Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

WikiProject Aircraft was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 13 June 2011.

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

Shortcuts

Aviation WikiProject
Articles for review

Peer review

Identifying aircraft from two-letter code

The nose-wheel cover of this aircraft has the two letters "KE". Is it A6-FKE?

More generally, how can I verify the identity of an aircraft from just the two letters? Are they always unique within an airline, or airline/ type combination? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some information on it from aviation.se. TLDR, yes, it's the end of the tail number. I imagine it works like a checksum for ground handlers to confirm the aircraft without needing to walk back to the tail.. the odds of A6-BKE and A6-FKE being nearby are low. Related, here's why the ETOPS marking is (required) on the nosegear door. tedder (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It varies by airline. For example Delta does "ship numbers" that sometimes correlates and sometimes doesn't correlate with the tail number, and paints that number on the nose doors and tail. You'll have to consult a table if it's the latter (e.g. [1])

E.g. N656DL is ship #656 (pretty easy):

N6714Q is ship #6714 (again pretty straightforward):

But ship #6809 is actually N713TW:

4300streetcar (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to template code/format

I am wondering if we have a problem with our templates (infobox and specs mostly) as I am seeing a high number of edits like this. It is done by different users in different articles so I wonder if there is a problem that we don't know about. The changes, adding spaces between/after and before characters, have no visual change and as no edit summaries are left it's difficult to know if it's vandalism or not. I haven't ever seen an edit summary explaining the changes in the hundreds of instances I've come across. Are the editors actually inputting individual spaces or is it a single action?

Is anyone else seeing this? Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the same on other (non-aviation) templates. I suspect that VisualEditor is at fault, with the editor probably not even realising that the spaces have been rearranged. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That will be it, the diff I gave was marked as a visual edit. The problem (and others) is known...Changes template parameter and value alignment – Especially with infoboxes, VisualEditor can sometimes modify spacing done for parameter and value alignment purposes and add a space after each pipe. Note that this is a deliberate feature of TemplateData that can be managed in the documentation of a given template; see mw:Help:TemplateData#Custom formats for detailed information. Seems to be no point of reporting it as a bug but some help from a template coder could solve the problem.

If I understand that correctly template editors have to modify the code to prevent visual editor from scrambling things. It does have the facility to leave an edit summary so there's no reason why one shouldn't be left. From now on I will note if an edit is tagged and sift out the good edits and/or vandalism. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image for Boeing Dreamlifter

I have proposed changing the infobox image for the Dreamlifter away from the current backlit one in the talk page over a month ago. There is 1 clear vote against in the Talk Page, and another 1 or 2 implicit votes against due to the edit being reverted. Additional input or thoughts would be appreciated, as there has not been further discussion over there since.

A: (current pic)

B:

C: 4300streetcar (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Hawaii Clipper to Pan Am Flight 229

I question the recent move of Hawaii Clipper to Pan Am Flight 229 by User:GalacticOrbits. While flight numbers may be more appropriate for loss of an aircraft of a model produced in significant numbers, the early trans-oceanic flying boats like Hawaii Clipper, and the circumstances of their loss, were better known by the aircraft names than by the flight number during which they were lost. I invite additional perspectives about which article name might be more appropriate. Thewellman (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is appropriate, since the article is about the accident, not about the aircraft itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to move the article, since, unlike the China Clipper article, which primarily focuses on the history of the aircraft and its respective milestones within aviation, with its loss as a secondary focus, the Hawaii Clipper article is more aligned towards the hull loss/disappearance of the frame, rather than the history of the aircraft (which in its current state has almost none). If that article can be expanded to include the rich background of the aircraft, I'm all in for moving it back to Hawaii Clipper. The article describing the Philippine Clipper is named Pan Am Flight V-1104 as well. Hence, I believe my move has been warranted. GalacticOrbits (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Hawaii Clipper would be a good title for an article about a specific aircraft, not about an event, such as a plane crash. There could be an argument to move the article to e.g. Disappearance of Hawaii Clipper; otherwise the current title is just fine. -- Deeday-UK (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, use the aircraft's name for article covering its full history. The title needs to match the content of article, in other words. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New article on NGAD F-47 fighter

Boeing has been selected for the Air Force's new fighter today. See Boeing F-47. Thanks for any help with this. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]