Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 208.54.40.188 (talk) at 01:56, 27 July 2014 (→Very silly false accusations and likely assuming bad faith: Please do some homework before templating as it can be considered harassment when not appropriate.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

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  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2017  [ Jan-Dec ]
2018  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2019  [ Jan-May | June–Dec ] — 2020  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2021-2023  [ Jan-June 21 | June 21-March 23 | March 23-Nov 23 ]

Lists: [ Aircraft | Manufacturers | Engines | Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons | Missiles | Timeline ]
 
Aviation WikiProject announcements and open tasks
watch · edit · discuss

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured article candidates

A-Class review

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(2 more...)

View full version (with review alerts)
WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the aircraft project.
Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review



This box:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

List of large aircraft and Template:Giant aircraft nominated for deletion

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:J & J Ultralights Aircraft

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 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 2. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tupolev Tu-116

User:Le Grand Bleu has created a new article on the Tu-116 at Tupolev-116 rather than just work on the original Tupolev Tu-116 article, they have some desire to be recorded as the article author. Rather than a complicated history merge I have used a copied from/to template to retain attribution for the new content and not loose the history of the page as I copied it into the original article over a redirect. This has not been helped by being reverted in the middle of the process can I ask others to keep an eye on the articles please, thanks.MilborneOne (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You stole my work and moved the contents to another page under your name. What do you expect me to think about it? Not to mention you started an edit war without any explanation. I'm reverting your changes until you care to explain what the heck you're doing. Also, I have to say this notice itself is quite offensive. You did not discuss your actions with me, did not reach any consensus or even provided a prior explanation, yet you posted a warning in a defamatory tone usually reserved to alert users of a vandal or some other evil-willed user. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On my watchlist. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Le Grand Bleu has been blocked multiple times for disruptive editing and personal attacks on others (and been suspected of sock-puppetry).
Clearly there is a lack of understanding on how wikipedia works, starting with the fact that no-one owns a page - once it is written, it is free for anyone to do as they wish, including completely rewrite, or copy elsewhere (though this should be attributed to the original page). It cannot be stolen as it does not belong to anyone, and no-one can lay claim to being the "author" as all pages are subject to editing by anyone at any time. If Le Grand Bleu wishes to create a page perhaps rather than deleting an existing page and creating a new one at a random location, a perusal of aircraft types that are still without pages would be a better use of time - there are a great many aircraft for which no page exists yet - there is no need to vandalize an existing article for personal gratification. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles/1 is just the first page of a very long listing of pages that still need to be written - and there are a fair number of significant types lurking in there, begging to be done.NiD.29 (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:XtremeAir aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_14#Template:XtremeAir_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Zenoah aircraft engines

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Zenoah_aircraft_engines. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:ZALA aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_14#Template:ZALA_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RT aerostats systems

A new article has recently been created for RT aerostats systems. This company appears to be a subsidiary of Aeronautics Defense Systems. The new article lacks references and other good things - should it be improved or simply merged in with the parent article? Comments please at Talk:RT aerostats systems. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Windward Performance aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at [[1]]. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Wings of Freedom aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Wings_of_Freedom_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:World Aircraft Company aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:World_Aircraft_Company_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Worldwide Ultralite aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Worldwide_Ultralite_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:William Evans aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:William_Evans_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass nomination of aircraft manufacturer nav boxes for deletion

As can been seen above, one editor seems to have taken exception to the existence of thousands of aircraft manufacturer nav boxes and is nominating these, one at a time, for deletion. I have asked him to bring the discussion here for consensus, but he seems to have declined to do so and would apparently rather just pursue nominating nav boxes instead.

Here on WikiProject Aircraft we have had a longstanding practice of creating nav boxes for manufacturers who have two of more aircraft models and have standardized this across tens of thousands of articles on aircraft types. This editor is citing an essay WP:NENAN as the reason to nominate the nav boxes for deletion in favour of putting links in "see also" instead. My opinion is that the use of nav boxes across aircraft type articles creates a uniform reader experience, making most aircraft articles much easier to navigate and making it very quick to see what other aircraft types the manufacturer has also built.

My thought in bringing this here for debate is to see if we can create a new and formal consensus on the issue rather than have to carry out this debate piecemeal for each template nominated for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this looks like a one-man crusade. My feeling is that even for manufacturers with only a couple of aircraft to their name that these navboxes perform a useful function, & are a better option than including links to other aircraft in (eg) a "see also" section: its a natural reaction to want to know what other craft a company has produced, & I think that the navbox does his to best effect.TheLongTone (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took the use of a navbox to be a better alternative to filling up the "See also" and allows for more efficient presentation including some categorization. To address the specific concerns, the essay takes a reasonable stance by advising a "rule" that if there are five articles to link then a navbox should be considered, and most aircraft navboxes manage that. The essay Wikipedia:A navbox on every page (I note that it doesn't actually propose that) identifies some good reasons for navboxes (including de-orphaning articles). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And where is that consensus to be found? - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Template for Discussion pages. The argument that WP:NENAN is only an essay has proven to be non-effective with the acting administrators. The Banner talk 20:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide an actual link to the consensus discussion, or else I don't think editors here will believe you. - Ahunt (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just check those pages. Time and time again navigation templates are removed due to failing WP:NENAN. Kind of Common Outcomes. But when you want to overturn consensus, TfD is the place to discuss it. The Banner talk 20:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that NENAN is a very minor essay that was created by an editor who is noted for having a... *cough* controversial at times idea of what is or is not notable. If it's being used to make deletion decisions the people who are doing so need to be trouted. Does removing the navbox improve Wikipedia for the user, especailly the novice-to-average user? No. No, it does not, no matter how few links are in it. (I'd say this is the silliest concept I've seen in awhile but at the same time I'm seeing the argument that a photograph of a NASCAR race car somehow violates the sponsor's copyright...) - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Banner: You are not providing any link to any discussion that shows any real consensus, so I am thinking that means that there really isn't one. We will decide a solid actual consensus one way or the other here. I would suggest you wait until this discussion is complete then. If the consensus here is that these are not needed you can nominate them all at once instead of piecemeal. If the consensus here is to keep them then this will save you all that wasted time of nominating them against the new consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Have the templates been deleted specifically under WP:NENAN or for reasons within WP:NENAN. The editing guideline on navboxes is at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. I don't feel that the linked articles have to exist, so long as there is a reasonable assumption that they could be created and meet notability criteria. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent template discussion that I found that cited WP:NENAN was Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_2#Template:Spy_Fox, which was as much deleted (as I understand it)because its content was redundant to another navbox. I've found other deletions as a result of deciding the navbox had only a couple of navigable links but not citing WP:NENAN GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
471 Pages including the word NENAN, but I did not check everyone of the. My guess is that at least 95% of NENAN-nominaties is followed by removal or succesful rescue-operation. The Banner talk 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: As editors can see even while we are discussing this issue the editor has been nominating more and more aircraft nav box templates for deletion. I have asked him nicely to please stop until this discussion has been completed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And very nicely I promised to stop for today. The Banner talk 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) There is no minimum number of links given at WP:NAVBOX which is the guideline (WP:NAV is an essay). About five or six years ago this project moved away from the untidy 'sequence' format that was in Template:Aircontent and positively changed to navboxes. The only thing I can see against the guideline is that the navbox parent article should not be a redlink which can be fixed. Mass deletion nomination seems to be very against the spirit of Wikipedia, low on content they may be but these navboxes are very useful editing tools (i.e. 'what is left to write articles on?' is how I often use them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Banner has indicated that he is done nominating boxes for today, but doesn't seem to accept that any consensus here will effect the authority of that essay he likes to cite or of the TfD editors. - Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, as this is the wrong venue to reach consensus. The administrators on TfD are the ones who decide ultimately so you have to convince them how unreasonable it is to use a five relevant links threshold for navigation templates. The Banner talk 21:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfectly valid place to come to a consensus on aircraft nav boxes and no less valid than TFD talk pages. If you think other people should be participating in this discussion then please do invite them here. We would like to have as wide a discussion as possible, Also, as I noted on your talk page, continuing to nominate templates for deletion while this discussion is ongoing may be seen as disruptive to make a WP:POINT. - Ahunt (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same for refusing to even listen to my point that this is the wrong venue. The Banner talk 21:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not considering all the navbox stuff; I only really care about WP:NAVBOX. Guideline #4 basically requires an article to exist as the title. I believe there have been a few exceptions, but exempting a whole series of templates could be controversial. It may be better to have a list or category for these, until a notable article that can appropriately link them exists. I understand black titles filling in a few spaces, but this may be too many. Can an article be made about a group of any of these? Other than the titles, the boxes more or less follow the guidelines. —PC-XT+ 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Also, as convenient as it is to discuss all of these in one centralized discussion, the decision is ultimately in the hands of the admins, now that they have been nominated at TfD. I see nothing wrong with discussing it here, as long as TfD isn't forgotten. Otherwise, you may end up at a deletion review process, which is a difficult way to go, even if you have new information. —PC-XT+ 00:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these do have titular articles, the J & J Ultralights template that was already deleted had one. Have a look at the ones nominated, Template:ZALA aircraft, Template:Windward Performance aircraft, Template:World Aircraft Company aircraft and Template:Weller Flugzeugbau aircraft all have titular articles, so that isn't the reason these are being nominated. The rest could easily have them written if that is an issue, which is a better way to build an encyclopedia rather than deleting useful nav boxes. Also I have left multiple invitations for anyone reading TfDs to participate here and also asked User:The Banner to ensure that the appropriate people are invited. If people don't comment then that is their choice to not make up part of the consensus result either way. - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to tell you that this is the wrong venue? Try a neutral place and try an official RfC. But getting consensus among peers around something that is far wider used is just not sensible. Beside that, I still did not see any valid arguments to change the present consensus that navigation templates should have at least five relevant blue links. Please note that the link to the parent article and a section "related" or "see also" do not count for the five relevant links. That is the common practice at TfD. The Banner talk 13:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely appropriate venue since we are only discussing aircraft manufacturer nav box templates, which come under the purview of this project. Other people who may be interested have been notified and are welcome to participate. Any consensus here will not affect any other templates, just the ones being discussed here. Also you have not shown any real indication that "present consensus that navigation templates should have at least five relevant blue links". Where is that consensus to be found? Please provide a link. If you can't actually show where that consensus is found then I can only conclude that there isn't one. Regardless, as per WP:CONSENSUS a new consensus can be created at any time and that is what we are doing here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember the use of these navigation boxes was a compromise solution because somebody didnt like the same information in the see also section. If we remove all these thousands of navboxes then somebody will have to add the stuff back in the see also. In a few months time somebody else will object to this and we will then re-create all the navboxes again. All time and effort that could be used in improving the article, suggest just leave well alone they are a useful navigation aid to the reader and that is far more important. MilborneOne (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about a postponement of decision on the templates nominated to give a window of opportunity for some redlinks to be filled in. A moratorium on nomination would also be useful to make the task manageable - I presume the nominator has a system for identifying the ones they think are problematic and would be able to resume nomination at any time without losing their place. Does Wikipedia:There is no deadline offer any advice? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The methode used in opening the template and count the links. Easy as that. The Banner talk 08:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the editor in question on his talk page several times to stop any further noms until this consensus is decided either way, but he has indicated he will continue nominating more and more templates for deletion regardless and that he will not accept any consensus here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen between 3 and 8 articles as the threshold number, but for me it varies depending on the situation. (Note that 3 blue links to the same page, through two separate redirects and a direct link to the page, would be considered one article linked.) I don't know how much weight my !vote will have on the admin's decision, but for what it's worth, here are my personal guidelines for these templates at this time:

  1. I will !vote delete on any of these that have fewer than 3 total linked articles, including the title link, and few red links, because I really see no reason for a navbox at that number, and it will (I assume) mean a small number of edits to place these few links in See also sections. I also doubt the small number of links will cause many complaints, (I hope.) I may make exceptions if I believe enough articles will be linked in the future.
  2. If the navbox has a blue title and at least two other articles are blue-linked, I will !vote keep, at least for now. I consider this a low threshold, but I think it is fair considering the large number of nominations.
  3. If the navbox title is a red link, I will !vote either a conditional delete with support for undeleting/recreating when the title article (and possibly one or two others) exist or keep for now with support for renomination if they are not created (in 6 months, give or take.)

If I have not clearly followed these guidelines in my actual !votes on any of these templates, or if you think I should make an exception, please ask me about it on the TfD discussion, pinging me if you like. If you think I should change my personal guidelines, please respond here. (I'll be busy until the weekend, so don't worry if I take hours to answer.) Thanks. —PC-XT+ 06:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:PC-XT: Thank you for your carefully considered input! - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main discussion here has died down now, although obviously this thread will remain open for further input from any other editors. Also, as can be seen, we have had input from editors from outside the Aircraft Project, since invitations were passed on to editors working on TfD as well, making this a broad-based discussion.
To sum up what we have heard so far, we have six editors in favour of retaining all WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes, regardless of the number of blue links, one who says there should be five blue links and one who says there should be at least three blue links including a titular article. So the clear consensus is that all WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes should be retained, regardless of the number of blue links. I should point out that this consensus is regarding WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes only and in no way effects TfDs on other templates outside the scope of WikiProject Aircraft, which is why it was discussed here, with widely invited input.
User:The Banner has indicated both above and on his talk page that he will not accept this consensus and that he will continue to nominate every WikiProject Aircraft nav box for TfD over time. He has indicated both above and on his talk page that there is a long-standing consensus that nav boxes must have five blue links, but when challenged by several editors to point to the existence of this consensus he was consistently unable to do so. He also indicated here that he will continue to nominate WikiProject Aircraft nav boxes for deletion strictly for revenge purposes. I guess I could take him to ANI, but I prefer to just oppose each nomination as he makes them, pointing out these facts. He has also refused to notify this project of TfDs, I guess I will have to continue to do that work for him. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many times must I tell you to stop harassing me with this useless exercise? This is the wrong veue to get a consensus, you must be at TfD for that. And about what you call revenge nominations: I made it loud and clear that you have to stop with your false accusations that I am acting in bad faith. And I promised you that every personal attack or false accusation would be followed by checking another series of templates and nominate them when applicable. So every new series of nominations is directly related to your rude behaviour towards me. Act politely and we can just await the decisions of the administrators. But my other advice will be simple: make sure each and every template has five links to relevant, existing articles. The Banner talk 15:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:The Banner, your revenge nominations are creating a lot of work for the rest of us. Please stop them immediately or I will see what the folks at WP:ANI have to say about this disruptive behaviour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We will see what the outcome will be from the present nominations. But I do not like mr. Hunts false accusations. Not a single nomination is frivolous. You call it disruptive, I call it a necessary clean up. The Banner talk 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The desire to nominate is not frivolous, I am convinced of your good faith there. But the timing of your nominations is highly inflammatory. As for the choice of venue for this discussion, provided the alternative venue links to the main discussion, there is no point in carping after the horse has bolted: You know where you want people to see this topic, go there and post a clear link back over here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In what way necessary? The navbox templates aeen't exactly huge files. The argument in the essay you are citing is that a plethora of unecessary navboxes wan overwhelm a short article: the number of instances of an aircraft article contain more than this navbox & the general aviation articles navbox is vanishingly small. Essentially the only argument for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I call it disruptive and destructive editing.TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not notifying the project, or the template creator, as a courtesy to other editors, along with comments above, makes it look to me as if the nominator has already decided that only discussion at TfD has any value. The most telling arguments in any deletion discussion should be policy (or failing that - guideline) based ones. Personally I don't see any that say this type of template should say, or that this type of template should go. Which takes it to a more abstract level. Do the presence of these templates actually harm Wikipedia, or just leave it untidy? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying a Wikiproject is not mandatory, only notifying the original author and other main editors. My Twinkle should take care of that. As far as I know, Twinkle has no option to warn a wikiproject, so you have to file a request to the developer. The Banner talk 08:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Been thinking about these templates, FWIW. They are useful as nav links to the related articles, but they also double up as mini lists of the manufacturer's types, so they are not just nav templates, they also inform. They are useful wherever the number of types exceeds a sensible limit for a "See also" list, say four-ish. Swathes of red links are not especially helpful, as there are other ways to find out which types might not yet be described, so maybe just deleting or commenting out those multiple links would be sensible. Half-baked articles should still be linked, as this is a good way to draw editors' attention to the existence of the article. On deleting a template: for the most part, why? If the set of articles is too immature as yet, just don't use the template for now - leave it orphaned until it becomes worth invoking, just make sure it is Categorised so we can find it again. Perhaps a handful of templates might obviously never grow enough links to become viable, and there is no harm in deleting those, but they are a small minority. Just my thoughts. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take it there hasn't sufficient grounds for a block on this user? Seems like vandalism to me, pointless and unwarranted change, attempts at a stealth deletion, refusing to accept the project's consensus, threats of blackmail etc, and continuing to nominate pages despite the existence of an ongoing discussion and being asked to stop. Just wondering.NiD.29 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for The Banner, your arguments are feeble and need work, threats and insults are hardly likely to win you any converts.
Your arguments thus far seem to be:
Nav box lower size limit consensus. Which has been replaced by this one that says otherwise.
Page clutter - few aviation pages are overrun with nav boxes, and the nominee's links don't have this problem.
Redlinks are confusing/distracting/unsightly etc - when I look at an aircraft's page, it is helpful to find a listing of other aircraft the company built (regardless of whether the pages exist), and to find it in a consistent location. Nav boxes, even with redlinks help with this.
Redlinks mean the topic is not notable. Consensus in the Aviation project is that any aircraft that was built is notable. (someone else will need to provide the link as I am not about to go looking right now) Whether we have a page for it or not doesn't change this, and this extends to whoever built said aircraft. There might not be much to say about some of them, but the builder/designer is by definition notable (since pretty much every aircraft has been written about somewhere). This is markedly more lenient than the notability guidelines for other projects.
Personally I think that if there are more than two types then there should be a nav box. Helps reduce edit wars over what to include in the see also section as well (indeed if extended properly that section could be eliminated). Cheers,NiD.29 (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like this, due to lack of arguments you start asking for a block. Great. You made my day! The Banner talk 08:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not asking, just wondering, and not for lack of arguments, but for the disruptive manner in which you brought the issue up, by continuing to tag more and more pages. Others are no doubt more diplomatic and easygoing than I am.NiD.29 (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Banner is quite clearly not interested into entering into a discussion, having just posted "LOL, you guys have no other arguments than WP:WEDONTLIKEIT, WP:WEDOTHISALLTHETIME and WP:WEHAVEASPECIALPOSITION. Unfortunately, that will not work. Just wait and see what is going to happen. And in the mean time: spend an effort is upgrading templates to have five relevant blue links." on the discussion on his talkpage folloewed by immediatly archiving the discussion with the highly patronising edit summary "(crying kids moved to archive) " Its difficult tonot to believe that this has become a personal issue, and has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia.TheLongTone (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that his recent responses have nothing to do with the question at hand (not even bothering to reply to them), but is entirely about the conflict he has generated speaks volumes about his maturity (or lack thereof) and lack of interest in actually discussing anything in a reasonably manner, but instead is simply vandalizing a project when he has no understanding of the subject whatsoever. Crying kids indeed.NiD.29 (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANOEP supports this system, if we are talking essays. —PC-XT+ 23:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Is there a process for deleting essays I wonder? This project has been battered long and hard by MOS crusaders and others over the years but I'm extremely confident that everything is in order generally. There are very many diligent, good faith and hard working editors here who have better things to do with their precious free time. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From my enquires elsewhere (check my contribs) it needs just one admin to move the 'NENAN' essay back in to the user space from where it came. The essay would then not exist (and its 'policies'). Could we also archive all the template notifications, can't see the wood for the trees at the moment. Thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be counter-intuitive to have a navigation box which doesn't do much navigation, this project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes their use as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), they are something more than merely navigation templates. Mojoworker (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, we sometimes go further by duplicating entries by name, type number, role and adding key company people with wiki articles making them very user friendly. I could hash up an example of how this used to be done in the 'See also' sections in a sandbox (or just point to an old version of an article), it was untidy at best. Looking back at various archived conversations the transition to navboxes happened in early 2008, it was certainly an uncontested improvement. The 'elephant in the room' for me is the persistent use of 'fails NENAN', how can an article or template be deleted on 'failing' an essay written by one editor? I'm concerned that so many navbox templates have been deleted on the strength of 'failing NENAN' already, they may have been low quality but they are red links now so there is no way of checking. An essay is not a guideline or policy.
The guideline on navboxes is Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates or WP:NAVBOX, even this is not a policy. It makes good sense and this project's use is in line with it with the exception that point four (navbox should have a blue link parent article) is not always followed. A red link in a navbox is a reminder that an article needs to be written. Navboxes are very useful editing tools, I have been adding them to category pages to cross check that everything in a category appears in the navbox and vice versa.
The deletion nominator has apparently assumed that all the navboxes nominated represent all the articles that will ever be written on a particular aircraft manufacturer's series of aircraft and other related matters without any background knowledge of the subject, not so. I have been surprised after creating a navbox with a few entries that it very quickly grows (often with the help of like-minded editors) and leads me down interesting research paths which can only benefit Wikipedia in the long run.
Sorry for the rant but 'wiki building' is my game, I will support deletion of low quality content but the standardised system that we have established here between us is high quality and I will defend it vigorously. Quickly hiding many complaints on the nominator's talk page with an edit summary of 'crying kids' is uncivil and masks the situation, fortunately the talk page history is there for others to judge. On a personal note my enthusiasm for WP editing is low due to all the normal problems we face (vandalism, socks etc.), this kind of mass attack on the project lowers my enthusiasm almost to the point of giving up :-( Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Uninvolved editor here; I generally support the consensus to have a navigation template for each manufacturer. Studying the issue recently, it appears that the editor proposing the deletions should have started a single discussion regarding the category of templates, rather than proposing each individually. Under Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Listing a template, there are instructions for "multiple templates":

Multiple templates: If you are nominating multiple related templates, choose a meaningful title for the discussion (like "American films by decade templates"). Tag every template with {{Template for discussion/dated|page=WikiProject Aircraft|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 21#discussion title}} or {{Tfm/dated|page=WikiProject Aircraft|otherpage=name of other template|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 21#discussion title}} instead of the versions given above, replacing discussion title with the title you chose (but still not changing the PAGENAME code). Note that TTObot is available to tag templates en masse if you do not wish to do it manually.

I would recommend the nominating user follow the recommended instructions for multiple templates, or at least clearly explain why an exception is called for. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominating editor has already clearly shown that they are not interested in dialogue, but merely in disrupting the project for personal reasons. They have disregarded protocol at every turn, so this is unlikely to faze him at all.NiD.29 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't my intention to "faze" anyone, but to offer a polite invitation back into the fold, hopefully before a suspension becomes necessary. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors refuse to follow that rule because they use Twinkle for nominating, which doesn't do mass nominations. This annoys many !voters. Other nominators prefer to follow that rule if the same rationale is used for all of the templates, even if they have to do it by hand. I've rarely seen some editors change multiple related single nominations with the same rationale into mass nominations, but this is tricky to do if !votes have been cast. It is better for the nom to do it before any !votes are cast, but more templates can be added if necessary. I believe in the current situation, the nominator has stated this as the reason for the many nominations. —PC-XT+ 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 19:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I am only fleetingly familiar with Twinkle. Perhaps the developers might wish to address this issue. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Weller Flugzeugbau aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Weller_Flugzeugbau_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Whittaker aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Whittaker_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Welch aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Welch_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Walter Haufe aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Walter_Haufe_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Wagner aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:Wagner_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:W.F. Stewart Company aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_15#Template:W.F._Stewart_Company_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:V-STOL Aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:V-STOL_Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Velocity aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Velocity_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:VFW-Fokker aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:VFW-Fokker_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Vidor aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Vidor_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Viking Aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Viking_Aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Volmer Jensen aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Volmer_Jensen_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Vortech aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Vortech_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:UL-Jih aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:UL-Jih_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Ulrich Hütter and Wolfgang Hütter aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:Ulrich_H.C3.BCtter_and_Wolfgang_H.C3.BCtter_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:US Aviation aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_16#Template:US_Aviation_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Trixy aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Trixy_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Tri-R aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Tri-R_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Towle Marine Aircraft Engineering aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Towle_Marine_Aircraft_Engineering_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:Thruster Aviation Services aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_17#Template:Thruster_Aviation_Services_aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Air Force

Keep removing list of aircraft losses in Ukrainian Air Force but it keeps being added by an IP, including a Boeing 777 - as far as I am aware not operated by the Ukrainian Air Force! any help or comment appreciated, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted it once, should I warn him for vandalism? The B777 sure is referencing to MH17 which I would find vandalism. However the rest he is adding isn't vandalism but I agree it should not be on there. (slow comments from me for the rest because of news on MH17) Redalert2fan (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canard Rotor/Wing

I have started an informal merge/delete discussion at Talk:Canard Rotor/Wing — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P-51VLR

I have proposed deletion of P-51VLR but as it only has five watchers I have noted it here if anybody has any comment, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this doesn't smell right. The only reference seems to make no mention of the project, and I find it very hard to beleive that what sounds like a very considerable modification would not have been documented. There must be dozens of books about the P51, if this variant existed it surely would be documented... and in any case, if it's not documented, it surely cannot be written about in Wikipedia.TheLongTone (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. VLR missions were flown by standard P-51D's. If there really was a VLR variant, it would be better to create a new article with the correct title and a genuine reference. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of it in a fairly comprehensive Mustang book I have. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Aviation Phoenix

Article Freedom Aviation Phoenix has been proposed for deletion as it has only has now unavailable company website as a reference, anybody have anything on it? MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cant get more than this: http://www.ovguide.com/freedom-aviation-phoenix-9202a8c04000641f80000000073284a5 http://www.airport-data.com/manuf/Freedom_Aviation.html Redalert2fan (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
note the first link says exactly the same as the first part of the wiki page, Redalert2fan (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nomination for deletion of Template:The Butterfly aircraft

This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this template falls, that this template has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 24. - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has triggered a complaint at WP:ANI, see here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of personal air vehicles

List of personal air vehicles, "formerly Comparison of personal air vehicles" - I've had a bit of a stab today at improving it, but I'm thinking "is it worth it?" The article attempts to compare various civilian and military attempts at something that can fly and drive. Some of the parameters, such as emissions, are probably not available. Thoughts, please. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the embryonic list for the PAV Challenge should be merged into the main one: any such list is better placed at Personal air vehicle#PAV Challenge. Some entries such as the Facetmobile are not PAVs at all. And there are projects in there that are really not notable or frankly credible enough to deserve the pathetic articles created for them. The whole PAV zone looks to be a terrible fanboy mess, I think we would need to wade in in force. At the moment I am too busy elsewhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles linked to are redlinked, and those that aren't are pretty much stubs, and lack even the standard infoboxes. I deleted a bunch of the more obviously inappropriate entries but for many of them there simply isn't enough information - definitely some eyes, and references needed. The parent Personal air vehicle needs some help too.NiD.29 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very silly edit war

There appears to be a multi-page edit war between two ip editors, one 217.123.87.39 (talk · contribs) and one on a rabge of ips (currently 208.54.40.188 (talk · contribs)) about whether various aircraft are fitted with the M61 or the M61A Vulcan cannon.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very silly false accusations and likely assuming bad faith

One revert per aircraft is not an edit war especially when it is restoring a nomenclature that has been long settled. It is most likely the editor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.123.87.39 is new and meant no harm. I welcomed him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:217.123.87.39&oldid=618598981 After being bit hard he may not choose to resume editing here. I warned Nigel to quit assuming bad faith which he promptly deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nigel_Ish&oldid=618591037#Edit_warring_accusations.3F.3F.3F Researching Nigel's talk and user page it appears he can be quite contentious (it did not take me long to figure that out). The IP only did a revert on one article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II&action=history which is also hardly edit warring which was reverted by two different users myself being one. He was also corrected by Fnlayson 3X here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter&action=history The new? editor could have been a vandal but based on previous edits that is unikely and it is most likely he genuinely thought he was doing good editing. A few regulars seem to go off on every little thing without using good judgement and maybe they need to a break from what could be construed as harassment. 208.54.40.188 (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another note of the obvious

The supposed "edit war" took place 24 hours after the first editor changed M61 to M61A1 in many aircraft. The two editors never interacted. I reverted the appropriate aircraft and left the edits that were changed to M61A2 as that is the proper nomenclature. The original editor has never has returned since his original edits. Clearly not an edit war unless one was trolling to stir up trouble or feel important. Please do some homework before templating as it can be considered harassment when not appropriate. 208.54.40.188 (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft&oldid=618617592"