkert & Co. ISBN 978-0888665775.) Hardly incidential and non-operational, in fact quite the opposite - I would argue it was far more significant for the RCAF than it was for the USN.NiD.29 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Aircraft At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Probable hoax

An IP user from the Philippines is adding unsourced info to the Ilyushin Il-114 article. The user is claiming that the Philippine Aerospace Development Corporation is going to be producing a new variant, the Il-114D/Il-114neo/Il-214neo (the designations keep changing with each edit). I've been unable to find anything in a Google search, so I'm thinking this is another of the frequent hoaxes we get related to some nations, especially the Philipines. I've already reverted twice, and issued a warning. Any help with this matter wiuld be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Watched. - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hybrid RotorWing

Dear aircraft experts: This old AfC submission was about to be deleted as a stale draft, but it seems to me that this is a very interesting topic. and there seem to be plenty of news reports about it. Shouldn't we keep it? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is one of those things that sounds impressive - until you realise the aircraft in question is this. It's a model aircraft. The concept is interesting, but it's been mooted for years - and a full-size version was built by Sikorsky (but not flown, because budgets) in the 1980s. I'd say this is one of those "splash of coverage" tech things - it's simply WP:TOOSOON for it to be truly notable - if and when they build and fly a full-size version, then we can revisit it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on the FanWing, another concept that has lurched from model to model without gaining any real traction. Given the modern trend towards robotic UAVs, I think it is getting harder to claim that the flight of an unmanned "model" is insignificant - is the BAE Systems Taranis prototype insignificant? Even the transition mode between fixed and rotary modes - a controlled vertical plummet - is plausible for a UAV. There have been a good many other proposals for a wing which transitions between fixed and rotary modes, for example the Focke-Wulf Triebflugel, Sikorsky S-72 X-wing and Boeing X-50 Dragonfly. And, is this the same RotorWing project in different guise? None has yet proved a great success - in fact if the present example has achieved successful transition it is probably the first to do so. I certainly think that more of these projects deserve a mention, but I'd see a new article on the Rotor wing in general as the way ahead. The phrase "Hybrid RotorWing" is too specific to the particular project brochure. Might need some discussion on the new article title, as technically a rotor is already a rotary wing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree - an article on the rotor wing into which the various attempts can fit is the way to start. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If the draft above were moved to "Draft:Fixed/Rotor Wing Hybrids" or some such, and then a general description of the concept of switching between flight modes were to be added at the top, and the information about the StopRotor plane put into a section, would that be a good start? The information about other prototypes and experimental planes could be added to subsequent sections. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I have created Draft:Rotor wing and merged in the content of the proposed article. Any and all help welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you created a new draft instead of moving the existing page to the new title, I have moved your page to mainspace, moved the old draft to Hybrid RotorWing, and redirected it to your new article. If in the future the StopRotor plane ever develops enough to have its own article, the redirection can be undone and the article can continue to be developed. In the meantime, the article you created is shaping up nicely. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you too for sorting out their final resting places. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to imply the concept wasn't articleworthy - just the particular implementation, here. And nice work! (As for Taranis, there's a difference between a UAV and a model aircraft - although that does get blurred at times.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but my point was about how that line is becoming blurred to extinction. In the case of the Hybrid RotorWing, one may ask whether it is it a small experimental research UAV or a large experimental research model. The latest issue of New Scientist carries a piece about the legal problems being caused by the large and rapidly-increasing number of small unmanned craft, typically a quadcopter with a webcam, being flown for all kinds of purposes, especially for business and leisure. When is a remotely-piloted quadcopter+webcam a model aircraft and when is it a UAV? Lawyers around the world are rubbing their hands in glee. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Avionics and other aircraft equipment - in scope for this Wikiproject?

Dear wikipedians, I wonder whether articles related to avionics (radars, radios, elint equipment, etc) and other equipment carried by civil and/or military aircraft should be tagged as "in-scope" for this wikiproject. And if so, which "task force" or parameter should be used? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I would think that it would come under WikiProject Aircraft, but we don't have a task force to deal with it specifically. In the past those have only been started when a distinct need arises. - Ahunt (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. So I just tag with the banner of the Wikiproject? Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes! - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft armament - in scope for this Wikiproject?

Dear wikipedians, I wonder whether articles related to armament carried by military aircraft (guns, missiles, bombs, etc.) should be tagged as "in-scope" for this wikiproject. And if so, which "task force" or parameter should be used? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I would think that it would come under WikiProject Aircraft, but we don't have a task force to deal with it specifically. In the past those have only been started when a distinct need arises. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. So I just tag with the banner of the Wikiproject? Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes! - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/autorotation terminal speed (helicopter)

Hello aircraft enthusiasts. Is there anything to keep in this old draft> Or should it just fade away under db-g13? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This topic is already dealt with more effectively in the article on autorotation, there is nothing in the draft worth keeping. Fading away seems the kindest thing to do. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it's gone now. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

East Air

An editor keeps text dumping a huge amount of unsourced, spammy and promotional text into this article. I have reverted it twice, but can someone else review this and see if it should be included or removed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have protected the article for the minute to encourage the user to discuss changes on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Twin Otter image request

I have twice removed an image request at Talk:List of de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter operators which specifically asks It is requested that an image or photograph of Argentine Twin Otter be included in this article to improve its quality. as any Twin Otter image would be suitable a specific request for a specific operator in my mind doesnt make much sense. It is not actually required to improve the article and we could add image requests for the other hundred or so twotter operators. If anybody has any thoughts on this either way then please comment on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Antonov An-30

I have removed an entry about a Antonov An-30 shooting down twice now, the entry says "a video was released purporting to show a Ukrainian AN-30 aircraft being hit by a MANPADS over Sloviansk. Both pilots managed to eject safely before the aircraft crashed." Purporting is not encyclopedia or is using a video, ejected safely would be interesting for an An-30. It also said at one point it was a jet. Appreciate if somebody else can have a look please, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Ejected" = "not an An-30". Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Blame ignorant journalists rather than the editor adding this content: the cite] does say eject, and identifies it as an An-30 [also described as 'hovering'). Impossible to ID the aircraft from the video, but could be an AN-30. Article illustration is credited to Wikipedia...TheLongTone (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Albatros B.III

An IP editor has made mass changes at Albatros B.III. Not my area of expertise, so perhaps someone knowledgeable in the area could see how legit the edits are?
I have suspicions as IPs from the same range seem to have been carrying on a slow edit war there going back several years. --220 of ^Borg 11:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The article was a mess, and was written by someone with very poor sources or they didn't know what aircraft the page was about, as at one point it makes a nonsensical comparison to the Nieuport vee strutters, suggesting confusion between the B.III two seat reconnaissance biplane that the article is about, and the unrelated D.III single seat sesquiplane fighter. It still needs work but the recent ip edits appear to be pushing it in the right direction. NiD.29 (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@NiD.29: OK, if you guys are happy, I'm happy. :-) --220 of ^Borg 12:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kawasaki Ki-91

Hello, aircraft experts. Here's another of those old AfC submissions that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic that should be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the equally nonexistent Nakajima G10N has got its own article. But seriously, should such cancelled projects about which so little is known really have their own articles? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Unbuilt projects and the like unless otherwise notable should really just be in the "list" type articles like List of de Havilland aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There are references somewhere for it (or where else did the material come from), and aside from the poor wording and lack of references I think the distinction between projects that get pages and those that don't boil down to the amount of available information - and it seems we have enough to justify a page, rather than being yet another redlink in a list (which really can't provide much information). I would like to have a go at it but have too many projects on the go right now, so I have copied it into my sandbox and will submit it when I have made improvements, whenever that is. Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Working on British Aerospace 125

Hello WP:Aircraft. I've been doing a 24-hour overhaul of the old BAe-125 business jet today; I think I've made some good progress in getting a fledging Design section off the ground, the Operational History could use some work - I'm hoping that I can count on others to help fill in some of the scarce info in this respect. There's also some citation issues in the Variants, Operators, and Accidents sections. I have been thinking that the article may justify one of those survivors lists now that several of these are now on display in museums, does anyone have any thoughts about the creation of one of these? Feel free to jump in or make some comments here; it'd be good if the article can be brought up to scratch seeing as its production now seems to have come to a turbulence close after more than 50 years (That's got to be a record?). Kyteto (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as they remain operational, a survivors list is premature as it should technically include all of them, but a list of "aircraft on display" would probably be appropriate. good luck.NiD.29 (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well done NiD, that's a much better wording of what I would have wanted the section to be about - Those that have been preserved for prosterity on public display in museums and such, rather than a rag-tag band of those that are in service. Kyteto (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15

A series of IPs, probably the same person, has been adding large amounts of improperly sourced and unedited material to Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 for the past few months. If an admin is available to stop the copyvios from being added by semi-protecting the article, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

Admin User:Favonian has semi-protected the page. - BilCat (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

List of active military aircraft

Just been trying to sort out List of active military aircraft of the Philippines and was putting the aircraft into alphabetical order, I have been reverted by User:Israformales saying the order of significance is better than alphabetical order. As I fail to see how you can measure significance is putting it into alpha order reasonable or have I missed the point, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think "order of significance" is way too vague and subject to a lot of disagreement. For instance, as a helicopter pilot I always think helicopters are far more important than mere fighters and bombers. We have to go with alphabetical order to save a lot of silly arguments and also to make it easier for readers to find a specific aircraft on the list, too. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MilborneOne. Maybe order of significance is really vague. But if you would order the planes alphabetically, you will separate planes that are purposely bunched-up together. Take for example for combat aircraft, due to alphabetization, the light attack aircraft were already separated. Take for example the transport aircraft, you've already mixed-up those used for lift versus those used for VIP transport.

If you want to sort by type, then you need to break the page into sections, and then alphabetize within each section, otherwise no-one will have any clue where to look in your list for a specific aircraft. It better to put them all in a table, by name, but then allow them to be sorted by name, role, year and number bought. For example check out List of aircraft of Canada's air forces.NiD.29 (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I already conceded to the alphabetical order. I tweaked the listings for helicopters so that it is alphabetical as well. Israformales (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

K, np.NiD.29 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

NRC Pterodactyl VIII‎

I have started a discussion at Talk:NRC Pterodactyl VIII‎ on whether the plane and the article have the right name. I don't know much about these aircraft, so all contributions welcome,— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

9 days an no more comments - can we rename it now?NiD.29 (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Just added some stuff I dug up. Sorry for the delay, busy on other things. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, hope I've said enough now for you to go ahead. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nominations of aircraft manufacturer navboxes for deletion

Mass notifications of deletion nominations

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:J & J Ultralights Aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 2. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Windward Performance aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at [[1]]. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:XtremeAir aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_14#Template:XtremeAir_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Zenoah aircraft engines This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Zenoah_aircraft_engines. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:ZALA aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_14#Template:ZALA_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Wings of Freedom aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Wings_of_Freedom_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:World Aircraft Company aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:World_Aircraft_Company_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Worldwide Ultralite aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Worldwide_Ultralite_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:William Evans aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:William_Evans_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Weller Flugzeugbau aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Weller_Flugzeugbau_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Whittaker aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Whittaker_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Welch aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Welch_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Walter Haufe aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Walter_Haufe_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Wagner aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Wagner_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:W.F. Stewart Company aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:W.F._Stewart_Company_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:V-STOL Aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:V-STOL_Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Velocity aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Velocity_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:VFW-Fokker aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:VFW-Fokker_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Vidor aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Vidor_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Viking Aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Viking_Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Volmer Jensen aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Volmer_Jensen_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Vortech aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Vortech_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:UL-Jih aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:UL-Jih_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Ulrich Hütter and Wolfgang Hütter aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Ulrich_H.C3.BCtter_and_Wolfgang_H.C3.BCtter_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:US Aviation aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:US_Aviation_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Trixy aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Trixy_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Tri-R aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Tri-R_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Towle Marine Aircraft Engineering aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Towle_Marine_Aircraft_Engineering_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Thruster Aviation Services aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Thruster_Aviation_Services_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:The Butterfly aircraft This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 24. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC) This has triggered a complaint at WP:ANI, see here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Tupolev Tu-116

User:Le Grand Bleu has created a new article on the Tu-116 at Tupolev-116 rather than just work on the original Tupolev Tu-116 article, they have some desire to be recorded as the article author. Rather than a complicated history merge I have used a copied from/to template to retain attribution for the new content and not loose the history of the page as I copied it into the original article over a redirect. This has not been helped by being reverted in the middle of the process can I ask others to keep an eye on the articles please, thanks.MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You stole my work and moved the contents to another page under your name. What do you expect me to think about it? Not to mention you started an edit war without any explanation. I'm reverting your changes until you care to explain what the heck you're doing. Also, I have to say this notice itself is quite offensive. You did not discuss your actions with me, did not reach any consensus or even provided a prior explanation, yet you posted a warning in a defamatory tone usually reserved to alert users of a vandal or some other evil-willed user. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

On my watchlist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Tu-116 is clearly the correct designation like other Tupolev aircraft. See {{Tupolev aircraft}}. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Le Grand Bleu has been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and personal attacks on others (and been suspected of sock-puppetry).

Clearly there is a lack of understanding on how wikipedia works, starting with the fact that no-one owns a page - once it is written, it is free for anyone to do as they wish, including completely rewrite, or copy elsewhere (though this should be attributed to the original page). It cannot be stolen as it does not belong to anyone, and no-one can lay claim to being the "author" as all pages are subject to editing by anyone at any time. If Le Grand Bleu wishes to create a page perhaps rather than deleting an existing page and creating a new one at a random location, a perusal of aircraft types that are still without pages would be a better use of time - there are a great many aircraft for which no page exists yet - there is no need to vandalize an existing article for personal gratification. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles/1 is just the first page of a very long listing of pages that still need to be written - and there are a fair number of significant types lurking in there, begging to be done.NiD.29 (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

RT aerostats systems

A new article has recently been created for RT aerostats systems. This company appears to be a subsidiary of Aeronautics Defense Systems. The new article lacks references and other good things - should it be improved or simply merged in with the parent article? Comments please at Talk:RT aerostats systems. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Air Force

Keep removing list of aircraft losses in Ukrainian Air Force but it keeps being added by an IP, including a Boeing 777 - as far as I am aware not operated by the Ukrainian Air Force! any help or comment appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted it once, should I warn him for vandalism? The B777 sure is referencing to MH17 which I would find vandalism. However the rest he is adding isn't vandalism but I agree it should not be on there. (slow comments from me for the rest because of news on MH17) Redalert2fan (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Canard Rotor/Wing

I have started an informal merge/delete discussion at Talk:Canard Rotor/Wing — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

P-51VLR

I have proposed deletion of P-51VLR but as it only has five watchers I have noted it here if anybody has any comment, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Seconded! - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this doesn't smell right. The only reference seems to make no mention of the project, and I find it very hard to beleive that what sounds like a very considerable modification would not have been documented. There must be dozens of books about the P51, if this variant existed it surely would be documented... and in any case, if it's not documented, it surely cannot be written about in Wikipedia.TheLongTone (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree. VLR missions were flown by standard P-51D's. If there really was a VLR variant, it would be better to create a new article with the correct title and a genuine reference. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No mention of it in a fairly comprehensive Mustang book I have. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Freedom Aviation Phoenix

Article Freedom Aviation Phoenix has been proposed for deletion as it has only has now unavailable company website as a reference, anybody have anything on it? MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

cant get more than this: http://www.ovguide.com/freedom-aviation-phoenix-9202a8c04000641f80000000073284a5 http://www.airport-data.com/manuf/Freedom_Aviation.html Redalert2fan (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

note the first link says exactly the same as the first part of the wiki page, Redalert2fan (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)