Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:17, 5 November 2022

	Aviation portal 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 articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by the aircraft project.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

Shortcuts

Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review

Peer review

RS?

Do we have a list of unreliable sources for aircraft/aviation? For example the article on the Gotha Go P.60 cites two websites, Luft46 and The Military Factory, and nothing else. Is either of these reliable? Luft46 used to be awful but has been cleaning up its act, but I don't know how we stand with it today. The other, I have no idea about. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military factory is mentioned here and here on WP:RSN - while there isn't extensive discussion in either of the mentions what's there isn't terribly positive. From what i've seen of it, then it should be purged with fire.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've purged the article of both sources and have added a bunch of books that cover German WW II aircraft prototypes and unbuilt designs. Other than those specific to the Gotha aircraft, I'd suggest purging those unreliable sources across Wikipedia and replacing them with cites from the books that I've provided. The first step should be deleting all references to the online sources from the articles, letting them stand as unreferenced paras until somebody feels like working on them, and adding the books to give editors some RS's to use to improve the articles. I'm unlikely to do many of them as improving the P.60 article alone is proving to be more troublesome that I'd expected. If I didn't plan on improving it to GA quality, I could rest easier, but once you've assembled all the sources and started reading, it just makes more sense to finish the job :-( --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is a vast improvement. I see you have also started a discussion on the sources on its talk page; I'll reply further over there, when I can grab the next moment. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To address the original question: Do we have a list of unreliable sources for aircraft/aviation? We do have a list of reliable ones: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources which includes Problematic sources which mentions Luft'46 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Luft'46 and The Aerodrome. Please feel free to update that page! - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added the Military factory to it, Luft '46 was already there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astonished to find that the article on Messerschmitt relied almost entirely on Luft '46 cites. this was its state before I cleaned them out. A great many articles on German aircraft and manufacturers are in the same boat, by the look of things. I have cleaned up a few more, but it looks like a huge job to both do that and find good sources to replace it everywhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Projects

I have added the Secret Projects discussion forum to the list of problematic sources. It carries many discussions on what material is and is not reliable. Obviously, much unreliable material gets posted there too. I have noted that citations on Wikipedia should reference the material which is evidently reliable, and not the discussion as such. If others feel that this is not quite right, please open a discussion on the Resources talk page; revert my words to taste, per BRD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be continued

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Resources#Problematic sources for the ongoing discussion about yet more such sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have given an update on the state of play at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Resources#Update and would appreciate any help in purging the remaining cites. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft of the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army

This category was just newly created. Are we making categories for each military? I was thinking for some aircraft types like the Douglas DC-3 or Bell UH-1 Huey this sort of approach could add hundreds of categorizes to those articles. If I recall there was a past consensus on this, but I am not finding it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories or in the talk page archives. - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on whether anybody finds these categories useful. There are always fanatics who claim they do. Can't see it myself, but at least they are not as bad as the endless navboxes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember these type of cats have long been frowned upon using the logic that aircraft like the C-47 could potential have hundreds of such user categories to no real value to the encyclopedia. I am sure similar categories have been deleted in the past MilborneOne (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have deleted these sorts of cats before, for just those reasons. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Large number of UAVs proposed for deletion

Project members might be interested in the long list of UAVs currently proposed for deletion, some have already been deleted. See User:SDZeroBot/PROD_sorting#History_and_Society/Transportation. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these should have been proposed a long time ago. Run-of-the-mill drones are mostly not notable. The especially heavy spamming with Chinese playthings tells its own story; per WP:PROMO, "Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." A few probably should be justified in being kept, but with the Chinese so reluctant to publish in reputable English-language journals, they are not helping themselves establish notability here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin or page mover help needed

Can someone with the appropriate permissions move User:Nigel Ish/Sandbox Dewoitine HD.780 to Dewoitine HD.780.? I can't do it as it is currently a redirect.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BilCat (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying car - edit warrior

Second opinions, intervention, etc. welcome at Flying car. See the page history for the blow-by-blow. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Talk:Flying car#Alef Model A, which you are welcome to join. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying cars and Whitehead

There is a discussion at Talk:Flying car#Whitehead on whether or not Gustave Whitehead's No.21 model should be listed in the article on the flying car. Strong views are being put, and any sanity checks or views on consensus here would be very much appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has also now been started on the Fringe noticeboard, see here. Participation in this is also more than welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of aircraft

This WikiProject covers many articles which include lists of aircraft. Some of those lists include both types which have flown and types which have not. Where a list includes both classes, a sortable table offers the opportunity for a Status column so that the distinction can be made transparent. For more about all this, see WP:AVILIST and its associated talk page.

Two changes recently proposed elsewhere include:

Split the mixed types out into flown and unflown lists, and abandon any idea of mixed lists. This goes directly against the reason we adopted the sortable table format.
Preface every such list with an article or section title which advises the reader of the fact, for example List of flown and unflown delta-wing aircraft instead of just List of aircraft with delta wings. It has been suggested in this edit comment that failing to do so breaches WP:ASTONISH.

These options would also affect the many bulleted lists, such as the overarching List of aircraft - which would become the List of flown and unflown aircraft but with no status indicator for the individual items. Do people here think that either of these is worth rolling out? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project members might do well to read the relevant thread on WP:FTN, for context. [1] This clearly isn't an abstract discussion about lists of aircraft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is where one of these changes was proposed. It is the discussion I already notified in the previous thread above here. In it, AndyTheGrump accuses this WikiProject of wholesale policy breaches (if it isn't me making the whole WikiProject thing up, he seems unsure about that), which is one of the principal reasons I brought it here for clarification. Ever more wild accusations and proposals are being bandied around, so it is important that the project does make itself clear here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have accused this Wikiproject of absolutely nothing. Instead, I have noted repeatedly that you have failed to provide the slightest evidence that the Wikiproject in any way supports the misleading list title in question. You claimed it was in accord with 'consensus'. Provide evidence for this 'consensus'. Now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try following the links in my opening paragraph and having a read. No, my friend, it is you who repeatedly refuse to read and respond to the evidence I proffer. Note especially the information on Status, a topic you have been so assiduously avoiding. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) So, 'consensus' comes down to an essay you largely wrote yourself, interpreted by yourself to permit inclusion of Gustave Whitehead's non-flying (by mainstream consensus) machine in a list of 'flying cars'? An interpretation not in the slightest supported by anything the 'status' section actually says? Really? That's the best you have to offer? No actual discussion where any consensus on relevant topics was reached?. Anyway, this whole discussion is clearly a red herring, since the core issue is whether Wikipedia should be including fringe claims in the list at all, not about arbitrary 'status' labels. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seldom seen such absurd rambles here. You press me for evidence and then say it is irrelevant anyway. For the benefit of others I would note that the Status values include "Project" on the explicit understanding that "if a type has not flown then it remains a 'Project', whether or not construction was started or even finished". The accusation that this is "an interpretation not in the slightest supported" is given the lie in no uncertain terms. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about providing some evidence that despite appearances [2] you aren't using Wikipedia to promote historical revisionism against mainstream consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are breaching WP:AGF again. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy: That does sound _very_ grumpy. Why the imperative? Why the "now"? Wikipedia content is all about collaboration. Neither was Rome built in one day, we are not in any hurry. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to 'collaborate' with someone who repeatedly refuses to address the core issue that began this discussion - the promotion of historical revisionist content, against mainstream consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 ::::::I have seldom seen such absurd rambles here. You press me for evidence and then say it is irrelevant anyway. For the benefit of others I would note that the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Lists#Status|Status]]''' values include "Project" on the explicit understanding that "if a type has not flown then it remains a 'Project', whether or not construction was started or even finished". The accusation that this is "an interpretation not in the slightest supported" is given the lie in no uncertain terms. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 15:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 :::::::How about providing some evidence that despite appearances [http://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/whitehead.html] you aren't using Wikipedia to promote historical revisionism against mainstream consensus. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 15:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
+:::::::You are breaching [[WP:AGF]] again. &mdash; Cheers, [[User:Steelpillow|Steelpillow]] ([[User Talk:Steelpillow|Talk]]) 16:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 ::::@Andy: That does sound _very_ grumpy. Why the imperative? Why the "now"? Wikipedia content is all about collaboration. Neither was Rome built in one day, we are not in any hurry. [[User:Jan olieslagers|Jan olieslagers]] ([[User talk:Jan olieslagers|talk]]) 15:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 :::::It is difficult to 'collaborate' with someone who repeatedly refuses to address the core issue that began this discussion - the promotion of historical revisionist content, against mainstream consensus. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 15:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)