Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MilborneOne (talk | contribs) at 18:33, 3 January 2013 (→Images as a source: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:AIR
• WT:Air

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

pre-2004  [ General | Strategy | Table History | Aircraft lists | Table Standards | Other Tables | Footer | Airbox | Series ]
2004  [ Mar–Aug | Aug ] — 2005  [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006  [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov–Dec ]
2007  [ Jan–May | Jun–Oct | Nov–Dec ] — 2008  [ Jan | Feb–Apr | Apr–July | July–Sept | Sept–Dec ] — 2009  [ Jan–July | Aug–Oct | Oct–Dec ]
2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ] — 2011  [ Jan–April | May–Aug | Sept-Dec ] — 2012  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ]
2013  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2014  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2015  [ Jan-July | Aug-Dec ] — 2016  — 2017 
2018  — 2019  [ Jan-May | June–Dec ] — 2020  — 2021-2023  [ Jan-June 21 | June 21-March 23 | March 23-Nov 23 ]

Aviation: Aircraft Project‑class

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 Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by the aircraft project.

Kyteto's focus article for December: Hawker Siddeley Nimrod

Hi WP: Aviation Ifelt it was time to clear one of the long-standing candidates on my to-do list, the recently retired Hawker Siddeley Nimrod. Although perhaps more famous in later years for several tragic losses, it was a traditional workhorse in support roles to many large military operations and a staple part of European anti-submarine patrols during the Cold War. The article could use a good spruce up, particularly in its Design section. For an aircraft directly descended from the first ever jetliner, there's a fair bit that hasn't made it into the current article, I'll be doing my bit to contribute over the coming weeks: I look forward to seeing you there as well. Thanks! Kyteto (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to get some time to start working on the Design section, and made some headway on it. If anyone can help fill in the avionics and equipment details, that would be a big help. Kyteto (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, a lot of work on the design section has gone ahead; does anybody have any more to add? I'm considering putting the article in for GAN; the Operational History could use some tweaking IMO, but it's minor compared to how it was just last week. Kyteto (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Fins and foils

An experienced editor created this new nav box on 14 November 2012 and since then has been adding it to many aviation related articles, such as Airfoil, Chord (aircraft), Leading edge, Trailing edge, Propeller and so on as detailed in the nav box. I wanted to discuss this nav box here and see if there is a consensus as to whether it should be kept in aviation-related articles or not. My main concern is that I am not convinced that it is all that useful to readers as it seems to list a very loosely tied together collection of articles like aircraft parts with boomerangs and boat sails. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like it at all! I removed it from one article (aircraft flight control system) as that is about the systems, not the surfaces and it wasn't linked. In two other articles I moved it as it had been placed below 'aviation lists', I didn't remove it because the subjects were included as links but I guessed that we would be having a chat about this template. The image of a shark looks very out of place when you open it from an aviation article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that the template creator put it back in that article after you had removed it too. I left a note about this discussion here on Template talk:Fins and foils, so hopefully we will get some wide input on the usefulness of the template, including from the editor that created it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

We cant just have navboxes for random navigation of vague ideas, a bit like a navbox for things painted blue. Suggest it is kept out of aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

That was kind of my thought - that the box is pretty indiscriminate in what it collects together, similar to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Ahunt (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all comments made. It should be removed from anything aircraft-related. In fact, I think it should be deleted from Misplaced Pages altogether - I can't think of a topic where it would be any use. Meanwhile, I also pinged the editor's talk page, see here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFD is an option. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, TFD is probably the best option at this point, as it will give the template a fair herring. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

By all means delete the template if it is so upsetting to aviation people. I guess I was coming from a different mindset, looking at the role of fins and foils as an evolution which has occurred in many independent contexts, but with the same underlying principles, as sketched, for example, in the article on fins. Nothing vague about that to my mind, certainly nothing like "things painted blue", but we all see things our own way. I apologise if I reinstated the template on an article. I added it to articles in stages, and failed to notice it had been removed from that article. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has now gone quiet for a couple of days, so perhaps we have heard from everyone interested. I am reading the main consensus here to remove the box from aviation articles and presumably also to remove the links in the box to them, although second option seem to be to send the box to TFD. Based on the split conclusion I am inclined to go with the former as the box may be useful to other projects, rather than send it for deletion discussion. Any thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Epipelagic, thank you for a calm and polite response. The longer I hang around here, the more I appreciate such things. @Ahunt, Yes there has been a reasonable consensus for removing it from aircraft articles. I don't think we have any kind of consensus to go messing with the template itself, and while TFD seems our own best idea, we are simply going to remove/ignore it as far as aircraft are concerned – so what real reason do we have to put it forward for discussion? Live and let live might be more appropriate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

