Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Aviation - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BilCat (talk | contribs) at 23:28, 25 February 2007 (Comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:28, 25 February 2007 by BilCat (talk | contribs) (Comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Initial Project proposal

The following has been copied from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Major proposal: WP Aviation

A funny idea has been floating around in my head lately. Misplaced Pages has no Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation. A lot of the stuff this project takes care of (such as Federal Aviation Administration, and Douglas Aircraft Company) don't follow our stated page content guidlelines, and would be better served under that project, if it existed. If that project was created, the Aircraft Project would naturally seem to be a sub-project of it. The best way to have interaction between a sub-project and a parent project is, I think, have the sub-project become a "task force". Since we now have a "Rotocraft task force", a "Fixed-wing task force". That would free up editors involved in airplanes to focus on airplane articles. I'm not suggesting destoying this project, but what if this project was renamed "WikiProject Aviation", and any project work specifically aimed at fixed wing aircraft was moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation/Fixed-wing task force. Crazy idea, I know, and would involve a lot of work moving pages and reorganizing content, but an idea none the less. Comments? *flinch from expected attack* Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That certainly is an interesting idea. Under the "Related Wikiprojects" there are several that would naturally fit as sub-projects under an Aviation umbrella. Maybe some feelers over on those talk pages might be an idea, too. Of all the wikiprojects I've seen, AIR is by far the best organized and has the most extensive resources (a subtle tip 'o the hat to all those involved in making it so!), so we have a lot to offer other related projects that might "come under our wing" if this were to happen. Akradecki 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have suggested we start a wiki
If nobody draws it up, i would not mind drawing up a proposal to create wp:aviation, and how each part would fit into it and then get feedback on the proposal. I really like this idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Trevor, I like your outspokenness! I disagree that WP:Aircraft needs to be renamed as WP:Aviation, I do, however, agree that a WP:Aviation would benefit the entire Aviation portion of the encyclopedia. I would say that WP:Aviation could be the parent for WP:Aircraft and WP:Airport and WP:Airline or even WP:Air-anything. I'd be perfectly content, however, to continue to participate as a member of a task force that belongs to WP:Aircraft. The only question is what would WP:Aviation's goals and scope be, and would it attempt to ecplipse any current project's goals and scope? --Born2flie 02:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me for jumping in the middle here, but I wanted to respond directly to the questions above. I believe one of the primary goals is to bring the complex and well-thought-out infrastructure that we have to the other areas of aviation on the encyclopedia. As I've stated before, I believe that Aircraft is probably one of the best set-up projects around. The result is a comprehensive set of standards and guidelines, and a dedicated group of editors who make these guidelines stick, even when the going gets tough. What we need to do is to clone our project up one level, so that the comprehensive guidelines are consistent throughout all aviation articles. Right now, the subject is quite fragmented by the various projects. For instance, I've done editing in aircraft crash articles, and some are covered under the Airline project, some are left floating out there with no one except WikiProject Disaster management covering them (if this gets going, I can even see the place for an "Aviation Safety Task Force" to cover accident articles). One of the hallmarks of a world-class encyclopedia is seamless consistency, which is probably the most important thing we can bring to the table. Akradecki 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that an oxymoron, an Aviation Safety task force covering articles about accidents? I'd prefer Aircraft Accident task force, something that doesn't tie "safety" to crashing, especially since very little in those articles about crashes meets the intent of what an accident investigation is really for.
Anyways, I think we're puffing WP:Aircraft into something more than what it is, a project that covers the articles about aircraft. Aviation is as much about the infrastructure as the aircraft that operate within that infrastructure, and we don't have a corner on the market of good ideas. Aircraft are popular, but dictating to the few people who do write about the other aspects of aviation has a risk of ostracizing or even chasing off editors who are working to improve the encyclopedia just as we are, and in areas we really don't care about (if we did, we'd be writing in those areas). If we were going to adapt to their guidelines and standards for their subjects, that would be fine, but I wouldn't want to start making all of Aviation look like Aircraft simply because we have numbers and we're organized and we like what we come up with. If we take it that far, you can mark my words that the project will mostly be fighting everybody just to maintain guidelines and accomplishing very little.
