Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Accident investigation agencies and ad hoc

I notice that with some countries, even though the ministries of transport and/or aviation authorities have aviation accident reports posted on their websites, it is possible that some reports are actually written by ad hoc committees.

If this is the case, then does any government agency from that country count as the "investigating authority"? Or does it just mean that the country has no authorities that actually investigate aviation accidents? I'm mainly thinking this will impact articles related to developing countries in Africa and Asia.

Also would it be alright if I post links to investigation reports from certain countries, so you guys can judge if the report is written ad hoc or if a specific aviation accident investigation agency/permanent committee wrote it?

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's likely that many countries will have an authority which is formally responsible for investigation, but if there aren't many accidents (ie. a small country) then there's not much point having a standing team of specialist investigators, and if state capabilities don't stretch as far as the state's nominal reach (ie. a developing country) then it would be quite reasonable to delegate investigation to somebody else. As long as the investigation still happens and the reports are still written, that's the main thing... feel free to post some examples so we can haggle over specific details!
In my (very different) field it's quite normal for infrequent and highly specialist investigations to be farmed out to third parties. An organisation will usually have an officer who has some kind of formal responsibility for the investigation, but they would really commission it or coordinate it rather than being responsible for writing every word. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the
I do recall for the UTA Flight 141, the national commission of enquiry set up by the government of Benin asked the French BEA to do the entire technical investigation full stop. I know this because the BEA itself wrote the original accident report in French
For others, here are the statuses that I ask about.
Bahrain: Gulf Air Flight 072 - The Accident Investigation Board was appointed on 24 August 2000 - http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2000/a40-ek000823a/htm/pdfs/appendixa.pdf - The accident occurred on 23 August 2000
Cameroon: Kenya Airways Flight 507 - http://www.ccaa.aero/images/blogs/d033e22ae348aeb5660fc2140aec35850c4da99744f683a84163b3523afe57c2e008bc8c/rapport%20kenya.pdf - "By Decision No. 098/PM of 8th May 2007, itself modified by Decision No. 099/PM of 09th May 2007, the Republic of Cameroon created a technical commission of inquiry to establish the causes, and make the necessary safety recommendations concerning the accident of the B737-800 that occurred in Douala on the 5th of May 2007."
Ivory Coast: Kenya Airways Flight 431 - http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2000/5y-n000130a/pdf/5y-n000130a.pdf - "In accordance with Annex 13 of Article 26 of the Chicago Convention, the Ivory Coast, the State of Occurrence, launched an investigation. While a Commission of Inquiry and a Technical Committee were established, legal steps were taken by the Ivory Coast civil aviation authorities as soon as the accident occurred on 30 January 2000" (Pg 11) - And Appendix 2 lists the composition of the commission (pg 100)
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Boeing 737 operators

A new IP editor is removing images from the tables in List of Boeing 737 operators despite no agreement to remove them and has reverted attempts to revert his/her changes. Attention from interested parties welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen that article before, but it does seem to me that the images are more decorative than informative, and I would have no objection to removing some (bearing in mind we can't expect reasonable-quality free images for all operators). But on a related point, would it be practical to populate the tables with numbers rather than with asterisks? Or would it be too difficult to keep up to date? bobrayner (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I am sure User:Russavia may be along soon to comment on the images but through his work on commons images for a lot of the operators may be available. The page was still being developed with the images to see what it looked like and if it was suitable for other similar pages. I dont think we want to go into numbers they are loads of self-published airline enthusiast sites that spend years collating information on numbers and identies, all of which would not really be encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
You say shit, and I bob up. Here I am. User:Russavia/737 is something I have been working on for some time now. Photos of almost every 737 operator are available, and I am continually sourcing more. As to numbers, they are an absolute pain in the arse to do -- because airlines, especially with long history of 737 operations, would see aircraft coming and going on a regular basis -- taking aircraft on lease for 12 months and returning them, and seeing them come back again after that. A green asterisk (current operator) with numbers operated is doable - a red asterisk for previous operators would be better. Anyway, the list in my userspace is still prob 2 years off being in mainspace -- unless I post it, and let other editors do the sourcing for all of the information there. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 20:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Air France

An edit war seems to have broken out at Air France. Being a good admin, I've fully protected the article at the WP:WRONGVERSION for three days. Input from members of this WP is sought at talk:Air France. I've not blocked the parties in this dispute because I want them to discuss the issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rear pressure bulkhead

The article is at aft pressure bulkhead but I have also seen "Rear pressure bulkhead" - Is the latter term correct too, or as common? WhisperToMe (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The latter gets fewer ghits, but it's still used here and there, including in reliable sources such as flightglobal. Rear pressure bulkhead is currently a redirect to Aft pressure bulkhead, and I think that's the best way to do it... bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay. The reason I asked is because the English version of a JAL123 image labels the part as a "rear pressure bulkhead" - It was a translation from a Polish file, and a Polish user suggested "rear pressure bulkhead" File:Rear pressure bulkhead B747.svg - Since it's an accurate term, it's fine WhisperToMe (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Question - why not a general pressure bulkhead (aircraft) article that can also accomodate coverage of the forward pressure bulkhead. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Rear pressure bulkhead is the phrase I'm familiar with. Mostly due to failures causing accidents. Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Aviation will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in aviation history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Guidance, navigation and control

Guidance, navigation and control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was prodded. As there are conferences on this topic for UAVs, it seems like this topic is notable? If so, it needs sourcing. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

An-28 Crash

It looks as though we've finally had the first major airliner accident of 2012. An Antonov An28 has crashed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Given the recent rash of AfD nominations, let's see if there is consensus that the 2012 TRACEP-Congo Aviation Antonov An-28 crash should be created.

The flight was a domestic cargo flight, and three of the five crew were killed. The aircraft was destroyed. The aircraft had been flying without a CoA since 1993! Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Coverage
Probably only worth a mention in the Tracep-Congo Aviation article as it is not really notable for cargo airlines to crash in that part of the world. The An-28 is not exactly a large aircraft either. MilborneOne (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
With a MTOW of 6,100kg, it's not exactly a light aircraft either. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
True but being about the same size as a Twin Otter it would have needed to have hit something or killed something important to be notable for a stand alone in my opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Aded to the An-28 article. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If you're looking for major accidents in need of an article, Here's one of them[1], Here's the 2nd[2], and here's the third[3]. All with over 100 fatalities and much more worthy than that An-28 crash. New accident articles aren't easy to do, so I have procrastinated on the above three but just did Linea Aeropostal Flight 253 today and since last Christmas I also created Laoag_International_Airlines_Flight_585, Air_France_Flight_212_(1969), Northwest_Airlink_Flight_2268, and British_European_Airways_Flight_706.- William 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not currently looking to write any historic aircrash articles as I'm currently engaged on a major shipwreck project. Flight / Flight International magazines from 1909 - 2005 are available online for those researching aircrashes. Mjroots (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

New article on Continental and United merger

I found:

It talks about the behind the scenes of the merger extensively WhisperToMe (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

New geolocationing system

Over at Wikiproject:Highways we've discovered a nifty way of displaying data onto mapping services that I believe will be a large benefit to your projects. By using google earth, qgis, or similar software, you can draw lines onto the globe. These can be saved as a kml file, and the contents of that kml file can be used to, in place of or alongside the current {{coord}} system, display a shape or line on the Earth. I believe this group can benefit greatly from this as it can be used to draw flight paths.

We're still trying to work out the finer details on how to proceed with this new discovery, so if anybody is interested check out the talk page of WikiProject Highways. Cheers, - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The above, should it ever become viable, should not be used "in place of… the current {{coord}} system", since it offers none of the functionality of that template, for identifying, locating, and producing KML (etc) of points of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(He made the coord template, so he feels like he is losing a child right now) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you read WP:NPA? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Elsewhere, you just said "coord is far more appropriate for point-based topics". QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I never supported using KML for point-based topics; but its far more versatile for linear topics. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
"I never supported using KML for point-based topics" Really? The rest of the world disagrees.
"its [sic] far more versatile for linear topics". Than what? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Destination list

I see there was previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines)#Destination list.

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Airline/Airport Table Voting. -- Trevj (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The two discussions are not related. MilborneOne (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

AFD notice

The article 2009 Kabul International Airport attack has been nominated for deletion. - Jorgath (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Largest contract in commercial aviation history

There is a discussion here on whether to feature the Lion Air–Boeing contract (source) on the Main Page's In the news section. Comments from this project's members, as well as an appropriate update to the article(s), would be welcome. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Aircraft is more specific to this and busier. Maybe post at WT:Air as well.. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I saw the notice at the top of this page, but wasn't sure whether this would have been of interest to WikiProject Aircraft, WikiProject Airlines, both, or neither. I've posted a slightly modified version of the notice – taking into account the fact that the article now contains an update – at WT:AIR. Cheers! -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

Was wondering if there is anyone with a scanner willing to go the College Park branch of NARA and help out with this request (originally here). I can narrow the list down if someone is willing to help out here. Thanks so much in advance, – Connormah (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

New "aviation encyclopedia"

The UAE is having an aviation library being built. I thought it might be interesting:

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

file:Helios 522.PNG

File:Helios 522.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion... seems like we might use it at Helios 522 if we can fix the licensing problem? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo requests in Atlanta and Orlando areas

Hey guys! I'm not sure when AirTran stuff will change to SWA... But people need to try to take photos of AirTran things while they still have AirTran colors: http://www.airtranairways.com/contact/contact_other_locations.aspx (Archive, in Spanish, Archive of Spanish)

Greater Orlando stuff:

  • Orlando:
    • HQ: 9955 AirTran Blvd Orlando, FL 32827
    • Hangar: 4170 Wiley Drive Suite 104 Orlando, FL 32824

Greater Atlanta stuff:

  • College Park:
    • Hangar: 1340 N Outer Loop Rd Atlanta, GA 30337
    • 1800 Phoenix Blvd Atlanta, GA 30349
      • Customer Relations: Suite 104
      • IT: Suite 100
    • Flight Operations Center: 5155 Clipper Drive Atlanta, GA 30349
    • Marketing and sales: 5230 Clipper Drive Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30349 - Recruiting, Ground Operations Training Center, and Inflight Training Center are in same building
  • Forest Park
    • Warehouse: 2000 Southpoint Drive Suite 100 Forest Park, GA 30253

If/when you do take the photos, please submit descriptions in English and Spanish - please use the Spanish link to assist yourself with the Spanish descriptions, especially if you are not fluent WhisperToMe (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox aviation

An editor here has started a discussion on reducing the use of this info box. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does there have to be separate aviation and airliner incident categories

I have noticed these with several of the United States. Florida, New York, and New Jersey for instance. It is really necessary to break off the miniscule amount of incidents involving non-airline aircraft from those that are?...William 13:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We have different notability criteria for articles in these two categories, excluding the vast majority of accidents and incidents on non-airline aircraft. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Why does there have to be separate aviation and airliner incident notability criteria? ;-) bobrayner (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
That is all explained at WP:AIRCRASH. In short it is because light aircraft accidents are very numerous and mostly not any more notable than car accidents are. In the case of some types of light aircraft, like the Cessna 172, there have literally been thousands of crashes of that type. That guide outlines the few occasions when they should be included. - Ahunt (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Those light aircraft accidents mostly don't have articles, which they shouldn't. I'm addressing the splitting of state categories for air crashes into ones for airliners and ones for planes like the Cessna. Most states don't even have a category. There is a one big collection for the United States. Maybe categories should be made by each state, and I'm willing to undertake it. I just don't think splitting them off into aviation and airliner subcategories is necessary....William 16:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It's the way the category tree is structured. "Aviation accidents and incidents" is the main category. Airliner incidents come below that, but if you just had "Airliner accidents and incidents in Foo" directly below "Aviation accidents and incidents", then that would leave the non-airliner incidents either miscategorised in the airliner-incidents subcats, or dumped into the parent cat which would have them (a) ambiguously categorised and (b) make the parent cat too big. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
For instance, how would one sub-categorize an accident between a military freight aircraft and a general aviation aircraft? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Precisely! - The Bushranger One ping only 23:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone have these magazines?

Flypast, issue dated December 2008 or Classic Wings No.4? Both will prove useful in expanding the Tatra T.101 proto-article. Please feel free to edit! Mjroots (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sukhoi Superjet 100

Can someone help me please with an editor removing country flags on the orders. I think thats incorrect. See A380 A350 B787 Comac ARJ21 Comac 919 MS-21 or most other aircraft orders. The flags add important info in a compressed form. Otherwise one have to include the country. Tagremover (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Since this is about an aircraft, WT:Aircraft is more appropriate page. And that page is much busier. I don't think the flags for the airlines add much, but I wouldn't bother removing from a table like that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Its just my 2 cents. If everybody thinks it should be removed, than thats it. Tagremover (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Austrian civil aircraft

Category:Austrian civil aircraft has a missing image. It is tied up with the template used on that page. BTW, I thought that using categories to add templates was discouraged. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The category is only used on other categories, but that said the very large flag is fluff and not really needed, I have been bold and removed it. MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi_Superjet_100#Vote_on_flag_removal

This (inofficial) voting about flags and country info in orders might concern even this article. Tagremover (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinions on new article sought

G'day all, I've just come across Rescue of Dustoff 65. I personally cannot see where is the notability, any further thought from anyone? YSSYguy (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed it and while some of the refs are WP:SPS, some are legitimate third party refs so it probably makes WP:N. It was an intentional shoot-down, so WP:AIRCRASH does not apply. The article needs a severe clean-up, though. - Ahunt (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed; it's more a battle than a simple crash. Agree it passes notability and also agree it needs some mopping! - The Bushranger One ping only 12:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Some clean up has now been done and it is looking a bit better. Thanks for pointing this article out! - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you get when you cross industrial diamonds, a Douglas DC-8, A International relations Professor, and some plutonium?*

You get Swissair Flight 316 where the pilots were convicted of manslaughter. 14 people died in the 1979 crash. For a not too well known disaster of almost 35 years ago, it has lots written about it which I could find through Google News search.

I just created that accident article. Over the last five days I created 4 others

While I tried my best to write these articles(I just don't do AFD) I know all of them may be in need of some mild proofreading. Don't worry, my spelling is better than that of banned editor Ryan Kirkpatrick. So eel free to look them over and neaten up the articles if needed.

Might help if you add any new articles you create to WP:AIRNEW which might attract some others to help tidy up and stuff. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You should link them from the List of aircraft by tail number once created. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Article name clash

Please see Talk:National Airways#Move to National Airways Corporation and help resolve the article name problem. Roger (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

New 'article' proposed for deletion

G'day all, I have just PRODded Comparison of United States fighter aircraft. YSSYguy (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As well you should! Aside from being unfocused it is all unrefernced WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RAF Bickmarsh

Hello

Can someone please delete RAF Bickmarsh as it has been proposed for deletion for over a week now

Thank You

Gavbadger (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Gavbadger (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A couple of observations on AFDs

  • If the incident just happened, it is very difficult for a delete to occur. WP:RECENTISM is very hard to overcome. Just look at those who support keeping 2012 Virginia Beach F/A-18 crash. It's notable because its a military incident where nobody got killed? Arguments like that is why I will revisit a incident like LOT Polish Airlines Flight 16 about 6 months from now.
  • It also seems very hard to get any incidents deleted if they either took place down under and involved flights to NZ or AUS. Take for instance Emirates Flight 407 and 2000 Australia Beechcraft King Air crash. The sparse aviation disaster history those countries have seems to cause any accident chronicled here to be worth saving. Why else does 2000 survive when 2009 Montana Pilatus PC-12 crash with 14 dead didn't. For this reason I'm not going to AFD New Zealand Fletcher FU24 and an accident involving a cargo plane(I forget what the name of the accident is) because I feel it will be a waste of time.
  • I have a little trip wire set. The Aviation accidents and incidents in 2012 template is on my watch list so if minor incidents do get added to it, I can put them up for AFD. Just the other day somebody wrote a hoax articleTAM Airlines Flight 8070 and then tried putting it on the template but failed but in the process caused it to pop up on my watchlist. I AFD the article right away.
  • Today I stumbled upon a incident article Asian Spirit Flight 321 that had been previously deleted. If I hadn't been checking the category page for the aircraft involved, I wouldn't have found it. The article's creator avoided the templates and the List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft which I also have on watchlist and the previously deleted article survived for two years. Only by AFDing it would a editor learn about the previous AFDs. The page history didn't show anything. So Wikipedia deletion process has a hole in it. Cecelia Cichan, which has been AFDs twice, also gets recreated from time to time. It's a redirect now but I have it on watchlist.
  • I'm not just doing AFDs. About two weeks ago I started writing some new crash articles.(About 7 or 8 in total) There are still at least three commercial aviation disasters with over 100 dead without articles. The problem I'm having is the info on those crashes is pretty light. I'll just have to what I can with the limited resources available....William 21:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally I am glad you are watching all those! - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Honeywell Aerospace

I've disclosed my COI on the Honeywell Aerospace article and posted a {{request edit}} to move a substantial body of work into article space. I thought I'd solicit here for anyone who has time to review my request, move it into article space and/or provide feedback based on my request on the Talk page. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 15:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Pol430 reviewed and fulfilled my request with a detailed edit summary. I've also added a 'connected contributors' tag on the Talk page, provided a link to the diff on the Talk page, and updated the request edit. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A possible new category

It's an idea I have. There are at least four(There might be more but I'd have to research it), Swissair Flight 316, Korean Air Flight 803, Japan Airlines Flight 350, and All Nippon Airways Flight 58 where members of the flight crew were brought up on criminal charges. The category could also be for cases where ground personnel were put on trial. In that case the article list would run to a dozen at least. What are anyone's thoughts for creating a category for instances like this and what would it be named?...William 22:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be particularly useful - the articles are primarily about accidents with sometimes a single uncited sentence about legal stuff (which varies from country to country). How about a "List of ..." article instead? Should it only be where crew were convicted? It might fit in Category:Aviation law. DexDor (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
A Category:aviation crime category would be useful, since there is a wikiproject on crime WP:CRIMEBIO and a wikiproject on law WP:LAW, though such a category would also include non-flights; there's an entire heirarchy Category:Crimes by year -- 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Saristu

G'day all, I've just tagged new article Saristu for copyvios. Does anyone want to try to rescue it (I have to get ready to go out to dinner)? YSSYguy (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

GO

GO does not seem to be a common aviation, aerospace or aeronautical abbreviations (at least it is not included in the List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical abbreviations). It is however well documented in the transcripts of the Apollo 11 mission, with the meaning of "(you are) cleared, permission granted, go ahead":

  • "Apollo 11, this is Houston. You are GO for staging."
  • "11, Houston. Thrust is GO, all engines. You're looking good."
  • "Houston, be advised the visual is GO today."
  • "11, Houston. You are GO for staging. Over"
  • "Ignition confirmed; thrust is GO, 11."
  • "Apollo 11, Houston. You are confirmed GO for orbit."
  • "Apollo 11, this is Houston. You are GO for TLI. Over."
  • "Apollo 11, this is Houston. You are GO for separation. Our systems recommendation is arm both pyro busses. Over."

I have not been able to find a definition. Is this a common expression, so widely used it does not need a definition? Or has it only been used in space programs? Could someone help? (Feel free to move this request to any talk page more convenient for such a help request.) --Mariano-J (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not an abbreviation. It's a word - go. Its use simply means that the action being described ("Go for foo") can be done and there are no problems or issues that would prevent the action, or that the action being described (i.e. "thrust is go") is operating nominally without any problems. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know why NASA insists on capitalizing "GO" in those transcripts every time it's used. (I checked--that capitalization is present in the original scanned transcript documents.) But they do, presumably because it has some sort of technical meaning for them--the standard English word "go" isn't used in the way NASA uses it. But it's still pronounced like the English word, and it's not an abbreviation. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the negative version of this; no GO or what? I have never heard it used for shuttle or any other launch countdowns I've watched. I may have just missed it. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
@Bushranger The wiktionary lists only the use of 'go' as a verb or a noun. The NASA however uses it as an adjective. As such (see examples above) it's meaning differs from verb and noun. It appears plausible to me, that NASA intended to transmit this difference in meaning with their capitalized notation, as Colin points out. From what I understand however it is neither NASA exclusive nor restricted to technical context but (has become?) a common expression in colloquial speech. --Mariano-J (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, just an affectation on NASA's part. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC).

Bhoja Air Flight 213

Would someone please complete the assessment of the article for B-class criteria? Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

On Cyclone Airways

Please consider restoring the deletion of Cyclone Airways. Cyclone Airways is a legitimate small airline in the Philippines which deserves space in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marletbadeo (talk • contribs)

Copied from my talk page. You guys are better at this than I am. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Ummm...it doesn't look like it was deleted as the article is there right now. That said it won't be there long unless you can add some references that show notability. - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It was deleted in 2009 several times, but recreated this year. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Well unless some refs can be found to satisfy WP:N it is heading for WP:PROD. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for saying that a second time. Is anyone here in possession of references that can establish this article's notability? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I have done a pretty extensive web search and all I have found is press releases and directories listings. It seems to fail WP:CORP. As it fails WP:CSD A7 I have nominated it for speedy deletion, so let's see what the assessing admin says about it. - Ahunt (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The CSD was declined and the admin sent it to WP:PROD. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

NACA reports category

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 2#Category:National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

Deletion refers to the content, not the category listing page.

This category contains 50+ articles based on NACA technical reports, e.g. NACA Report No. 132 These are now being proded individually (e.g. 99, 102, 104), for a variety of reasons. A centralised discussion is more appropriate. Other solutions, such as transwikiing, may be better solutions. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Recommend merges/condensation into sequential articles that each have blurbs/summaries on, say, 10 reports on them. Example: "NACA Reports: Nos. 91-100". - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Airborne aircraft carrier

I think the Airborne aircraft carrier article is badly named (assuming it is worth having anyway). I have started a discussion at Talk:Airborne aircraft carrier. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you should post a notice to WP:MILHIST as well. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Mid-air collision

G'day from Oz; could someone keep an eye on Mid-air collision please. Apparently there was a mid-air between two lighties in Canada on the weekend; I have removed it from the list as not being notable three times now in the last 30-odd hours or so, and thus I am sailing a bit too close to 3RR to do any more with it. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've granted all IPs a two-week holiday from editing the article. That should give them time to lose interest. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Flexjet deleted

Just saw that Flexjet was deleted under WP:CSD#G11. I found the article in Yahoo's cache (can't link because it hits WP's spam filter), and it does feel kinda spammy, but as a major fractional jet operator it seems like we still should have an article on them. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I nominated it for CSD as spam and the reviewing admin agreed and deleted it. The article was just a mass of external links to the company website and only cited the company website as refs. It read like it was written by the company PR dept for marketing purposes. While there should probably be an article on that company, it needs to be re-written completely from scratch using real refs showing notability this time. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Did you review the previous revisions, and see if any older version of the article was not spammy? I've noticed that sometimes articles are deleted as spam, when an older version was not spammy. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
If the company meets WP:CORP, there's no reason that a new article can't be written that does not fall foul of G11. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Yup previous versions were reviewed. It was always really bad. Better to start fresh. Some real refs that show notability would have to be found. That version never had anything but internal company refs. - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hi, a proposal to merge Sukhoi Su-30MKM into Sukhoi Su-30MKI has been forwarded. Comments are required at Talk:Sukhoi Su-30MKM. Thanks --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cancelled aircraft

I have been having trouble bringing the Phantom Sentinel UAV and Aereon WASP UAV pages up to date, in that they are cancelled. There hasn't been new news on them for years and their companies don't even exist anymore. When I write that in their pages they are taken off by others citing WP:Verifiability, where I need a source saying they are cancelled. There are no documents officially showing their cancellation but they clearly are. What can be done to fix this? (America789 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC))

Well, how do you know that they're cancelled, if there is no source saying that they're cancelled? ;-)
I think it would be reasonable for an article to say that the project started in year X, then the manufacturer went bust in year Y, and as of Year Z no aircraft have been made - if that is all supported by sources. I'm sure readers can draw their own conclusions. bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

CNN article: Golden Days of Air Travel

Hi, folks! I found a source that could be of use:

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And a new one:

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Change to Template:Aviation accidents and incidents suggested

See Template_talk:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents#Previous_and_following_year_links. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Aviation accidents and incidents templates up at TFD

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_6, where many pre-1908 templates have been nominated. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Marc Houalla for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marc Houalla is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Houalla until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Gérard Rozenknop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gérard Rozenknop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gérard Rozenknop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Aviation edit summary nominee of the day?

For this edit[4] of mine where my summary reads- 'The source makes no mention of whether the donkey lived or died.'...William 12:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Good summary! - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like - The Bushranger One ping only 17:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Harumph! It did at the time . Mjroots (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Report on the use of self-published sources

The first version of a report on the use of self-published sources is now available, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia reliability. Some of the self-published sources listed in the report pertain to this project.

Suggestions on the report itself (a discussion has started here), and help in remedying the use of the self-published items that relate to this project will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Night flight in the UK

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night flight in the UK. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently there are over 700 articles associated with this project that have links that need to be disambiguated. There is a tool that you can use to locate these, review possible solutions and to fix the links. So if you have some time, feel free to jump in. This project has one of the highest number of articles that need link fixing. Those who normally work on fixing these just got the number for the entire encyclopedia below 500,000. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Franck Goldnadel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Franck Goldnadel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franck Goldnadel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just an observation, but having a moniker like "Slasher-fun" tends to make people think there is a deletionist agenda. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC).

Competition between Airbus and Boeing, again

Hi all,
There has been a slight disagreement over the value of Boeing's orders; it would be helpful to have some comments from other editors, over at Talk:Competition between Airbus and Boeing. bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

All a bit of a disaster of an article most of the article is just dumping two sets of data with a vague comparison between them. Comparing financials for individual aircraft types is probably against some rule in wikipedia as any comparison is made up. MilborneOne (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with you on that point. However, it is possible to compare overall revenue, and that's an oranges-with-oranges comparison rather than the oranges-with-apples comparisons of tech specs &c which occupy most of the article. bobrayner (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Comparing the value of orders seems meaningless. You can multiply the published list price by the number of airframes sold, but this doesn't tell you much since airlines reportedly rarely purchase aircraft at the list price, there is usually some sort of discount negotiated between the manufacturer and airline or leasing company. Which probably explains the discrepancy between the values quoted in the article and the financial reports published by Airbus and Boeing. Overall revenue is comparable, but breaking it down by aircraft type is impossible without knowing the price negotiated by each customer.
Also, I believe the use of the EU and US flags next to Airbus and Boeing, respectively, in many places also violates MOS:FLAG because neither company is a representation of the country, it is merely where they are headquartered and perform final assembly of aircraft — both companies source components from all over the world. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Also the EU is not a country so I would agree the flags are not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

New article, not sure about templates, categories, etc.

I've just created Imperial Gift about the Post-WW1 donation of hundreds of surplus British aircraft to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India. In Canada, Australia and South Africa these donations directly conributed to the establishment of their respective air forces, so it is a historically important event. In New Zealand and India it caused a significant growth in civil aviation. I'm really not sure I have applied all the correct (and relevant) templates, categories and other "bells and whistles", so I'd appreciate it if someone more experienced would look it over and do the necessary changes. Thanks Roger (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wing configuration disagreement

Hi,

User:Stodieck and I are having a disagreement over canards and tandem triples on the Wing configuration article - here is a typical diff. Judging by posts on their user talk page, things are unlikely to go smoothly. I'd be grateful if a few folks could join the discussion. Many thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: Stabilizer (aircraft) was also heavily edited with a view to promoting the idea that a canard can never act as a stabiliser. The User contributions log] shows a steady stream of edits with this agenda. Please help put the brakes on, I'm out of my depth here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: Stabilizer (aircraft) is developing into an edit war. We urgently need a consensus on how to treat the extensive edits being made, as the technical arguments will ramble on for ages. The discussion continues here — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Garrison weighs in. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Update 3: The dreadful ping-pong match continues at Stabilizer (aircraft) and Talk:Stabilizer (aircraft). I would really appreciate a few more voices here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Aeronautics

I just had a look at Category:Aeronautics. Is everyone happy with the articles in this category? We first need to agree on what the word means but I thought it was the applied science that applied to aviation. JMcC (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It might do to subcategorize it... Category:Aeronautical engineering , Category:Aeronautical technology , Category:Aeronautical fluid dymanics (science) . 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

FLYHT Aerospace Solutions Ltd

G'day all, I've just come across FLYHT Aerospace Solutions Ltd., which consists almost completely of advertising IMHO. I've never heard of the company myself and I'm tempted to nominate it for Speedy Deletion due to its "look at us, aren't we clever" content. Opinions? YSSYguy (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It reads like a company website page, not sure if you remove all the guff the company is that notable for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
To answer your edit summary question, yes, guff is a good word, one meaning of it relates to the content of this article, the other is not so pleasant! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess someone concurred, 'cause it's been deleted. Begone guff, begone [admin waves magic mouse, article disappears]. YSSYguy (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
looks like it came back - and it still doesn't have anything to say that is notable.NiD.29 (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Now at FLYHT Aerospace Solutions. Pure spam, I nominated it for CSD. Let's see what happens. - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as spam! - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

RAF Kinloss

Comments please from WikiProject members at Talk:RAF_Kinloss#Article_title. Thanks. (btw I am at the barracks where 39 Engineer Regiment are coming from.)--Lidos (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Greetings everyone. I have an interesting issue on the above article. A Polish Parliamentary committee investigating this accident separate from the main Polish investigation seems to have determined explosives brought down the aircraft. While my fringe theory alarm bells are going off all over the place, this being a Parliamentary investigation indicates to me that it might be worthy of inclusion in the article (as a fringe theory). If I could get some eyes to look over the information (presently on the article's talk page) it would be greatly appreciated. As the sources are in Polish, anyone with knowledge of the language would be especially helpful. Thanks! N419BH 18:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Central Eagle Aviation

For those interested, Central Eagle Aviation is at AfD. YSSYguy (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Flying Blue

Seems to be mainly promotional material that should be on the company's own website and not here. Opinions?NiD.29 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be mostly unreferenced and pretty spammy, with some obvious WP:COI edit in the article history. There are no third party refs provided. Your choice of stubbing it down to citable content or WP:PROD/WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Doesnt appear to be particularly notable unless this is a travel guide, perhaps just a few sentences in Air France-KLM is all that is needed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Seems there already was a PROD and it ended up deadlocked. I have trimmed the bulk of the spam instead - not sure if it should be trimmed even further?NiD.29 (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Inline twin cylinder engines

Hi.

I know nothing about aircraft. Can anyone point to references regarding any inline twin-cylinder engines used in aviation for use on a related topic page?

I don't know your subject but have found a few relating to ultralights, looking for homebuilds, vintage, gyrocopters etc. Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this the sort of thing you're after?
  • Powerhouse Museum. "B2592 Aero engine, Scott "Flying Squirrel" aero engine, s/n A25-5054, 2 cylinder, 2 stroke, model A25 [MkII], inverted air-cooled, Scott Motor Cycle Co Ltd, Shipley, England, 1935-1938 (OF)". Powerhouse Museum, Australia. Retrieved 4 July 2012.

LeadSongDog come howl! 18:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

FAC for Boeing 757

The Featured Article candidacy for Boeing 757 is now open at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boeing 757/archive1. Any input is welcome. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to contributors, review is closed and passed. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Recreation of 1918 advertisement in Airco article

The article on British aircraft manufacturer Airco has a thumbnail in it with a caption about 245 words long that tries to recreate an advertisement allegedly run in The Times on 3 December 1918. The initial objection to this recreation of the advertisement within the caption was that it is not convincing as a reproduction of an advertisement and that a photograph or photocopy of the actual advertisement should be used instead. There is, of course, the other matter that a thumbnail caption should be a brief description of the picture shown therein, and that 245 words is by no means brief.

If these objections were not enough, the photograph in the thumbnail is of the de Havilland DH.18, which did not enter service until 1920, making it highly unlikely that the photograph appeared in an advertisement in The Times in 1918. We therefore have a thumbnail caption that is 245 words long and that does not accurately describe the subject of the thumbnail.

I have rewritten the caption on more than one occasion, but it keeps coming back. What can be done about this?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at it and I agree that it is a recreation of an advertisement, is barely relevant, probably inaccurate, doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. We don't have ads on Wikipedia. It should be removed. Since another editor seems to be edit warring to keep it, I would suggest gaining a consensus here over a week and then see what the outcome of the consensus is. You should leave a note about this discussion on the article talk page and also over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to attract the widest input. - Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
had a look at the original ad in the Times which doesnt have any pictures in it, it is also longer than the "caption" with bits cherry-picked from it and some sections taken out of context. I cant see it really adding any value to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that an advertisement could add a bit of colour to an article - lots of our articles on organisations tend to be rather dry, just listing products (especially in the case of manufacturers) or simply listing corporate history. However, if the above is true - it's a selectively edited version of an old advert but not actually an advert - I think that's a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Then I'd better explain. It is *not* a recreation of an advertisement (this is purely SamBlob's idea), the advertisement was the source of the information. The information is an overview of the business's activities at the time of its (very lucky for the owner) sale. It was a nationally important business during the war and this is the simplest way of displaying its depth and complexities. Look at the number of activities concerned and their geographical spread. Is there a better way to get the information across? Is not all the information important? Eddaido (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. It definitely doesn't belong on a photo caption as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions and I see it has been removed again with the edit summary "Removed a huge disruptive "image/advert/thing"". You asked "Is not all the information important?" - no it isn't. Some is important and some is trivia, while some like the statement "The Largest Aircraft Firm in the World" is unconfirmed and at best WP:PEACOCK. If some of the information is actually notable then it should be incorporated into the article text, with refs cited, but on the whole I agree that it was mostly too spammy for inclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
No trouble at all.
Show me why you believe it was not the largest aircraft firm in the world.
Does not the simple fact that it was justify the inclusion of whatever you consider trivia? Because its central activity had come to an end the businesses concerned often continued but with other involvements. Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me the (relevant) photo caption fitted very exactly with these criteria:
  • Clear identification of the subject
  • Succinctness
  • Establishing relevance to the article
  • Providing context for the picture
  • Drawing the reader into the article

Eddaido (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Show me why you believe it was not the largest aircraft firm in the world." - see WP:ONUS. It is up to the person adding the information to prove it is correct, not others to prove it isn't. I disagree that the huge caption met any of those criteria that you mention. Judging from the comments above and by the editor who removed it today, so far no one else thinks it should be included either. Normally on Wikipedia we let these discussions run for seven days or until discussion has ceased, whichever comes first, so let's see if anyone agrees with you that it should be included. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@Eddaido:

  • Clear identification of the subject - At no point in 245 words of the caption was the subject of the photograph identified.
  • Succinctness - succinct: brief and to the point; having characteristics of both brevity and clarity. (from Wiktionary; I don't know the transwiki markup) 245 words in a photo caption that doesn't identify the object in the photo? That pretty much speaks for itself.
  • Establishing relevance to the article - Nothing in that caption established the relevance of the photo to the article.
  • Providing context for the picture - Context? It didn't mention anything in or about the picture!
  • Drawing the reader into the article - I will admit it does this. It drew me into the article, mostly with the thought: "What the %^&* is this?"

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I understand the situation, Airco claimed to be "the largest aircraft firm in the world" at the time the advert appeared. This is something that is difficult/impossible to verify and thus should be presented as a claim and nothing more. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the advert said it is not contempary with and has nothing to do with the image. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been away. You're quite right and it should add who were second and third and how the ranking was done. It may have been much more obviously true and easily shown at that time, immediately before and after the Armistice. It was my thought that any reader who doubted the claim might see its source was an advertisement (where "the finest car" or "quietest aircraft" is often enough seen). I've no plans to settle in and establish a method of ranking but I notice that in early 1918 the main company claimed 5,000 employees.
  • Clear identification of the subject: the subject is Airco, the image is of one of its products
  • Succinctness: I notice the materiality of some of the content is questioned, I thought it was all required to establish the extent of the business
  • Establishing relevance to the article: see "clear identification of the subject"
  • Providing context for the picture: that it does
  • Drawing the reader into the article: As intended and acknowledged by SamBlob
Sorry I've been away, Eddaido (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is clearly not to replicate the advert but no reason why some of the information properly cited cant be in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
That's fine but it was never an attempt to replicate the ad - that's a Samblob thought. Samblob is always looking for something to do she/he could incorporate all that info in the article and I will criticize, a neat swap of usual situation!
PS Samblob also gutted the article about the owner she/he needs to fix that too. Eddaido (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
An advertisement that claims a superlative for the product being advertised is generally not a reliable source for the superlative.
  • Clear identification of the subject: ...of the picture in the thumbnail, not of the article!
  • Succinctness: Not brief, not clear, not to the point, and not related whatsoever to the subject *of the picture*. Fail.
  • Establishing relevance to the article: see "clear identification of the subject". Again, establishing relevance *of the picture in the thumbnail* to the article.
  • Providing context for the picture: that it *does*? How? Pray tell!
  • Drawing the reader into the article: As intended and acknowledged by SamBlob - you mean you actually *wanted* people to ask themselves what this gigantic and unfathomable thing was doing there?
I see I am also being accused of "gutting" the article on Airco's founder, George Holt Thomas. Behold: the alleged gutting, and my explanation for it. The biggest thing I took out of that article was the same thumbnail, with the same gigantic caption, that everyone but Eddaido so far has said should not be put back into the Airco article.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Seven days have passed in this discussion and, based on what has been said, no-one but Eddaido wants to have the thumbnail with the gigantic caption replaced. It has been indicated that information from the caption should be added to the article and cited. However, I have found information from the caption already in the article, so I just added citations there using the information on the source given in the caption. I had not found anything useful in the caption that was not already in the article, except maybe that Airco owned the licenced manufacturers of Gnome and Rhone engines.

I further take it that the same argument applies for the use of the same thumbnail in the George Holt Thomas article, i.e. that the thumbnail should not be replaced, but that information from the gigantic caption may be used to cite information in the article, whether the information is to be added or is already there. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its quite clear that the information is important and should remain, its also very clear Only Samblob minds having it the way Eddaido showed it so I think Samblob can fix what she/he wants to destroy. i.e. solve her/his latest self-created problem. Best, Eddaido (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for having a misleading imitation advertisment - adverts are not normally reliable sources. Any information should go in the normal body of the article and be properly cited to reliable sources. And please avoid personal attacks against other editors.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Nigel Ish has it right - the consensus is clearly to not include this. In reading the discussion I have no idea how you could conclude otherwise. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
A recreation of an advert hardly constitutes encyclopedic material. The aviation industry is rife with false claims - advertising is simply plumbing new depths of unreliability and its claims cannot be taken seriously and certainly should not form the basis for the text. Airco had competition for that claim from many companies - including Curtiss who employed 21,000 and built 10,000 aircraft during ww1 - many of which were larger and more labour intensive than those Airco produced.NiD.29 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't the 4 articles on the blackhawk be merged? And couldn't that be applied to other aircraft with variants?

The Sikorsky S-60 family has four articles, the S-60 article, the UH-60, the sh-60, and the hh-60.

And that's just one example. The -53 family is another example.

Wouldn't it be better if the information on those families was more centralized? Even if they aren't all merged into the same article, a lot of the information in them could be shared between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because the variants are significantly different to the point that, back in the old days, they'd have received entirely different designations (instead of "it's really the same helicopter, honest, we jacked up the nameplate and slid a new airframe under it" - the CH-53 vs CH-53E vs CH-53K especially is this sort of thing), and because the combined articles would have undue weight on certain variants. Splitting out articles is standard procedure in this sort of situation. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I underestimated the number of different articles, there are at least 7.
I created a rough draft in my sandbox, and I think most of the pages could be merged. The navy variants are a bit of a mess, but that's not a bad thing. I think the best solution would be to have a summary in the main page with a link to a more detailed page. A second page could list the different variants, and their specifications. A third page could possibly used for the Japanese H-60. I think the quality of the coverage of all the variants would be greatly improved doing it this way.
There is also the issue of Wikipedia:Article size as the combined articles would be fairly long. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Comes out to less than 39 kilobytes and that's before splitting it up at all (Splitting off variant specifications, maybe detailed information about the seahawk and lamps)TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Flight science

I have nominated Flight science for deletion. It is an orphan and its contents are covered elsewhere in greater depth. I am unsure how to notify this project. It also does not seem to appear in the main AfD list. JMcC (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it redirect to aerodynamics or aeronautics (or perhaps aerospace) ? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Have endorsed the PROD, might be simpler to redirect. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Just re-read the first post, it won't appear in the AfD list because you have 'Prodded' the article (Wikipedia:Proposed deletion) instead of nominating it for AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). Prodding was the right way to go though. It does appear in Category:Proposed deletion as of 11 July 2012. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It ended up being redirected to Flight dynamics (fixed wing aircraft) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OMNI Aviation Corporation

New article at OMNI Aviation Corporation which cant decide if it is an airfield or a flying school, anybody have an insight into it? MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't it be both? It's possible for a private organisation to own both the infrastructure and the aircraft &c (though it's not very common) plus all the human & regulatory stuff needed to run a flying school. OMNI's website seems to say that they do both. Which brings us to another problem; it's all based on OMNI's website, no secondary sources. bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be both, not an uncommon thing where I live. I tagged it for one source and notability, but it reads like spam to me. If it doesn't get fixed in a week I'll send it to CSD as spam. - Ahunt (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Anybody looking for info for the wiki article above needs to look for the company in the Philippines. An internet search for "Omni Aviation" turns up multiple companies. I did not find any usable 3rd party sources with that. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Well if you didn't find anything for refs then perhaps we can speed up the process. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A look at the "airfield" on google maps shows it to be a small runway a few hundred metres from the main clark runway so hardly a airfield or airport in its own right more like a private runway, it also looks like more than one flying school uses it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of OMNI Aviation Corporation

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMNI Aviation Corporation. - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed replacement of the seven Sikorsky s-70 family articles

I am proposing replacing the 9 articles with this:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:TeeTylerToe/sandbox and http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Sikorsky_S-70_Models

The content for each of the 9 articles would be greatly improved. Each article would be replaced with a single article with easy access to a high quality presentation the evolving design of the platform in one place

So far I have only unified the design and development sections. Perhaps the operational history section could be divided into an operational history of the land variants, perhaps divided into its roles (utility, transport, sar), and naval variants.

A lot of the references need to be repatriated.

My proposed replacement article could be improved by having separate sub-articles on, for instance the details about the original design, and how the design has evolved, or an article on the details about the different roles, and equipment it can carry.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps before you go to far you really need to get consensus for a change to so many articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
First the S-92 is a different helicopter, which is only loosely based on the S-70, so merging the S-92 and CH-148 into the your article would be incorrect. Secondly, there appears to be no need to do what you want to do, as what is in your sandbox is far poorer than what it is meant to replace. Reliable sources often treat the major varients of the S-70 family separately, and there is no reason why Wikipedia should do different, otherwise, we will be replacing several articles that have the potential to be improved and expanded tby one low quality article that cannot have anywhere near the same possible depth of coverage because of size and weight issues. Therefore I Oppose this proposal.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The main thrust of my proposal, is that, for instance, the UH-60L adopted many of the improvements from the SH-60 program to the army UH-60 helicopter including the 701 engines and the improved gearbox. So instead of having 7 different articles with a low quality overview of the development of each of the 7 individual helicopters that has 1/7th the editorial oversight, a single article could act as a clearinghouse for that information. All seen models are medium range medium lift multi-purpose helicopters. They all use the T700 engine. They all serve the transport, utility, medevac, and SAR roles.
Each of the 7 articles has a very low level of detail, and a very low level of editorial scrutiny. They also only address their specific area of interest. What I created in my sandbox is just a quick mockup to illustrate what one possible replacement could look like.
And I would like to know what the basis is of your opinion that the version in my sandbox is inferior to the present version. I noted things that haven't yet been done with the sandbox version, such as transferring all the references from the articles.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with your low level of detail comment. That is definitely not true for the UH-60 and SH-60 articles. The HH-60J Jayhawk and S-70 articles are the only one that are really short. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
In the entire UH-60 article, only one small four sentence paragraph discusses the design of the helicopter airframe, mechanical parts, electronics, and avionics. Half of that paragraph is a list of the number of people it carries, it's lift capacity, and a sentence about it's height being dictated by the transport requirement. The flagship blackhawk article's entire discussion of the design of the helicopter is just two sentences. "The UH-60 features four-blade main and tail rotors, and is powered by two General Electric T700 turboshaft engines.[21] The main rotor is fully articulated and has elastomeric bearings in the rotor head. The tail rotor is canted and features a rigid crossbeam." You could make a full, lengthy article just about the design alone. I think that is a fatal weakness.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The seahawk article is even worse. All it has is an out of context list of changes from the blackhawk without even linking to the two sentences in the blackhawk article. How did either article ever make it past C class?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why this model list article was started before any merges were done. That just created another article and you feel there were already too many S-70/H-60 articles. I oppose this proposed mass merging. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
My problem isn't that the s-70 information isn't centralized and presented logically with an overview page with separate pages for bulk data like the different export variants to different countries. My problem is that there are 7 pages that have a great deal of overlap. Centrally presenting the information presents the information more intuitively, adds context to the information, improves the quality of each section, and multiplies the editorial oversight by 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • My point was the timing of starting the list, not the motivation behind it. Sikorsky S-70 is supposed to serve as the overview article for the family and also cover civil versions. I think it'd be better to focus on improving that instead of multiple merges. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Sikorsky has sold about 700 civilian s-70s/s-76s. They've sold about 4,000 h-60s. Also, while the s-70 page does need improvement, the h-60 pages need almost as much work. And, among other things, instead of doing that 6 times, and then doing the same thing a 7th time for the civilian version so that the encyclopedia can have the same information presented in 7 different places, forcing each of those 7 articles to have more shallow coverage both because of the division of labor, and because it would be impractical to have 7 articles each covering duplicate coverage of the development of the h-60 family at a high level of detail. I think it would be better in every way to have a single page covering the h-60 family.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
What is being proposed is against WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Any overview article needs to be concise and encyclopedic with main article links under headers, Rolls-Royce aircraft piston engines and Parnall are examples. Would oppose the merging of the existing variant articles, a lot of time, thought and effort has obviously gone into creating them and criticising them is not the way forward. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Moving forward without any criticism of the current product is surely foolhardy.
Could you be more specific about your objection? What part of the collection of proposals suggests something contrary to an overview article that would be concise and encyclopedic.
In fact, wouldn't that be an argument for there to be a h-60/s-70 overview article with links to sub articles on variants such as the blackhawk, and seahawk?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, at the bare minimum, the Military and Civilian aircraft should be dealt with as seperate articles - while there is some overlap, it is there's too much detail and size to the main military Blackhawk article alone to consider merging it with the S-70's article: It would almost certainly pass the 100 kb mark, as which point policy would dictate to split it again! I would agree that some of the more obscure variants don't necessarily need articles of their own, and that a spread of nine articles may not be the best way to handle it, but this proposal is a little too radical and sketchy as it stands right now, that's my thoughts anyhow. Kyteto (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It is strange, how can the h-60 articles be so long but have so little information? Also, I would agree on you on the point of the civilian helicopter if the s-76 article was anything more than a stub, if it had information about the hems version, the transport version, the aleo version, military versions, etc, but it has almost no unique information.
Also, what makes a helicopter different from another? There are a huge number of huey variants, there are single engine hueys, there are gunship hueys, there are hueys for almost any application, but they fall under the same designation, huey. But whenever anyone makes the h-60 a little longer, or changes it in any way it becomes completely different. When the h-60 was created in the 70s, it had much less powerful engines, and a much lower effective lift. Now that it has much more powerful engines, in the troop carrier role, it can carry many more troops. This allows sikorsky to create a version of the h-60 that carries 22 instead of 11 troops. It's not some newly designed helicopter, it's simply a h-60 with a larger troop compartment. But people want it to have it's own article... Anyway... why are the h-60 articles so long? The operator lists could easily be put on their own page, and the 7 different operator lists could be combined into a single page.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The S-70 article details the family and each of the S-70 variants with a distinct role and major changes to design have an article each, sorry but I cant see the problem or the need to change the current set up. Fairly standard to have a parent family article which is the Sikorsky S-70 with a load of children. Not sure what your references about S-76 are about, it doesnt have many variants and fits into the one article. Dont have a problem with a list of S-70 variants but it may be an eng var thing I expected List of S-70 models to be about plastic kits and such MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
"Variants" is indeed the term used on Wikipedia for articles about, well, variants - not "Models". - The Bushranger One ping only 19:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
A civilian S-70C Firehawk
A civilian S-76
The s-70 article does seem to have a very shallow overview of the military h-60 variants, and it also covers the civilian firehawk, but, for instance, it doesn't even cover the s-76, which is the civilian version of the h-60. The s-70 article doesn't cover the design of the helicopter going only so far to say that it is a medium transport/utility helicopter. My problem is that all of the articles cover the same shallow overview material, so instead of having that overview in one article, it's duplicated in 7, and none of the articles go any deeper.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The S-70 is civil model for the H-60 family. The S-76 is an unrelated model. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of detailed books on utility and cargo helicopters. We have to have sources to add details per WP:Verify. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The H-70 prototype first flew in '74. The civilian version, first named the s-74, but later the s-76 first flew in '77. The civilian versions of the s-76 include vip, hems, ale, and sar. The s-70 is the export version of the military models, such as the s-70 "battlehawk", and the s-70B "Seahawk".TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Again the S-76 is completely unrelated to the S-70. I don't know where you are getting the idea that the S-76 is a civil version of the S-70, but it is not. Sokorsky did propoise a more heavily modified civil version fo the S-70 in the 1970s, the S-78, but nothing came of it.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
TTT, please listen. The S-76 is not a civilian Blackhawk. And there doesn't appear to be any consensus for your proposed merging. It might be time to start thinking about dropping the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the argument against merging the articles? That the current articles all have generally the same shallow overview? Why not centralize that shallow overview in one article the way it is centralized in the s-70 article. On the separate discussion of the s-76's lineage, which should probably be moved to the s-76 talk page, "The technology basis for the S-76 was the Utility Tactical Transport Aircraft System (UTTAS) that had been awarded to Sikorsky in 1972. In particular, the rotor blade aerodynamic and structural features including blade airfoil, twist, swept tip and titanium spar were all embodied in the S-76. The UTTAS elastomeric main rotor head design as well as the cross beam bearingless tail rotor design was also applied to the S-76.". Additionally, it's a two turbine medium life helicopter, Among the features are: titanium and composite main rotor blades, a bearingless composite tail rotor, bifilar vibration absorbers, and a simplified main rotor transmission. The s-70 was a replacement to the uh-1 was a popular military and civilian utility helicopter, it seems obvious that once sikorsky started production of the uh-1's replacement military utility helicopter that they would create a civilian version analogous to the civilian uh-60. They did do that, and a year after the s-70 prototype first flew sikorsky started the s-76. Pretty much the only argument you can make is that they use different engines, and have different cabins, which is obvious, because there's no reason for sikorsky to use the military engines, and the military version cabin would be unsuitable for the specific civilian applications.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You clearly dont have a consensus to merge the articles so if you feel they lack content you are welcome to improve them with reliable sources, I dont see any reason in continuing this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
What are the contentions against the merge? It meets with Wikipedia policy, it would reduce the duplication of shallow overview material, and it would centralize the design details so that, for instance, the out of context discussion of the sh-60's design that lists the changes made to the uh-60 but doesn't mention or reference the uh-60's design would be given context. The huge sections of the articles devoted to information such as operators could be centralized in a shared page on s-70 operators. It would make all the articles much more readable, and much more informative. The uh-60's 66.5kb page that is only a shallow overview of one model, and the 40kb sh-60 page could both be replaced by a 40kb article covering both in more detail and context as well as 5 other articles.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think that TeeTylerToe has a point; I don't totally agree with merging as proposed, but I think the sparse overlapping coverage we have at the moment is suboptimal. (One of my bugbears is the way that we often divide articles on manufactured items according to the way that vendors designate different types, and that's not always best. I have in mind a certain type of rolling stock ordered by a railway in two batches; the manufacturer gave each batch a slightly different name even though the technical detail and usage is almost identical, so we have two separate articles on them... I don't think that serves readers best) bobrayner (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I must admit, some of the overlapping articles might be better served in a merged form. For instance, Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk and Sikorsky HH-60 Jayhawk are both marinised versions that could be fairly done as one article. I would advocate, instead of taking the most extremist stance to merging these articles together, that these proposals be done in a series of gradual changes that can be discussed and a consensus found on each individual one. A radical proposal to merge all nine together into a new form has (so far) drawn a consensus against this form of change, but a step-by-step approach (as the example I've just drawn) may be more agreeable and achievable. Kyteto (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The S-76 article is an example of the problem. The S-76 article, of the S-70, S-92, blackhawk, jayhawk, pavehawk, seahawk, uh-60j, and ch-148 article is the only article that talks about the drivetrain shared by all the helicopters.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason why the S-76 article stated that the two types have a common drivetrain is because you continue to mis-represent what sources actually say. While they may share design concepts, no references say that they share a common drivetrain. Attempts to claim otherwise with no justification are damaging to the article and encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
So you're saying that because the s-76 has a 13~M rotor diameter, and the s-70 has a 16~M rotor diameter they should have identical descriptions of their drivetrains? An encyclopedia level description of a helicopter drivetrain shouldn't go into details like the exact torque rating of a transmission. They all have 5 part modular 3 stage transmissions with one planetary stage and one bull gear stage.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
If you have published reliable sources that state that the drivetrain is identical in all these models (S-70, S-76, and S-92), then please present those sources. Otherwise, this is OR at best, if not speculation, and doesn't belong. However, an identical drivetrain doesn't make the helicopter models the same. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The S-76A drivetrain isn't identical to the S-76D drivetrain. Even if they were they would clearly be two different helicopters which need two different articles.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Why? Do they have different type certificates? If they do, then that is a clear indication that a separate article might be needed for the S-76D, but it wouldn't be the only factor to weigh. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No. When I said the S-76A drivetrain isn't identical to the S-76D drivetrain what I meant was just what I said.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No to what? They don't have different type certificates? Or "Even if they were they would clearly be two different helicopters which need two different articles." isn't right? - BilCat (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No that's not what I said. This is an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia article for one model of transmission that has a 1300shp variant and a 2828shp variant doesn't include any details about the minor differences in the two variants. If it weren't synthesis, you could work into the article how the difference between the S-70 and the S-76 is greater than say, the 2 engine UH-1 and the Bell 206 for that very reason, because the weight of the armor forced more changes in the civilian design of the S-76. But part number of the transmission doesn't belong in the encyclopedia article about the S-76. What does belong in the encyclopedia article about the S-76 is that it's major design features are shared with S-70. It shares the simplified transmission, rotor blades of the same design, a rotor head of the same design, elastometric bearings of the same design, a bearingless tail rotor of the same design.
They're about as close as, I assume, a ford F-250 pickup truck and a ford F-350 pickup truck. Same design, higher margins.TeeTylerToe (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, provide a reliable source that states that the S-76A/B/C and S-70 share the same transmission. Obviously we wouldn't include the part numbers in the text, but a source that states they are the same model would be very helpful. - BilCat (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe seems to have changed his opinion from his previous assertions these are the same aircraft and the articles should be merged, to the that transmissions on the S-70 and S-76 are variants of a similar design concept. To me that sounds like he has started to agree with the cited refs, and everyone else working on the article, that the designs of some of the components are based on similar concepts. Regardless, he is blocked again, this time for a week for edit warring on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the transmissions have no similarities in design. TeeTylerToe is of the opinion that the similarity of designs rests on the presence of a bull gear. In the S-76 transmission the bull gear is driven by two pinion gears, which together rotate in the same axis and are used as the final reduction stage (one of three stages) in the main transmission - the bull gear is on the bottom of the rotor mast. He has cited a document describing the S-70 transmission as proof of the similarity. It shows that, what is according to him the bull gear in that transmission, is in fact a large bevelled gear; I suppose it could be argued that a bevelled gear is a type of bull gear, but in my opinion that argument wouldn't stand for long (I emphasise that is purely an opinion). At any rate, he is incorrect in asserting the similarity. This bevelled/bull gear is not used as the final reduction stage, it is part of the intermediate reduction stage (also one of three stages) and is driven by two separate gears with their axes of rotation at 90 degrees to it; the bevel gear is on a common shaft with a sun gear. The sun gear is driving five planetary gears, which are running inside a ring gear - the five planetary gears are on a plate at the bottom of the rotor mast; together these make up the final reduction stage in the S-70 transmission and firmly put the S-70 transmission in the "planetary gear system used in previous Sikorsky helicopter models" category. YSSYguy (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
TTT is in the 'slammer' but I thought this 'reminder' posted on their talk page was a new development!
File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv
A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

Just copy and paste at will! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a useful video! - Ahunt (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Gérard Desbois for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Gérard Desbois is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Gérard Desbois until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 90.84.144.187 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hestnutan Accident AfD notice

For those interested, Hestnutan Accident is at AfD. YSSYguy (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Category reorganization help needed

We need input at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 9#Category:Mid-air collisions of military aircraft on reorganizing the mid-air collision categorization. Mangoe (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Red Bull Stratos

We seem to be missing an article on a high profile project -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Converting WikiProject Defunct Airlines to a task force

I've started a discussion regarding converting WikiProject Defunct Airlines into a task force. Visit this page for the discussion. —Compdude123 21:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done —Compdude123 21:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Template help

Can somebody with better template-fu than I remove the renamed 'Category:WikiProject Defunct Airlines articles' from Category:Defunct Airlines articles by quality? Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Mostly or partially fixed. The link for Defunct Airlines (or Defunct airlines) at the top of Category:Defunct Airlines articles by quality is a red link now. Not sure what the issue is. Maybe related to Airlines/airlines formatting. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It's because the template {{WPAVIATION Task force assessment category}} thinks that the Defunct airlines task force is a subpage of WikiProject Aviation, when really it's a subpage of WikiProject Airlines. I'm not sure how to change it without breaking the template on category pages where the task force is actually a subpage of WikiProject Aviation. —Compdude123 03:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed it by making Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Defunct Airlines task force redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Defunct Airlines task force. —Compdude123 03:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

GATSA

Can anyone confirm that this airline existed? Me and Jetstreamer are puzzled[[5] and a third editor blanked the article saying it never existed....William 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Couldnt find it in a list of Mexican DC-8 operators. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Should have looked the article has been deleted! MilborneOne (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
A google search linked the acronym with "General de Aerotransporte S.A. de C.V." which is in turn mentioned in FAA official documents with call sign GGS. No dates seem to be available, nor any other information so probably not notable but I notice there are a lot of pages linked to it, which is no doubt responsible for its repeated re-creation and deletion.NiD.29 (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I've salted the title. Not saying that an article can't exist but I think it should be started in userspace and then brought before this WP for evaluation before it goes live. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Airports RM

Hello. There is currently an RM at Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport on whether to use hyphens or dashes in airport names. You may be interested. Thanks, David1217 What I've done 16:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Burl's Aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burl's Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 1 AfD

Qantas Flight 1 has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the article is also under rename discussion, see Talk:Qantas Flight 1 -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Just as a note the Aviation Deletion Sorting page is a good place to have bookmarked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Dasslogo.gif

File:Dasslogo.gif has been nominated for deletion as unsourced. This is about the US satellite system element for supporting the 406MHz distress beacon system. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

AZUSA radar schematics

File:AZUSA-transponder.png and File:AZUSA-MarkII.png have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Bell X-16 2.jpg

File:Bell X-16 2.jpg is up for deletion for having the wrong source therefore possibly the wrong license -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:AD-1pivotwingaircraft.jpg

File:AD-1pivotwingaircraft.jpg is under deletion nomination for possibly having the wrong license -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Old WWII-era Luftwaffe images up for deletion

A number of images have come up for deletion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 September 9 with questionable licenses. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Categorization

User:Euroflux has been adding all kinds of weird sortkeys (01, !, etc) to categories falling under this wikiproject. I'm not familiar with this area, so perhaps someone here could have a look at their contribution history (most edits were made early August, I think) and check whether this is appropriate. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Aircraft ordnance

Aircraft ordnance has been requested to be renamed as ordnance, see talk:Aircraft ordnance -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Archflg.jpg

image:Archflg.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Photos of Polish military aviators up for deletion

Several Polish military personnel have been sent for deletion as unsourced. file:Eugeniusz Horbaczewski 1.jpg , file:Eugeniusz Horbaczewski.jpg , file:Henryk Pietrzak.jpg , file:Henryk Pietrzak niesiony.jpg , file:Stanislaw Skalski 1.jpg , file:Witold Urbanowicz.jpg -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Honeywell Images

I've been helping Honeywell contribute to Wikipedia following COI best practices (see Honeywell Aerospace and Honeywell Turbo Technologies). They donated a bunch of images. I added some to Honeywell articles as non-controversial edits and contributed others as non-COI edits. Where the images are distinctive as Honeywell products and mention them in the caption, I've submitted them as request edits.[6][7][8]

If anyone has a minute to take a look at those three links and confirm (or decline) if it's ok to add the images, I would be eternally grateful. Corporate Minion 00:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with all three of them. However, I'd welcome input from others on the Green Diesel proposal on Talk:Algae fuel. bobrayner (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Title for article Musée de l'Air‎

An editor has twice performed an incorrect procedure in relation to the title of this article, that requires attention from others. My brief actions there are hopefully self-explanatory. MTIA, PeterWD (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved it back to Musée de l'Air - user needs to use proper move procedure. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Should not be moved and certainly not by redirect (and also without discussion). I checked that there is no disambiguation needed with the current title, also popped over to their website where they appear to have shortened things themselves, the long version still remains official according to their contact info page. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to add I have locked down the page for editing to stop cut and paste moves for the time being. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nimbus, I believe you're wrong where you said of the museum's official website ("...they appear to have shortened [their own name] themselves..."). I spent 10 minutes clicking through and examining their webpages and found no single instance where their museum's name was shortened to 'Musée de l'Air'. If you're sure of yourself, please provide a list of the those webpages on the museum's official website where they've done so.

My apologies for the incorrect article move procedure used yesterday due to the fact that the destination name was already an existing redirect page -I was unaware of the copyright issue brought to my attention on my user page. Next I believe that both Nimbus's and PeterWD's opposition are inappropriate. As I've written on the article's comments page yesterday: truncating the institution's name on Wikipedia makes the article title inaccurate, as would shortening the article title for "National Air and Space Museum" (in Washington) to just "National Air Museum", or more concisely "Air Museum", which is what editors have erroneously done in the past. The French institution is officially and widely known as the "Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace". An editor in the past has gone so far as to write within the lede that the museum's name was officially changed to the shorter "Musée de l'Air" –as far as can be seen a complete fabrication which was corrected today.

A further issue is that on first view there is little context to the shorter name to assist readers. 'Musée de l'Air', literally 'Air Museum', at first has a similar construction to such titles as Marine Museum of.... (which WP has several articles on), Geological Museum, etceteras. 'Air and Space Museum' sets the context as a museum of aerospace technology; similarly 'Aerospace Museum', 'Aviation Museum' and 'Aircraft Museum' lets readers know immediately what the article concerns, while 'Air Museum' is ambiguous and doesn't. Of course if you're an aviator or involved with aviation, you can infer its an aviation museum, which is still an improper title for this article since the museum is both an Air AND Space Museum. If you have doubts, just go to their website or look at the infobox photo which prominently features an Arianespace rocket. Sorry, "Musée de l'Air" (Air Museum) doesn't cut the mustard, and if you look at the MOS:Titles, as I've pointed out, key requirements are:

  • "Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long." At six words, it is one word longer than "National Air and Space Museum" –hardly 'overly long'. Also:
  • "Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise." –here the title which implies the museum is only an aviation museum fails. The museum is both an aviation AND space technology museum.

Again, if you insist that the article should be titled only as the 'Musée de l'Air', then you would also insist that the 'National Air and Space Museum' in Washington, D.C. be shortened to 'Air Museum'. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The musuem is widely referred to in British aviation magazines such as Aeroplane as the Musée de l'Air, thus the current title is in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. Any move of the article should only be done following a successful request at WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Please note also that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
In aviation magazines and books that I have seen the short name and official name seem to be used interchangeably, but almost invariably with a qualifier for the shortened name; i.e. the "Musée de l'Air at Le Bourget", "Musée de l'Air Le Bourget" or "Musée de l'Air (Le Bourget)". "Musée de l'Air" is sometimes used for the aviation collection of the Musée Royal de l'Armée et d'Histoire Militaire in Brussels as well, again with the location as qualifier. IMO Le Bourget should be included in the article name, or the full name be used. YSSYguy (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The title should be Musée de l'air et de l'espace, the whole French name with the appropriate spelling : only one upper case letter. In French we use the expression "l'air et l'espace" because we do not have a word for "Aerospace". The English translation would be "Aerospace Museum". Why skip "l'espace" in the title ? The museum contains rockets and items related to Space ; there fore the title should not be amputated ! One remark: we translate in French "Aerospace engineer" with "ingénieur aéronautique" because we cannot say "ingénieur aérospatial" ; it might be understood as an engineer who works qt "Aerospatiale", the French national company preceding EADS... Euroflux (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
You need to gain a consensus to change the article name on the related talk page but please note this is English wikipedia not French and the English common name may not be the same as the French name you will need to provide evidence that Musée de l'air et de l'espace is in common usage in English. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Relevant link: WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Image:COMMAND PILOT WINGS 2.png

file:COMMAND PILOT WINGS 2.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yokohama air crash

I just started the article on the 1977 Yokohama F-4 crash. If someone has a link to an investigation into the crash or any other information, please add to the article's references. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at WP:AIRCRASH - not sure this make the criteria for an article there. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Given that it killed civilians on the ground, it likely passes WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over lead of Aircraft article

Hi,

Hoping a few of you can help clear the air at Talk:Aircraft#Blurb_about_rockets_and_missiles. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Pro-Composites

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Composites. - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The nomination for this deletion was withdrawn by the nominator, but anyone who has refs that could more firmly establish notability are requested to add them to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to complete this thread, I have now gone to the central library and found complete rundowns in four recent editions of Jane's and added those. - Ahunt (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Archive_8&oldid=1146690075"