| Revision as of 05:31, 12 March 2007 editBduke (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,971 edits Aerosonde← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:41, 12 March 2007 edit undoTrevor MacInnis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users74,493 editsm →Aerosonde: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
| *Why does ] have this name, as the article only refers to it as "Aerosonde"? | *Why does ] have this name, as the article only refers to it as "Aerosonde"? | ||
| *] is the abandoned article (a disambiguation page), having not been edited for nearly two years. Should ] be the main article in place of ] and the other disambiguation ] be a "For the Australian company see ...]] at the top of that article? --] 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | *] is the abandoned article (a disambiguation page), having not been edited for nearly two years. Should ] be the main article in place of ] and the other disambiguation ] be a "For the Australian company see ...]] at the top of that article? --] 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I think that the article should be moved to Aerosonde, and the disambig page move to ]. - ] ] <small>(])</small> 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:41, 12 March 2007
 Archives |
- ]
Project tags
I've been going through tagging and retagging some articles. I found a few interesting questions, and would like to propose a consistent approach to dealing with these issues.
- Some articles are already tagged to one or more child projects. I suggest that if a page falls into more than one child project, it should be re-tagged for the parent aviation project. So pages that were tagged to Aircraft and Airports would be re-tagged to Aviation (with the same assessment).
- Articles that deal specifically with one project should be tagged to that project. So aircraft and parts of aircraft should be tagged to the Aircraft project (e.g. airframe). But terms relating to operation of the aircraft should be tagged to aviation (e.g. airway).
--Dhaluza 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm ok with this, to a degree. An article tagged to both Airports and Aircraft, but that does not relate directly to either one, should be re-tagged to the more general Aviation project. One example is Talk:Instrument flight rules, currently tagged as an Airport project page, but I think that this more properly belong under Aviation projects scope. But articles such as Talk:Instrument Landing System belong specifically to the Airports project. Its all dependent on the scope of the projects. If there is some sort of overlap, it should be corrected. If the overlap is required, we could deal with it in the same way the Military history project does. Use the main project template, with an added parameter identifying other involved projects, which would then categorize them in both projects. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your examples on IFR/ILS make sense to me, but seem to be inconsistent with the argument you make about aircraft engines and aircraft. If the ILS should be included in the Airport project because it is part of the airport, then aircraft engine should be in the Aircraft project for the same reason. I don't have a strong opinion either way, except that whatever we decide it should be easy to explain and most importantly consistent. My initial thought is that we should try to push things down to the child projects as much as possible, and only use Aviation to cover the gaps and overlaps. But I'm open to other opinions. 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let's verify the scopes in the Recap above. This should help decide where everything belongs. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- PS. Just be thankfull our pages don't generally fall under too many non-aviation related projects, or we'd end up dealing with a situation like on Talk:Jim Thorpe. Six different wikiprojects! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let's verify the scopes in the Recap above. This should help decide where everything belongs. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your examples on IFR/ILS make sense to me, but seem to be inconsistent with the argument you make about aircraft engines and aircraft. If the ILS should be included in the Airport project because it is part of the airport, then aircraft engine should be in the Aircraft project for the same reason. I don't have a strong opinion either way, except that whatever we decide it should be easy to explain and most importantly consistent. My initial thought is that we should try to push things down to the child projects as much as possible, and only use Aviation to cover the gaps and overlaps. But I'm open to other opinions. 22:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation (parenthesis)
There is no consistency in the terms used to disambiguate aviation terms in Category:Aviation terminology. For example:
- Airway (aviation)
- Astrodome (aviation)
- Center of gravity (aircraft)
- Cruise (flight)
- Descent (aircraft)
- Endurance (aircraft)
- Flutter (aircraft)
- Ground loop (aviation)
- Holding (aviation)
- Intersection (aviation)
- Lift (force)
- Loiter (flight)
- Overspeed (aircraft)
- Polar curve (aviation)
- Range (aircraft)
- Shock cooling (engines)
- Slip (aerodynamic)
- Spoiler (aeronautics)
- Swashplate (helicopter)
- Transponder (aviation)
- Transverse axis (aircraft)
- Vertical axis (aircraft)
- Visual flight (aircraft)
One of the things projects are set up to do is to standardize things like this, and now that we have a unified project, we may as well put this on the table. We should work on a guideline on how to use disambiguation terms consistently. The easiest thing to do might be to just use the more generic term aviation in most cases. Or, if not, we should decide when to use aircraft vs. aviation, and probably not use flight or aeronautics at all. Dhaluza 23:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. I would think that things having to do directly with aircraft, especially parts of an aircraft, ought to say "(aircraft)", and terms relating to more general things such as air-traffic control should say "(aviation)". I also think "(aerodynamics)" would be useful for dealing with principles of flight, such as lift, drag, that would be more specific than aviation. - BillCJ 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Projects goals