- Simply removing it from Aviation related article seems fine to me. I think tightening the scope of what the template covers would be enough. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The template is about stepping back and taking an overview of fins and foils, which have played key roles in biological evolution for over 400 million years, as well as key roles in modern technology over the last 200 years. The article on fins hardly scratches the surface in setting this out as a topic. The template also has a fairly precise scope – it is clear which articles belong on the template and which don't. If all reference to aircraft fins and foils are to be removed then the template as a whole fails in its purpose and should be deleted. The issue should not revolve around whether the reference to aircraft fins and foils should be removed, but whether the template itself is fundamentally misconceived, and should be discarded. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Have to say, I think we bunch of aero grouches are the wrong people to be discussing the template for its own sake. Best we leave it to those who already have a positive vision for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And we tend to be over-protective of our WPAIR articles, perhaps even tending to WP:OWN at times. However, open discussion beforehand can help to alleviate the grouchiness somewhat. We already have the Template:Aviation lists navbox, and linking to the main article on aerodynamics might be the best soluition for our articles. As to the navbox itself, the name is definetly too informal, and should probabla include aerodynamics and hydrodynamics in its title, if it is kept. - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled the template, and may replace it with a modified one. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I tracked down the removal of this template to this discussion. I think the discussion to be valid but the outcome of pulling the template from the article to be incorrect, albeit performed in good faith. I believe that this discussion has been held in too narrow a context. If the template was to be deemed not to be useful then Templates for Discussion was the correct place. It is not the case that a misguided editor has created carnage. Indeed the rationale described here for the creation is sound.

It may be that narrower cast templates for the individual groupings are more appropriate, but, in the wider scheme of things, the commonality of fins and foils across multiple interest areas is indicated strongly by this template. Part of our job is to interest Misplaced Pages readers in wider issues. As such I see this template's wider value. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent, but the fact is that the aviation people have decided that articles within the scope of their project should not appear on the template, and that makes the template unworkable. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Epipelagic has started a new template at Template:Fins, limbs and wings, which excludes aviation subjects. It makes good sense to me. - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And to sew this issue up User:Epipelagic blanked the template in question after starting the new template at Template:Fins, limbs and wings and so I listed the old template for WP:CSD and it has now been deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Zeppelin nomenclature

I've recently started fiddling about with the articles on these accidents waiting to happen, and have found an inconsistency in naming convention. Most seem to refer to them using the form "Zeppelin LZ2", but the articles on the later examples use the format "LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin. The main print source I have consistently uses the space, which I would imagine counts for little since British airships are consistently (eg) R33 rather than R.33 as print sources generally use. I don't have strong feelings either way, but do like consistency. Thoughts?TheLongTone (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The German Misplaced Pages articles consistently use a space, their Zeppelin navbox does as well. It would be consistent with the space used in RLM designations. Looking at the interwiki links at LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin 16 languages use the space, two don't and the remainder have a different title (Graf Zeppelin). The decider is usually the form used in the majority of English reliable sources but I would follow the Germans myself if I was creating the articles from scratch. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance at a Zeppelin museum website (I think there are two) shows them using the space, 'LZ 10' is mentioned. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Jane's 1913 mostly has spaces, though a couple of occurrences (British editorial lapses?) don't. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

