![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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
[ Jan-Dec ]
— 2017
[ Jan-Dec ]
2018
[ Jan-Dec ]
— 2019
[ Jan-May
| June–Dec ]
— 2020
[ Jan-Dec ]
— 2021-2023
[ Jan-June 21
| June 21-March 23
| March 23-Nov 23 ]
![]() | ![]() |
October 04 |
In mid-August, some members of this project had detailed discussions off-wikipedia at a forum (aeronaut.ca/wikiforum). While useful at the time, discussion is now much more active here on the talk page. |
General | |
---|---|
Military | |
Accidents / incidents | |
Records |
Old talk archived at:
I've put together a simple template for the related content section - it's pretty nonstandard, and the old one is a huge black table. This combines the newer format we decided on a while ago with the ability to change everything at once. Also, it includes the Aviation lists template. Commons templates are best placed directly under the Related content header. The template isn't meant for everything, as it includes designation sequence, but oftentimes we leave that blank anyway. It's only been added to a dozen or so articles (Airbus and DHC), so if any changes are requested (like the option to disable designation series as well as links) then either mention it or do it soon! -eric ✈ 00:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Anyone know what happened to this? It seems to have disappeared, and only one edit remains from 2003 (4), which has no content. Admittedly it might be better placed under "Cargo Aircraft", but that's missing too!
Maury 13:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't familiar with what was there before, but its disappearance is weird. I've checked the deletion log and a few other admin tools with no luck. Perhaps this should be brought to the attention of a developer? -Lommer | talk 04:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Remember to throw out the votes cast by ineligible voters! Gene Nygaard 12:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I have created a specifications template at User:Ingoolemo/Airspec-imp that should work for almost every aircraft we have. At User:Ingoolemo/Airspec demo, I have used it to make the specs for the Boeing 787, a jet-powered airliner; the Convair B-36, a heavily armed bomber powered by both jets and props; and the CH-47 Chinook, a cargo helicopter. Despite the very different planes involved, I was able to successfully create a template that could be adjusted to suit the specs of each one. This is an extremely flexible template.
By the way, I intend to rename the parametres to maximise clarity for new editors. It will be tough to type the template out from memory, so I created User:Ingoolemo/Airspec-imp-help, that can be substituted (((subst:User:Ingoolemo/Airspec-imp-help))) to provide a framework for use of the template.
Thoughts, comments, questions, capuccino? Ingoolemo talk 07:02, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
Update: I have implemented Eric's suggestion, mainly for æsthetic ræsons. Because very few planes are powered by both jets and props, the difference won't be very visible.
The original table had a line for 'Avionics', which we dropped because it was almost never used, and just left a big blank space in the table. In my proposed template, the 'Avionics' line could be toggled on and off, so if it wasn't used it would be invisible rather than blank. Is anyone opposed to reinserting it.
In reply to Graeme (comment above regarding boldface): the template I'm proposing follows the current/future standard as closely as possible. I don't want to tweak the standards until a discussion takes place.
I am going to add hidden comments (<!-- -->) that will tell editors how to answer. This will make it easier for newcomers to understand what's going on with the template. Clarity is paramount.
Again, please comment on the addition of an avionics field. Ingoolemo talk 22:09, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
This talkpage is now 94 kilobytes long. I think it's time to archive everything up to the == Related content template == section. Ingoolemo talk 22:40, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
User:Dbinder has recently added a "civil aircraft infobox" to the Boeing 787 as well as some others like the 767 and 707. It initially completely duplicated the old infoboxes, in addition to the list at the bottom, and he has apparently not checked in with the project at all despite my request for him to do so. I removed the infobox from the 787 and 767 articles, citing page layout reasons in this case, and it was reinstalled by an anonymous user — who claimed i had vandalized the 787 article — and User:Deniss, respectively.
This is a parallel set of users, it seems, focusing on airliners, and Dbinder hasn't replied to my comments in any way. If someone else would like to try and work this out, that would be great, as apparently my thousand or so aircraft edits don't lend my reasons or pleas any credence. Or maybe I'm coming off as an asshole. Either way, would someone be willing to lend a hand? I'm not going to revert these articles, instead pointing to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content on the talk pages, and hope that they'll see reason. Also, that color of green - what the hell? -eric ✈ 00:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I notice there is a great deal of new work being done on air templates of one kind or another. I'd like to put my expertise in service here, but I'm not entirely sure what the participants here want to do and why. I'm pretty sure your goals can be achieved using methods more consonant with the larger Project.
Talk to me. Thank You! — Xiong熊talk* 16:07, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
The specs survey seems to indicate opposition to the inclusion of measurements in PS (Pferdestärke) and kgf (kilogram-force). For those of you who don't remember, these are the measurements used by Germany and the Soviet Union, respectively, when testing engines.
Though I don't think they should be included in the standard list, I believe it is possible to reference the original measurements (PS and kgf) by using ((Ref)) and ((Note)). For the engine power of applicable aircraft (older Soviet and German planes), we include a footnote, which says 'Originally measured as 1,200 PS' or something like that.
Comments? Ingoolemo talk 18:27, 2005 August 19 (UTC)