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.
WikiProject:Aviation exists to co-ordinate Misplaced Pages's aviation content. However, if you are here to ask a question or raise a concern about a particular article, it may be better directed to one of the following sub-projects:
We encourage all members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation to use the translation feature more often. There are many articles that can be created or expanded via translation.
Are there changes being made that you are concerned about? It looks like reorganizing, clarifying, and rewording the guide rather than major edits, from what I could see from that diff you provided. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Currently it has been expanded by nearly 8,000 more characters. That's not just a bit of clarification. Yes I am concerned about some of the changes, but there are now far too many to keep track of. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
A considerable part of the new content is in the "References" section, which was changed from "use the cite template" to add additional content about WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SOURCE, WP:COPYRIGHT and using English language sources. Most of these seem fine, though I'd perhaps squabble with the preferred English sources part. There's also a section added about creating redirects from plausible spelling variations or alternative names, which seems like an uncontroversial addition. I'm not seeing many other significant changes. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@NiD.29: - please be clear, whilst English language sources are preferred on en-Wiki, there is no bar to a reliable source in any other language being used. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Which is precisely what I said - with the minor addition that the references should indicate the language. Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
As it stood, it was outdated and didn't reflect recent consensus, disjointed (as if it had been compiled piecemeal from a dozen different personal pages, each with its own formatting style), incomplete and included a bunch of irrelevant information that was simply confusing with regard to old practices. Any input is appreciated. I could not recall what the decision on word tense was and so haven't updated that yet. Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
At the least, some discussion beforehand would have been appreciated. Better, you could have mocked up a page of all your changes, and then we could have discussed that first. I think at this point, reverting to the previous version would be good, and then complete your work in a sandbox, and allow the project to review it first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, that would be a good way forward. It might be even wiser to make the changes piecemeal and give an opportunity for discussing discuss each one before going on to the next. But I do not think that this mass rewrite is going to be acceptable as it stands and WP:BRD looms. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Or perhaps just read through each section? There were simply too many changes needed, and more are needed still to the overall structure. I have copied the page as I left it to where I will be making further changes. I will comment with an update when I have finished. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm partly concerned with a wholesale change in tone. The previous version made an effort to be "polite", and most of this has been removed. Many sentences have also been rewritten completely, changing emphases, and reflecting one person's point of view. For now, I've reverted to the previous consensus version. - BilCat (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I have done so and can only confirm that some changes are for the better and some are for the worse, but most suffer from TL:DR. For this last reason I will not get into specifics and I doubt that many others will have the stomach to. Because of the bad changes this is unlikely to gain consensus as it stands. I really do believe that one step at a time is the only viable road to improvement. Patience is, they say, a virtue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
What "bad changes" are you referring to? To be blunt, the existing prose was terrible, the structure haphazard and there were numerous completely nonsensical sentences, not to mention several sections that were obviously copied from other pages without the wording being updated. It is overdue for an overhaul. Perhaps you can explain what "All media types included under article subheadings by aircraft type with at least one link to the article about the aircraft type itself." is supposed to mean? It isn't even a complete sentence.
So here are some proposed changes - 1 by 1.
Formatting clean up, so sections affecting the entire page (images, numbers) are not buried inside individual sections.
Why aren't Allied code names of Japanese aircraft mentioned, or treated like NATO code names? (and why does its quote need the full intro section)
Trim excessive coverage of deprecated specification templates - a mention that older templates and formats existed is sufficient.
The copy & pasted (and potentially copy-vio) references section has dead links, disallowed refs, pointless outside links, an alternate style that shouldn't even be suggested and offers very little in terms of direction.
So, Steelpillow, first you assume bad faith, and then you refuse to even so much as discuss the changes.
To start with, this page is an utter mess, and should be an huge embarrassment to anyone involved in this project. Instead of highlighting how to do things properly, it does the exact opposite. Of the five points we grade articles on, this page fails all 5 - miserably, and there are other problems not even covered by those 5 points. This should be our project's showcase - not an example to any visitor that we are clueless and lost, which is what it does now, in spades.
1. Points based on policy discussions should be linked to the relevant discussion but almost none are. I was about to start on that next.
2. There are large gaps, such as with references, and coverage on formatting alternate names. There are other obvious holes.
3. Page Organization is hopeless. Sections that impact the whole page are buried. Others are split. Minor points are given a higher level of header than major ones. It needs to be completely reorganized. There is also no consistency in section formatting.
4. The prose is shockingly bad. Sentence fragments, bad grammar, and excessively detailed explanations such as using ~10 lines to say Mach numbers cannot be calculated from top speed. The references section includes examples for referencing wikipedia - a clear violation of policy. Why do we need to include a full history of all previous specification templates? The reader only needs to know the current one, and that there were others used before.
5. There are redundant external links in the text - followed by misdirected internal links to a programming page - instead of the usage page.
6. At least three sections were pasted from elsewhere without any of the necessary changes to the grammar - one of which appears to be from an external source.
It may well have been a mess, or at least wanting improvement. But if so, it has been so for quite a while. There is not a single reason for the present urgency. As others have said, it is much better to work about one issue at at a time, and do so at a relaxed pace. That will also avoid personal conflicts like I now see emerging quite quite needlessly and very regrettably. @NiD.29, please take your time, keep calm, and do not take things personally. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Page structure
1. Does anyone have a problem with reorganizing the existing sections in the following manner? (with all existing sections preserved as they are):
==Page Name==
==Overall hints, tips, and guidelines==
(these are the items that affect multiple parts of the page)
===Images===
Registrations, tail numbers or serial numbers===
===Subsections===
===Links to the new page===
===Hidden tags for editors===
===Units===
===Mach number===
===Aircraft unit costs===
===Operating costs===
==Infobox==
==Introduction==
===NATO/Allied reporting names===
==Body==
===Design===
===Development===
===Operational history===
===Variants===
===Operators===
===Accidents and incidents===
===Aircraft on display===
===Surviving aircraft===
===Aircraft specifications===
===Notable appearances in media===
===See also===
===References===
====Aircraft type clubs====
===Further reading===
===External links===
===Navboxes===
===Categories===
==When finished==
==Creating a new aircraft page==
I do have a problem. The main part of the guide should work through the article sections in order then deal with miscellaneous things like images, Mach number and stuff afterwards. Don't have time to respond more fully just now, but I hope to tomorrow. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Fine, as long as they are together and not scattered randomly through the page. I think they work better at the top, (I tried it both ways) but either way. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a short summary of aircraft's characteristics and performance. If an article doesn't have specifications, you can either tag the article with {{aero-specs}} or add them yourself. Please use the standard template {{Aircraft specs}} when adding specifications.
Also, if you are editing an article with one of the older templates, please consider converting it to {{Aircraft specs}}. Details and a brief explanation of each template are provided on the templates' respective documentation pages.
The fallback templates, in order of preference, are:
{{Aircraft specs}} (doc). Preferred. It will automatically format and convert units
{{Aerospecs}} (doc). Deprecated should not be used.
By convention, specifications are laid out as follows:
And this (split from above on another part of the page):
Notes: These specifications should relate to a specific variant of the aircraft, and be labeled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous variant. Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided.
Please keep in mind that if a line is not applicable to a particular aircraft type, it should be omitted, for example "powerplant" for sailplanes. ::On the other hand, if data is applicable but you simply don't know it, please leave the line in place to remind others to fill it in. If you're using the template, simply leave the line blank rather than omitting it.
and replace both with (minus the indents added for clarity here):
This is a summary of the aircraft's capacities, dimensions, weights, power plant, characteristics and performance. Please use the {{Aircraft specs}} template when adding specifications. If an article lacks specifications, you can tag it with {{aero-specs}} or add them yourself. WikiProject Aircraft has previously used formats and templates that are now deprecated so if you are editing an article with an older layout please consider converting it to the current, much improved template, which automatically converts units to show both metric and imperial.
The specifications should be for a single specific variant, and be labeled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous variant. Any differences for other variants should be described in the variants or development sections. Please avoid using multiple sets of specifications. Lines that are not applicable can be omitted, such as "|powerplant=" for sailplanes. On the other hand, if data is just not available, please leave the line in to remind others to fill it in.
Table is as follows:
That is an improvement. I would make it a bit shorter, for example "reducing errors and typing" is unnecessary verbiage.
Updated with suggestions incorporated. I was noticing that the list isn't the most current as it lacks the biplane sections, but no, I don't think it really needs to be there, other than for the notes, which can be added to the template = after all, we don't have the fill text of the other templates and it is most self-explanitory. - NiD.29 (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The Mach number in the specifications section gives the aircraft's maximum speed relative to the speed of sound (Mach 1.0). The speed of sound varies in the atmosphere based on the absolute temperature and therefore is different at each altitude as temperature varies with altitude. Each aircraft manufacturer will determine the maximum or limiting Mach number for their design for a specific altitude, temperature and aircraft configuration (such as afterburning or not). Because of this Mach numbers should not be calculated by editors from maximum speeds and inserted into the specs, as this is original research and introduces errors. Instead, they should only be entered when properly sourced from reliable data, along with the conditions that the Mach number applies. If the manufacturer or other reliable sources do not specify a Mach number for the design, then the parameter should be left blank and it will not appear in the article.
Mach numbers should never be calculated by editors from maximum speeds, as this introduces errors and is original research, and introduces errors because the speed of sound is not constant under flight conditions. Instead, they should be sourced from reliable data, along with applicable conditions. If no Mach number is stated for the design, then please leave the parameter blank.
Basically OK, I'd leave in a little more explanation, say "...as this is original research and introduces errors because the speed of sound is not constant under flight conditions." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
oops, just had an edit conflict. np on addition.
Aircraft costs
And these:
===Aircraft unit costs===
A helpful essay on understanding how different types of aircraft costs are reported, what they mean, and whether they should be used in an article or the {{infobox aircraft type}} is User:Askari Mark/Understanding aircraft unit costs. It is recommended that flyaway cost for military aircraft or retail price for commercial aircraft be used in the Infobox Aircraft since these are the most commonly available costs and thus provide readers with a means for “apples and apples” comparison of relative costs.
===Operating costs===
Information on aircraft operating costs should not be included in aircraft type articles, for the following reasons:
Misplaced Pages is a world-wide project and US-centric, Euro-centric or other single country information should be avoided where possible. Providing good global operating costs is very difficult to do or source.
Reliable sources are very hard to find that give reasonable numbers for operating costs. Both aircraft manufacturers and aircraft type clubs have their own reasons for publishing numbers that are unrealistically low.
Operating costs vary greatly in different parts of the world, and even different parts of the same country, due to differences in fuel prices, maintenance costs and hangarage pricing. For example: In 2008, fuel costs increased rapidly as OPEC regulated oil production, meaning that almost any published information about operating costs would have shortly been out of date, even in as little as a week or two from publishing, damaging the reliability of the encyclopedia for verifiability.