All the Commons categories use a space (bar one, 'LZ54' which someone has emptied and filled 'LZ 54' instead which is the way category re-naming is subtly done on Commons!). One German language book source that I have uses the space. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the space has it. I'm curious about why List of Zeppelins has eliminated it, since I'm fairly certain the article was cloned from the equivalent German article. As far as my print sources go, I have LZ#, L.Z. #, LZ-#, but the sources I'd rate as most authoratative (Douglas Robinson & Hugo Eckener) use LZ #. Which does beg the question, why does WP use R# rather than R.#?TheLongTone (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The list was changed in May 2004 no reason was given for the new format and nobody questioned it. I would wait a while for any more voices to be heard here then the answer (assuming a positive consensus) is to move the articles, I can help with that if you like. Not looked at the 'R' numbers, we still do have a lot of inconsistency across the project but we're getting there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• The titles we use should be based on what the sources call the subject. Some level of "inconsistency across the project" is unavoidable from time to time, because things in the outside world cannot always be lined up neatly as we might wish to line up articles. bobrayner (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of howls of protest, the general usage on other wikipedias & the usage in my sorces, I'm going with the space.TheLongTone (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of 6mouv

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/6mouv. - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You can note that it was speedily deleted as spam. - Ahunt (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Glider aircraft

Glider aircraft has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Glider aircraft -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wings Over Kansas

An old article at Wings Over Kansas, is this website really notable (as one of 500 best website in 2001). Lot of aviation websites around but what makes one jump over the notability high jump, like airliners.net. I think NYCAviation is also in this iffy is it really notable area. MilborneOne (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Marsh Aviation

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Marsh Aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Kamov Ka-115?

I've just encountered the Kamov Ka-115 article on a Russian light helicopter, which allegedly, first flew in 1999 and is in production. While the article doesn't seem to be a complete hoax (Brassey's 98-99 refers to first flight being due "Not before 1999", while Jane's 2003–2004 mentions that "...there have been no progress reports on this light utility helicopter programme in recent years", I cannot find any hints in reliable sources that it is (or has been) in production, has flown or even actually progressed beyond a mock-up. Does anyone have any useful sources? And if it is an abandoned, unflown project with no hardware built, does it warrant an article?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The article currently claims it was flown in 1999, but if it does turn out to be an unflown project, because it is a well-known manufacturer, it should probably be retained, as per criteria 6. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems genuine enough, wouldn't trust the references given though. No mention of it in the Flight archive or Kamov's own website. The intended engine seems likely, the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW200. It has articles in German, Polish and Russian, the German article says first flight in the infobox as 1999 but in the text says 'one mock-up built, has not flown as of 2005'. Sounds like an abandoned project but still worth an article, better refs would be nice. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but there are no photos on airliners.net, which would be very surprising if even a single production example had been built (a.net has a lot of photos, and some photographers deliberately seek out the rare/unusual stuff). bobrayner (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a photo on Aviastar that looks like it could be a mock up. Aviastar is problematic, though. - Ahunt (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Jane's 2003–2004, has a photo of what looks like the same mock-up, captioned as a mock-up.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for a name change

Need more eyes to look at what is a bit of a contentious issue in assigning a name to an aircraft-oriented article. FWiW (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wording for comparable aircraft

As we cannot seem to kill the comparable aircraft lists, how about this for a policy wording:

Comparable aircraft: This is a list of aircraft of the same era that multiple reliable sources have noted as serious competitors to the aircraft in question, either competing for the same contact or matched against each other in operations.

Okay? Hcobb (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I still think WP:COMMONSENSE is the best policy... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The advice for the equivalent in the aero engine articles is...For 'comparable' engines it is desirable to limit the number of entries by selecting the closest similar types. Some useful parameters are era, layout, number of cylinders, engine displacement and power/thrust rating. It works well. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with commonsense, is as we have seen with comparable aircraft lists, it isn't very common.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The Ship-to-Shore Connector and the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey have the same engines and I don't think anybody thinks they're comparable. Hcobb (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

LLRV or LLTV

This is a copy of text i have posted at Talk:Lunar Landing Research Vehicle:-

There seems to be much confusion between the LLTV and LLRV. The LLTV was quite disimilar from the LLRV in that it had large oleo legs on each corner instead of the Aluminium alloy trusses with pogo shock absorbers, and the cabin was sat on top of the machine instead of cantilevered out at of the side. Piccies illustrating the point can be found at:

• ]

which show LLTVs suspended by a special rig to allow control, note the single large legs.

A picture of LLRVs can be found at

As can be seen they are two similar in concept, but distinctly different animals in the flesh.--Petebutt (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can any one help clear up the confusion?--Petebutt (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made a start. Not unearthed the full story but I hope it helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Euro-ALA Jet Fox

An anonymous editor has added an accusation of fraud (last line in Design and Development), unproven and without source. I was about to remove it but thought it might be better if this was done under an appropriate WP guideline.TSRL (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it as unsourced, not even sure it is particularly notable for the article either. MilborneOne (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Images as a source

A new user (User:FOX 52) has been reverted a few times for using images of (mainly helicopters) as a reference in operators lists. The user insists that a for example airliners.net has editorial oversight and is a reliable source. As far as I am aware the use of images to prove anything is not really done as they do require some original research and interpretation to use as proof and as such have never been acceptable. As FOX 52 doesnt agree with this stance perhaps we should take it to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for an outside opinion, can anybody remember if we have a reference to using images as sources before we need to do that. I am sure that this is not a project thing but a general stance that has been taken. Any suggestions or opinions welcome, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the image itself used as a source (ie. livery or text painted on an aircraft which is visible in the image), or is it the metadata which goes with the image?

Although there's not really a centralised editor per se, a.net does seem to be quite good at weeding out the dubious stuff and at correcting errors, so I would be happy to use an a.net image (or the image page with associated metadata) as a primary source for something uncontroversial which doesn't require an additional step of editorial judgement. However, as soon as a claim is disputed or a more reliable source says otherwise, it's out. Also, a photo is a snapshot in time - if a photo was taken in 2005 that would support content which mentions an aircraft in 2005, but it might have been sold/scrapped/leased since then &c. bobrayner (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out to MilborneOne using Airliners.net as a source should meet WP:RS guidelines as the information and images have editorial oversight acceptance/rejection policy. The "images" do come with aircraft type, registration number, and operator which are confirmed. As a failsafe I will only use database pictures that can be visually verified (ei; Miami-Dade Fire Dept. - L.A. City Fire Department).← Bell 412 helicopters, with their respective fire dept. names inscribed on the fuselage. FOX 52 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And if you actually plough through the rejection reasons in the link provided, it is clear that they are mainly concerned with picture quality, NOT with their veracity or use as a reference. All information (i.e. captions, metadata etc is user supplied) and appears to be subject to minimal qa checks - and note that photographs of full size mickups are allowable, which would make using photos on airliners.net as references as very dubious. It should be noted that aircraft & mockups are frequently painted in "fake" colour schemes for airshows, demonstration tours and sales promotions - it does not necessarilary mean indicate that the aircraft type is or will be operated. Photos on airliners.net do NOT seem to be a reliable source.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nigel, the problem remains that interpreting photos is WP:OR. If photos are printed in WP:RS articles with descriptive text then the combination are reliable, but not photos on their own. Keep in mind that Airliners.net is run by Demand Media, the same people who run eHow with all its history of issues mentioned there. The company doesn't have a good track record for being careful and accurate. - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If a photograph shows Aircrate Y in the livery of Airline X, then saying it's an Aircrate Y of Airline X isn't interpretation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that it is. I have seen photos of an F-16 in Canadian Forces markings from the late 1970s, but that doesn't mean that that the CF operated the F-16. In fact they didn't and the paint job was a marketing attempt by General Dynamics that didn't bare fruit, as the CF bought the F-18 instead. Looking at a photo and getting useful information requires WP:OR and it is too easy to be wrong about things like operators. - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As an example - who operates this aircraft?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A civilian. WP:COMMONSENSE. Rather a disengious question there; I'm honestly dissapointed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Number one their rejection policy does cover aircraft information about ⅔ the way down. Second you can't say this is WP:OR because it's not interpreting an image, but utilizing the text that comes with it. Ahunt maybe you have seen a F-16 in Canadian Forces markings, but not on A.net. And you want to use this as an example? Very specifically it is not titled USAF, but left untitled as it should be. In the remarks section it says "The "Top Gun" Iskra is used for giving kids rides on the ground," so no false information was given, but that is a PZL TS-11 Iskra, as stated in its info box. When it come to aircraft mockups that are painted in "fake" color schemes for air shows, demonstration tours..etc. will be untitled, and usually will have comments stating their use in "Remarks" section. Bottom line is WP:RS doesn't not cover photos as a reliable/non-reliable source tool. Having said that I'm willing to concede, and avoid using A.net images on operator sourcing, if you gentlemen are willing to concede that if a proper source is not available, then A.net may be used in its place? Ball is in your court? This is pure WP:UCS - Cheers and Happy New Year FOX 52 (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say that as per WP:V if a proper source is not available then the information shouldn't be in the article until a WP:RS is found. - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a general observation: I have come across plenty of instances where the info with an a.net photo is clearly wrong, including the comments and even to misidentifying the type of aircraft. I sent an email to them once pointing this out with respect to the high incidence of misidentifying Fairchild Merlins/Metros. The reply basically was "yeah we know it's a problem and we hope to fix it one day". Has it been fixed? Who knows? YSSYguy (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you could put a link on some of those discrepancies that would be great. I have yet to come across any misidentified aircraft. FOX 52 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be some disagreement over what is the working definition of editorial oversight in relation to verifiable/professional-level material. Good practice in editorial oversight would be to review all content proposed for publishing prior to release, and to refuse to release/publish information that can't be verified as correct. On the other hand, to roam back to already-published content and fix flaws when they're pointed out by members of the readering public, would not be considered good practice by many people. Editorial oversight, in the context of content verification, isn't implying that patching up spotted problems in already-published user-made content is enough to satisfy the requirement; its stating that there should be a concerted effort by the reviewing editorship of that site not to release content until it has been check/verified, and non-confirmed information denied publication/release. Speaking as someone who used to do this for a living in younger years, allowing users to throw up content and tweaking out what flaws you can spot after the fact is not a methodical approach to editorship; and it is not the level of quality I would expect from a veriable source for factual work. The site is very nice, very useful for enthusasts; but that doesn't make it of a suitable level for academic citing/verification, the editing practice is not up to scratch - we can't tell what images have been reviewed, and which have not, which means potentially any image's details is wrong. 'Plausably right' doesn't cut it when editors are intended to be working on the basis of factual information. Kyteto (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's speculative, as person who has submitted a photo or two (to the site), I can tell you ALL content is checked before accept/reject status is given. No source is a 100%, I've seen retraction statements from The New York Times, to recycled aircraft operators list from Aviation Week & Space Technology. to reiterate The Bushranger's point a photograph showing Aircraft Y in the livery of Airline X, then saying it's an Aircraft Y of Airline X isn't interpretation. FOX 52 (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick few minute check on airliners.net found a few issues:

• http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Agusta-A-109E-Power/2203429/L identified as RAF when it belong to QinteQ. A lot of aircraft belonging to UK establishment are listed as RAF, most are MoD organisations and not part of the RAF.
• http://www.airliners.net/photo/BOAC/De-Havilland-DH-106/2036591/ could be used to as a source for BOAC operating the Comet 1 but this aircraft was never operated by the British airline and as far as I remember the 1A/1XB variant wasnt either.
• http://www.airliners.net/photo/PZL-Mielec-TS-11-Iskra/2052304 a US Navy TS-11 !
• A lot of warbirds in false markings are treated as if they are real, I suspect I could probably find more if I tried. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A few Issues? Not so fast.

• 1. Agusta A-109E Power "QinetiQ". The confusion there is that QinetiQ/ETPS lease the aircraft from the various air forces that use their services, but they ultimately still belong the primary owners. (RAF, Swedish AF..etc) hence the air force roundels. Here are a few more examples Castle-Air, Sweden Air Force, and a RAF Gazelle
  
• 2. BOAC didn't operate the De Havilland DH-106 Comet 1 ? Not according to our very own Misplaced Pages British Overseas Airways Corporation
  
• 3. A US Navy, PZL-Mielec TS-11 Iskra pictured yes, but descriptive metadata NO (left untitled, as it should be). My stance since the beginning was the use of the data is primary, and the image just adds confirmation. FOX 52 (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also, you're borrowing trouble a bit there. The picture of the Comet would be used as "a Comet in BOAC markings" - which is exactly what it is. The "trap photo" of the Iskra is honestly dissapoining - I'd have expected better of a couple of well-regarded editors here than to use that as an example hoping for a "gotcha!" moment. As for the A109, it shows it in UK military markings - which is correct. (Whether or not The Origanisation With The Utterly Stupid "Hip" Name should be using military markings is another matter...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WRT commonsense, and using the Iskra as an example, saying from the photo that this aircraft is operated by a civilian does require interpretation, which in turn is backed up by knowledge not evident in the photo, e.g. that the type was never operated by the service whose markings it bears. That's how commonsense works. Seems to me that what we are trying to do here is to codify common sense for those editors who lack it.

I'd suggest that the image alone is insufficient: when we use an image as source material, we do need its (verifiable) context in order to avoid misinterpreting it. If this context is not wholly obvious (as with the Iskra) then it needs explaining and/or referencing, e.g. "A TS-11 Iskra in fake US Navy markings " (or whatever). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I did say I only spent a few minutes looking for images, hence the TS-11! but just to comment about the A109 labeled as Royal Air Force, having a roundel does not equal RAF (which is the stance that airliners.net appear to take) QinteQ has organisationaly nothing to do with the RAF it is in effect a military contractor. The aircraft are given military serials by the MoD (not RAF) because the work they do would not be allowed with a civvy aircraft. A further example of this error is http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Hawker-Hunter-F58/2132424/ a Hawker Hunter F58 serial ZZ191 labeled as UK Air Force which it clearly is not, it is a civil-owned and operated under COMA (Civil Owned Military Aircraft) regulations. It is also works under contract for the Royal Navy so has zero RAF connection, it is not even a former RAF-aircraft as it came from the Swiss Air Force. If airlinersnet is reliable it could be used as clear evidence that the RAF operate Hunter F58s, which as you see is wrong. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the company website hunterteam.com (which is inscribed on the Hawker hunter's spine) that runs the program, they do work with the MoD RAF,and other AF's. The the aircraft are even based at RAF Scampton, so I don't know. Appears to another QinetiQ/ETPS case who owns it? Who lease it? I guess Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) applied the Swedish roundelcause it looks cool? Bottom line with this site as any other that is used, it should require little discretion and to restate Steelpillow (Talk) thought, some WP:COMMONSENSE FOX 52 (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

They may work with the MoD, but that doesn't mean that the aircraft is a part of the RAF, or even government owned. The hunter team aircraft are civil owned and operated. Having British military military markings or registrations does not mean that an aircraft is part of the British Military. Another example of seeing not necessarily equaling believing is the use of temporary markings for delivery. F-16 deliveries to Morocco certainly were made under temporary US markings.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with The Bushranger. Those image links provided by MilborneOne looks like a strawman argument. And it appears that MilborneOne intentionally find bad examples to illustrate a point. OhanaUnited 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well as its clear that some editors here (i.e OhanaUnited and The Bushranger) are perfectly happy to accuse anybody who disagrees with them of intentionally disrupting the discussion, and attacking them, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Clearly my opinions or contributions are not welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A bit dissapointed on the attack on my motives, particularly by an experienced user. Some users have championed airliners.net as a reliable source so a number of examples have been found which proves that airliners.net is not 100% reliable. This is a discussion on that reliability of the site so how is one to challenge the assertion without finding examples. As clearly any facts that are brought up (some by other very experienced editors) to show this unreliability will be ignored as they dont agree with the truth. I will get my coat and leave you to it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: Im not attacking anybody, and I'm not accusing anybody of intentionally disrupting a discussion. Nor was I "disagreeing" - merely pointing out that WP:COMMONSENSE applied, especially with that one particularly blatant example that was poorly used as an example. I apologise for any distress caused by my comments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to say that the regular editors here have had a pretty decent discussion, so hopefully we can close this little episode and stay friends. Returning to the OP, have we aired the issue enough? Or, if we still feel a need to formalise a guideline or something, then would it be a matter of interpreting existing guidelines for aircraft photos, or of actually clarifying the existing guides via the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or similar? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify the use of images as a source at the reliable sources/noticeboard. Our interest is aircraft operators and other aircraft related facts but I believe that a wiki-wide consensus must be around somewhere on the general use of images as a sources. A question to a wider audience would do not harm. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Swiss Air Force

Just to note that Swiss Air Force page has large sections of text and information being added, not sure if they are copied from somewhere but if anybody else can have a look it wouldnt do any harm. I removed the list of serial numbers a twice but the user keeps addign it back in! Certainly as it stands the article will need a lot of work to restore it to some order. MilborneOne (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Identical slabs of text have been added to Radar control, an article which ought to be quite important, but currently needs a lot of love.

I believe the text has been translated manually (not machine translation) by somebody who speaks more German than English. Original text is here. bobrayner (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

...which in turn looks like it was copy-pasted from a Swiss air force publication (in German), but I don't have a copy so I can't check the copyright status. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The same range of IPs have been dumping text into the Pilatus Aircraft article, with the same tendency to adding far too many details,and no sense as to what level of coverage is appropriate on WP. Perhaps we ought to see if a fluent German speaking editor can help get the message accross. - BilCat (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the content is potentially a big improvement for articles, but there are still problems. There are lots of editors who fix thousands of typos per hour &c and cleanup after a German-to-English translation is not massively difficult - I won't lose too much sleep over that - but we should ensure that the sources are solid, that there is no copyright violation &c. And if somebody doesn't communicate and just keeps on making the same edit, that's a problem in its own right. I have asked 85.1.75.33 to come here. bobrayner (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This has just been reinserted. Still no communication. This is frustrating - it's not going in a good direction. I'm sure this editor could make some much bigger improvements if only we could discuss a few things... bobrayner (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the text dump from Radar Control, it may possibly be a machine translation from de wiki. I think we need to set the Swiss Air Force article back to the last good as well as it is impossible to know where these text dumps came from. It looks like the user may have changed IP which doesnt help. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The last text I examined seemed to be manually translated rather than machine translated, for what it's worth. I think the editor may be a regular editor of similar articles on dewiki. bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

They continue to editwar to re-insert their textdumps in Pilatus Aircraft, Radar control amongst other articles - I think that semi-protection and/or blocking may be appropriate, particularly with the copyvio concerns on Radar control.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted them both - pretty obvious copyright text dumps, especially the Radar article as they didn't even strip out the footnotes from wherever they copied it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur that semi-protections and possibly blocking are needed here. Competence seems to be an issue here too, and I suspect that's not just a problem with the English language. Editors don't generally lose all editing competence simply becasue they aren't fluent in another language. :) - BilCat (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

More text-dumping at Pilatus Aircraft - I think semi- is needed here.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

He indicated that it is all unattributed text dumped from German WP, so that makes it a copyright violation. I have reverted it, but it needs protection now. - Ahunt (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is copyvio, if it's the same editor who wrote the same text on dewiki ;-) Nonetheless, something has to change. bobrayner (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless what he wrote on dewiki was already a copyvio! ;) The user has now dumped the text which was deleted from the Pilatus article onto Ahunt's talk page, which I've reverted. - BilCat (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Aviatika-900 Acrobat/Juka

Jsut created an article on the Aviatika-900 Acrobat, it appears to have been sold to Jurgis Kairys as LY-JKA. According to his article he designed and manufactured his own aerobatic aircraft known as the "Juka" registered LY-JKA. Something not right and it looks like he either renamed or modified the Acrobat. Dont want to link the two type without a reliable sources, appreciate any help, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Air-Britain/Partington Euro registers, notionally 2010 have 'JKA as the Aviatika.TSRL (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Strangely, Jane's 2006 have the Acrobat as uncompleted.TSRL (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My main source for linking them is the russian website http://www.oskbes.ru/900-e.html (the design bureau) who show an image of LY-JKA as being a "900". Also says In 2004 Lithuanian aerobatic pilot Jurgis Kairys won Grand prix FAI on aerobatics by plane Acrobat (under name JuKa)! MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.airliners.net/photo/PZL-Mielec-TS-11-Iskra/2052304

• Project-Class aviation pages
• Project-Class aircraft pages
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles