Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Featured article review

F-4 Phantom II has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Snowman (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Busiest air routes

I was thinking whether there should be an article about the World's busiest air routes. Something like the World's busiest airport, etc. Will it satisfy the relevant wiki guidelines? There are some data here: oag.com kawaputratorque 09:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention

Is there any consensus as to whether we use official full names for titling (Newark Liberty International Airport), or perhaps the names represented in the codes? TewfikTalk 12:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessments: importance ?

The {{WPAVIATION}} template does not list an importance field. Has that been done away with? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, Marcusmax said this has not been used. Thanks, I was just wondering. I was trying to add that with the assessments I've done, but never sure what critera for high and mi importance were. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal alert: User:Victor N

User:Victor N (contribs) has been creating massive amounts of made-up junk regarding his fantasy Bromo Airlines and Roro Anteng Airport, as well as adding nonexistent flights to Surabaya and Malang for actual airlines like SQ, Silkair, Shenzhen Airlines, etc. I've reverted most of it, but please keep an eye on the guy and help me double-check his edits. Jpatokal (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Boeing 367-80

The specifications table at the bottom of the page Boeing 367-80 is not showing properly, but instead displaying as code. Can someone from here take a look at the section and see about fixing it? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Modex

I'm kinda surprised that we didn't have an article on this; any help would really be appreciated. ZakuTalk 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Line spacing

I've been noticing this on a lot of aviation-related articles recently, and I have to break it to everyone that adding unnecessary spacing is an MOS breach. Clearly, we should be focusing on optimising the load times for users who might not have as fast of a connection or CPU as we do, since most people only read articles. The cleared bytes caused by unnecessary spacing should be used for prose development rather than satisfying an editor's preferences. Comments? 哦，是吗？(review O) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (GMT)

  • Uh, it's only 1 byte per return. The effect of several extra blank lines in an article is very small. The blank lines after an image for example helps on the edit screen. It is more difficult to scroll down and find the paragraph of interest without the blank lines (only 1 at a time). -Fnlayson (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty idiosyncratic way of reading the MOS; and I suggest it's an attempt at some fairly serious over-reaching. Clearly, the needs of readers and the needs of editors need to be balanced; and making editors' jobs more difficult in order to save a measly 2 bytes makes no sense whatsoever. 2 bytes=16 bits=less than 0.01 seconds even on a 2400 baud modem. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
But that two bytes could be a lot of prose. 哦，是吗？(review O) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (GMT)
How much prose is two bytes, in letters? (I don't speak Byte-ish, so this is a genuine question.) - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
2 bytes = 2 letters. Not exactly "a lot of prose". --Rlandmann (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point about load times. Images will affect that more than some blank lines. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack Real

Jack Real is going to be speedily deleted. I'll remove the speedy and give you time to assess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Edit-first-section

I looked on the page user:O linked to above, and couldn't find the rule he is reffering too. However, I did find a link to {{Edit-first-section}}, which seems like it could be very useful to the project on long article pages. I've wanted a feature like this for a long time, so it was good to finally find it. It was apparently created back in June 2007, but I've never seen it used on a page. I am trying it out on the very-long Atlanta, Georgia page. And, no, I don't know how many bytes it adds, but if it helps cut loading time when all you want to edit is Section 0, then I'm for it! - BillCJ (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Chinese Wikipedia has this on all articles, one example is the Chinese version of Kai Tak Airport. This is a great idea. 哦，是吗？(review O) 01:09, 13 December 2007 (GMT)

Sorry for the snipe, then, O. I would like to see it built in to all en.wiki pages, but this is a good first step. I think I'll try it out on the Concorde and Airbus A380 pages, and those are getting to be very long too. - BillCJ (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hey that lets you do section editing on the lead. That's nice. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Just don't put it at the top of the article before info boxes. If you do, it can cause formatting issues. I changed it in Airbus A380. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving it below the infobox defeats one major purpose for the edit tag, as the Infobox is one of the more-edited items on aircraft pages. I didn't have any problems on WinXP SP2 using IE6, so I wasn't aware some others might have problems with it. Perhaps it's just a small number of systems that are effected, so I'd like to heare from others if they've had problems with it. It might also be something that can be fixed or tweaked in the template formatting. - BillCJ (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It still works the same. The [edit] button is a slightly different place, but you can edit the everything above the first section heading. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747

This article is up for Featured Article. Check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 747, and maybe lend a hand. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See above section. 哦，是吗？(review O) 04:01, 17 December 2007 (GMT)

Manual of Style dispute

User:O has commented "Please reorder the last three sections so that they follow the global guidelines. It doesn't matter what the Aircraft WikiProject guidelines say; they're supposed to follow the MOS anyway"

I believe the comment is directed at this type of section [1] .

My response was that there should be discussion at the WikiProject level. If it is at the article level, this creates a difficult situation trying to address the criticism of the "related content (similar aircraft list)" section, which is common to WikiProject Aviation articles and the purported Manual of Style violation. Since this is more of a policy decision, it may be better discussed here or at some other larger forum, rather than having the same question come up in every article. Archtransit (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has cropped up a while back and the consesnus that was arrived at was that there were some concessions to the unique characteristics of the Aviation Project article. It made sense to put this section below rather than treating it as a "See also" section. Bye the bye, there really are no MOS standards etched in stone (at least I hope not?!) that are uniformally applied. Commonsense does rule as well. Bzuk (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC). (I'll take that last statement back if I am shown in error... {:¬∆)
MoS specifically states that there is no prescribed order for this material; only that if both "Notes" and "References" are included, these sections should appear next to each other. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Right, The Layout guide says on Standard appendices, that "It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the "Notes" and "References" sections should be next to each other." -Fnlayson (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed this dilemma with the assistant who helps the Director of featured article selection on following WikiProject guidelines and having a section that is not mentioned in the Manual of Style (possibly interpreted as a violation of MOS). The advice was to look at previous FA (they have that last section). The advice also was to see if we can meld the appendices so there is not a non-standard appendix.

To avoid a heated argument about FA's, I propose to do it on the F-4 Phantom II article (which is already an FA and where changing the appendix will not ruin the article to the point of removing it's FA star). Then you can comment on whether the meld is acceptable. If so, the meld could be a proposed new guideline for WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft. Archtransit (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to F-4. User:O has already messed up the 787 page as an example - there is no need to crap on the F-4 page too. If O wants to make changes, he needs to gain a consensus first. If you want to use the F-4 as an example, then set up a sandbox-type page, and experiment there. No need to mess up an FA-page, which in itself disproves O's point that WPAIR-style MOS pages can't make FA. - BillCJ (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Air force

Could someone from this project have a look at Air_force#The_two_World_Wars? It says that WWI aircraft could only do 50 mph, which I'm pretty sure is wrong. You may want to look at the rest of the article, too, as it's not one of the better ones I've seen on Wikipedia. Also it's not included in this project, yet, and you may want it to be. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not kidding, a lot of very questionable statements and no real reference sources tends to lead to a very rudimentary or formative article. Bzuk (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC).

New article: Option (aircraft purchasing)

If you perform a Google search you will see there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles that discuss airlines having 'options' to buy further aircraft, but the use of the word 'options' for aircraft purchases has not been clearly defined for the general public to understand. So I started a new article Option (aircraft purchasing) so other aviation articles can link to it when talking about aircraft purchasing options.
First, you may want to check this article and expand it (using references, please). Second, someone has called for it to be merged with another legal article about legal options. Please comment on the article talk page. I personally feel this article can be expanded to include reasons why the manufacturers include options, and why airlines take them up. A separate article allows for future expansion. Regards, Lester 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Good idea. Looks fine to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If we are locked-off on the title, then comes the task of Wikilinking all those many articles that discuss purchasing options, as shown in the Google search (above).Lester 02:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin help with User: 195.110.70.55

I believe this user is making unconstructive edits to aircraft pages and others, the IP has been warned numerous times at USER talk:195.110.70.55, the last warning said that they would be blocked if it continued. Many thanks Nimbus227 (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

The airline destination lists are really magnificent, I didn't know they existed and they are very useful, because on the separate country airport lists, it is not clear which airports are commercially served and which are not.

To help you finishing this great work, I posted a little comment on the talkpage of your Oceania section.

Friendly greetings, 84.195.51.99 (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (User:Belgian man)

Situation Awareness

The well written article on Situation Awareness is tagged as an aviation article. However I feel it belongs in the Psychology domain where it is obviously being well cared for. Question: shall I drop the WPAVIATION tag and add the Psychology tag? Carl M. Anglesea (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Can the article have both tags? This subject will be familiar to most pilots, in the UK the subject is part of the CAA 'Human Performance and Limitations' exam for a private flying license. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It also applies to fighter pilots during dogfights. There's no reason an article can't have multiple WP banners. Many military aircraft have one for Aviation and another for Militar History. Some even have 3 or 4. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I will tag it with both. My concern comes in when we start to assess/reassess the quality of the article, which should be done by the psychology folks. Carl M. Anglesea (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure. Some articles are assesed to different classes due to different standards. Example: Talk:Mil Mi-24. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mirage jets in Pakistan

From Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction: "(Pakistani Air Force aircraft include) the Mirage IIIOs, Mirage IIIODs and Mirage IIIEs. The Pakistani Air Force, currently, operates some 156 Mirage (III & V) aircraft." -- Can anyone straighten out those redlinks? (WP:REDLINK). Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Each variant does not get its own article usually. Those are all in the Dassault Mirage III article. I removed the Mirage redlinks. Piped links like: [[Dassault Mirage III|Mirage IIIOs]] could be done too but there's little point. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

{moved from my user talk page, to keep conversation together)
You removed redlinks on Mirage jets from Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - [2]
I personally don't know anything about the Mirage jets in question, which is why I asked others to take a look at the page. IMHO, just removing redlinks from an article is contrary to Wikipedia policy (WP:REDLINKS), unless we're sure that an article will never be created about the subject, or they can't be redirected to an existing article that covers the subject.
Could you please add a quick note on Talk:Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on why you think it's appropriate to remove these redlinks in this case?
Thanks -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Like I stated above those Mirage links would go to the same article Dassault Mirage III. Repeating that link for ODs, & Es variants would be overlinking, which is against policy. That's not worthy of mentioning on the article talk page, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

The biography of Moye W. Stephens appears to have been created by a well-meaning family friend, and is a bit of a mess. If the name rings any bells, it is because he piloted Richard Halliburton around the world in 1931 and helped found Northrop. I have done what I can but the article is poorly merged and virtually unsourced. This is my first posting within the aviation project pages. Does anyone here have the energy or expertise to help? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Also, I tried to add the category "aviation articles needing attention" but could n't manage to. Please do so if you can! Thanks BrainyBabe (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines Flight 380

This article has been nominated for AfD, there is no discussion on the talk page. Thought you would like to know. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Reasons are provided on the AfD page. My guess is that this is the third place this material appears it, if not more. I guess the question is, is this flight so notable as a flight that it needs an article? I would have to do some digging, but I would be hard pressed to say we need to cover this in multiple articles and will likely chime in with a delete. It is a news item for the most part, and a passing moment in time. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New task force

I've just finished moving/re-naming the Red Bull Air Race task force to the new Air sports task force, expanding its scope beyond the 21 Red Bull articles to include other Air sports articles. The only issue now is how far to expand the scope. Air sports lists the following activities, should they all be included in the scope:

Are there any topics missing? If gliding and ballooning include, should gliders and balloons be included as well?

If you have any interest in these articles please join the task-force. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Settling with power

Settling with power has no cites or references. Is this article accurate? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Boeing 737 now open

The peer review for Boeing 737 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for UH-1 Iroquois now open

The peer review for UH-1 Iroquois is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Helicopters

What is the wingspan of a helicopter?? is it suposed to be the rotor diameter?? Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . -- 8:41, 12 January 2008

Helicopter specifications normally use rotor diameter and not wingspan. So the answer to the question is zero unless they have wings fitted. MilborneOne (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Varig Flight 254

Varig Flight 254 needs the attention of an aviation enthusiast who can read Portuguese. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied material, inappropriately sourced, in aviation articles

I have been coming across a number of aviation articles that "incorporate text from" a given source. Just putting a generic disclaimer that material is copied from a source is not proper referencing. If text is copied, it needs to be put in quotes or set aside in a block quote. See WP:REF and WP:CITE#HOW. It is very painful, later on, to try to separate inappropriately sourced material from new writing by other wikipedia editors. The general disclaimer sullies all the writing in the article, suggesting any/all of it is merely copied material. For examples, see Arnold Air Force Base‎, Airspeed indicator, Edwards Air Force Base. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Copying directly from a source is not against the rules as long as it is public domain info (not copyrighted). Only copyrighted info needed to be quoted. Unless it's an important quote from someone, it should be rewritten, imo. Text should still be sourced. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong with project tag

I've noticed your project tag, when inside the project banner shell, causes a space in the listing. See Talk:Boeing for an example. It's happens every time it's in that template. Can someone fix it? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill fixed it for us. It had been annoying me too. ;) Woody (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming of articles about scheduled flights which have crashed

Talk:British_Airways_Flight_38#British_Airways_Flight_38

Synopsis: Most scheduled flights fly every day, some with the same number for years and years. It's not the prerogative of Wikipedia to suddenly decide that a flight number of a scheduled flight which has a minor crash suddenly means "crash". It doesn't. BA Flight 38, for example, is not a "plane that crashed", it's a scheduled flight to China which, on one particular day, was involved in a non fatal incident that's pretty insignificant. The correct title would be something like "British Airways Flight 38 incident". I appreciate that this may be how you record these on your aviation websites, but this is a general purpose encyclopedia.

Since this is a general issue which applies to all air crashes I am posting here for your comments. --kingboyk (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you bring it up here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. MilborneOne (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Ethiopian Airlines ever release a conclusive victim and survivor list of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961?

Did Ethiopian Airlines ever release a conclusive victim and survivor list of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961? I have never seen one?

If the list has country info for each passenger that would be good. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Air Canada Flight 190

Has been nominated for deletion, just a 'heads up'. The article looks reasonably well written to me and referenced, seems to hinge on notability. Nimbus227 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for EasyJet now open

The peer review for EasyJet is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy of Future of air transport in the United Kingdom now open

The peer review for Future of air transport in the United Kingdom is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Question of scope

Are rockets and missiles under the scope of this project? There is an inactive project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and I'm wondering if there is enough interest here to have that project re-done as a aviation project task force. To take a sampling of articles that link to {{Infobox Missile}}, V-2 rocket and AGM-65 Maverick are currently tagged under the Military history project (just like (B-17 Flying Fortress). Perhaps is should be a shared task force with them, just like the Military aviation task force. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • In general, rockets, missiles, space hardware are separate from aviation but they all are under aerospace. I think it's close enough to include them under the Aviation project provided there's not a more closely related project out there. Some of the rocket articles will fall under WP:SPACE too. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Ho and Air France Flight 358

User:Eddiehosa removed a paragraph discussing Eddie Ho's photography of the AF358 evacuation and the controversy surrounding taking photographs during an evacuation. See: Talk:Air_France_Flight_358#Eddie_Ho_and_the_picture_taking_controversy WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuel starvation?

The spec templates I've seen for fighters (& maybe other aircraft) don't include fuel capacity. I'd suggest they should... I also notice there's some confusion if you try & add type of propellor, which attaches (in the template) to the engine, rather than coming in on a separate line. Trekphiler (talk) 11:10 & 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated question replied to on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A new wiki specially for Planes...

Hello members of WikiProject Aviation,

I just wondered if anyone is interested in helping us with a new wiki, Plane Spotting World.

Please let me know if you;re interested!

Bluegoblin7 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • And there's a couple aircraft ones on wikia.com too. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea! Trekphiler (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fighter tactics

As an idea for a new page (copied from Talk:Battle of Britain):

Boelcke is credited in the article. It states that Lützow and Mölders developed their tactics based on his principles - this in its self is a loose assumption. Although the element of suprise (the need to see one's enemy first) is covered in the article Dicta Boelcke, Boelcke did not really cover the "how" this was to be achieved in relation to the style of formation. Lützow invented the Finger four as the "how", while Mölders addapted its manoeuvrability with the "tac-turn". Lützow came up with the fundamentals, which I think was the basis for flexibility. Dapi89 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at. (Unclear, again. I should change my username to Mysterio or something! =D) Knowing Boelcke codified the principles, I was wondering if Lützow et al. just reiterated, or added. Looks like he & Mölders made significant additions.
Can this be linked in somehow? I'm thinking of a link to something like a "fighter tactics" page (I don't see one) where the developments can be covered in more detail, & where others, like Chennault & Thach can be included. Comment? Trekphiler (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think this would make a good article. Perhaps we could branch out a little further to include the Western Campign as well, to include French doctrine. Dapi89 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking much broader, going WW1 right up to today. I'm just not sufficiently versed to name too many others, tho now, "Boots" Blesse (?) comes to mind. ("Learn to love the vertical.") Trekphiler (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


Consequences of the Battle of Britain

As an idea for a new page (copied from Talk:Battle of Britain, also copied to Military History Project):

Any thoughts on a link out on mistakes made by both sides & potential consequences? Chances of Ger victory, RAF attacking German bases (per Allan), that like. Trekphiler (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. This would be rather speculative, perhaps branching into Alternate history (of which I am a fan!). I mean, the consequences of various mistakes made were realised on the German side, as for the British it would seem quite obvious consequences of continued mistakes would have led to defeat - but it would be debatable if this would have enabled a successful Op. Sealion. You probably wouldn't be able to satisfy everyone, and it could turn into an problematic article with editors squabbling over the unprovable. My own "2 cent" would be that RAF attacks on German bases would have been a waste of resources - precious fighter pilots would have been lost that were needed for defence. I suppose even if they bailed out they would be lost - perhaps experienced leaders like Bader and Tuck would have been lost at a crucial time unlike the relatively "safe" period of 1941-42.

I tend to believe that even with total German air-superiority it would have been close run. Much has been said about the lack of anti-shipping experiences and training in the Luftwaffe, but it effectiveness over Scandinavia, and Dunkerque proved its potential. Ships did not have to be sunk to be removed from the battle. A relatively small operational area would have benefited the Germans interception rate against R.N forces.

Having said all that, I suppose I could conjure up some good references of prominent aviation historians view points on this subject. I think I can find some material on Overy, Macksey, Price and I think Bungay's opinions on this. This will avoid too much heated debate in such an article. Would this help? Dapi89 (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think it's possible to offer unbiased thoughts on the possible effects. I think of Allen in Who Won?, Macksey's Hitler's Mistakes, & Quarrie's Hitler: The Victory that Nearly Was (some points of which I disagree with...). (In a similar vein, but OT, John Hughes-Wilson's Military Intelligence Blunders and Cover-Ups looks at failures.) Further off are the Cowley What If? 1 & 2, & Deutsch & Showalter's What If. Maybe it's speculative, but without knowing what didn't happen, it's hard to appreciate what did. I'm not suggesting going as far as Macksey did in Invasion, let alone SS-GB (& certainly not that laughable garbage in Harris' Fatherland), but what Allen did: the Germans didn't do a systematic analysis of British targets, didn't hit a/c mfg, didn't concentrate on any 1 target, ignored commo (which would've paralyzed the Sector Control/GCI system as surely as KOing radar towers, & more EZly), that like.
On attacking German bases, I'm with Allen, again. He suggests (& I agree) a handful of dawn/dusk strikes, in the fashion of German intruder missions (or what the Brits called Rhubarbs, if I understand correctly) could have gone off with slim chance of German interception (even FC had trouble against intruders, & that was with CH/CHL, Observer Corps, & a well-prepared organization to deal with them) & the potential to do crushing damage. This also falls under the "what if" I'm talking about: what might the effects have been had FC used its Blenheims for this? Allen makes some suggestions; is there evidence for it? Not just "I say so", but actual evidence. I'm not sufficiently aware, but I'd guess there's a pretty extensive literature on the effects, in Britain, just judging from Allen & Macksey. Trekphiler (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

About aircraft accidents - How should the lead be phrased?

Comair Flight 191 and Gol Flight 1907 have their leads phrased differently.

  • Comair Flight 191, or Delta Air Lines Flight 5191, was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Lexington, Kentucky, to Atlanta, Georgia, operated on behalf of Delta Connection by Comair. On the morning of August 27, 2006, the Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet that was being used for the flight crashed while attempting to take off from Blue Grass Airport in Fayette County, Kentucky, four miles (6 kilometers) west of the central business district of the City of Lexington.
  • Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 was a Boeing 737-800 SFP, registration PR-GTD, on a scheduled passenger flight from Manaus, Brazil to Rio de Janeiro, which collided in mid-air with an Embraer Legacy business jet on September 29, 2006 over the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso. All 154 passengers and crew on board the Boeing 737 were killed as the aircraft crashed into an area of dense rainforest, while the slightly damaged Embraer Legacy landed safely with its seven occupants uninjured.

Which one is better? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the 2nd one better, since it says what type of plane sooner. But there's no reason for them to follow a set format as long as the wording is clear. Seems like the Delta flight number should be in parentheses or mentioned later. Comair was the operator. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the first one. I think the first sentence has the most important info (flight type, route, operator), and the fact is airlines number flights based on route and not aircraft type, so to say "Flight 1907 was a 737" is technically incorrect. Also, "Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907 was a..." is against WP:LEAD, which states "Avoid links in the bold title words." I take this to mean that if you want to link to Gol Transportes Aéreos, you're going to have to do it later in the intro, like the first example. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Trevor for the same reason that Flight 191 was "a scheduled US domestic passenger flight" , and that Flight 1907 was not "a Boeing 737". --Rlandmann (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It actually says "Flight 1907 was a Boeing 737-800 SFP ... on a scheduled passenger flight from Manaus ...". Not the best wording to make that clear though... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fnlayson, even though it specifies the route, if you pare the sentences to the basics it still says "Flight 1907 is a 737" when it should be "Flight 1907 is a route" - I decided that I prefer the style used by the Comair 191 intro. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I already partially agreed with that. Well whatever. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As I mentioned to Whisper on the Gol 1907 talk page, we need to follow our sources. And in aviation safety, the sources normally use the air traffic control terminology, where "Flight X" stands for an aircraft, not a route or a schedule. Thus, aviation accident reports of scheduled airlines typically refer to "AAA Flight X", where AAA is the airline. Other details such as type, route and date/time are then added. Crum375 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Should it not be Foo Flight 123 operated by Boeing 737 registration N12345 of Foo Airlines! Then you can link to the airline at the end and not in the bolded lead. MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I like KISS wherever I can, and I think repeating Foo right in the first sentence is awkward. I see no problem at all in wikilinking from the bolded lead. We generally like to wikilink the first instance of any linkable term, and this should be no exception. So "Foo Flight 123, a Boeing 737-800SFP, registration N12345, operating from Here to There..." would be fine. Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The introduction should be the basic facts that are covered in the article. Nitty gritty details should not be in the lead. So the registration number is not needed in the lead. I have mixed feelings about the specific model of the aircraft in the lead since that might be too much detail. I wonder if it makes sense to have an infobox with all of the details. This could be a standard presentation and get the data at the top of the article in a way that it is available for those that want it and easy for everyone else to ignore. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In general we try to follow the sources' style. There are many aviation safety publications that describe accidents, including the NTSB, ASN and many magazines, with a similar format. The lead typically describes the flight, the aircraft, the route, location and time, and the highlights of the accident and casualties, and any unusual characteristics. The aircraft type, for example, is critical to anyone interested in aviation safety, since that is almost like the subject's name in a BLP article. The crash infobox adds more details, and organizes them in a standardized fashion. Crum375 (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the second. It seems to get to the point sooner, where the first can't seem to decide what it's trying to say. Trekphiler (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest this should really be discussed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force who even have an infobox for all the details not wanted in the lead! MilborneOne (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruptured Duck

The article about Ruptured Duck (aircraft) has disappeared, although its contents have been merged with an article on Ted W. Lawson. Is this appropriate? Snowman (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snowmanradio, see Ted Lawson's talk page on the discussion to merge. thanks, --Trashbag (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I read the discussions on one or two related pages but it certainly didn't appear to be a very comprehensive "string" with only two-three editors taking part. If the provision is already in place to identify and elaborate on individual aircraft exists, it would appear that "Ruptured Duck" has enough historical significance to warrant an article on its own. I would invite more responses or commentary before undertaking a new article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
I think that aircraft details and history are a separate topic needing its own page as a notable individual aircraft? Snowman (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I was one of the editors who had commented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 73 and suggested that it should be merged into Lawson. The article only indicated that Lawson had any notability, mainly because he had written a book. Nothing suggested the the aircraft was any more notable than any of the other 15 on the raid.MilborneOne (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Devil's advocate checking in: I wonder whether Lawson's notoriety as well as the showcasing of his aircraft in the subsequent movie made from his book, Thirty Seconds over Tokyo would be sufficient to be the reason for chronicling the story of the aircraft. I note that it is often the representative aircraft of the Doolittle Raid, being the subject of a recent Franklin Mint miniature. When I keyed in "Ruptured Duck B-25" as a google search, I came across nearly 1000 entries on the Internet. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
I can understand the point about notability, but the original article did not give any clues to notability and as not being from North America I had never heard of the aircraft or Lawson! MilborneOne (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you changed your mind? Snowman (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Bzuk that the aircraft would be notable because of the film and his book not particularly for anything it did in the raid! It looks like it could survive as a stand alone article with the proper citation and balance of content, the early article concentrated on Lawson and the crew not the aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
See:User:Bzuk/Sandbox/Ruptured Duck. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC).
Good work Bzuk looks a lot better - one point the intro starts of with Lawson and that he flew the duck, suggest it should start of with The Duck was a B-25 flown and commanded by .. to change the emphasis to the aircraft not Lawson in the intro. MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur with MilborneOne - both that this is now an article about the aircraft, but that the lead should now reflect this. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would have been less confusing if discussion on the merge was held on the related talk pages of the articles, rather than at the military history project. See WP:Merge#Proposing a merger. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Still really a "work-in-progess" but lead has now been adjusted on the Sandbox project article on "The Ruptured Duck." Check it out now. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC).
(Edit conflict - commenting on Snowman) Sometimes it's just easier to discuss issues where they are brought up, beit the project or article talk pages. This discussion is a case in point too. I do think care needs to be taken that, when an actual decision is about to be made at the project level, proper notice is given to the relevant pages. Care should also be taken to inform related projects of importnt discussions. MILHIST certainly has "jurisdiction" of this subject, but so does WPAVIATION/WPAIR. THere is a Militray aviation Task Force that is trying to be a forum for discussing overlapping issues, but it is still fairly recent, and most people just go to the parent project they work with the most. BTW, if there's not a note on the Lawson page now regarding undoing the aircraft portion of the merger, one should be placed there soon directing people here, and it would be good to inform MILHIST if that hasn't been done already. - BillCJ (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Ted Lawson" page is not affected a lot by this. The introduction of the original "Ruptured Duck" article is quite good and includes the serial number; see old version of page. I think it is time to bring in the new "Ruptured Duck" now. When the new page is made I expect it will have all the relevant WP:Project tags on the talk page, and relevant projects will be notified by their members if they think this is indicated. The new page can be further edited there if needed and discussions can be continue on the new talk page. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Lead looks fine to me now... but just a point of clarification: was the aircraft Ruptured Duck or The Ruptured Duck? The photo of the noseart suggests the former; the lead of the article the latter. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
After the name of the aircraft has been clarified, are there any technical difficulties with bringing the new page in? If the new page has the same name, it can not be moved in over the original page, unless the old page is deleted first. Perhaps it can be done with a cut and paste of the full page, by following the wiki procedures. If the new name is different and that page has not been used, it is a simple move procedure. Snowman (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The origianl page history is still at Ruptured Duck (aircraft), so that's the place to start, since this is a restoration. It's my understanding that copy/paste from a sandbox to the existing mainspace article is perfectly fine, though I could be wrong.
Ruptured duck is a DAB page, and Ruptured Duck redirects to it. There are only two links there at this time. Would it make better sense to get rid of the DAB page? We could move Ruptured Duck (aircraft) to Ruptured Duck, and have a DAB link att he top of the page go to Honorable Service Lapel Pin. - BillCJ (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffaloed

Just came from the Brewster F2A page, found it titled "Buffalo". Since the a/c was officially desingated F2A, shouldn't it be renamed/moved? (BTW, I tried a page move; no go...) Trekphiler (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Talk:Brewster Buffalo and although the naming conventions would indicate is should be F2A Buffalo due to the mainly foreign useage a concensus has not been reached to move it!. I would suggest that you bring it up on that talk page again. If you get not joy then I would suggest bringing it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There are a few other similar examples around the place where a US-built aircraft saw its most significant use outside US service, where our normal naming conventions for US military aircraft have been suspended. The Martin Maryland springs to mind. These are fine where they are. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the location of Martin Maryland, as it was not used in the US beyond intitial testing. I was the last person to bring up moving the Brewster Buffalo to F2A Buffalo. The F2A did see US service, though primarily as target practice for up-and-coming Japanese aces. - BillCJ (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If the issue was brought up for a consensus decision again, there may be a number of editors who would vote for its status as the F2A Buffalo. Trekphiler, perhaps you can restart the process and see where it would go. Bzuk (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC).

<--Given what Rlandmann (rightly) says about the Martin 167, I'm happy to leave it. My feeling is, if it actually entered service, the original service should get priority, but in this case, I'm not strong for/against. FYI, I'm going to copy this discussion so far to the talk page there. (No need, I see... 00:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)) Trekphiler (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (BTW, if anybody's interested, when I copied the page here, it was as F2A. So there. =D)

Machstream?

Looking at quiet spike, I had a thought. Didn't Sukhoi plan a supersonic bizjet? With Gulfstream, IIRC. Anybody who knows more, can you include on all three pages? Trekphiler (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a Sukhoi-Gulfstream supersonic business jet (SSBJ) joint venture that was first revealed at the 1989 Paris Air Show. The proposed design had a project designation of S-21. It never really got off the ground (if you'll excuse the pun), and Sukhoi tried teaming with Boeing, but that went nowhere either. Back about 2000 there were reports that Sukhoi was still working on a SSBJ, but I've not heard much since. Perhaps someone who follows the commercial industry would know more. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
We do have the Sukhoi-Gulfstream S-21 page, but there are no references on it at all. Might be good to add some if anyone has reliable ones. - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd heard Sukhoi was working on it, but not that it was the same project. I'm going to add the S-21 link to Quiet Spike, tho; maybe somebody'll come across it with new info for both. Trekphiler (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

See this, particularly the subsection "Discussion". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Archtransit's unopposed RfA was indeed a surprise to me. I have always double-checked his edits, as his edits were often not quite "encyclopedic". I'm not sure I can define my suspisions further, but the term "gut instinct", also used a number of time on the ANI page dicussing him, is fitting. I think this whole matter exposes a large hole in the RFA process, in that the projects in which users spend a lot of their time editing are not notified when these users are being considered for admin status. That's too bad, because it might have saved ARBCOM a lot of embarassment in this case. - BillCJ (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm mostly hoping ya'll will give Boeing 747 a checkup (make sure sources are accurately represented, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Those was checked by the many editors and reviewers during the FA review. But all his refs are web based and can be readily checked. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Very few reviewers actually check sources, so I'm not sure a spot check wouldn't be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Another thing, I hope a lot of you will add Boeing 747 to your watchlists, since someone has to keep it in shape now and watch for vandalism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure. But that doesn't apply to the editors working on it such as me... -Fnlayson (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I watched progress on the 747 FA and I saw nothing that worried me, in all the recent conversations on this chap it has been noted that his aircraft article edits were accurate and in good faith. During that process Archtransit and Fnlayson where supplying alternating edits, I regard both of these editors as being very thorough as I do the other regular editors in this project. I do not believe that 'jerrymandering' got the 747 article to FA status. Whatever else he may have got up to does not affect us here and I see no point in prolonging this matter as he has been indefinately blocked in any case. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, just need to make sure you all have had a good look. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a fair concern. I think the references got spot checked while we were adding them back in Nov and Dec. I'll check a couple closer to verify sometime. Maybe I can replace a web reference with a book one while I'm at it. ... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft parts industry

Good day all, has anyone taken a look at the Aircraft parts industry article. Sadly, Aircraft part redirects to this same article. This whole thing reads like a bad advertisement. Personally I think an article defining what an aircraft part is should be seperate from the aircraft parts industry article. Thoughts? Any help with the clean up would be appreciated. --Trashbag (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • What all do you think should be in an Aircraft part article? Doesn't seem like there'd be much, unless example parts were listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I just rolled it back to a far less advertisement-like version from mid 07. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I saw the pre-revert version, Lordy! The lead does not match the title. A useful article could be made out of this, the issue of bogus parts does not seem to be mentioned for instance. There is a daft section that says Boeing and Airbus control the standard of spare parts, it would be the FAA and EASA that control any standards. This looks like a copyvio to me. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • To answer "what do I think should be in an Aircraft part article?" First, a definition by the FAA (14 CFR Part 21) & other regulatory agencies as to what an aircraft part is, what a life limited part is, what a flight critical part is, What a Material Review Board is & other aspects of manufacturing a part, under the FAA what is an Owner Produced Part, the issue of suspected un-approved parts, trust me this subject could be huge. I'll start hacking away but as always any help would be greatly appreciated. --Trashbag (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You are right, I had to delete all the external links. Please add any regulatory links like the FAA etc. I have experience in this field as a Licensed Aircraft Engineer. Nimbus227 (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I really quickly threw up an outline on the Aircraft part article. I'll start filling in the meat tomorrow as I have a beautiful woman in my lap right now (don't get any ideas as it's my adorable three month old daughter ;-) ). Fill free to add any more topics to the outline. --Trashbag (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Prince Bernhard

This might be useful: [3] I knew about the Lockheed F-104 bribe but not this one. Netherlands operated F-5s. Nimbus227 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Task force question

Hello, I'm new to this project and I'd like to know whether I can create a taskforce on Australian aviation topics. Can I proceed with this or are there any objections? Littleteddy (roar!) 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

3 days have elapsed and there have been no objections. I will go ahead with the taskforce creation. If there are any strong objections, I will gladly 'destruct' the taskforce. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I doubt if a task force of one will work too well. You should wait to get support of others that will help. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought the same and I haven't developed it yet. If nobody replies at all I'll just db-author all of the pages. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If this goes ahead, or if anyone decides to create any taskforce, I'd suggest taking a look at these instructions for creating a standard taskforce. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated Liberator I

Hello,

I found the article Consolidated Liberator I on the notability backlog, it has been around with a notability tag for almost a year. From the talk page it seems that a merger into B-24 Liberator has been discussed, but consensus has not been reached (see Talk:B-24 Liberator).

To me, the Consolidated Liberator I article seems a bit strange, overly detailed, and might well be a merger candidate. But I'm not a subject matter expert. Perhaps it would be good if some people from this project could look into the matter. If you have comments, they might best be placed on Talk:Consolidated Liberator I. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Kuching International Airport Flights

Hi, this article was recently created and I just happened to see it. I have checked on the Heathrow Airport article and that airport does not appear to have a similar page to the one above. It was originally named KCH FLIGHT INFO with no exlanation in the article of what KCH meant. I moved to the above title. The content (what little there is of it) within the article seems as if it could be covered on the airports article. So I was just wondering if it is the norm for these types of articles for airports, and if not should the article be perhaps redirected to Kuching International Airport with any relevant content moved? I am loathe to simply put it forward for AfD because the article creator seems to have done a fair bit of work on it, however I am just unsure as to whether it is notable enough for an article and would appreciate someone fromt this projects input. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 05:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


WPAVIATION: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 33 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aviation law and industry groups in a sorry state

There's a core subject matter which is in a real sorry state at the moment, specifically Aviation law and relevant industry groups (IATA). I've started by updating Template:Commercial air travel to improve cross-referencing to these articles as well as tagging them to relevant projects, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Anyone with some spare time and knowledge of these topic areas is strongly encouraged to help out wherever they can. Thanks, Thewinchester (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fighter categories

The fighter categories seem to be in need of work. Category:World War II fighter aircraft has subcategories for German, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Soviet and Romanian WWII fighters, but for instance no British or US WWII fighters. That means no Hurricane, no Spitfire, no P51 Mustang.

There are Category:Fighter_aircraft_1930-1939 and Category:Fighter aircraft 1940-1949 whose subcategories should contain most of the relevant aeroplanes, but the World War II category navigation for the American, British, Australian, French, etc, fighter aircraft is non-existent.

I suppose I could jump in and make appropriate categories but perhaps it would be better to discuss first. Thoughts? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft which is the sub-project involved in aircraft categories. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

METAR

METAR is being moved around because of a town in Israel called Meitar. 70.51.9.57 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Aviation navigation box

{{airlistbox}} is a nav box used in more articles then those listed in the box. While Wikipedia:Navigational templates is only an essay, it states 'A navigational template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles for the purposes of facilitating navigation between those articles.' Since the nav box in question is clearly not used for that purpose in most applications, I think we should limit it's use. Clearly categories are widely used and support finding more related information then this nav box. In the case of say airlines, it does not aid in navigation within the airline articles. The same can be said for aircraft and airports. Many of these articles already have other nav boxes that do a much better job. We really should limit the use of this nav box to those items included in the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - I find that it's incredibly useful being able to jump straight from any aircraft to the List of aircraft, the List of aircraft manufacturers, the List of aircraft engines, and the List of aircraft engine manufacturers. I think it's great having this "mini portal" in each and every aircraft article. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I was sweating there for a bit as I've added it to a lot of articles and was under the impression that it could be used in all aviation articles. I also find it very useful when editing. Nimbus (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes - it's widespread. It predates WP:Aviation - it was developed by WP:Aircraft in early 2004 and since then has been included in practically every aviation-related article. WP:Aircraft specifically advises including this navbox in articles within its scope; I'm not aware of any similar advice in other aviation-related WikiProjects. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I also like it & find it useful. It's a great way to encapsulate the "world" a given aircraft lives in. Trekphiler (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So this is useful for the aircraft project. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)