With this
====Aircraft unit and operating costs====
If available, please use the flyaway cost for military aircraft or retail price for commercial aircraft since these are the most commonly available costs and provide an “apples to apples” comparison. A helpful essay on understanding how aircraft costs are reported, what they mean, and whether they should be used is to be found at User:Askari Mark/Understanding aircraft unit costs.
Please do not include operating costs. Misplaced Pages is global and operating costs vary greatly between localities, and when fuel costs fluctuate, so do operating costs, impairing verifiability.
(I don't think it even needs to go as far as a policy but we can put that back in if you think it needs it - the numbers are simply not going to be useful anywhere other than where and when they were calculated.), Cheers, - NiD.29 (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Unit cost: Use the flyaway cost for military aircraft or retail price for commercial aircraft, if available, since these are the most commonly available and provide an "apples to apples" comparison. A helpful essay on aircraft costs is to be found at User:Askari Mark/Understanding aircraft unit costs.
Operating cost: In general, do not include operating costs for an aircraft, as they vary greatly. They should only be included where they are part of the narrative describing a specific event.
The sections on References, Further reading and External links add nothing specific to aircraft and should be deleted from the guideline. Any comments/objections? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Why is this being discussed here? People must reorganise guidelines until they are happy, in the meantime wise editors (even new ones) will follow the layout and content of the better quality articles the project has to offer and follow the policies of WP in general (WP:FIVEPILLARS). The style page and its myriad revisions causes my eyes to glaze over as does the new RAF names navbox. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)18:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I think some of those sections should be expanded/altered slightly instead as there have been discussions over what is appropriate (wording could be improved though). Particularly by providing a link to where someone can find the navboxes to use, and make clear that in particualr with external links, that they should not be filled indiscriminately. As the reference section stands, I am sure it can be pruned substantially - there is little need for the Modern Language Association style examples at all, and the others are questionable, beyond letting readers know which style is used - and about the templates, of which more perhaps can be said.
This project follows Misplaced Pages standard APA style formatting. The standard cite templates ({{cite book | }}, {{cite magazine | }} and {{cite web | }}) simplify this process by automating the formatting. To integrate your references into the article, reference tags are also needed.
While English sources are preferred, non-English sources are fine, but the reference citation should note the language if it was not English.
===External links and Further reading===
These optional sections contain links to recommended publications or external websites not otherwise used as reference material. External links provides materials that cannot be reasonably expected to be added to the page directly and should include a summary and a rationale. Neither section should contain material duplicating article content, or expected content, including image galleries and specification tables. For further details see Misplaced Pages:External links.
I see nothing relevant to aircraft types here except use of specific navboxes. The rest should absolutely not try to duplicate existing policies and sanctioned guidelines. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Navboxes
Usually, we try to include some navboxes to tie together aircraft by the same manufacturer or those designated under the same sequence.
Something else - the references section might mention the preference for ===xx=== style formatting in the reference section for all its problems over :/; formatting due to problems with text to audio converters. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Why is this being discussed here? People must reorganise guidelines until they are happy, in the meantime wise editors (even new ones) will follow the layout and content of the better quality articles the project has to offer and follow the policies of WP in general (WP:FIVEPILLARS). The style page and its myriad revisions causes my eyes to glaze over as does the new RAF names navbox.Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)19:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The Reference formatting section should be blasted from orbit - it is contrary to WP:CITEVAR to specify reference formatting. The guidance absolutely should not require the use of APA-style referencing as this is contrary to WP:CITEVAR. Wikiprojects do not have the power to over-rule site wide-guidance like that. Incidently, has anyone consulted WP:MOS about the style guide, either now or previously, as local consensus here doesn't count.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Requiring a specific cite format is a non-starter. Many, many articles don't use the cite book template at all and only use the ISBN template which is about the minimum required.
Duly blasted - - does that meet with expectations?
Lists of variants
We do have a bad problem with using unacceptable code (the semi-colon) to bold a header like when enumerating models or variants, or user air forces. I've switched some of the ones that I've worked on over to level 4 headers so that they can be properly read by text-to-speech readers for the blind or visually impaired, although I'll concede that it looks a little odd.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been wondering about that for a while, ever since a saw someone changing the references section. FWIW, when I found out the see also template was deprecated, I played around with some code, and the sizes and density of the text can be adjusted in a === vvv === type header to match those of the :/; formatting - however it does involve some fairly clunky additional formatting as {{font|size=83.6%|text=NNNnnnn}}. The problem is system-wide as the various levels of === vvv === formatting are not ordered properly - they should have gone from large-bold to small-narrow but do not do this consistently. Skipping a level also invokes an error which shows up on the https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ report. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that the problem with the appearance relates more towards the density in which we use it rather than any specific size issues. Those aren't real noticeable when you've got a couple of dozen lines between headers, but when they're a line or two apart, things really get accentuated. Westland Wyvern is one where I used level 3 headers with indents and the headers really stick out in comparison with the level 2 header above them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The Semi-colon markup is borrowing the Glossary format but without sticking to the one sentence explanation. Is there an alternative that doesn't create a lot of very short section headings (looking at Hawker_Hart#Variants would give 33, or so, level 4 sections of about a sentence each. Would bulleting work? Or should be just use bold and indent in place of semi-colon/colon? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
See what you make of it here Hawker Hart I changed the first sub-section of the Variants (and then changed it back). Might look better with a double space indent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a more simpler solution than using sections and possibly having to adjust the TOC limit on each article. How does the rest of the community feel? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
There should be no hard and fast layout rule. Some types have huge numbers of variants and the list will need to be its own article. Other long lists need to be condensed as far as possible (see below). At the bottom end will be a few significant variants each with its own subsection and descriptive content, but not enough to deserve their own articles. On long in-page lists, the Q&A or glossary format is at least good at enforcing brevity, even if the alternating indents are a bit naff. We are not supposed to use simple bolded paragraphs as item headings, while I don't like massive strings of bullets and the technicalities of the formatting code are seldom observed - in both the "before" and "after" Hawker Hart examples the list is rendered to html as a sequence of single-entry lists, even with a nested single entry for the content inside the list entry for the heading. The truth is, without a lot of changes to the CSS styling, there is no way to format good-looking lists with clean and editor-friendly code. A Project template might be do-able, but we would need to agree a particular data structure for the list entries first and, for reasons given at the start, that could limit its applicability. Still, it might be worth a try? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think a template is necessary. Rather than specify how to layout variants sections (though I think I've seen a variant's section with a single entry....) I was looking for guidance that instead of using the semi-colon/colon method we could - if we choose - use manual bold ''' ''' and colon to get a similar effect without going against accessibility. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer to use the standard bold syntax for variant headers. Bullet points should be used for sub-variants similar to how they are here. - ZLEAT\19:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
If the list structure is to be recognised by assistive software when rendered as html then it needs to differentiate the variant's name structurally (semantically) from the rest of the entry in one of a small number of prescribed ways. The obvious ways include section headings (==== renders as <h4>), lists (*, :, ; render as <ul>, <dl><dt> and <dl><dd>) and table headings (! renders as <th>).
Of these, section headings are awful as in this case they do not denote subsections, unordered (bulleted) lists have no concept of title/name, data lists are well aligned to the job but are limited in flexibility, and tables use clunky wikitext.
Thus, a data list is probably the best option and we would have to live with its one-liner limitation.
The indented format
Like
This...
can only be changed by modifying the CSS styling code. Adding this in-page is a non-starter, hence my suggestion for a template. The alternative is to live with the indent.
Articles about Soviet aircraft with official NATO reporting names, or Japanese aircraft with Allied reporting names should display the reporting name in bold within parentheses in the first line, following the primary title, per the ::::Misplaced Pages style guide on secondary names in lead sections. Reporting names should only be used in the first line, the variants section or in direct quotations from sources. For example: :::
Per the Misplaced Pages style guide on secondary names in lead sections, if an aircraft has a different name in its country of origin than it does in English, as with many Japanese, Russian, French or German aircraft, then this name (in the appropriate alphabet) should follow the main title, with a translation into English. If the aircraft also has a code name, such as the NATO reporting names for Soviet aircraft or the Allied reporting names for Japanese aircraft, this should then follow the translated name in parentheses. Reporting names should only be used here, the variants section or in direct quotations from sources.
This was where the conversation started; as usual in such cases, there is a link to it from the guideline's talk page. If you click through the link you provided in your other question, you will see that you did miss something. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Assuming it has been deprecated but was not updated because it is locked. But its doc page is not locked, hah! So I have added the deprecation template there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I had no idea it was depreciated. Just a few days ago I created an article with it. I wouldn't be opposed to it, seeing that it makes editing with visual editor more complicated while offering no clear advantages over the alternative way of listing related links. - ZLEAT\18:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging. I have reverted the template while we figure out why the guideline says it is deprecated and what to do about it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I notice above that NiD.29 also "found out that the See also template was deprecated". It seems abundantly clear that there can have been no large-scale consensus for its deprecation. On the other hand I do recall a discussion in which some of us said we had found it unsuitable for certain links. So I will reword the layout guideline and template doc accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion somewhere made it clear that in aviation, a speed given in miles per hour normally means nautical miles per hour, i.e. knots. Therefore we should never convert between knots and mph, as say {{convert|100|knots|mph}} or {{convert|100|mph|knots}} because that would be both wrong and badly misleading. Any objections to adding this to the guideline? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't recall ever having come across that convention in all my years in the industry. The only time I've heard "miles per hour" in reference to the speed of an aircraft was in explaining something to a layman who wouldn't have a clue what a nautical mile was. In other words miles per hour with no qualification means statute miles per hour. I'm mystified as to the reasoning behind this proposal. DaveReidUK (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
mph may mean statute miles per hour, but has become completely outdated by 2020. The really correct logical consequential approach would be to apply ISO units like km/h for speed, metres for altitude, and perhaps m/sec for wind speed. Unfortunately, all that has been advocated AND practised 60-odd years ago by the "bad guys" both Stalin and Hitler so it is politically incorrect today. ( later edit: I am NOT applying any labels to any contributor here, though some seem to find such interpretations. I am referring to historical fact.) I well remember Baltic republics regaining independence around 1990, and promptly changing their AIP from metres to feet for altitude, just to be politically correct; which then and there meant "not like Moscow". Any discussion on these matters is two-dimensionally arguable, by which I mean that it depends on both where one is and what category of aviation is discussed. For one example, I know regions where glider pilots express their airspeed in km/h yet Cessna pilots will mention knots and so on &c ad nauseam. But mph is mostly a thing of the past, yes. Any use of that outdated term implicitly refutes the common "knots" usage. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Just because something was used and promoted by "bad guys" does NOT mean it's politically incorrect, especially if they had nothing to do with the criminal activities of said "bad guys". Hitler was a vegetarian, but that doesn't make vegetarianism politically incorrect. Besides, statute miles per hour is still widely used in aviation in the US, as is knots. - ZLEAT\17:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, we seem to agree. Still, the US is about the only country in the world to still measure runway lengths in feet - their usage of mph may well be equally "unique" :) I do concede that "knots" remains in wide usage; but "mph" doesn't, therefore, I hold that "mph" should not be used as a unit on these pages, or at most with explicit warning. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
American general aviation aircraft in use in the United Kingdom have airspeed indicators calibrated in miles per hour, British aircraft have knots, newly imported European aircraft often use kilometres per hour. It is for this reason that on type conversion we treat the units on the instrument as 'bananas', i.e. the approach speed for a Piper PA-25 Pawnee is 75 bananas. Original research but true. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)17:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
(ec) That doesn't explain why most references use mph and km/h, not nautical miles. Any attempt to demand that we use knots only shows contempt for the reader.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Most references use mph and km/h? There may be regional differences, but still I should like to see some source for that. In all my (mostly G/A) observation, most indications of airspeed are in knots, in Europe and in many places though not in the former CIS countries where indeed km/h often prevails. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Certainly most of the references I have - including things like Putnams, but it is clear that this doesn't count and some people here think that anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi or communist. It is clear that my contributions to aviation subjects is not welcome here and so I will not edit here again.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
