I took a quick glance at the article, to me it doesn't look like needing such a terrible lot of work. But of course nothing is ever perfect, there may well be room for improvement. I would suggest you discuss your suggestions/ideas/criticisms on the article's talk page, and leave a reference here. Certainly your cautious approach is a big step forward! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, yes, if it were clear to me what to do. Again, I see little room for improvement, but feel free to convince me! Again, I suggest leaving your criticisms and/or suggestions on the article's talk page. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, the article seems mostly fine apart from the main references being in the external links section. One minor detail – I suspect "Rose Point" is a mistranslation of French "point de rosée" (or its Portuguese equivalent) from the original accident report, and should almost certainly be dew point. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The best I could do is the infobox, everything else would be beyond my skill, I was thinking the page needs sorting into subheadings, accident, aftermath etc. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Needs a cleanup. One source [1] is a personal blog[1]
The second source [2] no longer exists. "Terra.es" was a website run by Terra (company). The article used as a source has no author.
The third is Burgospedia, whose "about" page says "BURGOSPEDIA.ORG aims to be the compilation of all the knowledge related to the city of Burgos . While the fields of knowledge are open to their peoples and the monumentality of them, it is the city that inspires the creation of Burgospedia during 2009. There are several systems to be able to climb fields of knowledge. On the right you have a wiki window in which you only have to enter through the password that burgospedia will provide you in the mail. You can also send it to the address burgospedia@gmx.es and in the comments of the text already created.BURGOSPEDIA.ORG has no limit. Any aspect that is related to Burgos will have an entrance and web space." I think it's dead however as the link you click on to get your password was Wikispaces and clicking on the link says that they (the company hosting Burgospedia) is closed. Doug Wellertalk14:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
References
^Masa, Alejandro Polanco (January 18, 2006). "Diego Marín, el "hombre pájaro" burgalés" [Diego Marín, the "bird man" of Burgos]. Tecnologia Obsoleta. Retrieved August 28, 2013.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Airports until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100013:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Recent Luftwaffe accident
A Bombadier Global 6000 recently suffered an accident at Berlin Schönefeld. Initial investigation reveals that maintenance errors were the cause of the accident, which severely damaged the aircraft. This thread on Pprune has lots of links to sources, many in German, that cover the accident. I'm minded to create an article, but would like to hear other editors opinions first as to the notability of this one. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I am unsure, we are not a new paper and one offs generally (even if they can be sourced) are not notable. Of course by its nature an accident is always a one of, so I would have said there has to be something notable about this accident (beyond the fact it happens) to warrant as article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The incident would be notable if a notable person were injured, or if the aircraft type was notable. Neithe applies, to my knowledge, so my answer is "not notable, thus no article". NB @Slatersteven: I reckon "a new paper" was meant to read "a newspaper"? Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Factors that weigh towards notability (IMvHO). Aircraft severely damaged, possible write off. Maintenance error (crossed wires), maintenance not cross-checked, error not caught by pre-flight inspection. Maintenance outsourced leading to oversight issues. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Clearly looked like they were spamming articles to promote the "archive", adding loads of links without really checking to see that they add to the article. Just because the have a big archive of stuff is not really a free ticket to add them to any article that just happens to mention Bomber Command. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is from what I can see, the images on that site are licensed as CC BY-NC, which means that we can't really use the images on Wikipedia. But if it's a new user, I wouldn't expect them to know that. I'm not much of a fan of external links in general, but I don't think that linking to the archive from the articles was that much of a horrible offense. WP:EL says "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." The problem raised by Andy was that instead of explaining all of this to the user, he was called a spammer, all his edits were reverted, and he was blocked, even though he stopped as soon as someone posted to his talk page. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Just because they finish an edit one minute after the warning is posted, the fact that they then fall silent does not stop them being blocked 12 minutes later. Bite is an understatement. Whatever they were doing wrong is utterly irrelevant to the way they were treated. They stopped to listen. Let's all do that, shall we? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Good point steelpillow, I am not condoning how they were treated just that it looked like spamming from here and they should have been asked to discuss it. MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any listening that went on there by the IP. The user was spamming links, and rightly treated as such. There is some responsibility on the part of adult users, which I presume is the case for archive researchers, to use their minds and make some attempt to learn how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not something new in 2019, and most universities and colleges, and even secondary schools, now have courses that teach how to use Wikipedia. If someone got their feeelings hurt, sorry. They are adults, they'll survive. - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll also state that this is another reason I'm in favor of mandatory registration. Having someone take the time to register an account, and (hopefully) read some basic instructions about how to use Wikipedia, which presumably a researcher would know how to comprehend, would go a long way to preventing these sorts of situations before they start. I realize the WMF is against mandatory registration, but this is an avoidable situation that they choose, for whatever reasons, to continue to allow to happen. - BilCat (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
All that said, I'll agree a level 4 for warning for these links was excessive, as these weren't links the typical commercial spam sites by any measure. - BilCat (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
You "don't see any listening that went on there by the IP"? I believe I do. See this post at ANI. The block has been lifted now, so we'll see if they are still willing to re-engage. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Aircraft identification needed
Can we identify the aircraft in the picture of Croydon Airport in 1936 and add the relevant category to the image at Commons please? Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, looks like it. Needs a Commons admin to add the category as it's protected due to being on MP currently. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Good article reassessment: Jagdgeschwader 1
Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II), 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Otto Kauba was the designer behind the wartime Škoda-Kauba company and the postwar OFW OK-15. I have begun a biography at Draft:Otto Kauba, which is little more than a stub. Any help in making it a bit more like a proper article would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hans-Joachim Marseille, 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. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Redirect discussion has been closed, no changes to current usage. Suggest reading closing admins comments for more information. Redalert2fan (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Templates in Category:Aviation accidents and incidents templates
The templates can be removed from "Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in <Country>", and added to "Category:<Country> templates" automatically with a bot.
The navigation aid can be added also, if such change is generally accepted.
I don't know which one is preferable: to have the 'Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in <Country>' in 'Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in <Country>' or not.
It seems half of the templates do it this way, other half the other way.
Imho a navigation link from the category (above the Portal box) to the template would be less confusing. —Aron M🍂(🛄📤)11:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Templates shouldn't be in article categories - e.g. it adds clutter for readers and it disrupts maintenance activities such as fixing pages in User namespace that are in articles categories (as template categories can contain User namespace pages). There are more notes about this here. DexDor(talk)15:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Probably yes (if there's no Category:Accidents_and_incidents_in_<country>_templates). There's also wikiproject categorization (on the talk page) e.g. Category:Template-Class Aviation accident articles. So, IMO, there's sufficient categorization of these templates; in general, the more categories a page could be placed in the more likely it is that those categories will be incomplete. DexDor(talk)04:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Which one would be better to add a link from the category to the template? {{Selfref|Related template: [[Template:Foo]]}} or {{For|the related template|Template:Foo|selfref=yes}} or {{About|the category|the template|Template:Foo|selfref=yes}}? See the demo: Special:Permalink/899391349.
The Selfref docu suggests the latter, but the result is different: For and About adds "selfref" class, while Selfref adds "selfreference noprint" classes. Also note: the For docu does not mention the selfref parameter. —Aron M🍂(🛄📤)19:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Is a link from the articles category to the template really necessary/appropriate - e.g. as editors can look at one of the articles to see what template it uses (in fact they may well create much of a new article based on an existing article)? If such a link is to be added then best not to use "This page is about the category ..." as that's not normal wording on a category page. DexDor(talk)04:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@DexDor: I think it's beneficial for editors to quickly check whether the category and the template are consistent. Going to the article, scrolling to the template is much more than one click.
It's also beneficial for editors who don't know to look for a template, and to look for the V-T-E links. I've noticed those by accident only.
That's a use case I hadn't considered (checking that the articles listed in the template match those listed by the category). That link looks fine to me. DexDor(talk)07:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Analysis of Civil Aviation Accident and Incident in 21st century
Well it is completely incoherent and incomprehensible and obviously written by a non-English speaker. Based on the user page of the person who started it I am guessing it was a university assignment to create it or something, although she says that she is majoring in finance and accounting. There is no indication that the subject is notable in its own right. If the text was on the same topic as the title (which it really isn't) then the whole thing would be WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, but it is really too incoherent to be either at present. My first inclination is to suggest WP:PROD or WP:AFD, but perhaps the most humane thing would be for you as an admin to userfy it. It certainly doesn't belong in mainspace. - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
"Incoherent" is an understatement. I agree it reads like an original paper. It should be humanely put down, while trying not to discourage its creator from contributing further to WP in a more encyclopedic manner. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The move created a redirect from main article space to draft space. That is not sensible, so I blanked it. The mainspace page should still be deleted though. Does it need another prod? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Two references now added by two editors and PROD template removed. Have to say I am not impress by prodding an obviously notable topic on a technicality, without stopping to discuss. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree, the topic is obviously notable, so it should have been tagged or at least discussed prior to a PROD. WP:DP applies. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be prudent to add it. An aircraft was shot down and destroyed, which certainly fits the definition of an incident involving an aircraft. Moreover, shootdowns have been added to the template before, such as MH17’s shootdown. Garuda28 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what to do with this article. It's about EASA's programme of ramp inspections (Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft), but since the article's creation, a parallel programme (SACA – Safety Assessment of Community Aircraft) has been launched as well, so the article should at least be moved to something like EU ramp inspection programmes to cover both, but would such subject warrant an article at all?
In any case, the current article is a wholesale copy-paste of this page from EASA's website. I was going to PROD it. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I have restored the original tense and am commenting here, all per WP:BRD. I note his WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments in his edit comments, so I think it worth airing the issue here to confirm Project consensus. Has there been a previous discussion on is/was which we can refer to, or do we need to start from scratch? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see what the relevance of surviving/museum examples is, given that they no longer perform the function for which they were produced, i.e. that of an airliner (or cargo aircraft, etc). If we insist on referring to its role as an airliner in the present tense, contrary to normal English usage, then can somebody cite a Wikipedia rule in support of this? @Andy Dingley:DaveReidUK (Talk) 09:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Insisting on the present tense because of museum examples is like keeping the present tense for the Titanic because it still exists at the bottom of the ocean, or for Tutankhamun because his mummified body still exists! If no aircraft of the type are flying, "was" is definitely more appropriate IMO. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
So get enough consensus behind that (it's a reasonable enough viewpoint) and write it up here. But what we don't need is edit-warring and AFAIK, our practice at present is "examples still existing". Now, does a crash-site wreck count? Or even any non-flyer? What is a "non-flyer" anyway? I believe the French Concorde could still fly if it wasn't for the paperwork, certainly the Vulcans and Victors would. So for that reason, I support the "any still extant" test.
The B-25 is a bit more subtle. Is it still a bomber if the Confederate Air Force or Davis-Monthan are flying them? They're aircraft, but are they bombers? Again, unless it has been converted to specifically de-mil it. I think it remains one. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The guideline is MOS:TENSE (not a policy), the key wording is this: Generally, do not use past tense except for dead subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such. 'Meaningfully exist' to me means being used for its original intended purpose, i.e. airliners flying fare paying passengers, military aircraft carrying out their original role. An engine propelling a preserved aircraft is still doing its original job so should be present tense, an engine type in a museum with none running anywhere is not 'meaningfully' existing so should be past tense. I would imagine that it took some time to agree on that wording, it's been stable for a while. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)11:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"'Meaningfully exist' to me means being used for its original intended purpose,"
Let's keep it simple. I can go to the Air Force Museum and physically touch a B-36, so how can we say it doesn't exist? There have been examples of aircraft with no flying examples where one or more examples were restored to flying condition. The case can even be made for a faithful reproduction of an historic aircraft "is" that aircraft. --rogerd (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Using the present tense for describing things is an appropriate way of doing so in Germanic languages. It does not mean that the item that is being described is in a "present state", e. g. that a certain type of aircraft or vessel is still in service. Present tense can be used to describe things without context. The Titanic example is actually very good: Most newspapers had headlines such as Titanic sinks, but not Titanc sank or Titanic has sunken. In this case, I would stick to simple present. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Aircraft project consensus for a long time has been that we use "is" when the any of aircraft type still exists and "was" when they no longer exist. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion. It may be worth looking a bit wider at the way others approach the issue. I checked a couple of books (Barrie Hygate's British Experimental Jet Aircraft and Ray Sturtivant's British Research and Development Aircraft and both describe the preserved Handley Page HP.115 as "was" and the still-flying (at the time of writing) British Aerospace EAP as "is". But if we were to accept that the Handley Page example still "meaningfully exists" as a museum specimen, then we must either depart from the practice of Hygate, Sturtivant & Co. or except ourselves from MOS:TENSE. I'd suggest that the best way forward would be not to do either, but instead to say that the HP type no longer meaningfully exists in the context of flying aircraft and therefore, in line with wider practice, "was" is appropriate to that section of the article. Also, turning an airframe to a new purpose is a long-established practice and will almost certainly be mentioned in the article content. In summary, an aircraft type "meaningfully" exists if, and only if, it is still flying (or under development) in any capacity. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
As something thats been around for a long time we should try and gain as many opinions as possible for a change that effects a lot of articles. Still think that describing an aircraft as "was" to be strange as it clearly exists. This pile of metal, plastic and assorted fluid was a fighter aircraft when to the naked eye it clearly is a fighter aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MilborneOne on this. The aircraft still exists, flyable or not, and hypothetically, they could be restored to flyable status, but that is besides the point. --rogerd (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The existence of an aircraft in a museum, or indeed anywhere that it is not able to fulfil its original raison d'être (whether that's carrying passengers or freight, killing people, etc) does not satisfy any generally accepted definition of "meaningful". DaveReidUK (Talk) 17:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Clearly not true as aircraft have been in museums etc and then returned to flight, they are flying machines and will be until somebody destroys them so really raison d'être is not relevant. They exist therefore they are. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
A figment of your imagination
(Standing on the flight line at the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum, as the museum's B-25 flies by) I explain to the child I have taken there to see it fly: "According to Wikipedia this was a B-25 bomber you see flying here, but it no longer exists..." - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I explain to a child who is riding in that B-25 next to me: "Don't worry, according to Wikipedia this was a safe aircraft back when it existed..." - ZLEAT\C19:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm in the "meaningfully exist" camp here, in the sense of flying (not could be, if only ...). After all, if you were writing a piece about Lenin you would speak of him in the past tense even though his corpse is embalmed and (?} still on display. If he were restored to life you would edit the article back to the present tense (quickly). It helps to test the language with other subjects. TSRL (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
It meaningfully exists if there is sufficient material for the basis of a restoration that isn't still on the ocean floor or spread across a mountaintop. Most aircraft pass through many different careers before they become museum pieces, or even recovered wrecks. The B-25 went from being a bomber, to a trainer and general utility aircraft, to a photo chase aircraft and finally to a museum demonstration aircraft, and like many (if it isn't destroyed trying to appease some folk's nostalgia), it will end up in a static display when it is no longer financially viable to keep it flying. Aircraft that spent decades on static display (even on poles, rusting away, vandalised and being crapped on by pigeons) have been returned to flight. At no point in that entire process did it cease to be an aircraft or a bomber because it was no longer being used as the sole role someone is aware of it doing. IS if any exist, WAS if no recoverable examples do. Not really all that hard a concept. As for Stalin - if you are referring to the personality, past tense, if referring to his corpse, then it is present tense, so long as it continues to exist. - NiD.29 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
No longer an Arrow, just bits of one
My point above was that "meaningful exist" would include aircraft that are in service, aircraft that are flying in new roles (like flying museum aircraft, waterbombers), aircraft parked in museums that will probably never fly again and similar. These all still "meaningfully exist", even if they no longer fly and are retired. They are still aircraft; they still exist. You can go and touch them (well, in the museum they don't like you doing that, but it is actually possible...) Aircraft that only exist as parts, don't "meaningfully exist". A good example of this is the Avro Arrow we have in the Canada Aviation and Space Museum. We have the nose on a stand and wings leaning up against the wall. These are parts that were once part of an Arrow. But the museum piece B-25 I added above is a present tense aircraft. Just because it no longer drops bombs on people doesn't mean it is past tense. Put it this way: I am a retired pilot, so I was a pilot, but I am still here editing Wikipedia, so I probably should be referred to in the present tense. - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Would a sole surviving aircraft that is completely disassembled for restoration count as "is" or "was"? - ZLEAT\C22:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
"When is a Beaver not a Beaver?" "When it is a jar ..."
Well now we are down in the linguistic weeds, down to intent, now! I would say if you dissemble an aircraft, with the intent of restoring it and reassembling it, then it still exists. However if you disassemble it with the intention of selling it as "parts" (as we say, "parting it out") then it "was". Where it really gets into the weeds is when you partially part it out. Let's say you have a de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver on floats you want to use as a freighter and so you remove the seats and sell them. It still "is" a Beaver. If you strip the paint off to save weight, it still "is" a Beaver. If you sell the floats and fly it on wheels only, it still "is" a Beaver, but if you sell the wings, then it isn't any more. - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The question is relatively simple for individual airframes (though of course they rarely have their own wiki page), but harder for types. Does a type continue to "meaningfully exist" for as long as there is at least one extant airframe? Where do we draw the line as regards flightworthiness (or repairability)? My preference would be to use the past tense once no more aircraft of the type are flying or have a reasonable likelihood of returning to flight. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion. Let's take a broadly similar situation (actually referenced in MOS:TENSE, qv). George W Bush was president of the USA. He is still alive (still "exists"), but of course it would be wrong to carry on saying he IS president as he no longer performs that function. We could correctly say that he WAS president, or (as preferred in MOS:TENSE), that he IS a FORMER president (or ex-president). By exactly the same MOS:TENSE logic, you clearly can't say that an aircraft type that no longer flies (i.e. no longer performs the intended function of an aircraft) IS an airliner, fighter, bomber, etc, only that it WAS once. If you're determined to use the present tense, by all means do so, but (as with Bush) you need to talk about a FORMER airliner/bomber/fighter, etc. DaveReidUK (Talk) 06:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Very droll :-) My point is that MOS:TENSE doesn't in fact support the "was (a) president" construction, instead favouring "is a former president". It's not a huge leap from a person who no longer performs the described role/function to an aircraft that no longer performs the described role/function. DaveReidUK (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
More correctly, "The North American B-25 Mitchell is an aircraft that was designed as a medium bomber." - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that being useful if you need to differentiate between the role an aircraft actually performed and the role it was designed for (which is true of some military types, for example). For the majority of types, it probably doesn't add anything. DaveReidUK (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Mainstream publishers do not accept your logic. It was a British medium-to-long-range airliner but is now a collection of museum relics.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I am having a problem with this thread. It is taking place in a vacuum, with no reference to how the rest of the world talks about these objects. Much vehement opinion is being expressed, naff all evidential support for those opinions is being offered. Surely as experienced Wikipedians we can do better than this. Do we need to appeal to a wider and less partisan group? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's actually the problem. What we're seeing is confusion between, on one hand, an aircraft type/model/design and, on the other hand, specific instances of that aircraft model.
If that's too difficult a concept to grasp, imagine a sentence starting "The Bristol Britannia ..." (other aircraft types are available). That could be either an unqualified sentence describing the type/model/design ("The Bristol Britannia served with BOAC and other airlines") or a sentence that's qualified in order to describe a specific instance/airframe ("The Bristol Britannia at Duxford is in Monarch Airlines colours").
The point is that the two usages are different: one is an overarching reference to the type as a whole, and the other points to one or more specific, physical examples that exist, for example in a museum or as a wreck.
It follows that different attributes can apply, independently, to the different usages. How does that apply to Wikipedia? Well the Wiki entry for pretty well every aircraft type starts with an unqualified reference to the type name, model number, etc and goes on to describe its characteristics, configuration, role, etc in general terms. Qualified references to individual aircraft may follow, for example in the Accidents/Incidents and Survivors sections. Note that there's no debate about what tenses or temporal adjectives need to be used for the latter: Accidents, by definition, happen in the past and Survivors, by definition, survive to the present day.
So what about the generic stuff? We've seen what MOS:TENSE says about things that performed a particular role/function in the past, but no longer do so: the preferred usage being "is a former" (which adjective the dictionary helpfully defines as "having previously been a particular thing"). That has the advantage of neatly side-stepping the "is/was" war, while at the same time differentiating between today's performers of a role and yesterday's in an unambiguous manner, as well as being entirely consistent with "Status: Retired" reference to be found elsewhere on the relevant page.
Note that the MOS:TENSE usage can also be applied when talking about a specific aircraft: ("The Duxford Britannia is a former BOAC aircraft").
So, in summary, my proposal is very simple. Aircraft types in Wikipedia with "Status: In service" get an entry that starts, for example, "The Airbus A330 is a ...". Types with a "Status: Retired" get an entry that starts, for example, "The Vickers Viscount is a former ...".DaveReidUK (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
List warrior
Hi, I recently converted some more lists of aircraft to the formats defined at WP:AVILIST. They have all been reverted by an IP editor without any edit comment, see diffs below. Any independent input would be appreciated.
With all respect and sympathy for your frustrations, I cannot be bothered very much. But that is down to me: I am a very simple contributor, caring only about articles and their content and (perhaps too much) about correct wording/spelling/grammar. Things like lists and templates and categories are beyond my interest, partly because I don't understand them - nor do I see any need for them. And they all are obvious sources of confusion and even conflict. More specifically, changing the formats, as happened here to these lists, or applying several versions (as in the case of the "aircraft specifications" template) is a certain recipe for trouble. So don't care over much; but if you want to get things "right", the first thing to do is to protect or semi-protect those pages. Good luck! Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:BRD. Steelpillow made bold edits, the anonymous editor reverted them, unfortunately without any constructive edit summary, leaving everybody to wonder if it was just a case of vandalism, grudge-stalking Steelpillow, or a genuine concern with his edits. So now Steelpillow is here to discuss the issue to see if there is consensus whether his improvements to the article are widely supported, or whether they were misguided. It's the way things should work in a collaborative editing environment. Protection is definitely not appropriate at this point.
I suspect the reversion might have had something to do with the fact that Steelpillow's edits to the tables removed a populated column of data, the number of aircraft built, and added several blank columns, "class", "status" and "notes". The List of attack aircraft article, for one, was also broken down by era, allowing for an easier comparison. This data was lost in Steelpillow's edits. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure that the loss of columns is a big issue, however not all the lists lost a column yet all were reverted. And obviously the empty columns need populating - but they have to be created first! So there must be more to it than that. Standard columns for various kinds of list are available via Template:Avilisthead. On the other hand the combining of lists from different eras does not lose data because the entries are sortable on the date column. It actually adds value because now all the types from a given manufacturer or all the types of a given class or whatever can be grouped and their various eras compared. It is one of the principal reason that this project established a consensus for the sortable table format. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I now see that on List of airborne early warning aircraft, where the anon editor performed a wholesale revert to the state the article was before your edits, completely discarding the corrections that MilborneOne made. That makes me inclined to think that the edits, as a whole, are not as likely to be a legitimate content dispute, but vandalism edits or efforts to harass you.RecycledPixels (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
NiD.29 has reverted jan olieslagers at the List of torpedo bombers with the comment that conforming to the guidelines did not include deleting most of the data being deleted.(diff). In fact it does, see WP:AVILIST for the columns to be used. Are we going to enforce consensus here, review the consensus, or walk away from it all? I really need to know, as there is little point in standardising our aircraft tables the way we standardise our aircraft articles if we are not prepared to practice what we preach. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
One of the more useful columns was the number which were built/entered service as it establishes each types relative importance very readily and is probably the single most important piece of information in the table - I argued against removing this when the original discussion was happening regarding standardizing the lists and understood that it had been agreed it would stay. Deleting this information (referenced on the page I reverted) is not only counterproductive, it makes it more difficult to repopulate that data - and without it, arguments over the use of obscure types becomes almost guaranteed - but if a number can be provided, no such argument is likely. - NiD.29 (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The standard lists that were established at WP:AVILIST following such discussions do not include it. My recollection is that your view was not upheld by the consensus at the time and that the guideline does reflect true consensus. I think you would need to produce strong evidence to the contrary. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Lists reappraisal
Perhaps its time to revisit the concensus. Personally I don't recall what, if anything, I thought at the time. Number built is not an onerous column to include and does distinguish the short production runs and prototypes but if not in a separate "number built" column this information could - and should? - be retained in the notes column. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The "Status" column is used to denote whether a type was a mere project, a prototype or two, or entered production. Where exact numbers are particularly significant, they may be entered in the "Notes" column. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
On the talk page of WP:AVILIST there are extensive discussions, including a really confusingly-worded RFC, that dealt with the content of the tables back in 2016. Most of the same issues that were being discussed then are appearing once again. The participants include an IP editor with an IP range similar to the one involved here. The relevant discussions appear beginning at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#Removal_of_numbers_built_from_existing_lists. After reading through the entire talk page, it appears that there are unresolved issues with the new guideline, and that table conversion edits should stop until a consensus is reached. This is not a new battle, nor is it vandalism or harrassment. Just a content dispute. RecycledPixels (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
So, if there is no current consensus for change and by the looks of it no likelihood of reaching one, do we or do we not uphold the current Project guideline? It is a waste of time for people like me to try to if the Project itself is not going to bother. Maybe it would be better to tag it as historical or put it up for Miscellany for deletion? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
We really need to support the work that Steelpillow has been doing, if the current table style has some issues then we really need to thrash it out. Having different table layouts makes the whole thing a bit of mess and we really need to be consistent. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the first time I've even noticed this was a matter for debate, but to me it seems ridiculous that the number produced (or operated, or whatever the context makes appropriate) is not a standard parameter in all list-type articles of this sort. It's one of the most important pieces of information for an aircraft: was this machine a mere one-off or handful of prototypes, a relative rarity, a fairly numerous design, or a ubiquitous type? A number of times I've consulted these lists, or lists like them, and sorted them by number produced to find particularly numerous examples. And I wouldn't restrict this opinion to aircraft: practically any subject where the production count is known can benefit from such treatment. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I consider a sortable column of production number as quite relevant for overview. And yes, it is relevant for many lists, not just aircraft. TGCP (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MilborneOne that Steelpillow's effort is worthwhile. I'm not up to date with previous discussions, but my first impression is as follows:
The 'No. built' column does have value and doesn't take up much space: were there any compelling reasons to drop it?
The new 'Date' column is seemingly never filled with a date; only a year is shown, so it should be headed as such (i.e. 'Year')
The rest of the new headings are more concise than the old ones, so generally better ('Type' vs 'Aircraft Name', 'Country' vs 'Country of origin')
No. built: When the standard set were agreed, there was strong support for keeping the basic format as short as possible. The No. built was one of several columns, including No. in service and various performance figures, I forget exactly what, for which no clear consensus to include them emerged. If a new consensus can be established, now that the pared-down lists have had time to settle, that is best done before more tables get moved to the obsolete standard. The legends "No. built" and "# built" are both used in the lists that kicked off this discussion, and they both tend to wrap because it is such a short field. Options are to use a non-breaking space to force a wider column or to use a single word. There is also the problem that some significant airframes were begun but never completed (for example the first Miles M.52 was 82% complete at cancellation), should they be included in the count? I'd suggest that plain "No." would be simplest and if clarification is needed for a particular list then local consensus can be obtained and an explanation can be included in the article. (# is not suitable as to most folks it is either a hashtag or a "gate" key, and to nerds like me it is often a number base such as octal or hexadecimal).
Date: Yes, "Year" would be technically more accurate, the template can be changed easily enough if approved of. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
As a Brit I wholeheartedly endorse "No" "No." "№" over "#". Where the aircraft was "nearly" built then notes such as "cancelled before flown" (or some such construct) will convey the gist where the prototype was just short of first flight or "includes 50 unfinished airframes" for where they got built but never flown (thinking Westland Welkin there).GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"№" would seem to be the most clear of those, and nice and compact as well - and if need be it could be embedded in an abbreviation tag such as № (ie {{abbr|№|Number built}}) - NiD.29 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not really familiar with the "№" symbol (note that it will be in bold) and I do not imagine that most readers will be. To me that funny curly font suggests that it has some specialised meaning. Also, as it will be templated an abbreviation tag would a) require the reader to enable javascript and b) make it complicated if the number were varied locally, per my earlier comment. I think it preferable to use plain "No." in the same font as the other headings, which is instantly recognisable to everybody, and to add any necessary explanations in a preceding note to the table. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I should also clarify that these comments apply only to the "general," "role" and default (unspecified) list formats. Those used for military operators list other counts under other headings and I do not see the total built for all operators as a sensible thing to add to that mix. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
It is just a No. with the o underlined to make it clear it is short for number rather than "no". Of course, for operators, that would be number operated rather than built. No./No.. I suspect № is more common in older/period references where they were trying to get as much data in the smallest space possible. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you and I know that, but then we are the kind of geek who edits Wikipedia. Most people risk being spooked by its off-the-wall typography, and that is who we write for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
"Total" is used in the military operator tables to mean total procured, and to disambiguate from the number currently operational, given in the Status column. Using it here would increase the risk confusion as to which "total" is being referred to in the different tables. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
As I said above, there may be a grey area around almost-completed airframes. On occasion a local consensus may decide that it needs to include as-good-as-built. An example might be a wartime type of which three prototypes were built but parked up awaiting engines when the war ended. OTOH if they were at the tail end of a production run we might not want to count them, though their "built" status would be the same. Best to leave it unspecified in the standard heading. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Almost isn't complete. An aircraft that looks like an airplane still has 50% of the work to go before actually being one. It could be included but with the number completed as zero, with a note. Same for additional airframes - the number should be the actual number completed and ready to fly, while any addition examples go into the notes. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
List guideline update proposal
From the above, here is a specific proposal for changes to the project's lists style guide.
Type → Model – "Aircraft type" is a common phrase in aviation ("type certificate" etc.), but not as much among readers in general, and it's ambiguously close in meaning to Class and Role. "Model" seems much clearer.
No. → No. built – "No." alone means too little: is it a ranking? the number of engines? How is the reader supposed to know? If there are grey areas about partly built examples to include in the count, that could be added to the Notes; isn't that what the field is for? "No. built" does bloat the column a bit (or the header if it wraps around), but we can't leave the reader guessing.
The problem with "model" is that it often means a sub-variant, as in "next year's model". In aviation, such models are often but not always designated as new "marks" and that is something that the heading does not mean. While some ambiguity cannot be escaped due to the vagaries of the English language, the type/class/role ambiguity is easy for the reader to resolve by looking at a few table entries, so is the lesser evil. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "model" could mean sub-variant, but again, mainly within aviation circles. From a general reader's point of view, "model" seems clearer. Even some aircraft manufacturers (Bell, Cessna...) refer to their types as "Model". I think I misread your comment, but I still think Model is more common than Type, in the meaning intended for the table. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Begging your pardon, I cannot agree: my automobile is MAKE fiat, TYPE Ducato, MODEL 2011. Same mechanism for aeroplanes, for me. My plane is MAKE Halley Kft., TYPE Apollo Fox, MODEL unspecified. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Confusion over what is meant by No. could likewise be covered either by a note(²) or with the linking abbreviation I mentioned above ({{abbr|No.|Number built/operated}}). I have more of a problem with class - which is unsourced, often pointless, and even more frequently left blank. Type would be the best choice, regardless of those who are having problem with English - after all, we don't change standard terminology in science or other technical fields on wikipedia to pander to the semi-literate, and we shouldn't here, as that would simply add an extra layer of potential confusion. The industry has specific terminology for a reason. Any confusion for editors can be covered with notes the way it is for the specifications template ie: <!--Type is the aircraft being listed--> - the fact it is in the first column should also make that abundantly clear, and if that still isn't sufficient, then there are lots of folks on here willing to set the few who may get it wrong, straight. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jan olieslagers, "make and model" (35M hits on Google) is the universal phrase in common language to refer to the manufacturer and "type" of a car. The use of "Model" instead of "Type" in the table couldn't be clearer (and we would not be "pandering to the semi-literate"; we would simply use common language that is still correct). --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, sorry to disagree. While "the semi-literate" is a bit condescending indeed, still we are creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Whence, IMHO, "common language" is not what we want, rather we want "correct terminology". Above all: number of hits on one or other commercial search machine is totally meaningless for an encyclopedia. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
"Class" may be a little obscure but it is useful to distinguish say gliders, rockets planes and rotorcraft, and jets from propellers. There is no standard technical term, so something had to be chosen to disambiguate from the others. The column does in fact generally get filled in, though - as with others - that may be some time after it has been added to a list. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Summary to date:
There seems to be a consensus to add a No. built column, so I will get on and start doing that. It's a fair bit of work for each table involved and I will need to run both old and new versions alongside for a while.
The exact legends can be changed easily enough if the heading is templated. Meanwhile we have:
No comments made yet on changing "Date" to "Year".
No clear consensus yet on the new number heading (whatever I do initially can be changed later when we are a bit clearer on it).
No consensus for any other changes suggested during the discussion.
Thanks Steelpillow, Date vs Year would seem to depend on how much accuracy is needed - if the list covers very short period of time, then perhaps date might be useful but even on those lists (like ww1 ones) that cover a short period of time, the extra information doesn't seem to be needed (or always available - the first flights for most of the Nieuport types is not known with any certainty). This is more a wait and see if someone finds they need the month and day on a specific list - until which time, I would lean towards leaving it as it is. Date leaves it open for being flexible, and I am sure over time most lists will end up being just the year anyway - at which time it can be changed. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, I'd say unless there are strong objections to 'Year' then let's do the sensible thing and change it. As it is now, a 'Date' column that doesn't contain a single date looks dumb (and a full date would be too much detail anyway, for what is essentially an index of articles for quick reference). --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Both can mean the same thing since either can legitimately contain just the year, and still by definition be a date, but I was simply leaving it open for at least one page to have an argument for including the month. The alternative is to wait until such an argument is presented - for instance, a List of aircraft of the Battle of Britain might justify a month to show why a particular type may not have been available at the start of the battle, but I doubt any page I am aware of that currently exists has a need for it - but then there are likely also lists I am not aware of. I have no problem with either year or date though. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes I can see that something like a list of pioneer aircraft in chronological order would benefit from day-month-year info. But that can always be agreed as an exception to the standard format. "Year" makes it clear that full details are not normally expected. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I have added the column to the General list format and moved three articles across:
I have done a few more now and you can see the current state of play in the categories listed in Category:Aviation maintenance categories. I will soon be starting on the lists that sparked this discussion. I shall be adding a note on their talk pages:
Following this discussion on the Aviation WikiProject talk page, this list is to be reformatted to the "general" format as specified in the WP:AVILIST guideline. Note that the general format now retains the count of numbers built. If you have any objections to the format in principle, please raise them in the linked discussion. If you believe that this list should be an exception, please seek a local consensus on this talk page, as per the guideline.
I would appreciate it if folks could look out for any unwarranted reversions and/or arguments.
Thanks, might well be that one indeed. I took a look but found it such a can of worms that, for this once, I have no difficulty in keeping my big trap shut. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I am currently working an engineering position at a major US airline. As a result I have up close access to numerous (B777-200, B767-300/400, B757-200/300, B737-700/800, B717, A350-900, A330-200/300/900, A319/20/21, MD88, MD90, A220) aircraft including flight decks, interiors, engines, and flight systems. I also have access to a significant repair facility and the airport (ATL) itself. My question is are there any specific pictures of the above aircraft/aircraft systems or ATL itself that are needed/could enhance articles or could greatly improve on existing article images? I have already uploaded some images myself and continue to take pictures as I see fit, but I want to make sure I don't miss out on anything and use this position to help out with image gathering as much as I can.
I know this isn't Commons, but this has a much greater visibility for input. Feel free to redirect me or repost this somewhere else if you think it would be more beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blervis (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
There are lots of successful pilots - most are not notable. Nothing that has been said in the page notable regardless of how many sources you find, and the only chance of him being notable come from more details about his role in the success of the Sea Harrier. Also, no need for extended quotes in references - the reference itself (if complete) is fine. If it can't be said in the body of the article, it most certainly should not be buried in the reference - and vice versa. - NiD.29 (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