Also, keep in mind, that you're talking about expanding the scope well beyond WP:AIR's scope and when you do that, you will dilute the organization and strength that you are counting on right now. It would be more beneficial to gain concensus within each of the projects to have their say in what WP:Aviation will be and then to work within all the groups to achieve common guidelines or whatever you think the goal of WP:Aviation should be.
My $.02. YMMV. --Born2flie 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Some excellent points. With the "safety" thing, I was hoping in the back of my mind that maybe, since this is an encyclopedia, accident articles could be nudged to be more than just a news story of aluminum hitting rock, and relate what was learned from it, how things in the industry were changed by it, etc. Just a pipe dream. I do hear you about the danger of ostracizing others. You mentined adapting to their guidelines in their areas, I guess what I was getting at is that in a lot of areas, both covered by another project and orphaned areas, there's a distinct lack of guidelines and organization. I don't mean any disrepect to the other projects (I belong to a couple of them, too), but there is a lot of room for growth there, and we already have the standards set up. I was envisioning it more of us offering the infrastructure to them rather than marching in and taking over.Akradecki 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking something like wikiproject military history is set up, with the task forces. There is alot of stuff, related to aviation, that falls outside of aircraft and airports project currently that are getting stretched to fit in it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the Portal:Transport/WikiProjects template on the Portal:Transport page, you will see that Aviation is the only black link on the list. So creating this would bring Aviation in line with all the other projects on the portal. I just created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gliding and it would fit in under Aviation as a sister project to Aircraft. Dhaluza 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That might actually be a good way to start, but in the end I think we'd want Aviation out from under Transport as its own parent project. All the other sub-projects under transport are much narrower in scope, with several focusing on narrower aspects of ground transportation.
TO begin with, we might start an Aviation Task Force to put together the proposals, and to give a place to begin organizing the various orphaned articles. We also ought to coordinate with the Airlines and Airports projects, and get their participation on putting the parent group together. To be honest, Gliding should really be a Task force under another project, one that might include aother aspects of aviation-related sports and activities, such as airshows, private plane interests, etc. - BillCJ 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What, we're thinking all the other Aviation related projects will just become task forces? I don't find that realistic. --Born2flie 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Aircraft, AIrports, and AIrlines would all be projects under a parent project, as they are now under Transport, but instead would be under Aviation. I just meant the Gliding would probably be better as a task force under another project, perhaps Aviation Recreation, which would cover similar topics not currently under a project, or now under various other non-aviation projects. - BillCJ 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Bill, I guess it was really more a question to Chris in re: to his, "I was thinking something like wikiproject military history is set up, with the task forces." I mean, that's where I got the idea for Rotorcraft task force, but it blends. Aircraft and Rotorcraft, it was kind of like a no-brainer to cover a subgroup of the project without needing to be its own project. I can see Aviation as a parent group, but having it come out from under Transport? I don't see that. It still fits and belongs, especially the way the encyclopedia is constructed right now; Aviation is a form of Transportation. Once again, I'm devil's advocate because I am not against WP:Aviation. --Born2flie 03:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood the origianl proposal to mean coming out from under Transport. I do see the whole topic of Aviation as being much more than just a sub-set of Transportation. I can see reasons for doing so, but I was only advocating for what I though was being proposed. It does not bother me either way which way we go. As pointed out above, WP:AIR is under the Aviation topic under Transport, so it makes sense to just make it the parent of AP:AIR under the Transport "grandparent" project. WOrks for me. - BillCJ 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I created WikiProject Gliding primarily to bring people from the Gliding community into the WP community, so I would prefer it remains a separate project with it's own identity. Gliding is a sport organized internationally under the FAI Gliding Commission. The scope of the project includes gliders, which is a category of aircraft, but that is only one small part. The current project scope covers:

I do think we could have joint task forces to work on areas of overlap such as airports/gliderports and aircraft/gliders, as well as aviation in general. Dhaluza 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal outline

Here's my idea of how the various project should be organized. This is just one idea (my original was, by the way, to have just one project, Aviation, and anything sub that a task force), but I think its a good framework to work on:

Would fixed wing aircraft benefit from a task force, or is having WP:Air separate from WP:Aviation enough. Are there other areas of focus that would benefit from a task force? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think breaking aircraft down into to many "task forces" is a bit far out there. I think they all fall under aircraft and breaking it down too far will just spread the project out to far. I dont know what it means above when Aviation is under transport. I think aviation should stand by itself though. Aviation is used to fight wars, so the argument could be made that it should be a subset of military history. (Although, I am not making that argument, it is just to show that I dont feel viation falls under transportation). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)`
I also think the scope of aviation should be expanded to include
  • Famous individuals in the world of aviation such as the wright brother, clyde cessna, or other famous aircraft desingers
  • aviation specific terminologies and such (there is actually a categtory for aviation terminology)
  • Any articles related to the history and or development of aviation.
I think that these are important (and hope that it is not a bad case of scope creep). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you for the most part, especially on WP:Aviation not being part of WP:Transportation. But for now, your outline looks good to me. I see no problem starting out under tranportation for the time being, esp since WP:AIR is already there. We don't have to fight for our independence today! :)
As to a FIxed Wing task force, I think it works fine as it is. We can use the taks force for things which need special attention, such as Rotorcraft, as outlined by the originator of that idea, Born2Flie. ANother group which might benefit from a Task force might be Airliners. As the recent discussions on the Airliner specs have shown, they have their own unique requirements, and some editors spend most of their time in that sub-group anyway. Just a thought, but again, it doesn't have to be fought now. - BillCJ 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There is actually already a project for airliners. WP:AIRLINERS, not sure if you were aware of that. Has anybody posted to the other projects that are related (] and WP:AIRLINERS to see if they want in on this discusison? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I know there is a WP:Airlines, but the link you gave is red, and a quick search and parousal of some airliner talk pages turns up nothing. If they do exist, they aren't doing a very good job of advertising their existence, or on the airliner pages either! But yes, I agree we need to talk with the other projects on this. - BillCJ 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That was my bad, I was thinking of WP:AIRLINE, not airliners. oooooops. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I still think however that airliners beongs under aircraft. The argument can be made that there are many different models and verios with different specs and such but the same could be argued for regular aircraft. the differents might be more sublt but fo rexaple, there are many many verisons of the Cessna 172 )I am not aware of how they are all different). The same could be said about many other aircraft as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on my suggestion. Yes, Airliners should be under WP:Air, but just like Rotorcraft, they might benefit from a dedicated task force. But it's just a suggestion. - BillCJ 18:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh! I gotcha now. yea, I would not be adverse to having a task force for that. So, what is a propsoed list of task forces? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I went and read through WP:Airline's project page. Other than major accidents and fleet listings, it seems that this project is more geared towards the airlines as companies rather than airliners as aircraft, so I don't think there would be conflict. That being said, the airline company aspect seems like it would naturally fit under the WP:Aviation umbrella as well. Akradecki 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Listing the Airline project under Aviation sounds like a pretty good idea. As for conflicts, I agree that there wouldn't be any. Our coverage of aircraft just extends to organization of fleet info on airlines, not details about the planes themselves. DB (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Task Forces

I would like to take this section to discuss which task forcese would seem appropriatl to have under a WP:AVITION, should it come into existence. I would like the outcome of this discussion to be included in the proposal/plans for creaton of a Wikiproject aviation. Listed below is what we have now. If you have one you would like to propose, add it to the list and creat a heading for it! Explain why you think it should be included. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Opposed I don't believe that WP:Aviation should replace WP:AIR, so there should not be any aircraft related task forces under WP:Aviation, since they would all fall under WP:AIR. --Born2flie 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikiproject Aviation - Proposed task forces
    • Airliners
    • Rotorcraft
    • Gliders (or Gliding)?
    • Fixed wing.

Airliners

Rotorcraft

Gliders or Gliding

Fixed Wing

I think that, since Airlines (note it's Airlines as in the companies, not Airliners as in the aircraft type) and Gliding already have their own projects they should remain such and not require a task force. As part of this edit, I've clarified my links in the project organization chart above. Also, I only consider WP:Aviation to be a sub-project of WP:Transportation in Misplaced Pages organization only. It will likely not have any overlap in members/rules/policies etc.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of a gliding project? Do you have the link to it? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gliding. - BillCJ 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Isent gliding a subet of aircraft? Like rotorcraft? If rotorcraft were a task force (which I feel it should be), then i also feel that gliding should be as well. Would it be too much to create one for each group recognzied by teh faa (would that be to north americancentric). The ones I am refering to are fixed wing aircraft (the bulk of the porject as i am assuming), rotorcraft (should be a task force), gliders (should be a task force) and maybye lighter than air (another possible task force). DO you think the gilder project would be extremly adverse to being a task force/subset of the aircraft project? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the users above mentioned that he had created the Gliding project. I think he did this on his own without consulting any other project. RIght now there are only 5 names on their participant list. THey may have a larger vision for their project in mind, but it wouldn't hurt to ask them if being on of our task forces might be better for them, in the short run anyway. - BillCJ 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I will go ahead and do that. I guess i see gliders as a subset of aircraft like a caboose is a subset of a train. You wwouldent have a seperate wikiproiject cabooses (as far as I know) that made sense. It would make much more sense to have it in a hierarchical order. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Gliders are a category of aircraft, like airplanes/aeroplanes, rotorcraft, balloons, etc. But the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gliding has a much broader scope (see above). Dhaluza 23:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but right now you are a very small project. It might make sense to start out as a task force, or at least have a Glider task force under WP:Aircraft to handle gliders for you, but which is also a task force under the Gliding Project. Which ever way you decide to go is probably fine with us. We just didn't want to leave you out entirely of the discussion. the Aviation Project will have a broader scoope than WP:Aircraft, which will remain a project under Aviation. So having the Gliding Project under Aviation (not AIrcraft) is probably best for the scope you have in mind, with or without a Glider Task Force under WP:AIR. - BillCJ 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal Recap

Ok, so this is how I see the discussion heading so far:


Let's modify this list. Are there any topics missing? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its good. However in the future, i would not be adverse to adding a lighter than air task force under the aircraft project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added in the Gliding Project under Aviation, and included the Joint Glider Task Force with WP:AIR. - BillCJ 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to confirm: the items under the scope of the gliding project refer to articles specifically related to gliding. The list seems to me to be a little too broad. For example, its written that airports fall under the scope of WikiProject Gliding, but I don't thing that that should be so. Airport articles are not considered to be part of the scope of WikiProject Aviation, even though airplanes need them to take-off and land. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally like the joint task force idea for the gliders. I think that is a great way to do that. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Might it be worth making rotorcraft into a project rather than a task force? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I wonder. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to deal with all these projects, and the likely addition of others, such as the aviation accidents project/task force. Where do we draw the line between what requires an entire project, and what can be done as a task force? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the question needs to be asked. If this taskforce/proposed taskforce were to be completly held by the project it is a part of, would that be acceptable/ I.E. the rotorcraft taskforce, could not exist and rotorcraft would still be covered by the aricraft project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
For specific guidance on task forces, see: WP:TASKFORCE. I think the various categories of aircraft should be task forces under Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aircraft. The glider task force will be joint with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gliding. We could also propose a joint task force for military aircraft with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military.

Page top tabs

I personally like the page top tabs located at WP:AIRCRAFT. anyody have feelings about useing them here too? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I like them too. I'm for copying pretty much everything from WP:Air, and adapting it to our broader scope here, esp as the primary purpose of this project is to extend WP:AIR's standards to Aviation as a whole. - BillCJ 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Red Bull Air Race World Series

Hi Trevor MacInnis. I appreciate your proposal to take the WikiProject Red Bull Air Race World Series under the WikiProject Aviation umbrella, which has already been done. I believe that the deep knowledge of the members of various task forces within the parent project will surely contribute to the enhancement of the articles related to Red Bull Air Race World Series.

Maybe in some time, a Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aviation competitions can be established, being the immediate parent project of RBARWS project and comprising similar other aviation events. CeeGee 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Military aviation task force

Excuse my ignorance, but I’m coming into this change a bit cold. I see a “Military aviation” entry under the “Task forces and sub-projects lists” drop-menu. I presume this refers to the Military aviation task force of WikiProject Military history, and I’m wondering what the relationship will be. Does it remain with WP:MilHist or move to WP:Aviation or does it somehow become a shared task force? Askari Mark (Talk) 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the Military history task force, and it will remain under their project, but I just though a link to it would be appropriate. I haven't contacted them about this or the idea of it becoming a shared task force. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

  1. 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).
  2. 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)

Disambiguation (parenthesis)

There is no consistency in the terms used to disambiguate aviation terms in Category:Aviation terminology. For example:

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)