All of the aircraft listings on Joe Baugher's website that list speeds list them in mph, as do just about every book on aviation that's printed in the US. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a reference that used knots. - ZLEAT\18:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
These are all cans of worms that have been opened many times before, using the search archive box above will reveal hundreds of words on this very subject (and other subjects including British aircraft naming, de Havilland aircraft naming etc). Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)19:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nigel Ish:, @Nimbus227: Here I have two knowledgeable folks walking out on a discussion which really needs a sane consensus. Please stay the course! My UK based vintage aircraft friends assure me that mph has historically indicated nautical miles per hour and many long-distance and speed records of the Golden Age were thus expressed (that OR again). The modern US convention is news to me. Whatever we decide to do, we need to be able to disambiguate which kind of miles is being used; I am reluctant to add bananas to Template:convert. But I do think we need to add some kind of caveat to our guidelines. Perhaps it would be best to leave units per the source (priority given to official sources) and not attempt to convert mph unless we can also be sure (and if necessary cite) what kind of miles they are? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps have a wade through BCARs, the answers you are looking for might be in there. I left the aviation industry as Chief Engineer of an M3 Maintenance organisation, I couldn't keep up with the daily regulation changes, a bit like Misplaced Pages's aviation project. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Warning = unreliable source (Misplaced Pages!): "Miles per hour (mph, MPH or mi/h) is a British imperial and United States customary unit of speed expressing the number of statute miles covered in one hour". https://en.wikipedia.org/Miles_per_hour. I'd suggest that if we want to contradict that, we need to cite some authoritative sources. DaveReidUK (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Definitely nautical miles for the Knots, presumably statute miles for the MPH as the conversion value is fairly close. Found another example in the airspeed article. Looks like modern practice is unequivocal. Wish I could find the previous discussion, as I did a fair bit of research on vintage ASI for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I've never seen anything suggesting that mph really means knots per hour. Just grabbing a few reference books off the closest shelf shows Ginter's book on the Curtis XBT2C using mph with a parenthetical conversion into kts. French Secret Projects 2 uses a mixture of mph, kmh and Mach. Wagner's American Combat Planes of the 20th Century solely uses mph, with an occasional stray Mach number, as does America's Hundred Thousand and the Putnam book on Curtiss. Bowyer's The Stirling Story reproduces A&AEE performance graphs that use mph.
I don't give a damn what's on the ASI since I've only been in a few cockpits to see what units their ASI is measured in; I only care what can be verified from our sources. And it seems pretty obvious to me that authors have made an effort to be consistent in their units to facilitate comparisons between aircraft and their variants. And the difference between mph and kts is bigger than you might think as Ginter's table shows 344 mph equalling 300 kts. For our purposes I wouldn't bother with knots at all unless forced to by your sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Given that Misplaced Pages has inbuilt capability to display equivalent values in different units, your suggestion is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Incidentally, pretty well every FAA Type Certificate and Flight Manual that I've ever seen throughout my career has shown limitations in knots (older aircraft also have mph, but newer ones don't) DaveReidUK (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Not denying that, but how many of us have access to them? The conversion template for knots automatically converts into both mph and kmh if you don't specify the output parameters, but how well does our specs template handle knots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)
International ATC should apparently no longer talk of "miles" as in "Yourplane 123AB, airport at your 11 O'clock in 20 miles". However they still commonly do, and they mean nautical miles. The ICAO standard is the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Annex 5 - Units of Measurement to be used in Air and Ground Operations, an old-ish copy here. The only permitted alternative to SI units for distance flown is Nautical Miles and for speed is Knots. See also the somewhat more recent Singapore CAA Manual of Standards (pp.3-2 to 3-3). There is an interesting commentary on the consequences to pilot workload and mistakes here, which makes it clear that, as of 2016, most American aircraft still worm out of the standard (which you may do if you declare the fact) and use statute miles in the cockpit, although the more digital ones allow the pilot to select their preferred units. The current situation is apparently that "The latest amendments of Annex 5 deleted the references to temporary non-SI units." but that version appears to be paywalled. I do not know whether the practical use of nautical miles and knots is reducing in consequence, or perhaps more nations are declaring their exception, but one can be fairly confident that the US is still going its own statute way. I would hazard that this includes their domestic ATC. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
That is certainly what I experience in my corner of the world (EBBU FIR), yes. But the more I follow this, the more clear it becomes to me that there is no "one size fits all" reply. US seem to prefer statute miles and mph (as far as I understand, never having been there, let alone having flown there), Western Europe (including the UK) uses knots and nautical miles, Russia and its (former) satellites use km and km/h. Oh well, what a joy to live in a diversified world ;) Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Here is a suggested update to the guideline:
"Primary measurements should be given in the same units used by the manufacturer or country and period of origin, wherever possible. Braces immediately following should give them in other familiar units. Template:Convert should be used, to avoid miscalculations and typing errors.
Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names is a large navbox listing every type in RAF service. It is being added to all the aircraft articles - 252 as I write. Yet we already have a far more informative List of aircraft of the Royal Air Force, a simple "See also" link to that would require no more clicks to bring it up. To me this is ultimate navbox clutter, listcruft hell, or whatever more unprintable epithets you might care to imagine. I have a mind to WP:TfD it. But first, has it gained any kind of community consensus? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I would support deletion. While many designation systems would benefit from such a navbox, I'm not sure the RAF is one of them. - ZLEAT\16:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
So, every branch of the US military gets whole clusters of them, the Luftwaffe gets several (tell me there is any significant difference between this one and Template:RLM aircraft designations in size, number of links, coverage, etc - indeed the RAF one is slightly smaller), but not the RAF? Seems disproportionate. By that logic we should get rid of them all. A lot of aircraft on the list do not have many links, and this provides way for readers to find an RAF aircraft by name. If the RAF is deleted, then by logic, the RLM one must also be deleted. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not averse to the navbox. I think there are ways it could be better - eg handling the three Lightning entries. If it's considered oversize it could be split into four (First World War, Interwar, Second World War, modern) - a bit of overlap between them but nothing worrying. I presume we get a RNAS/Fleet Air Arm and an Army Air Corps one at sometime too.
The initial intention was to limit it to solely those aircraft named for/by the RAF, but that introduced problems with referencing. By era might work though - broken into 1918-1935, 1936-1946 and 1947-current or something similar (WW1 would not be very large). I was intending ones for the RFC, RNAS, and FAA. Were there any types the AAC operated that the RAF did not? Sorry, don't have much inclination/information for the AAC, would have left that to someone else. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The difference between the US and RLM designation systems and the RAF designation system is that the US and RLM systems are simply a number and a prefix, while RAF aircraft are referred to by their names. A majority of these names are longer than than US/RLM designations. For example, Spitfire, which is an average length for an RAF name, is noticeably longer than even the longest US/RLM basic designations such as F-100 and Bf 109. The RLM navbox cannot be reasonably split as it covers a single numeric designation system that applied to aircraft of all roles, unlike the US designation system. The RAF system, however, doesn't follow a numeric sequence Therefore, its navbox could be split by role, which, in my opinion, would be a better option than splitting it by years. - ZLEAT\20:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
However, this fails to account for the fact that the British designation system IS the names - bombers and transports for cities, flying boats were coastal cities, land based maritime patrol were famous explorers, etc, even if they started getting sloppy in WW2 and eventually let it fall apart, and there are a LOT fewer of them than there were RLM designations - or USAAC/USAAF/USAF/USN designations. Splitting by role makes as much sense as splitting the RLM navbox up by role - it breaks the continuity. (ps if you are going to add a reply in the middle of a discussion rather at the end, could you add an empty line after it so it is possible to find without ctrl-f? - NiD.29 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
You seem to miss the fact that the RLM system was numeric, and there were no separate systems for different roles. The RAF system is names, not numbers, therefore it makes more sense to split the RAF navbox than it does the RLM navbox. There is no continuity with the RAF system, the tendency to name aircraft after cities or explorers based on their role is a tradition, but not part of the system. And as you said, naming traditions gradually fell apart during WWII, so any perceived continuity has already been broken for over 75 years. - ZLEAT\23:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
How do you think I might have missed that the RLM used numbers, when you know I was pruning out entries that should never have even been included? Your point is? The RLM system also fell apart over time - aside from duplications, they started skipping numbers and assigning random numbers because someone liked a particular number (ie Fw 200) and then went completely out of the system at the end with the V weapons. Many other systems are a mix of numeric, alphanumeric and names (including the Japanese) - this should not be the reason for unbalancing our project toward German aircraft, which is what is happening. Navboxes do not exist in isolation - they also facilitate page rankings in google and other search engines, which work by the number of links pointing at a specific page. If only the German pages get a massive navbox, then they will be lifted well above those of all other nationalities - leading to systemic bias. And FWIW, there are also much larger navboxes in the morass of US manufacturer navboxes. - NiD.29 (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't imagine what kind of google search would bring up both german and US/RAF in a way that would make that a problem. Misplaced Pages articles on aircraft usually at the top of the search results, and if not they are on the first page. We cannot treat the RLM and RAF designation systems like they are similar, because they're not. Logic applied to one most likely can't be applied to the other. It would make more sense to split up the RAF navbox than it does the RLM template. Besides, the US designations are already split by role, and it's not causing a systemic bias problem. - ZLEAT\01:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
"By that logic we should get rid of them all." -- sounds an excellent idea to me, I had no idea all this bloatware existed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually I (and probably others) do find them useful, and with better coverage they effectively make the see also section redundant (perhaps we can talk about eliminating the section now that the template for it has been deprecated) - and they are neatly tucked away so they do not contribute to clutter. For cases were there are a bunch of them, as on some US military aircraft, they can be grouped inside a single box (which needs to be done on a number of pages). There are however a lot of them that only have a few entries - I have been consolidating some of them as I can, to reduce the number of naxboxes with only a few entries (including one with just 2 entries, and a whole bunch of one line boxes). They don't appear at all on mobile devices either where clutter is more of a problem - not sure if by policy or by some software limitation though. - NiD.29 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
NiD.29 I've begun the process of splitting the RAF navbox by role. I've made a few other changes from the original:
I've only included aircraft that have been given names under the system.
