Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Badges?

On a similar subject to 'Roundals' (does not get my vote BTW) I noticed some squadron patches creeping in to the F-101 Voodoo article. It's a non standard section, the images are probably (hopefully) on Commons, do we send them back there? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To quote, "We don't need no stinkin' badges!" - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite, however I just noticed that a very active project member added them! Just worried that it will set a precedent. One of my favourite films BTW! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually they were contributed by three different editors. They actually aren't squadron badges, but official aircraft type badges that were sanctioned by the manufacturer and worn by all RCAF/CF and USAF crews. I figured that were historical and of interest enough to find a home in a gallery at the bottom of the page. There is actually one more in the series, "witch doctor". - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that's ok then! Still a non-standard section and God forbid, a WP forbidden gallery. Just worried that it might open the flood gates for 'racist fanboy' stuff! On the fence. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought a single example in perhaps the service section, and the rest under commons, or how about a montage of the four of them rather than a single image for each?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The survivors section is overburdened in that article too.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That is easy to fix as there is already a F-101 Voodoo on display article. We just need to cross-check and make sure that all in the 101 article are on the list and then remove it. An initial look indicates that some need to be transferred. - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"List of ... survivors" articles

IIRC, there were discussions on WPAIR, and in a combined Move discussion, which determined that the aircraft survior list articles should begin with "List Of". Per this example diff, some of the moves to the "List of" titles have been reverted in the past cuple of months. Oddly, the user reverting the moves gave this edit summary: "moved List of B-25 Mitchell survivors to B-25 Mitchell survivors over redirect: This discussion regarding titleing has been discussed - adding "List of" was discarded as pointless. Numerous "List" pages on wiki exsist without having this lable st)" My memory on the consensus of the discussions is distinctly different, but I haven't been able to find the discussions. Thanks. Note that I have reverted some of these articles back tp the "List of" titles, but I will undo the moves if I am mistaken of the consensus. - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

At the moment most of them are lists, they could become articles but would need a lot more textual non-fanboy content. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While I can see both sides of this and could easily live with either, I do have to say that renaming article without discussion is a bit ill-done. It’s not the kind of thing one needs to be “bold” about. The rationale in favor of which way to go could just as easily and validly have been “Numerous "List" pages on wiki exist having this label”. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I do believe (in full good-faith) that there is a preexisting concensus on the issue - I'm just trying to find it! I don't make a habit of having discussins with myself, and then claiming there is a consensus to support it, when either the consensus is the opposite of what I claim, or non exists at all. I truly thought the consensus would be easy to find when I made the recent move reversions (I had been watching them since the moves), but I've yet to find it. I then asked hare, and have not made any moves since. While I would support a new discussion, we don't need to "reinvent the wheel" if a concensus already esists! - BilCat (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe its in here somewhere? There is a lot of conversation which must be taking up project member's time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary! Simple search paramenter, but I couldn't think of one! The main discussion seems to be here, and is the one I was thinking of. I found this comment quite telling: "Checked other wiki pages and found "Lists of solo albums by The Beatles", "Lists of video games" ect... - in agreement that a name change to "List of Chance-Vought F4U survivors" would follow wiki rules and would be acceptable. Davegnz (talk) 11:56 am, 16 September 2008, Tuesday (10 months, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)" Btw, while there seems to be a clear consensus, "survivors" was not preferred, but there was no consensus on a viable alternative. I'll wait a day or so, and then complete the renaming unless other issues onb the titles are raised that need to be dealt with first. - BilCat (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Like other child articles the titles should reflect the original section titles, List of Foo survivors or List of Foo aircraft on display where Foo is the original article name. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I'd be interested to see where Foo fighters are on display. (LOL) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• And the Foo Fighters. :-) -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - change the title to (example) B-24 Liberator Survivors Listing. Cleaner, looks professional, keeps the main article as well as the sub article (Survivors) on the same page when seaching for a specific type of aircraft. I would like some on the lines of Aerography (like discography the list & catalog of a particular musician) but adding the word Listing is not going to end the world Davegnz (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave, please provide a link to the the discussion in which the "List of: format was discarded - a discusion in which more than just yourself participated! As posted above, you supported this format yourself in the main discussion on the issue. If you continue to revert moves contrary to the above consensus, further actions will be taken . - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to recusitate Aluminum Overcast

Despite the PROD and AFD effort, I took it as an exercise to see what can be done to create "a silk purse from a sow's ear" and in the case of this stub article, I spent a few hours simply gathering information and was surprised at how much there was on the individual aircraft. I have very little interest in the subject but wanted to use this as an exercise in research gathering. Please look at: as it is now and then to see the changes made. A coupla questions: should we be bothered if the original article simply fades from the scene? should stubs be looked at for possible expansion? am I completely nutz? (the last question is of course, rhetorical as I have ample evidence as to the answer there...) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Much better now and I think worth keeping, what an article might become is a factor at AfD, problem is who knows what an article might become without doing hours of research unless it is a well known subject?! Well done Bill, glad I don't have to answer your last question! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Better article appeciate your effort - still dont see anything notable in its history! particularly as it was delivered to late to have operated during the war. Most could be a note in B-17 survivors or an article on the EAA. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That aircraft is mostly notable for its work with EAA as a "flying museum aircraft", not its wartime service. I think the article needs to emphasis that aspect. - Ahunt (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I accept that, although that is not clear in the article. Perhaps we need to make it clearer what makes an aircraft notable to have an article of its own. I dont have a strong view on what the citeria should be but it should be robust to use in the future particularly to defend or otherwise AfDs. Lots of aircraft could be considered flying museum aircraft. Perhaps if an aircraft is still airworthy after 50 years it deserves an article! (although that could include some KC-135s and some B-52s!) The original comments a few days ago were about B-25 Made in the Shade (aircraft) which is flyable and more than fifty years old but so are lots of P-51 etc. Just need to agree on a citeria on individual aircraft articles. (but note I did create Avro Vulcan XH558 which is only 49 years old!!) MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Continental Airlines Flight 128

Continental Airlines Flight 128 has been started to cover a severe turbulence incident. There were a few injuries serious enough for hospitalization and more minor injuries. This does not seem notable per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:Air/PC accidents & incidents guidelines. Should this article be tagged for Proposed deletion or AfD? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is almost a daily occurrence and despite the notoriety of this particular incident, it is a minor event, hardly worth mentioning a year from now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

I agree - not notable. Our project consensus standards are at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Accidents_and_incidents and this doesn't make the grade there. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing and "whitewashing" accusations

I could use some fresh eysd and opinions at Talk:Lockheed Martin#strong bias here and Talk:Lockheed Martin#Corporate Whitewashing. The talk discussions should fully explain the situation. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

With your edit summary, I was sorta expecting F-22 Raptor. :) I'll keep an eye on the LM article to see if it flares back up. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The F-22 would be a more geunine controversy than protesting polling machines and recruiters, but it's better covered on the F-22 page, and that's all it is about. - BilCat (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft notability

Tempted to prod or AfD Made in the Shade (aircraft) which does not appear to have any notability as an individual aicraft. Perhaps the data should just be in B-25 Mitchell survivors but as that is currently in a stunted fan boy style it may be difficult to incorporate. Any thought, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Prod away. The state of survivors article has no bearing on the quality of the individual plane article; a summary is all that is needed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be tempted to incorporate it into B-25 Mitchell survivors or Commemorative Air Force and just make this article a redirect. No need to wait all that time for a prod then! - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What about Thunderbird (B-17) or another Fortress Picadilly Lilly II? Do we have a good guideline?GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The guideline on individual aircraft is at Wikipedia:Notability_(aircraft)#Individual_aircraft and this article doesn't make the cut as far as I can see. - Ahunt (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

From my reading Thunderbird and Picadilly Lilly II don't make it either, neither does Aluminum Overcast. Necessary Evil (aircraft) Jabit III (B-29) and most of the others in Category:Individual aircraft of World War II look suspect at first glance. Memphis Belle (B-17) I recognise. what's the appropriate mechanism Prod or AFD? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Although all of the aircraft mentioned have a history and "provenance", that they are essentially stubs, makes it difficult to make a case for retention. I would encourage anyone with adequate reference sources to make an effort to provide a reasonable rationale for their continuation as an article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

History does not necessarily make for notability. I've prodded Aluminum Overcast. It's barely more than a line or two.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

...Note the aircraft history and recognize the role it plays in the EAA? I agree that the length of the submission does not allow the reader to see its notability. Bzuk (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

I've removed the PROD on Aluminum Overcast to give time for discussion, and possible improvements to the article, per BZuk's observations. - BilCat (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's obviously a more complex situation so I've started a formal Afd for it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just on a related subject, I am trying to tidy up the mess that is List of B-17 Flying Fortress survivors and while changing a shed full of external links to references I also deleted some of the content. This involved removing wrecks and aircraft that only exist as a panel of nose art. User:Davegnz disagees and has reverted the changes with the edit summary POanel are historic, on display at museums - just because not intacts flyable or anything else does not mean that not part of the B-17 history. I was led to believe that while we had real (and flying aircraft) then wrecks, noses, and small bits of painted panels were not notable. I would agree that some of these cockpits can become notable if no other complete aircraft survive. Also listed was an aircraft that no longer survived but big bits are in a number of different museumns. Looking for other opinions and perhaps some better guidelines rather than remove then again. But you have to consider if painted panels are listed with a complete history of the related aircraft as part of a list of survivors then perhaps it might be time to get our coats. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that B-17 Survivors is an AWARD WINNING ARTCLE and you consider it a mess - Why do you go and creat you own articles instead of waiting everyones time with this nonesense Davegnz (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I just remind you about personal attacks and WP:CIVIL, please comment about the topic in hand and not other editors. Not sure where you get award winning articles as it doesnt meet requirement for a GA or FA by a long way. MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't intact or on the way to being mostly intact - how can it described as a survivor?GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We have guidance material that was developed by consensus some time ago on that at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content#Aircraft_on_display which says:

Aircraft on display
Aircraft on display should be information on non-airworthy aircraft that are on permanent public display. It should not include partial aircraft or aircraft not viewable by the public. When a large number of aircraft are still preserved the list should be limited to the most prominent ones.

Survivors
Survivors should be information on aircraft that have survived following the retirement of the aircraft type from normal military or commercial use. It should include airworthy aircraft and any non-airworthy aircraft not on public display but otherwise notable.

As can be seen there, aircraft parts are not considered "aircraft on display" or "survivors". Graeme is quite right - calling left over parts "survivors" is ludicrous! - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

They are good guidelines, we narrowed it slightly in the engine project so that survivors only covers flying examples. We can write guidelines until the cows come home, some editors will not follow the spirit of them however. Common sense will prevail hopefully with these individual aircraft articles, I looked at one and it wasn't notable or even mildly interesting. There is probably a place on the web for these articles but I suggest that it is not here. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Survivors is not only Airworthy aircraft, Display aircraft or Aircraft under Restoration. Susvivors has to include the historic footprint (ie meaningfull identifiable artifacts on display). MilborneOne want to eliminate historic artifacts on display at a reconized museum (ie nose art panels) - my comment is how many museums and how many wikiarticles list partial collections are historic treasures (ie Mayan pottery, etc...). MilborneOne also want to eliminate underwater wreck sites (which like museums are being advertised for divers to visit ((underwater museum))) (including B-17 Black Jack which was the subject of a major PBS television special) from the listing. It is clear that MilborneOne has missed the past 15 years in Warbird History: 30 years ago there was less the 10 Hawker Hurricanes in the world, less then 20 De Havilland Mosquito anywhere, etc.... Right now, there are individuals who have recreated the jigs and fixtures to take what was once only a pile of metal and restore it to operational condition. This includes Spitfires (Isle of Man), Hurricanes (England, Canada), P-51's (England, Canada, New Zealand), Mosquito's (Canada, New Zealand), P-40 (New Zealand, Georgia), I know of a company looking at the jigs for the B-26 Marauder. So todays wreck is tomorrows award winning aircraft. The B-17C is also the only know survivor of that series Davegnz (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dave, a 'survivor' to me is a single 'living' entitity (aircraft/person), not pieces scattered through museums or even rusting in the swamps of the Phillipines, I watch the warbird documentaries sometimes and it is fascinating to me but that doesn't mean it is ok to write an article on every single piece of old aeroplane that exists on the planet. Perhaps I could ask where do you draw the line on what is notable or what is not? I own a share in, maintain and fly a 65 year old aeroplane that has an interesting but not particularly notable past history, I would like to write an article on it but common sense says that this is not the place for that. So I sympathise but there are project and Wikipedia wide guidelines which often overrule what we would actually like to do, I feel that your insistance on not abiding by the spirit of them (and this subject is not the only one you disagree with) is causing friction. It is almost as if you do not want to collaborate with fellow aviation editors, which surely is the basic principal of a Wiki? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have two aluminum tubes and some AN bolts in my garage that are off Ultraflight Lazair S/N 725. The Lazair is the most produced Canadian aircraft ever designed and therefore very notable, so surely my garage should be mentioned in the article "survivors section? - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not be a smart ass - I am talking about documented, original significant remains. Wikipedia does have a history of listing in articles of interest, this type of information. Take a look at USS Monitor recovery section. The underwater wreck is considered accessable (thus included in the listing) as well as locations of parts of significient interest (conserved and are on display ) Davegnz (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a panel from an Argosy in my Garage! I just like to make it clear nothing stopping Davegnz writing an article on painted nose art, what I didnt like was reading about the history of an aircraft as if it was a complete survivor only to find at then end oh by the way we have only a five foot panel left. As for underwater wrecks wikipedia is not a travelguide for divers, although the subject of using aircraft as dive sites would probably not be a problem. A list of aircraft survivors or aircraft on display is not the right place for wrecks and small bits of aircraft. Restorations could be notable if they were the only one a type brought back to life but yet another modern P-51 or Spitfire is not really notable to the original aircraft type. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a tavelguide - then you better start deleting all the museums of the world, all the cities listed in wikipedia etc... Gee and how long did it take for you to read 24 word then to hit in large text NOTE: You write as if you spent an entire day trying to figure out the big words and wasted many many hours of your valuable life only to find out that this single line reference was talking about a artifact Davegnz (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Davegnz: please go and read WP:CIVIL, this sort of behavior, including insults, is not an acceptable way to conduct yourself. If you persist in uncivil behaviour you will be blocked from editing. - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite the discussion on this page Davegnz has added back nose art and reverted other improvements. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there is clearly no consensus to do that, so as an admin, appropriate action should be taken. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought that Davegnz, or anyone else for that matter might like to consider – any artefact, or part of an aircraft, belonged to one that evidently did not survive! --Red Sunset 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fragments of wrecked aircraft are rarely going to be notable where there are surviving complete examples of an aircraft. There may be odd exceptions however, like Lady be Good, or at a stretch, the buts of Rudolph Hess's Bf 110 preserved at the Imperial War Museum.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hotel 900

This article is named for the callsign of the helicopter operated by the Sussex Police Air Operations Unit. The article is supposed to be about the helicopter. I have made a move recommendation to rename the page to Sussex Police Air Operations Unit on the article talk page. --Born2flie (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Help needed

I am tidying an article but need help identifying this aircraft which appears in this article. The file name calls it a P-47 and the caption originally said so, but now simply says "A plane used for patrols" which is unsatisfactory. Anyone know what it is? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a North American O-47 observation aircraft - 47 yes, P no!.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tks. I've fixed it. Also changed the next caption from B-24 to B-25. Quite a bit of difference! Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a "Fighter"?

We have several articles on non-bomber fixed-wing combat aircraft. These are based on what some might call an overly restrictive definition of the term "fighter" that is at odds with general colloquial usage. The Fighter aircraft article covers both pure air-superiority (earlier known as "pursuit") aircraft, as well as multirole "fighter-bomber" aircraft, but not dedicated ground-attack aircraft. However, "fighter-bomber" redirects to Strike fighter, which states that the term "strike fighter" is "almost synonymous" with the term "fighter-bomber" – as well as a politically correct euphemism for a "bomber aircraft" – yet does not explain what the remaining small difference between "strike fighter" and "fighter-bomber" is. The Ground-attack aircraft article assigns the term to aircraft essentially dedicated to the CAS role, but it also provides a long list of effective synonyms – including "attack aircraft", "fighter-bomber", "tactical fighter", "tactical bomber", and "strike aircraft".

These are muddy waters, indeed, and it is not difficult to find resources that refer to fighter-bombers, strike fighters, and ground-attack aircraft (including the A-10) as "fighters", generically. Reasonable cases can be made both for consolidating these articles and for the status quo. I would like to encourage the development of a bi-project consensus on which approach to take, in order to gain maximum value from and minimum potential rework of the efforts of those editors working on them. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also Interceptor aircraft, which often lumped with fighters. That's a minor point compared to the ground attack/strike side. I think improving "Ground-attack aircraft" article is the main thing. The Strike fighter article has a narrower scope. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem is combining historic usage with modern. What if we had more articles, with tighter definitions and chronology on each? In that case, we could reserve the Fighter aircraft page for basic introduction and redirection. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In the 'see also' section of interceptor aircraft there are links to five more 'fighters', probably a good time to rationalise things. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew I should have looked for more, but I had an errand to run. I do tend to think that Strike fighter should be merged into Ground-attack aircraft, at the very least. Binksternet has a couple of ideas that might be built upon. A tighter definition approach, though, might "squeeze out" even more articles and, as we're finding, there are already quite a few. Certainly some of these could stand consolidation — or at least better cross-referencing. There might be a better place to address the basic introduction Binksternet suggests: there's also a rather lame article, Military aircraft that could be further worked up. I found that looking for "Combat aircraft", which links there but isn't addressed there! Askari Mark (Talk) 00:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In WWI there were basically three military aircraft: pursuit, observation and bomber. Even though things got more complex in WWII, it is easy enough to differentiate the nomenclature from our current vantage point. In the 1950s and '60s a lot changed with jet power but old weaponry was still in use here and there, so definitions were muddy. From the 1970s to now, many air warfare concepts fell away with pilots not able to observe their target with Mark I Eyeball. I think our articles should be vertically stacked through the different eras of warfare, so that a WWI and 1920s pursuit aircraft article does not share the same name space as WWII fighter/interceptor/Zerstörer nor does it touch the air-to-air missile era. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're suggesting replacing the current set of articles (or just breaking up the "Fighter aircraft" article) into a series of "periods" in the evolution of "Combat aircraft"? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So to get back to the original point (the rest can be sorted out later), do we retain the current, artificially exclusionary usage for the term “fighters” or do we go with a broader, more colloquial usage? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting keeping the Fighter aircraft article but remaking it into a brief summary of all the types of aircraft that a) were not primarily bombers and b) able to engage enemy aircraft. Something like this layout:

• Fighter aircraft
  • Pursuit aircraft (WWI)
  • Fighter aircraft (WWII), including Interceptor fighter (WWII)
    • Night fighter (WWII)
    • Attack aircraft (WWII), including Ground attack aircraft (WWII) and Tactical bomber (WWII)
    • Zerstörer (or multi-crew fighter) (WWII)
    • Fighter bomber (WWII)
  • Jet fighter, including Interceptor fighter (jet)
    • Strike fighter, including Tactical bomber (jet)

What did I miss? Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just toss it all into MILHIST's lap and let them sort it out. It seems to me that an offensive A2A capability is the primary determination for the aircraft to be referred to as fighter. --Born2flie (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor point is Pursuit just American terminology dont think it was used in Europe. MilborneOne (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Pursuit aircraft could redirect to an article at Fighter aircraft (WWI). Binksternet (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Born2flie: How about aircraft like the A-10 and Ju-87, which are often referred to as “fighters”? Perhaps the definition should encompass tactical offensive combat aircraft (differing from bombers as solely theater- or strategic-level A/G aircraft)? It’s interesting to me that (non-bomber) military aircraft developed expressly for ground attack often get referred to as “fighters”, yet COIN-type aircraft adapted from jet trainers (e.g., AT-33, A-37, Alpha Jets), transports (AC-47) or civilian aircraft (F337G) rarely are.

@ Binksternet: Could you provide an example of what you consider a “tactical bomber” that should be included as a fighter? I anticipate you aren’t meaning something like an A-26 or B-25, but perhaps a P-47?

@ All: One option is to capture this in the Fighter aircraft article, as Binksternet suggests. Another approach would be to describe aircraft types and roles in the Military aircraft article with top-hat links to the existing articles. Thoughts one way or the other? Askari Mark (Talk) 20:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never really heard the A-10 referred to as a "fighter", and I certainly would never have thought of it that way.

The Air Force's aversion to the A-7 was that it had no A2A capability. I'm not sure what that assertion is based on, I can only imagine that it was in reference to sighting systems or missiles or both, although the aircraft carried a Vulcan cannon. Working on that assumption, I can see that being designed and equipped with a weapon capable of offense doesn't necessarily equate to being a fighter. Based on the Air Force's structure at the time, the A-7 and A-10 were both tactical aircraft, and the Tactical Air Command was structured with Fighter Wings, Groups, and Squadrons. It would've made sense to rename the organizations according to the role, but placing a non-fighter into a whole community of fighters may have necessitated the practice of referring to the aircraft as fighters, although their design, designation and role speaks otherwise. --Born2flie (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think in some ways the differences may be cultural and semantic in nature. Whenever we had A-10 pilots visiting our bases I noted that they considered it a fighter, but that no one else did. This is not unique, in one CF squadron I served on, the T-33 pilots considered themselves fighter pilots, but the CF-18 pilots considered them trainer pilots or just "targets". - Ahunt (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's as good an explanation as I've ever heard, but the "loose" usage has not been limited to Americans (here: US & Canada). My suspicion is that it is because to non-cognoscenti they look like other "fighters" and their actual function is moot. How should Wikipedia treat them, though? Askari Mark (Talk) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"How should Wikipedia treat them, though?" The same way anything on WP is supposed to be treated: By citing reliable and authoritative sources. And when they conflict, we present all the views from those sources. I know we'll have to make editorial decisions about how to organize the articles, and that's mostly what the discussions have been about, but we still need to start with the authoritative source, and build from there. Now, what sources? I haven't a clue! Are there aviation encyclopedias that are generally accepted as authoritative that we can cite? Does Jane's have somthing like this? If not, then the better general encyclopedias, such as Britannica, would be next in line for consulting. - BilCat (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tactical bomber or attack airplane that is also considered a fighter: A-36 Apache, the slightly modified version of the P-51 Mustang. Very much able to address A2A problems. I did not mean to include the A-26 nor the B-25. The P-47 falls into the fairly well-represented category of pure fighter aircraft designs that just happened to be good at ground attack. Hawker's Typhoon and Tempest are in that bunch. Regarding the Ju-87 Stuka, few, if any, historians consider this aircraft to be a fighter. The Stuka is much like the Il-2 Sturmovik in that the ground attack mission was foremost, and any ability to attack other aircraft in the air was either defensive in nature or secondary in importance. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen references to the Ju 87 as well as the Il-2 as fighters. The former are more common in contemporaneous sources, though, since it achieved a unique place in the European-American public as the Stuka dive bomber – but other dive bombers have also been called fighters. I agree with Bill that a reliable source that laid it all out clearly would be preferable, but I cannot recall ever seeing one; usually, it's just taken for granted that readers know what is meant and only specific roles get described (or just listed). Unless someone knows of one, it may be up to us to decide upon a narrow or loose definition. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

List of passenger jet airliners by length

Hi. I was looking around for some sort of list that I could compare the sizes of passenger airliners. As the list of airliners by seat capacity was recently deleted, I thought I'd go about making my own list - ranked by length. It can be found here. It's still a work in progress (as you can see, the list currently only has Airbus, Boeing and Douglas/McDonnell Douglas airliners included) but I was wondering if this would be worth continuing to form an article. Opinions are welcome. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 06:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears to meet all the citeria that caused the seat capacity article to be deleted, paticularly that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts. I suspect it will be proposed for deletion soon. MilborneOne (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I don't really mind. It's not actually an article yet, it's just a user subpage of mine, so it won't get deleted. Thanks for letting me know. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any opinions on this? I'd still like to work on it and source it and everything... I'm not going to give up because one editor says it will get deleted. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While it looks mostly harmless I am just concerned that it may lead to "List of passenger jet airliners by wingspan", "List of passenger jet airliners by height", "List of passenger jet airliners by first flight", "List of passenger jet airliners by number of wheels", "List of passenger jet airliners by gross take-off weight", "List of passenger jet airliners by number of lavatories" etc. Is length really a useful way of classifying aircraft? To whom is this useful, other than hangar designers? - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur: length is fairly indiscriminate - after all the Bristol Brabazon is nearly No. 20 on the list - but that wouldn't be much use if you were trying to illustrate something about aeroplane development. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We have the giant aircraft template which may help, {{Giant aircraft}}, not exactly what you are looking for perhaps. If I was trying to compare lengths then I would just surf the 'specs' sections. Could also see a problem with extended variants, the McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and its later 'MD' variants had many fuselage extensions, the longest looking quite strange compared to the first DC-9. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is also the List of large aircraft linked from that template. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I fully agree with Ahunt in the speculation that it is likely this will lead to different ranking alternatives, however the fact it is not useful to any particular group of people should not determine whether or not it exists. Is List of tallest buildings in the world or List of longest tunnels in the world useful to anyone other than engineers? Of course it is... People wanting to know the rankings of the tallest buildings and longest tunnels.

GraemeLeggett, I specifically named the subpage and clearly clarified the list as for jet airliners only, to eliminate the numerous other piston-engined aircraft.

Thanks to you all anyway... --timsdad ^(talk) 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The main difference between List of tallest buildings in the world or List of longest tunnels in the world, and airliner length, is that the bulindgs and tunnel's distiguishishing feature is length/heigth, while in aircraft, wingspan is often greater. Aircraft are generally ranked by size in relation to weight, not length. That's why the others are questioning the usefulness of this list. - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bill here, if this list is necessary I really think it should be by gross take-off weight, since GTOW is used for certification and most other categorizations. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

However, there is an alternative: the tables in List of large aircraft could eb expanded to include dimensions and weights, and those could be sortable, with redirects from likely titles. I could see the usefulness in that, though I'm not recommending it at this point (and I could not create such a table!). - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that, in addition to the current, unranked, list in that article, we add several other ranking alternative tables (e.g. one each for length, wingspin, GTOW, etc...) That would be very time consuming (not that I'm opposed to doing this) and would probably lengthen the list considerably - possibly even too much. However, if there are no realistic alternatives I'll be quite happy to take that up as a project to work on. --timsdad ^(talk) 06:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The current tables in List of large aircraft are sortable, ie. if you click on the symbol in the "Aircraft" or "First flight" columns, they will be rearranged in the list successively in ascending or descending order. Currently, the "Notes" colum is very wide, nd this would probably need to be replaced if more columns were added to cover dimensions. The table could then be sorted according to each dimension (length and wingspan being the primary ones). - BilCat (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I realised what you meant when I took the time to study your comment a bit more closely. I think that's quite a good idea, and I might go about creating that list in my sandbox as soon as I can. Do you think the list should be limited somehow? Because it's not possible to limit it to the longest 20 airliners and the largest wingspans at the same time. However, if more details are added to the current aircraft at List of large aircraft, the rankings would be rather innacurate. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dassault SSBJ

I rediscovered this (proposed) aircraft when looking at the General Electric F414, and I think there might be enough information out there to make a page for it (which I'm willing to do). Any reason why I shouldn't make the page? SidewinderX (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

'OR' alert!

Might be worth checking these contribs as a lot of uncited 'OR' is being fed in: [1] This message is brought to you by the OR police! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Glasflugel redirects

It appears from the list of gliders in Glasflügel that we have a complete set where quite a lot of them are redirects (to Glasflügel) and should be empty redlinks, not encountered this problem before, it looks like the redirects need to be deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion?. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Me again, I wasn't sure what to do but realised deleting the re-directs would throw up some alarm bells somewhere.Petebutt (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked how best to deal with them in the redirect project. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer was that the only way to fix the problem is to nominate the redirects for deletion. They suggested that we remind editors of the red link guidelines. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have listed them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#August 14 Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Streamlining

An editor has changed the link from Streamlining to Streamliner on a few aircraft articles (like Beechcraft Staggerwing). Probably because Streamlining was linked to Streamline. As far as I am aware Streamliner is an American term related to railway engines etc. Really need to point it at an article that talks about aerodynamics etc to stop it being changed again. Any ideas, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Parasitic drag? Looks like the noun is being confused with the adjective 'streamlined'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem also includes that Streamlining leads to a DAB page, none of which apply! I have removed the link and left "streamlining" unlinked. - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks seems a reasonable move for the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I just couldn't find a better place to link it! Sometimes the best wikilink is no wikilink! - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Horten H. or Horton Ho

With very little discussion save edit comments, a whole range of Horten aircraft articles have been moved to a new designation. Again, can I ask for opinions here, as the Horton Ho series seems to have been well entrenched and now the articles are all over the place in terms of the designations, both in the article title and the body of text. FWiW, see article Horten H.XVIII which has existed since 2005 under the designation Horten Ho XVIII. Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

Again, apparently undiscussed either here or there, I note the German article retains the original spelling. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Smith & Kay in German Aircraft of the Second World War has Ho I, Ho III and Horten I, Horten III etc interchangably- note that these are NOT RLM 8- numbers although the Horten III, IV, V, VI and VII also had 8-numbers although some of these were also allocated to other aircraft. Green and Swanborough, in their article in Air Enthusiast 39 refers to them as H I, H II etc (i.e. space not .).Nigel Ish (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem New Articles

Two new articles found: Fairchild 100 only one sentence, and Heinkel HD 43 just a copy of specs, worth rescuing or proding? MilborneOne (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, since our aim is to have articles on all aircraft types I would say keep 'em, but someone with refs needs to go and fix them! - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a ref and some structure to the Heinkel article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit more to Nigel's start to the Fairchild 100 article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

Fairchild 100 looks a lot better after a good team effort, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for a multi-project manned working group to focus on Black Projects

I recently completed a sweep of the pages tagged with the black project template that fall within the scope of the military history project. In my report to milhist on the pages, their content, and the questionable material and sourcing in some articles I received a reply from the a contributor at WP:SPACE suggesting the milhist formally incorporate a working group to oversee these black project to better ensure that they stay free of original research and unreliable sources and ensure that the pages conform to the best of their ability with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The more I think about this suggestion, the more I am of the mind that it would be a good idea not only for WP:MILHIST, but for WP:SPACEFLIGHT and WP:AIR. The vast majority of the black projects covered break down into one of four distinct categories - space based recon satellites, advanced recon and fighter/bomber aircraft, military R&D programs, and signal/electronic intelligence programs - and each of our projects is best suited to cover one aspect of these black projects.

Working groups at milhist are considered to be a step below our task forces, so if your project members agree to participate we will not have to create a bunch of new pages for the working group, we can attach this working group to either the military technology and engineering task force or the Intelligence task force and use the existing task force as a base of operations.

For this reason and for the potential for better improvement and monitoring of our black project articles I am interested to know if there are any members of this project who would be interested in joining such a working group. As the working group must exist within the milhist project I would ask that all interest parties place their replies on the main milhist talk page, noting the project you are from (if you are coming from a project other than milhist). Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments/suggestions, at this point this is very much in the planning stage, and any feedback/input would be welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect template

Could an admin look at Template:Jetspecs, and consider semi-protecting it, as with many other templates? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Supermarine Aircraft at AFD

The following article is at AFD: Supermarine Aircraft. Any feedback would be welcome. The AFD can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarine Aircraft. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)