Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Aircraft: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:12, 17 July 2014 editAhunt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers229,437 edits three more notifications of nomination for deletion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:17, 5 January 2025 edit undoBilCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers215,801 edits →Curious...: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WikiProject Aviation|aircraft=yes}}
}}
{{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}}
{{shortcut|WT:AIR|WT:Air}} {{shortcut|WT:AIR|WT:Air}}
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive header}}
----
{{WPAVIATION Announcements|mode=collapsed}}
{{WikiProject Aviation|class=project|small=yes|Aircraft=yes}}
{{WPAVIATION Review alerts}} {{WPAVIATION Review alerts}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}} |archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|maxarchivesize = 120K |maxarchivesize = 170K
|counter = 37 |counter = 49
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(21d) |algo = old(21d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{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}}
__TOC__

== List of large aircraft and Template:Giant aircraft nominated for deletion ==

*]
*]

== NRC Pterodactyl VIII‎ ==

I have started a discussion at ] on whether the plane and the article have the right name. I don't know much about these aircraft, so all contributions welcome,— Cheers, ] (]) 14:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
::9 days an no more comments - can we rename it now?] (]) 06:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Just added some stuff I dug up. Sorry for the delay, busy on other things. — Cheers, ] (]) 10:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:::On second thoughts, hope I've said enough now for you to go ahead. — Cheers, ] (]) 10:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Done. — Cheers, ] (]) 19:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

==List of active military aircraft==
Just been trying to sort out ] and was putting the aircraft into alphabetical order, I have been reverted by ] saying the ''order of significance is better than alphabetical order''. As I fail to see how you can measure significance is putting it into alpha order reasonable or have I missed the point, thanks. ] (]) 12:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:I think "order of significance" is way too vague and subject to a lot of disagreement. For instance, as a helicopter pilot I always think helicopters are far more important than mere fighters and bombers. We have to go with alphabetical order to save a lot of silly arguments and also to make it easier for readers to find a specific aircraft on the list, too. - ] (]) 13:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi ]. Maybe order of significance is really vague. But if you would order the planes alphabetically, you will separate planes that are purposely bunched-up together. Take for example for combat aircraft, due to alphabetization, the light attack aircraft were already separated. Take for example the transport aircraft, you've already mixed-up those used for lift versus those used for VIP transport.

::If you want to sort by type, then you need to break the page into sections, and then alphabetize within each section, otherwise no-one will have any clue where to look in your list for a specific aircraft. It better to put them all in a table, by name, but then allow them to be sorted by name, role, year and number bought. For example check out ].] (]) 06:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I already conceded to the alphabetical order. I tweaked the listings for helicopters so that it is alphabetical as well. ] (]) 07:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
::K, np.] (]) 17:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 14:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

==Tupolev Tu-116==
] has created a new article on the Tu-116 at ] rather than just work on the original ] article, they have some desire to be recorded as the article author. Rather than a complicated history merge I have used a copied from/to template to retain attribution for the new content and not loose the history of the page as I copied it into the original article over a redirect. This has not been helped by being reverted in the middle of the process can I ask others to keep an eye on the articles please, thanks.] (]) 12:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
: You stole my work and moved the contents to another page under your name. What do you expect me to think about it? Not to mention you started an edit war without any explanation. I'm reverting your changes until you care to explain what the heck you're doing. Also, I have to say this notice itself is quite offensive. You did not discuss your actions with me, did not reach any consensus or even provided a prior explanation, yet you posted a warning in a defamatory tone usually reserved to alert users of a vandal or some other evil-willed user. ] (]) 12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
: On my watchlist. — Cheers, ] (]) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:* Tu-116 is clearly the correct designation like other Tupolev aircraft. See {{t1|Tupolev aircraft}}. -] (]) 15:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Le Grand Bleu has been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and personal attacks on others (and been suspected of sock-puppetry).
:::Clearly there is a lack of understanding on how wikipedia works, starting with the fact that no-one owns a page - once it is written, it is free for anyone to do as they wish, including completely rewrite, or copy elsewhere (though this should be attributed to the original page). It cannot be stolen as it does not belong to anyone, and no-one can lay claim to being the "author" as all pages are subject to editing by anyone at any time. If Le Grand Bleu wishes to create a page perhaps rather than deleting an existing page and creating a new one at a random location, a perusal of aircraft types that are still without pages would be a better use of time - there are a great many aircraft for which no page exists yet - there is no need to vandalize an existing article for personal gratification. ''']''' is just the first page of a very long listing of pages that still need to be written - and there are a fair number of significant types lurking in there, begging to be done.] (]) 06:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 15:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 15:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

== RT aerostats systems ==

A new article has recently been created for ]. This company appears to be a subsidiary of ]. The new article lacks references and other good things - should it be improved or simply merged in with the parent article? Comments please at ]. — Cheers, ] (]) 09:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

==Mass nomination of aircraft manufacturer nav boxes for deletion==
As can been seen above, one editor seems to have taken exception to the existence of thousands of aircraft manufacturer nav boxes and is nominating these, one at a time, for deletion. I have asked him to bring the discussion here for consensus, but he seems to have declined to do so and would apparently rather just pursue nominating nav boxes instead.

Here on WikiProject Aircraft we have had a longstanding practice of creating nav boxes for manufacturers who have two of more aircraft models and have standardized this across tens of thousands of articles on aircraft types. This editor is citing an essay ] as the reason to nominate the nav boxes for deletion in favour of putting links in "see also" instead. My opinion is that the use of nav boxes across aircraft type articles creates a uniform reader experience, making most aircraft articles much easier to navigate and making it very quick to see what other aircraft types the manufacturer has also built.

My thought in bringing this here for debate is to see if we can create a new and formal consensus on the issue rather than have to carry out this debate piecemeal for each template nominated for deletion. - ] (]) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

:Agree, this looks like a one-man crusade. My feeling is that even for manufacturers with only a couple of aircraft to their name that these navboxes perform a useful function, & are a better option than including links to other aircraft in (eg) a "see also" section: its a natural reaction to want to know what other craft a company has produced, & I think that the navbox does his to best effect.] (]) 18:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

::I took the use of a navbox to be a better alternative to filling up the "See also" and allows for more efficient presentation including some categorization. To address the specific concerns, the essay takes a reasonable stance by advising a "rule" that if there are five articles to link then a navbox should be considered, and most aircraft navboxes manage that. The essay ] (I note that it doesn't actually propose that) identifies some good reasons for navboxes (including de-orphaning articles). ] (]) 18:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

*'''Keep all''' navboxes are a useful way of navigation between articles, as are categories. Both are valid methods and both have their place on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

*'''Note''': I have ] the editor who has been making these deletion nominations to come here and participate in this consensus-building discussion. - ] (]) 20:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
**The standing consensus is that navigation templates need to have at least five relevant links (= blue links) to the subjects described. Sorry. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
::And where is that consensus to be found? - ] (]) 20:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:::The Template for Discussion pages. The argument that ] is only an essay has proven to be non-effective with the acting administrators. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
::::You need to provide an actual link to the consensus discussion, or else I don't think editors here will believe you. - ] (]) 20:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::Just check those pages. Time and time again navigation templates are removed due to failing ]. Kind of Common Outcomes. But when you want to overturn consensus, TfD is the place to discuss it. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 20:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::I'll note that NENAN is a very minor essay that was created by an editor who is noted for having a... <nowiki>*cough*</nowiki> ''controversial'' at times idea of what is or is not notable. If it's being used to make deletion decisions the people who are doing so need to be trouted. Does removing the navbox improve Misplaced Pages for the user, especailly the novice-to-average user? No. No, it does not, no matter how few links are in it. (I'd say this is the silliest concept I've seen in awhile but at the same time I'm seeing the argument that a photograph of a NASCAR race car somehow violates the sponsor's copyright...) - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 20:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::User:The Banner: You are not providing any link to any discussion that shows any real consensus, so I am thinking that means that there really isn't one. We will decide a solid actual consensus one way or the other here. I would suggest you wait until this discussion is complete then. If the consensus here is that these are not needed you can nominate them all at once instead of piecemeal. If the consensus here is to keep them then this will save you all that wasted time of nominating them against the new consensus. - ] (]) 20:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
{{outdent}}{{edit conflict}}Have the templates been deleted specifically under WP:NENAN or for reasons within WP:NENAN. The editing guideline on navboxes is at ]. I don't feel that the linked articles have to exist, so long as there is a reasonable assumption that they could be created and meet notability criteria. ] (]) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:The most recent template discussion that I found that cited WP:NENAN was ], which was as much deleted (as I understand it)because its content was redundant to another navbox. I've found other deletions as a result of deciding the navbox had only a couple of navigable links but not citing WP:NENAN ] (]) 20:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
::, but I did not check everyone of the. My guess is that at least 95% of NENAN-nominaties is followed by removal or succesful rescue-operation. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

::'''NOTE''': As editors can see even while we are discussing this issue the editor has been nominating more and more aircraft nav box templates for deletion. I have ] to please stop until this discussion has been completed. - ] (]) 21:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:::And very nicely I promised to stop for today. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

:(EC) There is no minimum number of links given at ] which is the guideline (] is an essay). About five or six years ago this project moved away from the untidy 'sequence' format that was in ] and positively changed to navboxes. The only thing I can see against the guideline is that the navbox parent article should not be a redlink which can be fixed. Mass deletion nomination seems to be very against the spirit of Misplaced Pages, low on content they may be but these navboxes are very useful editing tools (i.e. 'what is left to write articles on?' is how I often use them. ] ] 21:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

::User:The Banner ] that he is done nominating boxes for today, but doesn't seem to accept that any consensus here will effect the authority of that essay he likes to cite or of the TfD editors. - ] (]) 21:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:::True, as this is the wrong venue to reach consensus. The administrators on TfD are the ones who decide ultimately so you have to convince them how unreasonable it is to use a five relevant links threshold for navigation templates. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 21:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

::::This is a perfectly valid place to come to a consensus on aircraft nav boxes and no less valid than TFD talk pages. If you think other people should be participating in this discussion then please do invite them here. We would like to have as wide a discussion as possible, Also, as I noted on your talk page, continuing to nominate templates for deletion while this discussion is ongoing may be seen as disruptive to make a ]. - ] (]) 21:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::The same for refusing to even listen to my point that this is the wrong venue. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 21:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not considering all the navbox stuff; I only really care about ]. Guideline #4 basically requires an article to exist as the title. I believe there have been a few exceptions, but exempting a whole series of templates could be controversial. It may be better to have a list or category for these, until a notable article that can appropriately link them exists. I understand black titles filling in a few spaces, but this may be too many. Can an article be made about a group of any of these? Other than the titles, the boxes more or less follow the guidelines. <tt>]]]</tt> 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Also, as convenient as it is to discuss all of these in one centralized discussion, the decision is ultimately in the hands of the admins, now that they have been nominated at TfD. I see nothing wrong with discussing it here, as long as TfD isn't forgotten. Otherwise, you may end up at a deletion review process, which is a difficult way to go, even if you have new information. <tt>]]]</tt> 00:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

:A lot of these do have titular articles, the ] template that was already deleted had one. Have a look at the ones nominated, ], ], ] and ] all have titular articles, so that isn't the reason these are being nominated. The rest could easily have them written if that is an issue, which is a better way to build an encyclopedia rather than deleting useful nav boxes. Also I have left multiple invitations for anyone reading TfDs to participate here and also asked User:The Banner to ensure that the appropriate people are invited. If people don't comment then that is their choice to not make up part of the consensus result either way. - ] (]) 01:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
::How many times do I have to tell you that this is the wrong venue? Try a neutral place and try an official RfC. But getting consensus among peers around something that is far wider used is just not sensible. Beside that, I still did not see any valid arguments to change the present consensus that navigation templates should have at least five relevant blue links. Please note that the link to the parent article and a section "related" or "see also" do not count for the five relevant links. That is the common practice at TfD. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 13:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

:::This is a completely appropriate venue since we are only discussing aircraft manufacturer nav box templates, which come under the purview of this project. Other people who may be interested have been notified and are welcome to participate. Any consensus here will not affect any other templates, just the ones being discussed here. Also you have not shown any real indication that "present consensus that navigation templates should have at least five relevant blue links". Where is that consensus to be found? Please provide a link. If you can't actually show where that consensus is found then I can only conclude that there isn't one. Regardless, as per ] a new consensus can be created at any time and that is what we are doing here. - ] (]) 13:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

::::If I remember the use of these navigation boxes was a compromise solution because somebody didnt like the same information in the see also section. If we remove all these thousands of navboxes then somebody will have to add the stuff back in the see also. In a few months time somebody else will object to this and we will then re-create all the navboxes again. All time and effort that could be used in improving the article, suggest just leave well alone they are a useful navigation aid to the reader and that is far more important. ] (]) 13:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::How about a postponement of decision on the templates nominated to give a window of opportunity for some redlinks to be filled in. A moratorium on nomination would also be useful to make the task manageable - I presume the nominator has a system for identifying the ones they think are problematic and would be able to resume nomination at any time without losing their place. Does ] offer any advice? ] (]) 18:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::I have asked the editor in question on ] several times to stop any further noms until this consensus is decided either way, but he has indicated he will continue nominating more and more templates for deletion regardless and that he will not accept any consensus here. - ] (]) 22:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I have seen between 3 and 8 articles as the threshold number, but for me it varies depending on the situation. (Note that 3 blue links to the same page, through two separate redirects and a direct link to the page, would be considered one article linked.) I don't know how much weight my !vote will have on the admin's decision, but for what it's worth, here are my personal guidelines for these templates at this time:
#I will !vote delete on any of these that have fewer than 3 total linked articles, including the title link, and few red links, because I really see no reason for a navbox at that number, and it will (I assume) mean a small number of edits to place these few links in See also sections. I also doubt the small number of links will cause many complaints, (I hope.) I may make exceptions if I believe enough articles will be linked in the future.
#If the navbox has a blue title and at least two other articles are blue-linked, I will !vote keep, at least for now. I consider this a low threshold, but I think it is fair considering the large number of nominations.
#If the navbox title is a red link, I will !vote either a conditional delete with support for undeleting/recreating when the title article (and possibly one or two others) exist or keep for now with support for renomination if they are not created (in 6 months, give or take.)
If I have not clearly followed these guidelines in my actual !votes on any of these templates, or if you think I should make an exception, please ask me about it on the TfD discussion, pinging me if you like. If you think I should change my personal guidelines, please respond here. (I'll be busy until the weekend, so don't worry if I take hours to answer.) Thanks. <tt>]]]</tt> 06:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

:User:PC-XT: Thank you for your carefully considered input! - ] (]) 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

::I think the main discussion here has died down now, although obviously this thread will remain open for further input from any other editors. Also, as can be seen, we have had input from editors from outside the Aircraft Project, since invitations were passed on to editors working on TfD as well, making this a broad-based discussion.

::To sum up what we have heard so far, we have six editors in favour of retaining all WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes, regardless of the number of blue links, one who says there should be five blue links and one who says there should be at least three blue links including a titular article. So the clear consensus is that all WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes should be retained, regardless of the number of blue links. I should point out that this consensus is regarding WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes only and in no way effects TfDs on other templates outside the scope of WikiProject Aircraft, which is why it was discussed here, with widely invited input.

::User:The Banner has indicated both above and ] that he will not accept this consensus and that he will continue to nominate every WikiProject Aircraft nav box for TfD over time. He has indicated both above and on his talk page that there is a long-standing consensus that nav boxes must have five blue links, but when challenged by several editors to point to the existence of this consensus he was consistently unable to do so. He also indicated that he will continue to nominate WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes for deletion strictly for revenge purposes. I guess I could take him to ANI, but I prefer to just oppose each nomination as he makes them, pointing out these facts. He has also refused to notify this project of TfDs, I guess I will have to continue to do that work for him. - ] (]) 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


== Cancelled/abandoned aircraft projects ==
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (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)
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (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. ] (]) 10:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (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)
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
::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)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (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? ==
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 21:05, 15 July 2014 (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>
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
Correct display: ]<br>
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


== The citation I added does not show on the page (Inside Aircraft specs) ==
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi all:
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
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)
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (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)
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


== Looking for input on military aircraft articles ==
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


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)
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


== Curious... ==
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 15:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


...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)
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 15:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


:Shhhh! ;) ] (]) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
==Notification of nomination for deletion of ]==
This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been ] at ]. - ] (]) 15:12, 17 July 2014 (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:
WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
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

pre-2004  [ General | Strategy | Table History | Aircraft lists | Table Standards | Other Tables | Footer | Airbox | Series ]
2004  [ Mar–Aug | Aug ] — 2005  [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006  [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov–Dec ]
2007  [ Jan–May | Jun–Oct | Nov–Dec ] — 2008  [ Jan | Feb–Apr | Apr–July | July–Sept | Sept–Dec ] — 2009  [ Jan–July | Aug–Oct | Oct–Dec ]
2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ] — 2011  [ Jan–April | May–Aug | Sept-Dec ] — 2012  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ]
2013  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2014  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2015  [ Jan-July | Aug-Dec ] — 2016  — 2017 
2018  — 2019  [ Jan-May | June–Dec ] — 2020  — 2021-2023  [ Jan-June 21 | June 21-March 23 | March 23-Nov 23 ]

Lists:
Search

Search
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: