This page is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gliding/Soaring Glossary
The last couple months of Soaring magazine have included discussions on the heavy reliance on jargon and its impact on accessibility to the sport. The proposed glossary looks relevant to this subset of the WikiProject Aviation. Given the extremely broad scope of other List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical abbreviations articles, I suggest a focused glossary for terms either unique to or with particular importance or interpretation in gliding. I also suggest putting a link in the style of a disambiguation reference on other aviation glossary articles. Any recommendations or further reading prior to committing to this plan would be welcome.Enginerd27 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of our articles about gliders contain an Infobox near the top right corner. Most of these Infoboxes contain an image (photograph) of a glider of the type. These images should be of a quality and accuracy that match the general quality and accuracy of the detail information and the prose found in the article. Unfortunately, some of these images are of poor quality:
amateurish view of the subject (eg see Morelli M-100)
some images are of low resolution. It is not possible to discern important detail (eg see Glasflügel 401)
some images contain too much background clutter (eg see Bölkow Phoebus)
There is little incentive for professional photographers, and even amateur photographers with high-quality cameras, to post their images on Wikipedia. Many of the photographs of gliders have been taken by amateurs with little regard for the artistic merit of their work. Many are reminiscent of the photographs seen on social media!
I have been attempting to improve the situation by supplementing these poor images by using Wikipedia’s External image template to post the URLs of high-quality images that are available on the internet.
To illustrate my point, look at the following articles and notice the poor quality of the image in the Infobox. Notice also the External image box I have inserted and take a look at the higher-quality image I have added.
There is an image of a glider in the Infobox on Slingsby Kestrel, but the glider is NOT a Slingsby Kestrel!
One of the leading single-seat competition gliders in the last few decades has been the Schempp-Hirth Nimbus-3. There is an image in the Infobox on this article but it is an image of a two-seat glider!
But my Wooden spoon award for the most inappropriate image of a glider is the one at Grob G103 Twin Astir (Postscript - inappropriate image replaced on 19 August.)
My use of External images has aroused at least a little concern. Some Users are uncertain as to the current status of these images when used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has specific advice at Template:External media:
If an image … … is currently available online … and readers will expect this type of media in the article then it may be appropriate to use external media to provide a direct link to the media file along with a description of the media.
This template is normally placed in the main body of the article, in the same place that you would normally have placed the image ... ... if it had been available on Wikimedia Commons.
The external media template can be used multiple times in an article, and each instance can be used to link to more than one file.
The external media template should be removed as soon as a replacement of adequate quality and accuracy is available in WP:COMMONS.
It is worth noting that Wikipedia takes account of both the quality and the accuracy of an image on WP:COMMONS when deciding whether it is adequate to force the removal of an external image. If there is an image available on the Commons, but its quality and accuracy are not of the standard expected by readers, that image may be suitable for inclusion in the relevant article but not sufficient to force the removal of higher-quality external images.
Thanks for bringing this topic up, although it is general enough that it could have been taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft, as it is applicable to all aircraft articles and photos.
Basically I agree with the current guidance you have quoted. External links to images are fine as long as the article doesn't have one or, as you have illustrated, when the only images we do have are "sub-optimal". The main aim is to give readers at least one good photo of what it looks like. The external link also should be removed if, and when, we do get a decent image in commons. I am not sure anyone will disagree with that guidance.
Perhaps the discussion should focus on where to place the links, whether they should be external links in the external links section or placed higher up in the article using the external images template. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the two seat Nimbus 3 is a Nimbus 3D, a variant mentioned in the text. There would be no point creating a separate article for it. I think that the external image link box is untidy in articles, an eyesore. If I want to see many images of a subject I would 'Google' it and use the 'Images' tab. Wikipedia is a voluntary effort and we have to be grateful for the free images, even if they are not perfect. Another possibility is to take your own photos and upload them, I have been doing this for aircraft engine articles for over 10 years. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)20:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility would be to make a list of images wanted and post it on rec.aviation.soaring and/or gliderpilot.net, with some warnings about copyright and info on how to load "own-work" images. There should be enough proud owners out there to fill the gaps as I did with my previous glider, an ASW27. JMcC (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps to advance this discussion with an example, User:Dolphin51 just today inserted an external image box in Berkshire Concept 70, an article that we have no photos for in Commons. This article already has a link to the same set of photos in the external links section for comparison of the two approaches. User:Nimbus227 already above termed the box approach "an eyesore". I tend to agree that the external links addition is a better approach to the box template, neater and less intrusive for the reader, which is why I have been using that approach for years. Any further opinions? - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks have passed since Ahunt’s 7 August edit. No new comments have been added. I won’t be offended if anyone starts a similar conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft in order to better gauge the aviation community’s view of this matter.
My view is that images (including photographs) are a form of information, and images inserted in a Wikipedia article on a particular subject contribute to the body of information about that subject. Whether an image (internal or external) contributes something to an article must be judged primarily on the image itself; the box and the words “External image” surrounding the image are cosmetic and only of secondary importance.
Ahunt has used the descriptor “intrusive” and Nimbus 227 has used the descriptor “eyesore”. Neither has clarified what or why. I will assume both are referring to the box and the words “External image”. My view is that we must focus firstly on the image itself, and what it contributes to the article. The box and the words “External image” are of secondary importance although presumably they could be re-designed if the Wikipedia community wished to do so.
If an image … … is currently available online … and readers will expect this type of media in the article then it may be appropriate to use external media to provide a direct link to the media file along with a description of the media.
This template is normally placed in the main body of the article, in the same place that you would normally have placed the image ... ... if it had been available on Wikimedia Commons.
At this stage, my inclination is to look for a high-quality external image to support any article that lacks a suitable high-quality image, and to insert that external image in the main body of the article. However, I’m always willing to discuss these things. Dolphin(t)04:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is against the concept of links to external images when we don't have any good ones in Commons that can be added to an article. It is just the use of that box vs a link in the external links section - notwithstanding what the guidance says. Perhaps this should be taken over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft for a more complete discussion with more participants? Then a consensus result could be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the matter being raised for discussion at WikiProject Aircraft. If I post the first edit it will inevitably reflect my perspective on the matter so I suggest you or someone else do so. However, if you insist I will do it. Dolphin(t)21:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that perhaps we should just make a general invitation there to join this discussion, since I think we have all the issues laid out fairly well here and just need more input. What do you think? - Ahunt (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That approach could be taken but I doubt it would initiate much of a response. I suspect Users are more motivated to join a new, short thread than an older, longer one. Also, what is written here reflects my perspective more than the alternative perspective, simply because most of what is written here was written by me. If the objective is to more thoroughly explore the views of a larger group of aviation contributors I would encourage a fresh start in another place. Dolphin(t)21:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A flaw with the rationale of this template is that it is supposed to be placed in articles where an image would be, the first image to be added to any article is placed in the infobox, this template can not be used in an infobox. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by)17:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to have run its course without further input for eight months! I think unless anyone has any last words we probably have all the input we are going to get and can make a summary consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we direct anyone interested in this thread to hop over to the Aircraft Project and join the discussion there. I think you just did! - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A sinister turn? You mean that links that you added duplicating wikimedia content were removed, including illegal hotlinks, links to search engines etc? Nothing sinister to any of that. - NiD.29 (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My use of the adjective "sinister" was undoubtedly excessive but it reflected my mood at the time. I was motivated to use that adjective because I could see that you started a new discussion thread (that's a good thing) with a benign request for comments about some external images you had found inserted in the body of some articles. You asked for comments. Three Users replied, all giving qualified support along the lines that each instance should be considered on its merits. It all seemed fairly gentle. Then I found that, contrary to the qualified support you had received from three Users, you had performed wholesale erasure of external images in every instance you found. You left an edit summary "no need for external image" which now appears to be misleading. Seeing I was the User who had inserted all of the offending external media templates I find it curious that you didn't contact me to alert me to the discussion you started on the Talk page, or to alert me to your actions. If the roles had been reversed I would definitely have alerted you to developments. Three Users replied to your request for comments but you left them in the dark about your actions. I am pleased to see you are again posting at the discussion thread you started so those three Users are being kept informed. Dolphin(t)13:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