I think we should start attaining some featured article goals. I was just recently perusing articles on Scouting with 17 ga and fa articles (just listed in the template at the bottom). I guess, what i am proposing we do is first, determine whoich articles are core to the topic of aviation. Extremly famous historical aviations, perhaps amelia earhart or the wright brothers and define a list of articles we would like to reach featured status. Then, get working on them. Do any other members have ideas on this? or prosed articles to push towards featured status? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A Single Project Banner for use by all aviation related projects
I've created a project banner at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner. This banner can replace all the various banners used by the various projects, while still providing all the individual uses, such as categorizing articles under specific projects. It is based on the banner user by the Military history project ({{WPMILHIST}}). An example of it in use is at User talk:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/Aviation banner, and you can see that by using the various parameters, all aviation articles will be combined under the aviation project at Category:WikiProject Aviation articles and when tagged properly, in their respective Category:Rotorcraft task force articles, etc. It will also allows us to introduce other areas of the Wikiproject, such as "collaboration of the month", and take advantage of the larger total number of users throughout the projects. Please comment here, and make any suggestions for other options to include in the banner- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't tell what the image was until I clicked on it to review the source page. It might need to be a little larger. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I increased it to 100px, but its still not that clear. I don't think it should be any bigger so maybe another picture should be used. Any suggestions? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Assessing articles
Just a quick summary on the assessment process to keep people up to speed.
- The "importance" is no longer used, the article is now assessed only according to content.
- The content can be classed by a rigid scale, here, to explain
- Anyone can rate an article stub or start, if they do so then a checklist of criteria for upgrade to B-class is shown in the template.
- If someone rates it B-class but does not include the B-class criteria checklist, then the article is placed in Category:B-Class aviation articles needing review, and people can check if the article deserves the B rating.
- If someone does the B-class checklist but the article is still rated start or stub then the article is placed in Category:Potential B-Class aviation articles
- No article should be rated GA unless it has gone through a nomination process.
- No article should be rated A class unless it has had an A-class review
- No article should be rated FA unless it is an FA
With this system in place, no article should be able to be rated too high. If there are any questions about this sytem, or comments on how to improve it, I'd love to hear it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Scope
Will this project replace WP:Air? If so, all the redirects should be made here, including the beleaguered aircraft specs templates. - Emt147 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, WP:AIR will still be responsible for all aircraft pages, this project will just help out by taking on articles which are related to aviation, but not specifically to aircraft. For example, Flight, which used to be under WP:AIRs scope, is now part of WP:AVIATION, but autopilot is still under WP:AIR. This project will act as a "home base" for all the other projects members, giving each project more visibility and improving communications. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Template
About this message in the newsletter:
- {{WPAVIATION}} is the project banner for use by all aviation related projects. All links to the old templates need converting to the new one.
I can have my bot change any references to old templates, just let me know which templates need changing. —METS501 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- {{AircraftProject}} and {{AirportProject}} need replacing. I don't know if it is possible, but the pages tagged AircraftProject could also have the parameter |Aircraft-project=yes added, and the ones tagged with AirportProject could use |Airports-project=yes. Thanks, Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
List of aircraft of the RAAF - Page move
I've started a discussion / vote to move the page (Australian) List of aircraft of the RAAF to List of aircraft of the ADF. See Talk:List of aircraft of the RAAF. The main reason is to cover the Army and Navy aircraft already in the list and for future Navy/Army aircraft to be included. - Ctbolt 03:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Aerosonde
I am working in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Abandoned Articles and came across a couple of things some of you may care to comment on:-
- Why does Insitu Aerosonde have this name, as the article only refers to it as "Aerosonde"?
- Aerosonde is the abandoned article (a disambiguation page), having not been edited for nearly two years. Should Aerosonde be the main article in place of Insitu Aerosonde and the other disambiguation Aerosonde Ltd be a "For the Australian company see ...]] at the top of that article? --Bduke 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the article should be moved to Aerosonde, and the disambig page move to Aerosonde (disambiguation). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)