Can you enlighten me a bit as to the notability issues with respect to translated articles? Right now, every single article I've translated has been flagged like this. It makes me not want to bother translating other articles.
This article already existed on two other language versions of Wikipedia, and neither article has the notability notice.
I didn't tag it for being slim, but for lack of notability and having only one primary source, the book itself. I can't speak for policies on other language versions of Wikipedia and, yes, policies are different in each language Wikipedia, but here on en.wikipedia the policy is really clear, each topic for an article must have third party references to show that the topic is notable enough to qualify for an article. If we didn't require third party references for books for instance, then every book ever written, whether published or unpublished, would have an article about it, using the book itself as a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your welcome message on my talk page! It's cool that you have flown all those different planes and work with open-source software so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose64bit (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Viking Air Logo 2014.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Viking Air Logo 2014.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Just a quick thank you for the welcome message. I'm learning how to edit and will definitely take a look at list of help pages/articles you provided in your message. Thanks again! - Nurbout12 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noted your reaction to bullet-points in the lede. I know it's a less-usual format, but there are cases where it is the best way of separating-out the elements of a complex subject and providing a scannable overview. I don't think solid prose would have held the attention. Valetude (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at it and I generally agree with what you said here, which is why I just formatted and made the edit summary note. Others may disagree, though. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put the reference in place for aircraft noise specification as you requested. However you also requested a reference for the absence of noise when aircraft are on their cruising altitude. I really don't think a reference for that is required as it is self-explanatory, from 10 Km you don't hear them, certainly not at any significant level. The point made is that noise (in dB) is all concentrated in a few minutes of the flight, take-off and landing. A quantity could be (dB*time)/distance. Over the entire flight this quantity is low for aircraft as opposed to ground transportation systems (except sea shipping). If you agree we can remove the "citation needed". --Guppiebugs (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ahunt, thanks for all your cooperation! I try to avoid having multiple whole refs in aircraft specs because it hampers its WP:Verifiability. For example, in Dassault_Falcon_5X#Specifications, there was 1 ref for the whole section (Flight, 2013) and when I found a source for its empty weight I added it with a direct inline citation (BCA, 2015). If you group together both on top, it makes it difficult for a reader to verify a statement, eg: from where comes the span? (Flight only) from where comes the empty weight? (BCA only) Faster Verification renders Wikipedia more credible. Thanks!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is that in the past we have tried to avoid scattering footnotes in the specs and collected them in the refs at the top, even if they provide only one spec number. It doesn't diminish verifiability but does make the specs neater and easier to read. It isn't a big issue with just one footnote, but some articles have ended with many all over the numbers and it creates a bit of a mess. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your recent revert to Douglas A-26 Invader. As with most aircraft in production at end of WW2, many A-26s were built but not accepted by USAAF, so counting aircraft is a minefield. Thompson book p. 45 gives a breakdown of 2452 aircraft built at Long Beach and Tulsa that were accepted, but exact serial ranges not clear. Further airframes are reported to have been completed, flown and sold privately or to French AF, perhaps the 51 difference from the 2503 quoted by Boeing (ugh) at [1], and others. Regret very busy archiving, little time to check/research/correct this subject.PeterWD (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but IP user not me. He intended to write [2] as the ref, but used round brackets. My point is that it would need a lot of analysis to confirm the exact number, one way or the other.PeterWD (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification on that. Do you think that number he put in is worth reverting to, then? If so I can format it all correctly. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New editor for Pipistrel
Hello, I'm Taja. I "inherited" this account Ymmo and I saw your contribution to it regarding editing a Pipistrel Virus page. This is just my start on Wikipedia as an editor so you'll forgive me if I don't know what all this is about and what precisely I have to do. I am employed at Pipistrel as the PR and I would like to make some changes regarding the aircraft, the history of the company and the CV of the General Manager. How can I make sure that you don't delete changes that I make? Thank you. - Ymmo (talk) 8:35, 13 March 2018 (CET)
Thanks for your note. Oh boy, where to start. First off you can't share accounts. This is explained at Wikipedia:Username policy. You need to start a new individual (not company) account as explained at WP:ISU. Then, once you have done that, you need to make a clear declaration that you work for the company on your user page to avoid being blocked, as per WP:COI. Then, also as noted there, you need to not edit any pages about the company or its products or competitors, but instead use the talk pages to suggest changes. Editors who are not in a conflict of interest will assess your requests and see what needs changing in the articles. It is important to remember that the place to promote the company and its products is on the company website, not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an independent publication. We aren't here to do what the company wants. We are to provide neutral and balanced information and that may include criticism of the company, when there are sources that criticize it. Probably the most helpful thing you can do is ensure that any news from the company is on the company website (as in press releases) and then point them out on the article talk pages, so neutral editors can use them as cited sources, when appropriate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your detailed answer. Wowch, this really is a headache. I will read all the pages you gave me links to, thank you. Apart from reading a ton of sub-pages, is there anyone who I can contact directly to ask questions? I don't want to waste any more of your time, you were very kind to me already :) Thanks! - Ymmo (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2018 (CET)
It is great to hear from you. The short version is: post suggested changes on the talk page for the article and if you have any questions you can ask me here or on the article talk page. That is why I am here; we are all building the encyclopedia together! - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! After studying this stuff almost as much as my PhD, I tried to do two changes on the Pipistrel's page, under the "History" chapter. If you have some spare time, you can have a look to tell me if I did it correctly or wrote some big stupidity :) Thanks for your time! - Ymmo (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2018 (CET)
I noticed that the Lancair Legacy Design and development section describes an EAA AirVenture award win in 2014 but not the 2016 win. May I add it, or would you mind adding it?
Thanks for helping with this sock farm. In some cases, he's making successive edits from two different IPs, apparently on purpose, so be sure that you're reverting to the correct version. I've had to revert twice a couple of times already. If he uses the same IP to revert reverts, that's when I post to the SPI page for a block, or if he's using a registered name. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, have you seen any Canadian industry press about the first-ever - and so far only - Beechcraft B200CGT (250C) built, registration C-GLUF, being delivered to Can-West last year? I will keep an eye out here for your reply. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have access to all the Textron Aviation tech pubs. I was hoping for something more than just being able to prove that the aircraft exists; Textron doesn't even appear to be marketing it in any way. Thanks for the effort, cheers. YSSYguy (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I came to the same conclusion, it isn't being marketed much. It seems to be a pretty minor variant. Do you know what the difference is? - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:TL Ultralight Logo 2014.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:TL Ultralight Logo 2014.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Some of the aircraft engine articles have hundreds of applications, so we have a WikiProject Aircraft consensus that we don't normally add all the footnotes, just to avoid a lot of unnecessary clutter, since they are all referenced in the linked articles, but if you want them I'll add them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Select Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Just a short note to say "thank you," for your comments on the talk page of "Saratov Airlines Flight 703."
Another editor finally removed that erroneous and contradictory statement in the lead, which tried to present 2017 as an airline fatality-free year, which it wasn't.
IMHO, your concise and logical statements helped to inspire him to remove that confusing commentary, thereby improving the article. EditorASC (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We still need a ref to cite. You can't cite a TCP ping. DDG says "We are experiencing some connectivity issues in Russia right now. We apologize for the inconvenience and are actively trying to resolve the issue, which we think is related to this:" and cites the Russian Telegram mess. This doesn't indicate any intent to block DDG, just technical incompetence. That article indicates that the attempt to limit telegram in Russia has affected many on-line services, like banking services, not just DDG. At this point, if the interruption only lasts a few days I don't think it is worth mentioning. We doesn't list every outage in every country. If it goes on for a while it can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank for thanking for me for my edit on HAL Tejas. Whenever I find that somebody has thanked me for my tireless contributions over the last few weeks, that makes me feel happy. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that was helpful. We are all mostly editing alone at home and I find just a little bit of encouragement can be really helpful to keep editors feeling like someone is checking their contributions and feels that they are making the encyclopedia better! - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I don’t do a lot of editing on wiki so not sure of the protocols. I recently talked with Michael, the CEO of SkyReach and he tells me there is no Jabiru engine option. I was asked my because engines are made up n I be same state I live in and so would have been nice to ‘buy local’. This is why I removed Jabiru from the range available.
There are two cited refs that show the Jabiru 2200 at least was available at one time, even if it isn't now. The first is the FAA LSA approval list. This is based on the engines that the manufacturer submitted to the FAA. It shows that the BushCat equipped with the 2200 was flight tested and is approved for the aircraft. The second is the SkyReach's own "Choices and Options" document which shows that they have tested the aircraft with the 2200 and offer props for it even today. The wording in the article is very careful to say, "The standard engines used are the 80 hp (60 kW) Rotax 912UL and the 100 hp (75 kW) Rotax 912ULS powerplants, although the 85 hp (63 kW) Jabiru 2200 and 60 hp (45 kW) Rotax 582 are also approved and have been used" and "The design is a US Federal Aviation Administration accepted light-sport aircraft with the Rotax 912UL, Rotax 912ULS, Rotax 582 and Jabiru 2200 engines fitted", based on these two refs, both of which come from the company itself. None of that says that the company is selling the aircraft with the 2200 today, but that it is perfectly fine to install the engine and it has been tested as such. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The one on that article page is the best one I have of the single-seater version, although I have several of the two-seater Q2. The single seaters are a bit of a museum piece! - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my edit on Sydney Seaplanes
Thanks for informing me regarding the use of the (all) tag - although I am curious, is it new procedure that where there are 0 survivors, (all) is not listed next to the fatality number? I see the tag is still present in this article. Thanks in advance. ◄Sandshark23►talk♦contribs15:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have other references (FAA's AFH, for instance) who confirm that skidding is when the aircraft is too much to the inside of the turn and slipping is when the aircraft is pointing to the outside of the turn.
I'm a bit confused as of how to check that reference that says otherwise. Can you guide me on how to obtain it so I could check?
The AFH is quite correct, a slip is to the inside of a turn and a skid is to the outside of a turn. You had it backwards in your edit. - Ahunt (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The AFH has that a slip is to the outside of a turn and a skid is to the inside of a turn. I really think it is backwards in the current version, actually. Can you point me to the specific page in the AFH where it says otherwise? Fernandohbc (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The AFH is not really well written. It says "A skid is when the pilot may feel that they are being pressed toward the outside of the turn and toward the inside of the turn during a slip." That is correct, but not clear. This is probably clearer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAzoEEc36Ms The cited ref from the article, also says " Too much rudder and too little aileron produces a skid. Too little rudder and too much aileron produces a slip. Sometimes a slip is desirable, but a skid really never is...turning the rudder alone to make a turn in an airplane always produces a skid." - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All you said makes total sense to me and looks correct, but these statements don't support the conclusion that the page has. From the cited ref from the article, as you noted, "Too much rudder and too little aileron produces a skid". In this situation, the aircraft is going to be pointed to the inside of the turn. Conversely, on a slip, the aircraft is going to be pointed to the outside. This is the opposite of what the page says, and I encourage a review to make sure it is consistent. That's why I'm curious to see the reference [3] in the page (do you know where to find it?). Finally, maybe what needs to be clarified in the page is what the "outside" and "inside" refers to, but the page definitely has it backwards now, and I encourage you to reassess my edit. Thanks! 2620:0:1000:5E10:71CE:BF45:1EC4:4D6D (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are all consistent with what the article says currently. Skidding is when you have too little bank or too much rudder and the aircraft will "skid" out of the turn, just like a car skidding in a tun would do. Too much bank or too little rudder and the plane will "slip" inside the turn. - Ahunt (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very poorly written aircraft article
Hi Ahunt, take a look at this article on Mahindra Aerospace. This needs to be improved immediately. I notified you cause it is gonna take an entire taskforce to immediately bring the article to standards. I am busy building Wikiproj Aviation on Hi.wiki so I don't have time to fix it. --Navinsingh133 (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found out how it survived so long, actually this was a better article once, but an IP address 103.81.88.252 messed it up trying to make it better. Looks like he is an Mahindra Employee, as with most Indian students, he is taught factory style education which means he is good with answering questions but bad in understanding English(or anything else). I believe he was trying to help but couldn't understand anything about Wikipedia. Anyway, we better get this under our watchlist now. Thanks for the quick action.--Navinsingh133 (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the CSD was removed, but it has been completely re-written as a result. Now it just needs all the duplications from the subsidiaries removed, so I'll have a look at that. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the new Emrax electric engine articles: Do we need to create an {{electricspecs}} electric engine specs template to go along with {{Pistonspecs}} and {{Jetspecs}}? There may not be many right now, but they will probably proliferate some time in the near future, and we need to be ready. We might also want a hybrid propulsion template, either a separate one, or built into the electric one. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about just that issue, myself. We have a few electric aircraft engine articles and I have been toying with the specs to see what might be included in a template. The possible parameters are quite new to me. - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite new to me too! There are probably some existing electic engine infoboxes somewhere on Wikipedia that we could copy parameters from. I'll see what I can find. - BilCat (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All I could find that deals with any sort of electric engine were {{Infobox locomotive}} and {{Infobox German railway vehicle}}. There's not much in either one, but they might give you some ideas. We should probably post something at WP:AIR at some point, as some of the regulars may have more experience with electric motors. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have a list that I am compiling from my ref in use. It looks like this so far:
Perhaps it would be best to create the template with the parameters I have and then let everyone else have a kick at it? - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. If I did it, I'd just copy the code from Jetspecs or Pistonspecs, and convert them to what you have so far. Do you want me to do that, or would you rather give it a shot yourself? It would probably take me a couple of days to get to it. - BilCat (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just inserted some info regarding PR-WBV crash on Brazil, which implied a hull loss. But I've saw you just reverted it. Can you say why? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etp01 (talk • contribs)
As per my edit summary "not notable, see the inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH". There are hundreds of light aircraft crashes each week globally, most are not notable. The PC-12 has had many dozens of crashes, for instance, we don't list them all, because they are Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill and would swamp the articles, as noted, almost all are not notable. The same is also true of all other transportation articles. For instance the Ford Mustang has had millions of accidents, but you will find we don't list those either. As my edit summary stated, the inclusion criteria is at WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:FlightDesignLogo.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:FlightDesignLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hey, although you edited a page for "clarity and brevity" as you called it, the present progressive tense is often considered awkward when used in English. I kindly thought you should know, since you obviously edit for grammar like me. DonaldGump (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, not that shabby with Wikipedia very much. Mostly read. I wanted to say thanks, and that I like the work that has been done to the Hummingbird article, but a large amount of the information in there is incorrect. Ed Sweeney is actually my granddad, and my dad was also on the project. I've grown up with these so I've got experience when it comes to what they handle with.
Among them was his attempt for an electric model, he had the thought but he never went through with anything relating to actually flying them, mostly because it would kill the design points of it, and it would realistically require an entirely new airframe. Something he cannot do nowadays. I don't even believe he still has the airframe he was using for it anyway.
As for sources, I'd like to try and piece together anything there is, and to make the article more developed. The Hummingbird is a beautiful and underrated ultralight, sad to see not many know of it compared to the Kolby or Lazair (mostly eLazair nowadays).
I've also got some photographs I think lying around somewhere that could be used on the page so there's two and two to stick together, since there is a large lack of photographs of them around--and all have copyright.
Thanks for your note here. As is often the case the main issue with updating articles on fairly obscure subjects like this is lack of reliable sources. While personal anecdotes are tempting to use they are original research, which, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog, we can't use. Photographs are always helpful for articles, provided that you took them, own the rights to them and thus can release them under a free licence. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, great to hear from you. I am pleased my notes were helpful. You asked a good question and made a good edit there, so credit where due! I hope you keep on editing! We need the help here, particularly from people who have good critical thinking skills. - Ahunt (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Aero & Tech Nexth prototype I-X012.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi Ahunt,
two days ago you've deleted my contribution to the article, claiming lack of sources. I could argue that I happen to work in the company and personally know Piotr Dudek for 30 years, but since this would be another usupported claim for you, I've attached a link to Dudek's website. You can find there confirmation on both Piotr role/history and my presence in the company.
Hope this suffices.
Thanks for your note. You need to read WP:COI since you are in a conflict of interest. You also need to stop adding promotional language to the article. As per that link, if you think that are things that should be changed please make a specific request on Talk:Dudek Paragliders, with a ref to support any changes you request. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahunt,
hopefully there is no conflict yet. If there is difference in views, I hope it can be resolved here.
Definitely there was no "adding of promotional language" - that Piotr Dudek was instrumental in introducing the reflex aerofoil to the sport is a fact, not an advertisement, recognized by the international paragliding community with a prize handed at Basse-Ham in 2008. It was deliberate on my part no to claim that he invented it or owns all the glory - if you still find my language too suggestive, you are free to correct it, but please don't remove the facts.
Anyway all what I was trying to do was to complete the vital information that Piotr is the company's chief designer and add some credit to this. Presenting him as just a paragliding instructor and competitor was certainly not doing him justice.
Tried to add some further details on Piotr - I know they can be treated as promotional, but they are also bare facts, so they belong to the wikipedia anyway. Or do they not? - JJR PL (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have indicated that you are in a conflict of interest as you work for the company that is the subject of the article. As per WP:COI, you should stop editing the article and make suggestions on the artilce talk page for changes you think should be made. Editors who are not in a conflict of interest will assess them and add what they think should be added. You should note that the text I removed was promotional and also was not supported by the refs you added. Any suggestions for additions need to be backed up by references that support the text. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The references I've given definitely support all claims inserted. But your note of conflict is understood, will move suggestions to a proper page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJR PL (talk • contribs) 14:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the an-225 specs are mentioning the fuel capacity as 300,000 kg.
The real weight of the max loaded fuel is 105,000 kg.
Empty weight is 285 t
Fuel capacity is 105 t
Cargo capacity is 250 t
That gives you the 640 t mentioned as max loaded weight.
Thank you very much Mauriciopaul72 (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do have related question that might be better answered here. It's my understanding that most aircraft cannot carry their maximum payload and fuel load at the same time, and that the difference is based on the mission requirements. So, in specifications, is "cargo capacity" generally the maximum it is safely capable of carrying, other factors not withstanding? Meaning range/endurance would be very limited if carrying the maximum capacity. Sorry if this is a bit rambling. - BilCat (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A good question! When discussing transport aircraft it is usually the case that they cannot carry a full volume of freight and a full load of fuel. This is designed on purpose that way, so that a given aircraft can carry a light load over a long distance or a heavy load over a shorter distance. What constitutes a reasonable degree of "heavy" and "light" and the distance is what aeronautical engineers spend their time figuring out. This also gives some flex in freighters, as loads vary in density a lot. You can't load any freighter up with pig iron and then fill the tanks, but if your load is ping pong balls then you can fill the hold and the tanks. It is all a trade-off. And of course, pilots need to know what they are doing when loading the plane and ordering the fuel, so as to not do this. So getting to your question, pilots really don't deal with "cargo capacity" as a number, instead it is "useful load", which is te permitted weight of cargo plus fuel, or gross weight minus empty weight. In reality for a given plane, the customer will give the destination and the load and then the pilot will figure out if he has the range with that load. If you have to carry a heavy load over a longer distance, you either make more stops, or get a bigger aircraft for the job. As far as "capacity" in the specs goes, I guess we could give the maximum load that can be carried a short distance, which is again the "useful load". Is that any help?- Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Since you deleted my response[3] to this message, unfortunately I don't see any other recourse than to ask for another opinion at AN/I. I understand that we disagree about the article, but this is no excuse to make off-topic personal accusations.
Hi there, I notice that you've been waging a war against those "twelve deadliest accident that happened to a green aircraft on a Tuesday" sort of statements, which are rather pointless, apart from the most essential statistics that are relevant in some cases. You said we have a "consensus not to do this" – where exactly is that consensus? I only ask out of interest, not that I disagree of course!
One article that you applied this rule to was Turkish Airlines Flight 981, where the lead had a very convoluted and statistics-hungry paragraph that you chopped out on 31 May. However, you didn't notice that further down the article, towards the end of the Aftermath section, it says the following:
"The death toll of 346 exceeded that of any previous aviation incident. Three years later, on 27 March 1977, 583 people perished in the collision of two Boeing 747s in the Canary Islands. Flight 981 remained the deadliest accident resulting from hull loss involving a single aircraft, until 12 August 1985, when 520 were killed in the crash of Japan Airlines Flight 123,[14] and the deadliest aviation accident with no survivors until the Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision of 12 November 1996 which killed 349 people. As of April 1, 2018, Flight 981 is still the deadliest single-plane accident with no survivors (4 survived JAL 123, as did 61 from Pan Am 1736 on Tenerife.), as well as the deadliest accident not involving a 747."
Thanks for your note here. We have had several discussions on WP:AIR on this and decided that it usually adds nothing to the articles to have all this "this was the 136th deadest accident happen to an aircraft painted green on a Tuesday" sort of stuff. It starts get into WP:TRIVIA, too.
Looking for a little help here if you know the answer. I uploaded some photos recently to Wikimedia Commons and then discovered I had already uploaded a few of them some time ago. I'd like to either delete the new, duplicate additions, or merge the files with the older duplicates. Do you know how to do that? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:C%26C_115Ken Heaton (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ken: Thanks for your note here. Two easy solutions, we could either nominate the duplicates for deletion or just leave them as is. It isn't really causing any harm. - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will be going to Oshkosh AirVenture next month and I'll be there for the entire week, with my camera.
If you're looking for a photograph of a rare aircraft I might be able to find one there. Over to you SteveTheAirman (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, great to hear from you. When I have gone to OSH or SNF, etc, I just tend to shoot photos of just about everything I see, including the new products being shown. I don't have anything on my list, but tons of aircraft articles we already have need photos, so shoot 'em all and hopefully we can sort them out when you get back. - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of link from linux_malware page
Hi, I see you removed the link I added for another linux malware software option. I am not sure what I did wrong there. I added another software option and linked directly to the webpage about it. Should I have linked to the main company page instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr bob (talk • contribs) 13:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have been here along time, but I do think it needs to be pointed out that subjects are not WP:N simply because you can find some specifications lists for a product. As an example, your page on the Mirage 30 contains two links to specifications lists (sailboatdata.com), one to the designer of the boat (not independent) and another to a specifications list. There is no in-depth coverage.
All manufacturers, from those who make screws and nuts to those who make sailboats, publish specifications. A specifications list is by definition not an independent source, as it is published by the article subject. It is also neither in-depth nor contributory to notability. All a spec list says is that something exists and is a certain size.
Sure, thanks for your note. Sailboatdata is an independent third party source that establishes notability. Just a note, but the Mirage 30 article is not "my" article. See WP:OWN. It belongs to Wikipedia and is open to anyone to expand it. - Ahunt (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are the creator and only editor thus far of the Mirage 30 article, so you are responsible for the state of its sourcing. Saying I could improve it is nice, but as it is not notable that will be difficult. Re sailboatdata.com, a list of sailboat lengths and weights does not establish notability as all. You completely misunderstand notability if you think hat is the case. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see many other articles that you created have the same problem. It took me three minutes to find C&C_35, Bagalini Bagalini and Av8er_Explorer. These are very likely not notable given the number of references. I'm amazed at how many poorly sourced articles you have been able to create so far, which is a statement of fact rather than a PA. Many of the ones you have created should not be here as they are not notable. Please start adding proper sourcing for your articles. Wikipedia is not a site for aircraft and sailboat hobbyists to enumerate all the aircraft ever made. It is a site for articles on the notable aircraft and notable sailboats.198.58.163.19 (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinions on the subject. Your views are not shared by other editors here, particularly within WikiProject Sailing and WikiProject Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:TechProAviation Merlin 100 prototype.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Does Special:Contributions/Now listen here folks look familiar? I've seen him editing for the past week, but he didn't tick the usual boxes, though many of his changes were unnecessary. Initially he focused on aviation topics, but has broadened to his usual range of topics in the last few days. I haven't filed an SPI yet, as I wanted to get other opinions first. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching that new editor. His edits are mostly unnecessary and add nothing, but it is a new pattern, not the same stuff as Hoggardhigh, at least so far. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wind-powered vehicle
Hi Ahunt, thanks for paying attention to Talk:Wind-powered vehicle. It appears that another editor bears an abiding concern over a past edit. Perhaps you can help bring the conversation to a constructive conclusion. I have found engaging the editor in question to have been challenging, at times. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I expect you are correct about this (you usually are) but the image I linked online was the image I was sent by a representative of the magazine when I requested a copy of the article referenced. It is true I did not specifically ask if I could post the image so I will guess it is still a copyright violation. Just thought I'd throw that out there to see.
(diff | hist) . . C&C Yachts; 15:12 . . (-164) . . Ahunt (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 853296729 by Ken Heaton (talk) - we can't link to copyright violations, see WP:COPYLINK) (Tag: Undo) Ken Heaton (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ken: I would have more confidence that the photo of the article was authorized if if wasn't posted on blogspot! - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. If you can also post some proof of permission to post it on the internet there, then it wouldn't be a copyright violation. It is possible though that when they sent you the photo of the article there wasn't an intention to have you post it publicly. - Ahunt (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seaplane Experimental Station
Hi there, happy to take this to the talk page, but its still not clear why the base culture might be regarded as trivia? Ephemera at a glance, but this document/image conveniently holds two elements in one - are you sure you are not putting too much focus on military matters? RegardsRstory (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2600:1003:B10A:3C56:247:1D74:200E:BA8 (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are currently blocked from editing for edit warring. Not really nice to circumvent the block with a new IP address to try to get even with other editors. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
American Airlines Flight 191
There is a difference between using the terms "aviation disaster(s)/incident(s)" and "aviation accident(s)": "disaster/incident" means that the cause does not matter and includes criminal acts, while accident only includes crashes caused by non-criminal acts, such as pilot error or a mechanical failure.Tigerdude9 (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you I don't think we can discuss terrorist attacks and accidents as if they are comparable. It is really an "apples and oranges" comparison and I don't see that it adds to reader comprehension of aircraft accidents. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected
Hi Ahunt, I've semi-protected this talk page for a short period to stop an IP vandal from targeting it. Please let myself, or any other admin, know if you'd like the protection to be lifted or if you think it needs to be extended or reinstated if this continues. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, I've been working on improving the Executive airport article. Today, a user added two executive airports in Canada (which I mistakenly thought was vandalism!). I subsequently added one more in Canada, and one in the UAE. The only regulatory information in the article is about the FAA. Do you have any info on Canadian regulations that might be relevant? I'd also like to find a good reference for "executive airport" being a marketing term. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question! There is no regulation in Canada that governs the use of the term, or even provides guidance, so, at least in the Canadian perspective, the current article text saying it is a marketing term and nothing more, is correct. As far as refs go that might explain all that, I can't think of any. - Ahunt (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the cited sentences mainly relate to relief airports, what do think.of converting the article to a straight list? - BilCat (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering the lack of refs that actually discuss the subject that probably makes sense, although really all we have is a short intro now, to what is essentially a list article. In checking the article history it was at one time a disambiguation page! Of course one could argue that the the lack of refs saying just what it is, shows that it is just not notable enough for an article at all. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain it would qualify as a DAB page, so a straight list with no introduction is probably the way to go. References may well be found in time, so leaving it at the current title is probably best. I may work on it within a few days. - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
my deleted comment regarding the HH Spruce Goose (Hercules) was not promotional. From all I have researched, the plane as owned by Jack Wrather and Disney did not allow visits to plane interior (Wrather added windows to pilot side to allow viewing in). Current owner Evergreen Museum does allow inside visits, but those may end as the plane ages (duramold's long term durability is unknown and it is currently kept in a non-air conditioned space). wikipedia is obviously not the way to inform viewers of this possibility. Mattheviewer (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. It took me a while to fine the diff you were referring to as it was 15 months ago. You added the words "where, at present, visitors may tour the flying boat's cargo hold or its flight deck". This seemed to me to be just promoting the museum, see WP:NOTADVERTISING. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a museum vistor's guidebook. Also your claim was not cited to a reference. Wikipedia requires all substantive claims to be verifiable, so to add anything on this claim we would need a ref cited. - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trail drag
In the HAL HF-24 Marut article, this sentence appears: HAL is claimed to have struggled to convince both the IAF and MoD that the design of the Marut was acceptable; much attention was given to the unacceptably high level of trail drag the airframe produced, as well as dissatisfaction with the Marut's speed and manoeuvrability, both of which were below IAF specification upon the aircraft's introduction. (Emphasis mine. See this edit for its location in the article.)
I have to admit never having heard of "trail drag" in all my aerodynamics classes. That is a new one on me! An internet search turned up nothing outside the fields of ATVs and snowmobiles. It might be a typo, but I can't think for what! - Ahunt (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A new photo diagram was added to the Closed wing article here. Is it really all that helpful? Quite frankly it's absolutely meaningless to me. It just makes my eyes glaze over, and I think the average reader will have the same reaction. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what it is showing and why, but I don't think it belongs in a general encyclopedia, seems like the sort of thing you would find in a post-grad aerodynamics textbook. - Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not much out there on these, perhaps only one or two built. Also it seems there may have been an earlier version, probably not a pilothouse, built in 1967, listed for sale in this magazine ad in Yachting in 1985:
Thanks for the note. Yeah, we are going to need a bit more than that to be able to create an article! Sailboatdata has zero! - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It did exist, at least one example. Sailboat data won't list one-off boats which is why the C&C 62 and the C&C 67 aren't listed in their database. How about these reference for the C&C Custom 62? A couple "New Boat" announcements in Marine Perodicals:
Thanks for finding those. There is just enough there to build an article on. As you can probably tell we are having some "no wind" days this fall, so I am trying to get the C&C boats all written up! As I get new ones done they get listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing/New articles, if you would like to jump in! - Ahunt (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It looks from the listings like at least 3-4 were built, but it is hard to tell. Interesting that one could be yours for US$500K. It's actually a bit high for a boat that old! - Ahunt (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The video tour is useful! It looks like the boat was for sale in 2010-11 and the ads remain. It would be great to get a production count, but hard to be sure how many were produced! - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sunstrand requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. PureRED | talk to me | 20:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for letting me know. It seems someone tried to turn the redirect I created into an unsourced article, which you for tagged for CSD and someone else just simply reverted to the redirect. Case closed, I think. - Ahunt (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian spell check
Ahunt, when you get a chance, could you look at the spelling changes in this edit? It's a Canadian series, but I don't know Canadian spellings well enough to discern if the US-based IP's changes are correct or not. I don't know a good Canadian English online dictionary site, so I thought I'd ask you for help. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a good idea, useful resource. You may want to ask Stu to indicate somewhere on the website that permission was given to avoid WP:COPYLINK problems. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