I've included aircraft from other branches, such as the Fleet Air Arm and the Army Air Corps, as they're covered by the same designation system as the RAF.
I've split the aircraft by type; land-based, carrier-based, seaplanes, helicopters, etc.
The new templates are in my sandbox. Only the first four navboxes have been completed. Let me know if there are any changes you would make. - ZLEAT\02:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I like the bolding and italics, but am not sure of the inclusion of the other services (I would not use the term British aircraft, but rather British military aircraft so as to include American types that were operated), or of the distinction between carrier-based and land-based. I also would merge several of them - bombers and transports for instance, and utility and trainers as those roles frequently overlapped - as well as reconnassance, AEW, ASW, and MP. - NiD.29 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I included the other services because they all use the same designation system. I don't think merging bombers and transports is a good idea, as those are two distinct roles. While some bombers were used near the end of their service life as transports, I don't think that merits the merger of two distinct roles. I'm unsure about merging the trainers into the already very broad utility navbox. On the other hand, merging the reconnaissance types is a great idea. - ZLEAT\13:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Some thoughts:
The "names" in the titles is cruft. These are lists of aircraft articles, not lists of name articles.
It is absurd not to list WWI planes and a few others just because they were known by their type numbers. By deleting "names" as above, these can sensibly be included.
These are all military lists, yet some classes such as transports, trainers, utility and UAVs also have purely civilian examples. So the titles need to make their military nature clear.
Perhaps Search & rescue and Maritime patrol should be merged, as so many types were used for both. Similarly with AEW and EW. There is a list of suitable roles at . These templates should not be taken as an opportunity to ignore that consensus without proper consultation. Indeed, it might suggest additional lists for say Experimental and research, which could provide a more sensible home for de Havilland DH.88 Comet K5084 among others. Here is that list:
Sounds good, but I do have some questions. Is "Private (includes homebuilds)" really a military role? After all, if a former private aircraft is in military service then it is no longer considered "private". Also, why not just include multi-role aircraft in the navboxes for the individual roles it performs? - ZLEAT\14:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The original de Havilland Biplane No.2 was a private homebuild. But yes, there is a strong case for saying that in military service it became the RAF F.E.1 experimental prototype and listing it accordingly. The nascent RFC probably had some similar examples among its original haphazard collection of old wrecks. I don't know about other air forces around the world, which is the scope of the guideline, but from time to time they certainly pressed into service some odd machines which they did not own. The guideline was brewed up principally for searchable tables, where listing all the roles is not an option. I'd suggest the Multi-role class has a value here where the plane was either designed from the outset or developed to take on roles of comparable importance. For example the Spitfire PR variants were insignificant, while the Mossie was designed from the outset for reconnaissance, bombing and fighting. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Naming for British aircraft
On a related note - if the project consensus naming convention is manufacturer designation name - why is this not applied for almost any of the Avro, DH or Bristol aircraft? - NiD.29 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
It is most obvious with DH - but for instance, de Havilland Tiger Moth should be de Havilland DH.82 Tiger Moth - for several reasons. There were a number of duplicated type names - two Tiger Moths and two Giant Moths etc. Sorting the names is easier when they are all done automatically by their type numbers, which then puts them in their correct chronological order. Same with many of the Avros - all of which had numbers, but not all had names. Before I began the tedious task of renaming hundreds of pages (to which someone would no doubt object) and then having to fix their corresponding wikidata and wikimedia entries to correlate.) I wanted to bounce it off folks - find out if there was a why beyond simple inertia. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The naming convention instruction at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Aircraft says: "In general, aircraft articles are named by their manufacturer, then by name and/or designation number" With a note on the subpage "In some cases, the type may not have a designation or name, or its inclusion would not make sense to meet the common name criteria". The DH.82 aircraft is known most commonly as "de Havilland Tiger Moth" but the obscure de Havilland DH.71 Tiger Moth is differentiated with its number. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Except in some parts, the number IS used as much as the name, such as in Canada (where there were multiple variants in use), and by those who are familiar enough to realize there is a possibility for confusion - moreso than for many of the USAAF types that have their designation even though the US was a minor user and the type was known more often by the name (think Vultee A-31 Vengeance). It still does not explain the omission for the rarer types where the RAF (which was the biggest user not using the designations) was not a user. The rule you mention was intended for aircraft like the Concorde, where the full name was a significant problem - that should not be the case for the de Havillands and others I mentioned. - NiD.29 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
There's always been a lot of "inertia" when it comes to renaming British aircraft to follow the guidelines, usually falling back Common name. The same thing exists with missiles and rockets, where the manufacturer usually is not included in the title, but it is for many British missiles. It drives us "symmetrists" nuts, but all of Misplaced Pages is that way to some extent. Sometimes it's easier to just.let it ne than to.try to force square pegs to accept round holes. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Project consensus cannot override the WP:COMMONNAME policy - see also its explanatory supplement on WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Common names are not systematic, they are memorable and evocative. So we go with evocative and keep the official designations for when they help us disambiguate in a natural way (or, of course, where the official type designation becomes the common name). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom
Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. buidhe17:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names
You have to remember that both India and China have also had problems with forged or fraudulent licences. I some case the licences are genuine just obtained fraudently by falsifying either experience or qualificatons so you may need some consideration on the article title. MilborneOne (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd agree with that wider perspective. If the practice is sufficiently widespread, it would be easier to establish notability for a general article on fraudulent pilot's licenses, before any national spin-off could be justified. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I quite agree with the above. Shocking as these reports may be to aviators, they are a tiny minority of mankind as a whole. I doubt the facts should be considered worth of mention in an all-round encyclopedia. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Kindly take a look at the recent history of Boeing 314 Clipper. It is not much more than a squibble on words, but I am annoyed by the chap's headstrongness, and US-centricity. Wasn't there a consensus somewhere to mention this as a US-an plane, besides? Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any such problems with removing the wikilink or changing "United States" to "American". If there turns out to be no consensus against calling it "American" (after all, it is the proper word when describing something from the US), I'd be all for it. - ZLEAT\12:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The normal term for aircraft (or anything else) from the United States is "American". You can argue whether that should be linked or not to United States. Yeah, I know WP:OVERLINK, but there are people in the world who do not know that "American" means "pertaining to the United States" and also some people who do not know what "United States" means, or where it is located and for whom a link would be useful. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree "American" is normal style for American aircraft, I have added United States in the national origin field in the infobox to avoid confusion. On another note it is unusual to list all the individual aircraft of a type as most the them dont appear to have a particularly noteoworthy life. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that it is more accurate to say that there are people in the world who claim on Misplaced Pages not to know that "American" usually pertains to the US or where the "US" is. Sorry, but knowledge of the USA is probably the single most universal factoid of international geography (and I'm a Brit). Best to ignore such PoV idiocy and not let it infect our editing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
While I have actually met a few people here in Canada who don't know where the United States is, my main concern in leaving "American" unlinked from United States, is the considerable number of people from Central and South America who call North and South America a single continent named "America" and who think that "American" pertains to anything or anyone from "The Americas" (i.e. them), as in "Embraer is an American aircraft manufacturer" or "Brazilians are Americans". Linking it avoids all that sort of contention. - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Concur on using "American". It's the standard demonym and adjective for the United States in all varieties of native English, and in most non-native varieties also. No one ever seems to be confused about what country is meant by "Death to America!" - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I (unfortunately) agree with BilCat. But for the sake of avoiding confusion people who do not know what/where "America" is, I would link it to United States. - ZLEAT\19:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
"I have actually met a few people here in Canada who don't know where the United States is". Do any of those benighted souls nevertheless know how to access the Internet, find and read Misplaced Pages? If not, we are not really writing for them. I am also minded of the local farmers who claim in conversation not to know what or where Europe is, despite receiving its regular farm subsidies, or my teacher training classroom experience during which teenage kids claimed not to know what a "biro" was or the difference between a railway station and a police station. One of the more difficult problems for the National Census statistics is, when people put down their religion as "Jedi", are they taking the mickey or do they really mean it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
To be honest I try not to second guess these sorts of issues. Many years ago when I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, I saw a report on language testing. They had tested a number of English Canadians on their French abilities and French Canadians on their English. Despite claims to the contrary, most had no fluency in the opposite language, so they tried testing English Canadians on their English abilities and French Canadians on their French and discovered that a depressing large number were not fluent in any languages at all. I figure that is who we are writing for, people not fluent in any languages. - Ahunt (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Many speakers of English are actually fairly fluent in a spoken dialect of English, which they were raised speaking. Those dialects generally aren't written, and they are usually taught to read and write in their local standard English. But the further their local dialect is from standard English, the less fluent many of those people will be. Unfortunately, too many of those people also try to edit Misplaced Pages, not just read it! - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. We also get a lot of readers for whom English is not their first language reading en.wikipedia, solely because their first language Misplaced Pages is less complete, which brings them here. So when I write and add links here, try to be as clear and precise as possible and also assume no a priori knowledge at all. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the polite discussion. I have come to realise that most of my annoyance was at the use of the "dialect" America where I would prefer the formal US. But I do seem to remember a guideline to use common names rather than official names, or at least to tolerate them. Case closed, for me. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Proposed addition to AIRMOS
I propose that we add to WP:AIRMOS to recommend that the national origin of the aircraft be linked in both the lead section as well as the infobox. - ZLEAT\21:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose the infobox is the perfect place to list information systematically. The lead section should be left to editorial preference. Avoid making too many rules!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Marc. Once you make a rule like that, you start running into exceptions and it just gets horrible. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Variant Recommend naming the country of origin in the infobox, and with the formal official name, ideally wikilinked. Nothing more. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment It is discouraged for large, well known countries at MOS:OVERLINK which applies to all WP articles. I link in the infobox but not the first sentence as there are usually many links there already, not so long ago many of the bolded article title repetition had the manufacturer linked in the bolding (against MOS:LINKSTYLE). There are editors linking countries, unlinking countries and linking/unlinking in the infobox. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
El Al
Airline Geeks reports that El Al have suspended all operation effective 1 July. Not sure as to the reliability of that site, but the article hasn't been edited since 27 June. I would have thought that other sites might have said something though. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, AVweb is a WP:RS, meets all the requirements and is a respected aviation media outlet, with independent oversight. It is used often as a ref for articles under this project. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
. But I do think we need to add some kind of caveat to our guidelines. Perhaps it would be best to leave units per the source (priority given to official sources) and not attempt to convert mph unless we can also be sure (and if necessary cite) what kind of miles they are? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Template:Royal Air Force aircraft names has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)