Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:11, 5 November 2022 editAndyTheGrump (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,017 edits →Lists of aircraft: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:17, 5 January 2025 edit undoBilCat (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,892 edits →Curious...: ReplyTag: Reply
(509 intermediate revisions by 74 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject ~~Aviation~~\|~~class=project\|small=yes\|Aircraft=yes}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|
			{{WikiProject Aviation\|aircraft=yes}}
⚫	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/~~WikiProject~~ ~~used~~\|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-06-13/WikiProject report\|writer= ] \|\|day =13\|month=June\|year=2011}}
			}}
		⚫	{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects\|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-06-13/WikiProject report\|writer= ] \|\|day =13\|month=June\|year=2011}}
	{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive header}}		{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive header}}
	{{shortcut\|WT:AIR\|WT:Air}}		{{shortcut\|WT:AIR\|WT:Air}}
Line 7:		Line 9:
	\|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}		\|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 170K		\|maxarchivesize = 170K
	\|counter = 48		\|counter = 49
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 2		\|minthreadstoarchive = 2
Line 14:		Line 16:
	}}		}}

			== Cancelled/abandoned aircraft projects ==
	== RS? ==

	Do we have a list of unreliable sources for aircraft/aviation? For example the article on the ] cites two websites, Luft46 and The Military Factory, and nothing else. Is either of these reliable? Luft46 used to be awful but has been cleaning up its act, but I don't know how we stand with it today. The other, I have no idea about. — Cheers, ] (]) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
	:Military factory is mentioned and on WP:RSN - while there isn't extensive discussion in either of the mentions what's there isn't terribly positive. From what i've seen of it, then it should be purged with fire.] (]) 21:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
	::I've purged the article of both sources and have added a bunch of books that cover German WW II aircraft prototypes and unbuilt designs. Other than those specific to the Gotha aircraft, I'd suggest purging those unreliable sources across Misplaced Pages and replacing them with cites from the books that I've provided. The first step should be deleting all references to the online sources from the articles, letting them stand as unreferenced paras until somebody feels like working on them, and adding the books to give editors some RS's to use to improve the articles. I'm unlikely to do many of them as improving the P.60 article alone is proving to be more troublesome that I'd expected. If I didn't plan on improving it to GA quality, I could rest easier, but once you've assembled all the sources and started reading, it just makes more sense to finish the job :-( --] (]) 17:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
	:::Thank you, that is a vast improvement. I see you have also started a discussion on the sources on its talk page; I'll reply further over there, when I can grab the next moment. — Cheers, ] (]) 17:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
	:To address the original question: {{tq\|Do we have a list of unreliable sources for aircraft/aviation?}} We do have a list of reliable ones: ] which includes ] which mentions Luft'46 and ]. Please feel free to update that page! - ] (]) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I have added the Military factory to it, Luft '46 was already there. — Cheers, ] (]) 13:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
	:Astonished to find that the article on ] relied almost entirely on Luft '46 cites. was its state before I cleaned them out. A great many articles on German aircraft and manufacturers are in the same boat, by the look of things. I have cleaned up a few more, but it looks like a huge job to both do that and find good sources to replace it everywhere. — Cheers, ] (]) 13:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

	===Secret Projects===
	I have added the Secret Projects discussion forum to the list of problematic sources. It carries many discussions on what material is and is not reliable. Obviously, much unreliable material gets posted there too. I have noted that citations on Misplaced Pages should reference the material which is evidently reliable, and not the discussion as such. If others feel that this is not quite right, please open a discussion on the ]; revert my words to taste, per BRD. — Cheers, ] (]) 15:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

	===To be continued===
	Please see ] for the ongoing discussion about yet more such sources. — Cheers, ] (]) 18:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
	:I have given an update on the state of play at ] and would appreciate any help in purging the remaining cites. — Cheers, ] (]) 11:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

	==]==
	This category was just newly created. Are we making categories for each military? I was thinking for some aircraft types like the ] or ] this sort of approach could add hundreds of categorizes to those articles. If I recall there was a past consensus on this, but I am not finding it at ] or in the talk page archives. - ] (]) 18:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
	:I suppose it depends on whether anybody finds these categories useful. There are always fanatics who claim they do. Can't see it myself, but at least they are not as bad as the endless navboxes. — Cheers, ] (]) 19:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
	::If I remember these type of cats have long been frowned upon using the logic that aircraft like the C-47 could potential have hundreds of such user categories to no real value to the encyclopedia. I am sure similar categories have been deleted in the past ] (]) 18:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
	:::I believe we have deleted these sorts of cats before, for just those reasons. - ] (]) 18:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

