Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

WikiProject Aircraftwas featured ina WikiProject Reportin theSignposton 13 June 2011.

Shortcuts

Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review

Peer review

Twin canopy aircraft?

Another new category,Category:Twin canopy aircraft.Nimbus (Cumulusnimbusfloats by)20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there that this is a defining characteristic?AndyTheGrump(talk)20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concern and I was already contemplating CfD'ing it. There are numerous past CfD's about various other non-defining aircraft characteristics and how this can lead to absurd category bloat (e.g., Category:Aircraft with red stripes).Carguychris(talk)20:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is not a defining feature. We might as well haveCategory:Aircraft with Phillips screwsif we're going to keep this. -ZLEA_T\^C20:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would inevitably have subjective edge cases too.AndyTheGrump(talk)22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of one.-ZLEA_T\^C23:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking of that one too. And then there are oddballs like two-seat Spitfire conversions, or the prone Meteor, where even if the category applies, it is only to individual aircraft. And is a glazed nose a pilot sits in a canopy? Depending on your answer, a He 111Z either has two canopies, or none at all...AndyTheGrump(talk)00:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was debating that tooA-37Dragonfly(talk)04:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm abivalent but lean towards "no" as a not particularly useful or unambiguous characteristic. Aside: our "characteristic" categories are probably due for an overhaul for consistency! —-Rlandmann(talk)00:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not in favour of having number of canopies as the basis for categorisation.Dolphin(t)01:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be a little better changing it to "Category:Multiple canopy aircraft" or some other general wording. However, the number involved should still be limited.-Fnlayson(talk)01:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We hadCategory:Nose-mounted intake jet fighterin March. Sorry I didn't write anything after the first post in this thread, it would have been a negative rant!Nimbus (Cumulusnimbusfloats by)08:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a candidate for CfD. No significance at all. We have far too many such pointless Cats as it is. — Cheers,Steelpillow(Talk)08:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion atWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14,the Sea Vixen has one canopy and a sheet of mostly flat perspex over the 'coal hole'.Nimbus (Cumulusnimbusfloats by)14:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the issues with my category, I don't object I guessA-37Dragonfly(talk)03:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albatros C.II

TheAlbatros C.IIarticle’s text describes a pusher biplane. The picture shows a tractor biplane. The Idflieg no. given in the articles text is C 27/15 however in the book “German Aircraft of the First a World War by Peter Grey and Owen Thetford” (cited in the text) the Idflieg number given for the sole C.II pusher is given as 27/16. Adding to the confusion there were two prototypes from Albatros that shared the C.II designation. It’s not clear to me which aircraft the article is meant to be about. I would request a member of the group with access to sources on WW1 German aircraft reviews the article. As things stand the text and picture combo is a glaring error. --Stivushka(talk)16:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask the editor whoadded the pusher textfor clarification, there is nothing on the article talk page. Following the article history it looks like the infobox image has been added and removed several times.Nimbus (Cumulusnimbusfloats by)17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the aircraft type covered by the article[1].The aircraft in the infobox is a homebuilt fuselage with Tiger Moth wings, on the French register as a 'C2', various other images describe it as a C.I.Nimbus (Cumulusnimbusfloats by)17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this also. The problem is that that the Albatros C.II pusher aircraft has the serial number 27/16 and the article specifies 27/15. The serial number was changed in 2019 by an anonymous user who also changed the configuration from Tractor to Pusher.

German WW1 Aircraft are outside my wheelhouse and this one is tricky as historically there was a Albatros pusher prototype built in Germany and a tractor prototype built by Albatros in Austria. Both aircraft were given the C.II designation. It would be best if somebody with a copy of the Albatros C.II specs from a published source checked this over as I suspect the current article may be an amalgamation.Stivushka(talk)05:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The book that will probably have the answers would be by Jack Herris 978-1935881476, £40 used in the UK. The first version of the article by MilborneOne clearly states it was a pusher aircraft and mentioned the tail configuration (needed for pusher types). Other editors have added their unsourced thoughts, changing the configuration. A lot can be learned by browsing the history. The source linked above (which is not an RS for wiki use) says it was built and flown in 1916, that is where the 16 comes from in the serial number, later in the same source 15 is mentioned, probably an error. If a number value has changed by one it is worth checking the history for vandalism as that is one of their subtle tricks though in this case it looks like a genuine edit. A non-free image could be uploaded, having an image of a pusher aircraft in the infobox might deter the tractor fans.Nimbus (Cumulusnimbusfloats by)09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book and the coverage is pretty skimpy of both designs since neither was produced in any quantities. I'll see what I can add.--Sturmvogel 66(talk)11:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me we have two design on our hands, both of which are probably notable enough to describe. I'd suggest we split the article into two main sections, each dealing with one of them, with a short lead explaining the ambiguous designation. Once that has shaped up and confirmed coverage of each, we can then consider splitting the article into two separate ones. The last thing we want is two editorial camps warring against each other's edits. I'd also suggest that temporarily, during this process, we break the usual rule and allow each design its own infobox and specification, on the local consensus that these templates are helpful, while choosing between designs is unhelpful. — Cheers,Steelpillow(Talk)14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed article based on two sources which are available on archive.org (German Aircraft of the First World War - Peter Grey and Owen Thetford) and actively in publication (German and Austro-Hungarian Aircraft Manufacturers 1908-1918 - Terry Treadwell). Article is now clearly about the pusher aircraft C 27/16 built by Albatros Flugzeugwerke in 1916. Expanded existing paragraph on the Austro-Hungarian C.II (Tractor Type) so the differences are clear to the reader. Paired back the specifications to those in earlier version of the article by MilborneOne (this data is supported by Gey and Thetford). Added correct picture. AddedOAW C.II(Already has a page) to the Albatros template page. Added Albatros C.II to the list of pusher aircraft. Linked the OAW C.II to a few more categories so its easier to find--Stivushka(talk)11:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-American P-51 again

I regret to inform everyone thatTalk:North American P-51 Mustang#FAQ about national originhas been continued by an IP. -ZLEA_T\^C14:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox aircraft begin}}- or how to add an alternative name?

The documentation says that this is "currently" (Feb 2023) being merged with{{Infobox aircraft}}.@Plastikspork:who closed the merge discussion.

Is anything being done?

My particular, small, problem is that I would like to add the alternative name "Waterbird" toLakes Water Bird,as this name seems to be commonly used especially by the charity preserving its memory. (I've added a hatnote atWater birdtoo, which was missing.) I looked at the infobox template (I thought!), saw "|other_names=" and thought it would work, but then realised I was looking at the wrong infobox template, "infobox aircraft", which has this parameter. "Infobox aircraft begin" doesn't seem to offer the same parameter.

I tried just changing the infobox to "aircraft", but it lost the formatting of the box so clearly didn't work.

It might be useful if the merger of the templates could be completed.

I'm not an aircraft enthusiast, just watched a TV programme last night which talked about the Waterbird and then struggled to find Wikipedia's information about it!PamD 08:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This merge is awaiting someone with the knowledge, motivation and time to do it. Could be a long wait. — Cheers,Steelpillow(Talk)06:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Other name(s)" parameter is for articles on individual aircraft that went by more than one name (for example, seePrecious Metal (aircraft)). I would be opposed to adding such a parameter for aircraft types, as it would likely blur the line between official and unofficial names, designations, and stylizations. It would also just add more clutter to the infobox when the information could easily be covered in the first sentence or paragraph of the lede (as theLakes Water Birdcurrently does). -ZLEA_T\^C08:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flags, and other things

Before I even get to an actual question itself, I freely admit I am completely baffled as to where I should be asking certain questions because so much comes under the heading 'grey area'. As a newish editor (~10 months, ~700 edits) I am still struggling through the labyrinth that is Wikipedia. FWIW, yes - I have read countless guidelines until my head spins. Typically my enquiry starts off related to a specific article, in which case even I have worked out that the Talk page is the place to go. But then I notice the same issue occurs across several articles, maybe dozens, or even hundreds. This is now a wider question of style or policy, and it is at this point I come unstuck.

The Question; what is the policy on FLAGS within aviation articles?

There is one answer underWP:MOS,another variation perWP:AVISTYLE,a third option atWP:AIRMOS,yet another atMOS:MIL,somewhat different advice if it is within anWP:INFOBOX,and still more variations. But then, after all that, I findhundredsof articles going against what IthoughtI had read, which suggests it is 'policy' rather than a single editor making what I consider a mistake. Obviously it's time for me to take a step back.

It is at that point I fall into the second pit of despair, because I cannot be certain if this is the place to even ask the question.

The Questionrefined;what is the policy on FLAGS within Infoboxes, when applied to military (aviation) units?

At the risk of being labelled racist, I perceive a difference in viewpoint towards flags depending on nationality. It is rare to walk down a street in Britain and see the national flag outside several properties. It is rare to enter a British school and see a flag in every classroom. Searching for a good example, I foundNo.1 Squadron RAAF,ratedWP:FA,with an Infobox as clean as a whistle; no flags, no pretty ribbons. This is not the case when it comes to many RAF and USAF units. But if I start tearing down national flags, I could end up starting World War III.

So, is this a question about Aviation, Military History, national identity, or what? And is this one for the Teahouse? I would search the archives for previous discussions, but which archives, and how do even I phrase the question?

Caveat(s); I haven't read every US military article on Wikipedia, I haven't visited every school classroom in America, I haven't compared Infoboxes from every nationality. And of course I could just be mistaken. WendlingCrusader(talk)11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can safely say that the only place that flags are acceptable in aircraft type articles is the 'Operators' sections. Military units and battle/wars etc come underWP:MILHISTand their style guidelines, if I don't know their guidelines (which I don't!) then I avoid making questionable changes in those types of articles.There are 22,000 articles tagged with the aircraft project, keeps me busy!Nimbus (Cumulusnimbusfloats by)15:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important for aircraft articles to have a consistent style and appearance whether the aircraft is military or civil, so aviation style guidelines should override military history style guidelines. PerWP:AIRMOS:"Flags should not be used in the infobox to indicate national origin." Per @Nimbus227:the only place that flags are acceptable in aircraft type articles is the 'Operators' sections.This seems to be theWP:AVconsensus and most aircraft articles reflect this. I seem to recall previous WP:AV talk page discussions about sprinkling flags in "Operational history" sections of aircraft articles and breakdowns of victims' nationalities in aircrash articles, and the consensus has always been to not use flags. Keep in mind that if an aircraft has a notable role in a particular military campaign, there is probably a Wikipedia article about that campaign, so the "Operational history" section does not need to be (and shouldn't be) exhaustive.Carguychris(talk)15:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FLAGis the overriding guideline, project guidelines will be variations of it without busting it. The overuse of flags is known as 'Flagspam'.Nimbus (Cumulusnimbusfloats by)15:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) SeeMOS:FLAG,particularlyMOS:FLAGCRUFT.Flags should never be used in prose except in special cases where the symbol is part of the text. Regards,-Fnlayson(talk)15:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nimbus227/ @Carguychris

It is probably my fault for waffling excessively, but to re-iterate, this is not about aircraft directly; it is regarding squadrons, wings, and other military-aviation units. It's also not about their role in any conflict betweenthis flagandthat flag.Instead it comes down to what appearswithin the Infoboxe.g.

112th Fighter Squadron,Ohio ANG, USAF, comes underUnited States,but owes it's allegiance toOhio
No. 617 Squadron RAFis associated withUnited Kingdom and theRoyal Air Force

@Fnlayson- yes, when it's written out like that, it looks even worse. But that is the prose version of the Infobox for these units.

WendlingCrusader(talk)16:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPAIR primarily focuses on aircraft and aircraft related equipment such as engines. For better guidance on military unit infoboxes, you can ask atWT:MILHIST.And don't worry about having asked here first. You needed a place to start, and we're glad you asked here. We try to be helpful no matter the question, even if it's just to point you elsewhere.BilCat(talk)01:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCatThankyou for a most helpful (and pleasant) response. I have re-examined the guidelines and (following your advice) now posed the following question over atWT:MILHIST.

I would like some confirmation of the policy on FLAGS within Infoboxes,when applied to military units.

WP:MILMOS#FLAGSstates;

In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited.

Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative?

Template{{infobox military unit}}adds;

country–optional– If the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign state, the name of that state.
allegiance–optional– Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state; can usually be omitted otherwise. In the case of National Guard or Naval Militia units, the State of origin should be indicated.

Searching for a good example, I foundNo. 1 Squadron RAAF,rated WP:FA, with an Infobox as clean as a whistle; no flags, no pretty ribbons, just plain text. This is not the case when it comes to many RAF and USAF units.

For those who might be interested, further discussion is now atWT:MILHIST

WendlingCrusader(talk)13:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]