			I've been wondering if perhaps ] and its subcategories should be (1) all standardized on either "Cancelled" or "Abandoned" and (2) perhaps should be trimmed to only include unbuilt/unflown aircraft, which then wouldn't be in the aircraft-by-type-nation-and-decade categories. Thoughts? ] <sub>]</sub> 21:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
	== Large number of UAVs proposed for deletion ==

			:I think they may have been a subtle difference between the two that has been lost in time, I believe abandoned were aircraft flown but never developed and cancelled never actually flew. But I agree we should just make this unflown projects perhaps under cancelled. ] (]) 10:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	Project members might be interested in the long list of UAVs currently proposed for deletion, some have already been deleted. See ]. ] <small>(])</small> 01:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
	:Most of these should have been proposed a long time ago. Run-of-the-mill drones are mostly not notable. The especially heavy spamming with Chinese playthings tells its own story; per ], "Misplaced Pages is not ... a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." A few probably should be justified in being kept, but with the Chinese so reluctant to publish in reputable English-language journals, they are not helping themselves establish notability here. — Cheers, ] (]) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

			::That would make sense. At the same time though, that' makes 'abandoned' ''really'' fuzzy in some cases (the ], for instance, went into full production! Of five, before being cancelled...). So yeah, I may work on this consolidating the unbuilt types into the Cancelled categories in the future. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Admin or page mover help needed ==
			::I have not seen modern sources make such a distinction. In fact, I had assumed based on modern sources that "abandoned" meant paper projects that were not fully developed or an aircraft in any development stage that was literally abandoned by the developer (i.e. a lot of German designs and prototypes when their facilities were overrun by Allied forces), while "canceled" meant development was stopped at a later stage, including after the aircraft was built or flown. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I'll probably go with "abandoned" since IIRC most of that category tree uses it, and it's softer, so to speak (some types were never 'cancelled', they just...faded away). - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I agree with @]'s logic here: {{tq\|some types were never 'cancelled', they just...faded away}}. A cancelled project is also abandoned, but an abandoned project is not necessarily cancelled. The word "cancelled" implies that a formal declaration has been made, which is common for military aircraft in peacetime, but it's not always done in war (as outlined above), and I can think of several civilian aircraft programs that obviously ground to a halt but were never publicly cancelled (presumably to protect company leaders from negative publicity). ] (]) 01:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Another example would be a lot of the "Luft '46" type designs - not cancelled but abandoned both for obvious reasons! - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Airntd needs tweaking? ==
	Can someone with the appropriate permissions move ] to ].? I can't do it as it is currently a redirect.] (]) 23:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

			Just realised an odd quirk of ] - when used on "military trainer aircraft" or "military transport aircraft", it points "2010 Russian" to "Russian aircraft" correctly, but when used on "attack aircraft" or "command and control aircraft", it points them to "Soviet". <br>
⚫	:~~{{Done}}.~~ ] (]) 23:28, 15 ~~October~~ ~~2022~~ (UTC)
			Correct display: ]<br>
			Incorrect display: ]<br>
			Wonder why? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

			: I found what seems to be an problem but likely unrelated to your issue. The template has a block of lines from "1930s Soviet" to "2020s Russian" but later has "1930s Soviet" to "2020s Ukrainian" that seems a bit odd but probably OK. There might be something with the "Military" grouping for attack to utility aircraft later in the template. Best of luck! ] (]) 00:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	== Flying car - edit warrior ==

			== The citation I added does not show on the page (Inside Aircraft specs) ==
	Second opinions, intervention, etc. welcome at ]. See the for the blow-by-blow. — Cheers, ] (]) 18:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
	:I have started a discussion at ], which you are welcome to join. — Cheers, ] (]) 19:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

			Hi all:
	== Flying cars and Whitehead ==
			The citation of my recent is not shown on the page after I saved (inside aircraft specs). Any insights? Thanks! ] (]) 23:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

	~~There is a discussion at ] on whether or not ]'s~~ No.21 ~~model~~ ~~should~~ ~~be listed~~ in the ~~article~~ on the ]. ~~Strong~~ ~~views~~ ~~are being put,~~ and ~~any~~ ~~sanity~~ ~~checks or views on consensus here would~~ be ~~very~~ ~~much appreciated~~. ~~— Cheers,~~ ] (]) 09:38, 5 November ~~2022~~ (UTC)		: Check again. Another user moved the citation to the "combat range note" template field and things appears to be working now. ] (]) 00:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	:A discussion has also now been started on the Fringe noticeboard, see '']''. Participation in this is also more than welcome. — Cheers, ] (]) 09:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

	== ~~Lists~~ of aircraft ==		== Looking for input on military aircraft articles ==

			Hi, I've just ] at ] for some help assessing a bunch of articles on prototype military aircraft against the B-class criteria. Any assistance would be welcome. Many thanks - ] (]) 17:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	This WikiProject covers many articles which include lists of aircraft. Some of those lists include both types which have flown and types which have not. Where a list includes both classes, a sortable table offers the opportunity for a '''Status''' column so that the distinction can be made transparent. For more about all this, see ] and its ].

			== Curious... ==
	Two changes recently proposed elsewhere include:
	# Split the mixed types out into flown and unflown lists, and abandon any idea of mixed lists. This goes directly against the reason we adopted the sortable table format.
	# Preface every such list with an article or section title which advises the reader of the fact, for example '''List of flown and unflown delta-wing aircraft''' instead of just '''List of aircraft with delta wings'''. It has been suggested in '''' edit comment that failing to do so breaches ].

			...that ] was made in a flash but no article yet on Shenyang's (apparently named?) J-50. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	These options would also affect the many bulleted lists, such as the overarching ''']''' - which would become the '''List of flown and unflown aircraft''' but with no status indicator for the individual items. Do people here think that either of these is worth rolling out? — Cheers, ] (]) 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

		⚫	:Shhhh! ;) ] (]) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Project members might do well to read the relevant thread on WP:FTN, for context. This clearly isn't an abstract discussion about lists of aircraft. ] (]) 14:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::Yes, that is where one of these changes was proposed. It is the discussion I already notified in the previous thread above here. In it, {{u\|AndyTheGrump}} accuses this WikiProject of wholesale policy breaches (if it isn't me making the whole WikiProject thing up, he seems unsure about that), which is one of the principal reasons I brought it here for clarification. Ever more wild accusations and proposals are being bandied around, so it is important that the project does make itself clear here. — Cheers, ] (]) 14:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::I have accused this Wikiproject of absolutely nothing. Instead, I have noted repeatedly that you have failed to provide the slightest evidence that the Wikiproject in any way supports the misleading list title in question. You claimed it was in accord with 'consensus'. Provide evidence for this 'consensus'. Now. ] (]) 14:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::Try following the links in my opening paragraph and having a read. No, my friend, it is you who repeatedly refuse to read and respond to the evidence I proffer. Note especially the information on '''Status''', a topic you have been so assiduously avoiding. — Cheers, ] (]) 15:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::(ec) So, 'consensus' comes down to an essay you largely wrote yourself, interpreted by yourself to permit inclusion of Gustave Whitehead's non-flying (by mainstream consensus) machine in a list of 'flying cars'? An interpretation not in the slightest supported by anything the 'status' section actually says? Really? That's the best you have to offer? No actual discussion where any consensus on relevant topics was reached?. Anyway, this whole discussion is clearly a red herring, since the core issue is whether Misplaced Pages should be including fringe claims in the list at all, not about arbitrary 'status' labels. ] (]) 15:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::I have seldom seen such absurd rambles here. You press me for evidence and then say it is irrelevant anyway. For the benefit of others I would note that the ''']''' values include "Project" on the explicit understanding that "if a type has not flown then it remains a 'Project', whether or not construction was started or even finished". The accusation that this is "an interpretation not in the slightest supported" is given the lie in no uncertain terms. — Cheers, ] (]) 15:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::How about providing some evidence that despite appearances you aren't using Misplaced Pages to promote historical revisionism against mainstream consensus. ] (]) 15:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::You are breaching ] again. — Cheers, ] (]) 16:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::::::And yet again you are failing to provide a policy-based reason why Whitehead's non-flying machine (per WP:RS) should be promoted as a 'flying car'. You are of course entitled to hold any opinion you like on the matter. What Misplaced Pages does not however permit is engaging in such fringe promotion in articles. As you are no doubt already aware, given your continuing refusal to respond to the issue directly. ] (]) 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::@Andy: That does sound _very_ grumpy. Why the imperative? Why the "now"? Misplaced Pages content is all about collaboration. Neither was Rome built in one day, we are not in any hurry. ] (]) 15:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::::It is difficult to 'collaborate' with someone who repeatedly refuses to address the core issue that began this discussion - the promotion of historical revisionist content, against mainstream consensus. ] (]) 15:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::{{u\|AndyTheGrump}} Can you please explain how Steelpillow has engaged in historical revisionism? - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::See the discussion of the fringe theories noticeboard. ] (]) 20:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:17, 5 January 2025

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft

	Aviation portal This page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
	This page is supported by the aircraft project.

WikiProject Aircraft was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 13 June 2011.

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

Lists:

Shortcuts

Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review

Peer review

This box:

Cancelled/abandoned aircraft projects

I've been wondering if perhaps Category:Cancelled aircraft projects and its subcategories should be (1) all standardized on either "Cancelled" or "Abandoned" and (2) perhaps should be trimmed to only include unbuilt/unflown aircraft, which then wouldn't be in the aircraft-by-type-nation-and-decade categories. Thoughts? The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think they may have been a subtle difference between the two that has been lost in time, I believe abandoned were aircraft flown but never developed and cancelled never actually flew. But I agree we should just make this unflown projects perhaps under cancelled. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

That would make sense. At the same time though, that' makes 'abandoned' really fuzzy in some cases (the Fisher P-75 Eagle, for instance, went into full production! Of five, before being cancelled...). So yeah, I may work on this consolidating the unbuilt types into the Cancelled categories in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen modern sources make such a distinction. In fact, I had assumed based on modern sources that "abandoned" meant paper projects that were not fully developed or an aircraft in any development stage that was literally abandoned by the developer (i.e. a lot of German designs and prototypes when their facilities were overrun by Allied forces), while "canceled" meant development was stopped at a later stage, including after the aircraft was built or flown. - ZLEA _T\ 23:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll probably go with "abandoned" since IIRC most of that category tree uses it, and it's softer, so to speak (some types were never 'cancelled', they just...faded away). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @The Bushranger's logic here: some types were never 'cancelled', they just...faded away. A cancelled project is also abandoned, but an abandoned project is not necessarily cancelled. The word "cancelled" implies that a formal declaration has been made, which is common for military aircraft in peacetime, but it's not always done in war (as outlined above), and I can think of several civilian aircraft programs that obviously ground to a halt but were never publicly cancelled (presumably to protect company leaders from negative publicity). Carguychris (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Another example would be a lot of the "Luft '46" type designs - not cancelled but abandoned both for obvious reasons! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Airntd needs tweaking?

Just realised an odd quirk of Template:airntd - when used on "military trainer aircraft" or "military transport aircraft", it points "2010 Russian" to "Russian aircraft" correctly, but when used on "attack aircraft" or "command and control aircraft", it points them to "Soviet".
Correct display: Category:2010s Russian military transport aircraft
Incorrect display: Category:2010s Russian command and control aircraft
Wonder why? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I found what seems to be an problem but likely unrelated to your issue. The template has a block of lines from "1930s Soviet" to "2020s Russian" but later has "1930s Soviet" to "2020s Ukrainian" that seems a bit odd but probably OK. There might be something with the "Military" grouping for attack to utility aircraft later in the template. Best of luck! -Fnlayson (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The citation I added does not show on the page (Inside Aircraft specs)

Hi all: The citation of my recent edit is not shown on the page after I saved (inside aircraft specs). Any insights? Thanks! Now wiki (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Check again. Another user moved the citation to the "combat range note" template field and things appears to be working now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking for input on military aircraft articles

Hi, I've just posted a request at WP:MILHIST for some help assessing a bunch of articles on prototype military aircraft against the B-class criteria. Any assistance would be welcome. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Curious...

...that Chengdu J-36 was made in a flash but no article yet on Shenyang's (apparently named?) J-50. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Shhhh! ;) BilCat (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: