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 ]
watch · · discuss | |
---|---|
| |
Today's featured article requests
Did you know
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Redirects for discussion
A-Class review
Good article nominees
Featured article reviews
Requests for comments
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
| |
View full version (with review alerts) |
Aviation: Aircraft Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Aviation WikiProject Articles for review |
|
Combustor Peer Review
I have opened a peer review for the combustor article. I've spent a fair bit of time researching and rewriting most of the article as the first step in my wiki new years resolution. I'm hoping that this article will become a model for engine component articles, and I need ya'lls thoughts on how I've done so far! -SidewinderX (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just stirring the ashes on this one. I would really appreciate some feedback on this article. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Week two of no interest! I know it's not the most exciting topic of all time, but I would really appreciate it if a few editors could read through the article and leave their thoughts on the peer review page. Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How should Wikipedia designate older Lockheed civil aircraft?
It seems to have become common practice in WikiProject Aircraft to designate Lockheed civil aircraft using the form "L-n" as if the "L-" was always part of the model number. This is true even for older Lockheed aircraft, in particular, in the following articles:
- Lockheed L-9 Orion
- Lockheed L-10 Electra
- Lockheed L-12 Electra Junior
- Lockheed L-14 Super Electra
- Lockheed L-18 Lodestar
Other forms, such as "Lockheed n" and "Lockheed Model n", are discouraged or have been converted to redirects (e.g. Lockheed Model 10 Electra).
I asked BilCat about this practice; he replied that it was the consensus of WP:AIR, and that he would try to find the discussion where this decision was reached. I think he got too busy with all the other duties on his plate, so I went looking myself. I did manage to find this discussion, which doesn't seem to have reached any conclusion, but some of the edits and article renamings related to this practice were much older than that discussion, so I assume the decision must have been made at some earlier point.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) doesn't give any clues here. It says that the preferred practice is to use "manufacturer" and "number" or "manufacturer" and "name". Using both "number" and "name" is discouraged, but for the civil Lockheeds we seem to be using both anyway, and I actually prefer that in this case. (In any case, if names are used, the number is also required to distinguish the original piston Electra from the later turboprop Electra.) Anyway, the question here is whether Lockheed's older numbers should have a preceding "L-".
The "L-n" form is obviously standard for the L-1011 and may also be standard for the turboprop Electra (L-188) and even the Constellation (L-049, etc.). But while it is sometimes also used for still older Lockheed planes, I think the forms "Lockheed n" or "Model n" are preferred. This is especially true in contemporary documents, in which I've never seen "L-n" used.
To confirm this, I tried doing various searches for the Model 9, 10, 12, 14, and 18 in Google Books, using different forms of the name. In every case I got the most hits for the simple form "Lockheed n", but some of those may have been false positives, since the string "Lockheed 10", for example, could turn up in an index or table without actually referring to the Model 10 Electra. I also got many hits for the forms "Lockheed n name" (e.g. "Lockheed 10 Electra") and for "Lockheed Model n", both of which were much less likely to produce false positives. In some cases, I did get numerous hits for "Lockheed L-n" (especially for "Lockheed L-10"), but most of these hits were in recent works (say, after 1960) rather than contemporary ones.
For example, the earliest Google Books hit I found for the phrase "Lockheed L-10" (using quotes) is in a single 1942 Polish publication (actually a "Lockheed L.10" in that case). After that, the next hit I find is in 1947 in English, in a report on Congressional hearings. In contrast I find 59 hits for "Lockheed 10" up through 1947, most of which appear to be genuine references to the original Electra. "Lockheed L-10A" gets no hits before 1960, while "Lockheed 10A" gets 61 hits up to that date. Likewise, for "Lockheed L-18", the earliest hit is in a single 1943 French publication, and the next is in a 1946 English publication, while there are 58 hits for "Lockheed 18" up through 1946, most of which appear to be actual references to the Lodestar.
The other civil models (9, 12, 14) seem to follow a similar pattern.
As for Lockheed itself, they seem to prefer to use "Model n" for these older aircraft. In Lockheed-authored documents, I can't find an "L-10", nor can I find "Lockheed 10", but I can find the "Model 10". Same for the 9, 12, 14, and 18, except that I have found Lockheed documents which mention the "Lockheed 14".
The FAA Type Certificate Data Sheets for these models are not totally consistent, but they also never use the "L-n" form; they refer to these types as the "Lockheed Electra 10-A" (-B, etc.), "Lockheed 12-A", "Lockheed 14-H" (-H2, etc.), and "Model 18".
In short, for the Lodestar and earlier civil models, I think we should be eliminating the use of "L-n", preferring "Lockheed n" or "Model n" (or possibly forms like "Electra 10A" for specific submodels within the main article).
By the way, if others agree to this change, I'm willing to take on the editing burden of making the necessary changes.
(I've been recently working on the Lockheed L-12 Electra Junior article, and while doing so I have tried to follow the present practice. But I still think it should be changed.)
--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Flight at the time uses the phrases such as "Model 12", "Electra", "Lockheed 14". GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- For the older aircraft I think that replacing L-x with Model x is probably the best solution as I usually see names formatted like what Graeme quotes above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jane's 1938 uses mostly "Lockheed Model xy Nameifithasone". My main concern is that the reader who does not know the project's chosen style, or maybe just not, eg, the number, should be easily led to the article whichever of "Lockheed xy", Lockheeed Type xy" or "Lockheed Nameifithasone", etc he or she uses. They can admire the full handle in the text, when they've found it.TSRL (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I used to get all worked up about names of articles, but I've mostly relaxed about that now. The most important thing is that there are redirects set up for all the likely alternative names to get people to the right place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jane's 1938 uses mostly "Lockheed Model xy Nameifithasone". My main concern is that the reader who does not know the project's chosen style, or maybe just not, eg, the number, should be easily led to the article whichever of "Lockheed xy", Lockheeed Type xy" or "Lockheed Nameifithasone", etc he or she uses. They can admire the full handle in the text, when they've found it.TSRL (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) Looking at the Lockheed L-18 Lodestar it was redirected from Lockheed Lodestar in 2007. This second form complies better with our article naming guidelines and WP:NAME (use the most common name). Recent attempts to move some Avro aircraft were reverted i.e. Avro 679 Manchester redirects back to the more common Avro Manchester. To me, the easy part (and possibly more important) is to change the article titles to their most common names, what is bolded in the lead (a/c type) does not have to be the same as the article name (and often is not). If there are two or more types with the same name then we use an identifying suffix i.e. Rolls-Royce Trent and Rolls-Royce Trent (turboprop) or Rolls-Royce Eagle and Rolls-Royce Eagle (1944). That leaves what to call it in the text, I have seen 'Model 18' etc. used in the few Lockheed references that I have for the older aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Putnam Lockheed Aircraft since 1913 gives an explantion of the naming convention including the use of the term Airplane Model Designation part of which is the Basic Model Numbers which started with the Model 1. The book has no mention of any basic designations with a prefix L- all are in the form Model 12 Electra or abbeviated like Lockheed 33 Little Dipper. The designator could have a suffix letter if the engine changed and also a prefix (called Modified Basic Model Number by Lockheed) which is why the Model 49 Constellation can be Model 049, Model 349, Model 1049. L- number do exist but these are all related to Temporary Design Designations and dont have a relationship with the Airplane Model Designation. As for the L-1011 it was just a marketing designation it is actually the Lockheed Model 93. So in conclusion the L-18 Electra type designators are made up and we shouldnt really use them.MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- So what does this mean for the L-numbers and CL-numbers in the "Manufacturer designations" section of the Lockheed template? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- The L-numbers and CL-numbers do exist for projects (and V- was also used for Lockheed Vega) but the template has the made up L- numbers. The CL- system (for Lockheed California) is a continuation of the original L- system it was changed to avoid confusion with Lockheed Georgia who used GL-number then LG-number. The real basic model numbers stop at Model 99 MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Moving forward
OK, so I've gotten started on this, having just moved Lockheed L-12 Electra Junior to the simple Lockheed 12. (That was the most common name for this aircraft; "Electra Junior" was rarely used.) I've also changed all the existing redirects to avoid double redirects, and I've changed the links in templates linking to the previous names to link to the new one. (My idea there was to keep the redirect entries in WhatLinksHere from including all the articles which use those templates, to make later examination simpler, but I didn't realize that such changes are actually batched up for later execution and that the delay can be pretty long.)
Still need to update the text of Lockheed 12. Completing this entire process for all the articles in question is obviously going to take a while. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the move is premature, as not all of the issues have been worked out yet. I can understand the consensus to drop the "L-", but I really think "Model" should be used in its place, as that s what most Lockheed sources that I have seen use. As far as the names go, sometimes we use them, sometimes we don't. but an arbitrarily claimed "was rarely used" is quite vague. Any way, for consistency, we need to pick one syle and use it for this series of Lockheed aricraft, and that hasn't been decided yet. - BilCat (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- It does appear that the final (next?) solution has not been agreed yet. Looking back through the history of the template the 'L' numbers were added by Rlandmann in January 2008 [1] but he is no longer around to ask. It is not a bad idea to add reference sources to template pages like I did at {{De Havilland aeroengines}}, have had to do this where entries were removed by editors on a 'gut feeling'. One last suggestion is that the empty talk page for the Lockheed template would be a good place to iron it all out, although I suspect it is not on everyone's watchlist! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Actually, I had been hoping for a clearer decision before acting as well, but since this thread seemed to have stalled, I was under the impression that people were waiting for me to act rather than discuss things further. So I tried to make some decisions based on what had already been said.
- I also would like a single consistent style. For the article title, adding "Model" ("Lockheed Model 12") and including the name ("Lockheed Model 12 Electra Junior") are both fine with me; in fact, my personal preferences may lean toward the latter, because I like using full official names.
- The reason I picked "Lockheed 12" was that I was trying to follow the "use the most common name" rule and the aircraft project's guideline of avoiding the use of the number and name together. And apparently most people did call this plane the "Lockheed 12", according to the sources I've seen; the name "Electra Junior" doesn't seem to have caught on the way "Electra" did for the Model 10.
- Common practice of naming these planes isn't consistent. The Electra, Lodestar, and Orion were often referred to by name, but while "Lockheed Lodestar" would be fine, we can't simply use "Lockheed Electra" because the name was reused for the turboprop. We'd either have to use a disambiguation prefix like "Lockheed Electra (piston)" or "Lockheed Electra (1934)", or use the full name like "Lockheed 10 Electra" or "Lockheed Model 10 Electra", or forget the name and use "Lockheed 10" or "Lockheed Model 10". The Lockheed Orion faces a similar problem, because it might be confused with the P-3 Orion.
- On the other hand, the sources I've seen say that the Electra Junior and Super Electra were rarely referred to by name, and that it was much more common for people to call them simply the "Lockheed 12" and "Lockheed 14". References in other documents and searches in Google Books tend to confirm this.
- A similar inconsistency applies to variants: for the 12 and 14, we might have "Lockheed 12A" or "Model 12A". For the Lodestar, "Lockheed 18-56" or "Model 18-56" also seem more common than "Lodestar 18-56". But for the Electra and Orion we often see "Electra 10A", "Orion 9D", etc.
- As for using "Model", it seems to have been standard practice within Lockheed, but not so much outside it.
- It seems that we will have to ignore some rules if we want a single consistent style.
- Sorry to go on at length. Let me know if you want to move this to Template talk:Lockheed.
- By the way, since Nimbus brought it up, whatever happened to Rlandmann? He was very helpful when he was here. :(
- I don't know where RL went, just stopped editing suddenly for no apparent reason. He could certainly 'see through the fog' when it descended. We have Lockheed to thank for their system. It does seem very complicated, judging the most common name is not easy either but we do have our naming convention which can help. Suffixes for similar names are commonly used, usually backed up with a hatnote in the similarly named articles to further avoid confusion. Might take a while but you could list the current article names in a table (on the template talk page) and the alternatives and then have a look at it, even add ghits in one column. The alternative is to leave things as they are even if it is not quite right (what I would do!). Things do take time around here, some of the peer reviews have grown beards!! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, table of potential titles added to the template talk, if you want to take a look. (I assume this is for others to look at; I already know the possibilities.) I haven't added ghits yet; I only just discovered (after looking it up) that it is slang for "google hits" and not a typo for "chits"! :D --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think real life intervened with RL, but I'm not certain. He was a great help here, and I considered him friend. I'll try to write him for an update. As for the name, I think Lockheed Model ## Name would cause the least confusion, and is close ennough to what we have now. When I moved most of the curent articles to the "L-" formt, that was the most common format, IIRC, but they were some haphazard names. I'd have to check the histories to be certian though, as my memory is very spotty right now (health). Finally, I'd include a note such as "(also clalled L-#)" in the first or second line of each article's Lead, but it doesn't have to be mentioned elsewhere in the articles unless it's in a dierect quote or source title. - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Must have learnt ghits from my kids, sorry! Looks good, exactly what I was thinking of, and it will be interesting to see the hits result if it is any kind of reliable marker (might throw up something unexpected). Is it just these five types that are the problem? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- After completing the table, followed by a bit of further discussion on the Lockheed template talk page, I've come to a conclusion. In short, I've decided to go with the "Lockheed Model n name" format, even though it does not seem to be the "most common name", because it provides a consistent, complete, unambiguous naming style for these articles while following Lockheed practice. Other naming styles can be handled with redirects. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hounding
A user with whom I have had a conflict is appartently trolling (looking through) my contributiions list, and adding Unreferenced headers to articles I have edited. If anyone has some time and sources it might be good to check these articels, and adde sources where required, before he becomes disruptive on these pages. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have reviewed all his tags. Some were justified as the articles need better citations, although many are well referenced and so I removed those tags and asked him to fact tag instead, if he has a problem with individual statements. - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Double specs sections?
Yep, me again! I'm seeing a lot of aircraft/engine articles with a second set of specifications (but not three so far!). Seems to be typing for the sake of it as the difference is usually a couple of horsepower/miles per hour/lbs/rivets. Any significant differences between variants should be covered in the 'variants' section n'est ce pas? Just been going through the new articles bot search result, not too good but I have rescued the worthy ones from the AfD pit. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Two sets of specs makes sense for aircraft types that have been developed a lot over many years. For example AH-1 Cobra list specs for the initial version and the last single-engine version. But that does not seem to be what you mean... -Fnlayson (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- If I weren't so lazy I'd add another set of specs to the Pe-8 article to reflect the engine changes, but...Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I personally like tables of specs with notable differences between variants, such as in engine power, performance, weight, dimensions, cabin layout, armament, etc. Such tables can show you at a glance how the aircraft has changed. This is especially true for important aircraft which underwent major changes during their careers, e.g. the B-17 Flying Fortress or the Boeing 747. But I would want such a table to be relatively compact; duplicating the entire Specifications section seems like the wrong way to do it. I notice the B-17 article does not have a table like this. The 747 article does, but it's a rather bulky thing; I'm think of something a bit easier to read. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Aircraft specifications tables were used in the past and some obviously remain, I am not sure if they are encyclopedic, less is more in most cases. It also recommends there that the most numerous/notable variant should be described, it doesn't say that extra variants should be described, then again it doesn't say that this should not be done either. The AH-1 does not look too obtrusive because there is only one level two header and providing specs for the first and last variant is a thoughtful way of doing it if we are going to continue to add more than one set of specs. Seems to be down to personal style again, like the mixed citing problem there is not a lot that can be done about it unless we all sing off of the same hymn sheet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I understood that only one representative variant was included in the specs sections but some have more which is mainly historic. I would suggest that the variants section could (an normally does) discuss major changes like different engines rather than duplicating specs. MilborneOne (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- If I'm feeling motivated, I tend to update specs sections with the "modern" one-variant specs table. If other specs warrant listing, I try and do that in the variants section. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Any multi-variant specs tables should be in the variants section surely? Or split off to a new article like List of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants, the parent article would not have got through FAC with that enormous table still in it at a guess. Some of these tables show parameters that are not used in the {{Aircraft specifications}} template. Maybe there is a need sometimes. Not a biggie but my concern was that I assessed some new articles recently (created by new editors) that contained double specs (which looks particularly strange in a stub or start class article), they must be either copying an article that they have seen or doing their own thing. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Avro Vulcan article has a full specs for one model and a table for the key changes across the different ones which seems to work. If there was an aircraft whose last variant was markedly different from the first in terms of changes to major dimensions as well as performance than I would think a second specs example justified. If a series of related aircraft were conflated into a single article (eg the various Westland-Hill Pterodactyl designs (no specs section yet) or the Miles Libellulas) rather than have a number of stubs then specs for each makes sense. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- This article has an unusual table of contents, luckily {{Pistonspecs}} does not appear multiple times (or at all strangely), it's bordering on being a list article really. For 'series' articles we can use the {{Main}} template to keep it short and tidy, this works very well at Parnall and Rolls-Royce Trent. The Trent article was a monster before I split it into five new articles, here is how it looked before the split [2]. Three manually formatted specs tables, one 'Jetspecs' template and a variant table (that is still there for the series overview). It had got a 'little out of control' through editor's enthusiasm, it even needed its own new navbox. An extreme case but there it was. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that an article should only have one set of specs and that diffs should be explained in the text. We recently had a request to include each model year's specs in the Cessna 172 article. Just imagine what that would look like!!! - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with the above. The few articles with two sets of specs that I've seen contain a lot of redundant (since repeated) info, and the first response is: but what has changed significantly? Often, not a lot. Much better to spell out important differences in the text.TSRL (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think we have a consensus here to only include one set of representative specs, so I have added to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft)#Aircraft_specifications the statement: "Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model difference should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided." - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have also added the same statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/Engines/page_content#Engine_specifications for engines. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Think that ought to be changed to say "... should be avoided.", since valid exceptions are already in place. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I thought "are to be avoided" and "should be avoided" meant the same thing? - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mostly I guess. Just don't want someone taking this is as a hard, no budge policy and running with it.. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I thought "are to be avoided" and "should be avoided" meant the same thing? - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well that is why I didn't say "is prohibited". - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate articles: PiperSport and CZAW SportCruiser
Piper Aircraft announced today that they will be licencing the SportCruiser and marketing it as the PiperSport background article. We have had an article on the SportCrusier since 2006 with refs and photos. Today User:Dennisolcott started a new article PiperSport (incidentally the name does not conform to project titling, but that is another subject). The article has no refs and duplicates the CZAW SportCruiser subject although it appears to use copyright vio text, as it reads like a press release. The photo used is odd too and probably bears some follow up. I turned the article into a redirect to the original one, but Dennisolcott reverted that without any edit summary. I have started a discussion on whether we should have two articles on the same subject on the new article talk page at Talk:PiperSport. Interested editors are invited to express their thoughts on this subject there. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd support merging for now. Piper is likely to make changes at some point, and then it would be suitable for a variant article. Also, do we know if CSA will continue to sell its own models of the SprotsCruiser? That would figure also into the name of the main article. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was correct about the image used and have tagged it as a copyright vio on Commons. - 00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is another image avaiable, File:Sportcruiser.jpg, but I have my doubts on this one too. By the way, that image is in one of those stupid aircrft registration categories that were forced on us at Commons. Is there not anything we can do to restore the original aircraft typ categories for thee images? - BilCat (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Per this article, Piper will be distributing the PiperSport worldwide, as factory-built only, and the SportsCruiser will no longer be build. It sppears the chnges are minimal, contary to a statment in the PiperSport article. I'll wait until the editor appears to be done working on the article for the time being, and then try to make some clean-up edits. Hopefully he won't revert those, especially the several fact tags I'll be adding! BilCat (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah the article needs some serious work, but it looks like we are on our way to a consensus here to redirect it back to CZAW SportCruiser. I agree that the Piper version (apparently still to be to be built by CSA) is just a variant of the existing aircraft. The editor working on it isn't talking to anyone or making any edit summaries, even though I asked him to do so on his talk page. I also linked to this conversation on the article talk page. I would like to hear from any other project editors especially any opposed to merging these two articles. - Ahunt (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay I think as per WP:SILENCE that we have a consensus to redirect PiperSport to CZAW SportCruiser and merge any useful content and refs. The article at PiperSport is starting to look very COI/SPAMMY anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have completed moving all useful refs and content and have set the redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Good work all. The SportCruiser article has improved a good bit over the last few days. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it has - you helped too! - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have completed moving all useful refs and content and have set the redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't post here, been busy. To answer some of the questions above, no, the SportCruiser won't be produced anymore. Yes, the PiperSport did require significant design changes before being taken on by Piper and deserves its own entry. The whole reason for the "developed from" entry is to document that airplanes do change over time, and are often derived from older aircraft. I'd sure appreciate it if you'd quit deleting PiperSport On a related note, the entry for CZAW SportCruiser should actually change to "CSA SportCruiser" since CZAW hasn't existed for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisolcott (talk • contribs) 03:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- As discussed at Talk:PiperSport and also here the consensus of editors is that since the PiperSport is just a minor variant of the SportCruiser that the articles should be combined. Since Wikipedia is based on consensus you will have to provide refs to produce a new consensus here that this is enough of a different aircraft to warrant an entirely new article. The other factor in the matter was that the SportCruiser article is well referenced, while the PiperSport article had few refs and made many claims that contradicted the refs it did have. For instance you keep claiming that major modifications were made to the design without citing a ref to support that contention, whereas the AOPA article says "Piper officials said they plan no major modifications to the aircraft". There is no evidence that the aircraft is more than a slight variant of the original, with a new marketer. The PiperSport article also read like it was written by the Piper Aircraft marketing department and even if it was retained would have to be completed rewritten. As far as naming in general on WikiProject Aircraft the first name of the aircraft used in production is usually retained, rather than move the article each time a new manufacturer or in this case marketing company takes over the project. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that it has stabilized I have started a discussion about the future of this article at Talk:List_of_STOL_aircraft#The_future_of_this_article. Interested editors are encouraged to express their opinions on that page. - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Lockheed Model 9 Orion
Just reverted an addition twice to the Lockheed Model 9 Orion article as it appears to be a opinion or orignal research and certainly not how we would present the info. We also seem to have a lot of references to Richard A. Von Hake as designer of the Orion has anybody a ref that he actually designed it on his own as he is normally described as chief engineer. Appreciate a second opinion on the included text. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- As you might note, I reverted a poor section (IMO) that was recently added and received a note on my talk page for my trouble. I'm not getting into an edit war over it but there does seem to be an ownership problem there, good luck. Maybe others can assist. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I always go twitchy when I read "almost identical" used without any detail. A quick look at the numbers for the Orion D and the V-1A suggests the latter had a bigger span (about 17%), more powerful (36%) and heavier (AUW 50%). Not, it seems, identical twins. The pdf is quite interesting, if a bit technical, and might (in my view) be an external source.TSRL (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The linked Vega paper does not mention the V-1A, unless I missed it. Anyway, I tagged the uncited "almost identical" with an {{OR}} tag. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's right; it's not relevant to this supposed connection. It would make some sense in the Vega article, for its own sake.TSRL (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just ot say thanks to all members of the project who helped with this. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Project warnings
Are projects permitted to have there own warnings? If so, I'd like to propse that we develop a set of warnings for project-specific issues, some of which may only be notices. This would enable us to use stock notices or warnings for common issues that we may deal with .
The first one I am considering stems from this edit, where someone again "corrected" the speed conversions for Mach numbers using Mach number at Sea Level rather than at Altitude (35,000 ft and above). Could we develop a notice that explanis the differences, and links to the relevant sections in WP articles that deal with this matter? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- As you know we had a similar problem with one editor with the engines, the answer was to clearly cite the figures then revert as the cited information was changed, i.e. make it bulletproof. There are four bare external links below the specs table that are not formatted as cites, it would be fair to say at the moment that the numbers are unreferenced. It does depend what kind of knot we are talking about, the original numbers seem to be true airspeed, the KIAS at FL35 and M0.8 would be quite low. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Solid citations are needed but perhaps something like a FAQ of some description that details and explains these issues with as Bill suggests a standard message to link back to it may be a good idea. MilborneOne (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the FAQ suggestion has come up before, but I'm not certain. Either way, it's a good idea, and then we only need one message template, or perhaps two if we combine it with a welcome message for newbies. As to the specs and sources on that page, Jeff is real good about tracking down the sources, and verifying the math, something I'm not that good at! Hopefully he'll double check the figures today, if he hasn't already. The Mach at sea level vs. altitude is a frequest error some editors make, and it would be good to have a smple explanation in one place to point people to. - BilCat (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I can probably find cruise speed data in a book or something for the 757. We probably need to add a footnote to the speed values in the specs to explain the at altitude part. Like: "Speed is at altitude, not sea level. See NASA Mach number calculator page for explanation about Mach number and example calculations." That probably needs rewording and/or more explanation. A template could provide this text if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Would like feedback on a footnote edit.
Bilcat had suggested adding a note that older Lockheeds are sometimes called L-# to the lead of their articles. I've just tried this out on the Lockheed 12, using a footnote, and I'd like people's opinions. I like the idea of a footnote because I want to point out that the L-# notation is modern rather than contemporary without disturbing the flow of the lead.
However, I have two particular concerns. One is that there doesn't seem to be a standard layout for an aircraft article which has footnotes, inline citations, and bibliography entries. Different articles handle this in slightly different ways. So I just picked one which seems to look OK.
My other concern is that I don't really have a cite for my opinion in the note; I might be able to cite Francillon's Lockheed book for the company's designation scheme, but for common contemporary usage I cannot cite anything. While I've found sources that mention the dominance of the "Lockheed 12" name, no one is likely to mention the fact that the "L-12" notation wasn't used—why bother to mention designation schemes that didn't exist? So finding a cite for this is sort of like proving a negative. Of course you can look at older sources and see the absence of "L-12", which is how I arrived at this conclusion in the first place. You can even count the usage of this form in sources, as I did in Template talk:Lockheed. But all of that is obviously original research or synthesis.
--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd recomend the simple approach: just state "(also called L-12)", and leave it at that. It's what we do for most alternate names or designations. Later, if we find a source that clarifies when it was used, then we can add it as a footnote alsong witht he citation. - BilCat (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Done. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Useful internet resource
Hi everyone, I found this table earlier, part of the annual Business & Commercial Aviation magazine "Planning and Purchasing Handbook". YSSYguy (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's excellent, and Aviation Week is a very reliable source (and they seem to have gotten over their habit of spamming Wikipedia!) Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Slingsby
I've been sprucing up the Slingsby Aviation page but have hit an historical problem. From 1939-1967 the company was the Slingsby Sailplane Co. Ltd., but after post fire receivership it was taken over by Vickers as the Vickers-Slingsby Sailplane Co. Ltd. The Vickers part of the name was soon dropped and at that point my main source, Ellison ends. By the time Firefly production is running, the company has become Slingsby Aviation, part of the Cobham Group. Later again it became Slingsby Advanced Composites, not part of that group, then Marshall Slingsby Advanced Composites (this year). Does anyone know for sure when the name we chose for the company began and ended? Simons book might say, but I don't have it.TSRL (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- It became Slingsby Advanced Composites in 2006, but was it Slingsby Aviation up to that time?TSRL (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- According to Gunston's World Encyclopedia of Aircraft Manufacturers, Slingsby Engineering was set up by British Underwater Engineering in 1980, subsequently becoming Slingsby Aviation.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- And Gunston has Vickers buying the assets of Slingsby and setting up Vickers-Slingsby in 1969.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- According to the 1982-83 Jane's All The World's Aircraft, Slingsby Aviation was set up by (and as part of) Slingsby Engineering on 5 July 1982. By the 1993-94 Jane's, Slingsby Aviation Limited is listed as a "Subsidiary of ML Holdings"Nigel Ish (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - very helpful. CheersTSRL (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- According to the 1982-83 Jane's All The World's Aircraft, Slingsby Aviation was set up by (and as part of) Slingsby Engineering on 5 July 1982. By the 1993-94 Jane's, Slingsby Aviation Limited is listed as a "Subsidiary of ML Holdings"Nigel Ish (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- And Gunston has Vickers buying the assets of Slingsby and setting up Vickers-Slingsby in 1969.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- According to Gunston's World Encyclopedia of Aircraft Manufacturers, Slingsby Engineering was set up by British Underwater Engineering in 1980, subsequently becoming Slingsby Aviation.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Seat configurations of the Airbus A380
Please note that the deletion of Seat configurations of the Airbus A380 is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seat configurations of the Airbus A380. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- You will be pleased to know that the result of the deletion request was that it is kept. Perhaps now we need to work on the four or five thousand different seat configurations of the DC-3 etc. MilborneOne (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Quite odd. I'm sorry I missed the original note. Can we appeal this, perhaps requesting a check-user on severl participants? The only "keeper" I've ever heard of is User:Father Goose. Smells a bit fishy to me. - BilCat (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Presumably there is a record somewhere of how this decision was reached, given the open nature of Wikipedia. It would help me judge the worth of an article on Spitfire seat cushion colours (brown with a little red, mostly).TSRL (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion discussion is at the 2nd link in MilborneOne first post in this section. See WP:NOTCATALOG as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- With respect, I've seen the discussion. What I don't know is how the keep verdict was reached, or by whom.TSRL (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK, sorry. I understand your question now. Scott Mac (Doc) closed it, but did not state a reason there. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- This can be taken to a deletion review (see WP:DRV). Given the weakness of several of the keep votes and lack of any consensus, I think that this should have been relisted for further discussion rather than be closed as a keep. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Filing a DRV sounds good to me. However, I'm having some health-related problems this week, and I don't have the time to spend tonight figuring out how to post at DRV. Would someone who agrees with taking it to DRV mind filing this? Thanks much. - BilCat (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Aviation Week Source Book
As an AvWeek subscriber, I have access to their sourcebook, which is a gold mine for specifications for everything. However, unlike past years, the 2010 sourcebook is digital only. (In the past there was a digital pdf copy of the hardcopy). Under the new digital format, each spec gets it's own page, but they're all behind the subscription pay wall.
My question is: How should I cite it? In the past I included the page number, but now that's impossible. Should I include the URL link, even though it's behind a subscription wall? Even then, I'm not sure if the link takes me to the direct spec page, or just the general page for the sourcebook. (Although I suspect it goes to a direct page.)
Here are my two possibilities, let me know which of these your prefer, or propose an alternative. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
a) No subscription required url
- Snecma M88. Aviation Week & Space Technology Aerospace 2010. Accessed February 2nd, 2010.
b)With URL
- Snecma M88. Aviation Week & Space Technology Aerospace 2010 (subscription required). Accessed February 2nd, 2010.
- I believe the book has been titled "Year Aerospace Sourcebook". So something like: "Snecma M88". 2010 Aerospace Sourcebook. Aviation Week & Space Technology, January 2010. (subscription page). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- That makes sense, although I think I will drop the "January 2010" publishing date and replace it with an accessed date. As it's all digital now, it might be possible for them to update it throughout the year (though I doubt it). For web pages I believe the accessed date is more important. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since it is published once a year, the publish date seems more important to me. But you can list both as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The year (2010) is captured in the title. If the "published once a year" part is the important part, I think adding January is unneeded. That said, it's all a bit confusing this year because it's gone digital only, and it's likely that it will only be "updated" in future years, rather than "published". -SidewinderX (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. Was just thinking of the examples at WP:CITE before. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
PAK FA Mess
As expected, the first flight and photos/videos of the Sukhoi PAK FA have brought all sorts of people out of the woodwork. This is particularly apparent in this talk page discussion. I've got the article on my watch list, but I figured I'd make a note here so if anyone else is willing to keep an eye on the crap they can. -SidewinderX (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Notification of WP:AFD nomination Take Off magazine
This article, which is within the scope of this project, has been nominated for deletion. Members of the project and other interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Take Off magazine. - Ahunt (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Update on Aircraft in fiction
Despite some ongoing concerns about this article, it seems to have been saved from the AfD axe for now and, though the hard work of a number of dedicated editors, has grown into a useful article. I should point out that its major function continues to be that it keeps all the popular culture cruft out of the aircraft type articles.
I did want to point out that we have a consensus agreement on what will be included in the article, on the talk page:
Consensus Inclusion Criteria for Text in Aircraft in fiction
- Real world aircraft (not fictional or made-up aircraft) that have roles in books, films, video games and as toys, provided reliable refs are supplied
- For fictional characters who assume the form of an aircraft - inclusion only as a one sentence summary and only for primary aircraft, not one-time configurations.
- All media types included under article subheadings by aircraft type with at least one link to the article about the aircraft type itself.
- Aircraft type articles that have entries here should have Notable appearances in media sections that simply refer to this article, in a manner like Sikorsky_MH-53#Notable_appearances_in_media
The key thing is that all entries need refs - we clean up unref text each Friday to try to keep it clean.
My main aim in providing this update is to encourage any editors who find aircraft type articles that have popular culture sections to move the text and refs to Aircraft in fiction, leaving the original article looking similar to Sikorsky_MH-53#Notable_appearances_in_media.
I hope through these actions we are improving the encyclopedia! Questions are discussion are always welcome at Talk:Aircraft in fiction. - Ahunt (talk)
- The B-25 article has a "Popular culture" section with several films listed, e.g. Catch 22. What is the agreed procedure? Citation needed, or move then c/n, or ...?TSRL (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Move them to Aircraft in fiction and replace them with a main template as per Sikorsky_MH-53#Notable_appearances_in_media. If refs are missing then please tag them and if the refs turn up they can stay! - Ahunt (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Though if its not a fictional appearance, you shouldn't move it. Equally I should add, in some cases were the content is extensive and particularyl notable or related to the coverage of the aircraft (off hand eg Lancasters and the Dambusters?) it would be correct to leave a summary behind. I think there should always be a summary where the "main" template is used, as per the instructions "below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised." GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Graeme that if the mention is a documentary or other "non-fiction" then yes it should stay in the aircraft article. As mentioned, Aircraft in fiction is there to keep the cruft out, not to remove legitimate factual content! - Ahunt (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
A-class Review for Yermolayev Yer-2
An A-class review has been opened up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Yermolayev Yer-2. All interested editors are invited to comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Glider category
A user is changing glider articles for example Category:PZL aircraft to a sub-category Category:PZL gliders - not sure it is needed but has this been discussed anywhere ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't seen it discussed anywhere but it seems to check out as reasonable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The category:Glider aircraft is overpopulated. classification of aircraft by manufacturer is natural and commonly accepted. What are the reasons of your worries? "Not sure" is unhelpful, because it is impossible (and useless) to dispute. I am "not sure" about 90% of wikipedia, but I think that one must speak only if one can present reasons, otherwise the pointless chat in wikipedia would increase dractically. I am ready to discuss& possibly accept them. - Altenmann >t 17:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Ahunt, please don't edit other people's comments without very serious reason. I knew what I did when I selected the indent depth. - Altenmann >t 17:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
One thing is worth discussion though. IMO it makes sense to introduce category:((manufacturer)) gliders only if the manufacturer has many gliders, otherwise the navigation in the category will be more cumbersome. - Altenmann >t 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Another thing is I would recommend to split this categegory in another direction. It is illogical to have articles of kinds Motor glider and LAK-9 in the same category (unless a category is really small). Therefore I would duggest to make a subcategory for one of them or both: category:Glider types or/and category:Glider models. 18:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think because the Category:Glider aircraft is a type of aircraft and if it is to big should be divided into perhaps types of gliders Category:Military gliders, Category:Single-seat gliders, Category:Primary gliders and similar. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Need to be a bit careful here, as we already have (for example) Category:Sailplanes 1990-1999 and also Category:Polish sailplanes. Could get rather fragmented. What is a "good" number in a cat? I'm vaguely aware of a glider/sailplane controversy some while ago, but are not most single seat gliders also describable as sailplanes (sporting chaps) apart from a few secondary trainers. Also military gliders = troop carriers, or trainers used e.g. by the ATC?
- Oops, forgot to sign above.TSRL (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- A "good number" is 200, so that it fits one page, for several reasons of convenience by human browsing. (For bots there is little difference, I guess.) - Altenmann >t 20:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Category:Gliders by manufacturer may coexist with category:Gliders by type. 19:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Need to be a bit careful here, as we already have (for example) Category:Sailplanes 1990-1999 and also Category:Polish sailplanes. Could get rather fragmented. What is a "good" number in a cat? I'm vaguely aware of a glider/sailplane controversy some while ago, but are not most single seat gliders also describable as sailplanes (sporting chaps) apart from a few secondary trainers. Also military gliders = troop carriers, or trainers used e.g. by the ATC?
- I was concerned with the dividing the Foo aircraft categories as the tempatation is then to have Foo helicopters Foo autogyros etc. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I share that concern.TSRL (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- As I mentioned before, I am aware of this concern. The solution I mentioned is based on WP:COMMON SENSE: don't introduce a category with 1-2 items. The problem similar to "Foo autogyros" arises in many wikiprojects, e.g, in WPMusic, a similar issue is "Albums by Foo". If rapper Foo has only a single album, the category is unnecessary. On the other hand, some wikiproject like to have uniform, full hierarchy of subcategories, including even empty ones. Therefore I would suggest you guys to write up a categorization strategy: which categories and when to create. - Altenmann >t 20:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I share that concern.TSRL (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was concerned with the dividing the Foo aircraft categories as the tempatation is then to have Foo helicopters Foo autogyros etc. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Right. However this page deals with "top-level" categorization of the project. It misses the issue we are discussing here. So this talk is in fact about further detalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories, and therefore I am including an invitation from its talk page to this one. - Altenmann >t 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Our primary categorization is the <nation><type><era> categories; alongside this we have a number of broad type categories, so an aircraft in the primary category "Polish sailplanes 1990-1999" can also appear in the broad type category "Glider aircraft". Sure, most of the <nation><type><era> categories are not particularly useful in themselves; their utility comes from the extensive plumbing that members of this project have put in behind these categories, which makes it easy to navigate from "Polish sailplanes 1990-1999" to other types of contemporary Polish aircraft, Polish sailplanes of other eras, and contemporary gliders produced in other countries.
If "glider aircraft" is indeed becoming overpopulated, I think MilborneOne is correct; the "type" category should be split into smaller, tighter type categories (the helicopter category has already been split this way).
Splitting out a manufacturer's category this way is at odds with how several thousand other aircraft articles are categorized. Please don't create anomalies like this. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The nation/role/era may need some more explicit non-powered categories so they can fit into the Glider aircraft category structure as well we might need for example new type cats Category:Unpowered civil trainer aircraft and Category:Military transport gliders and maybe Category:Unpowered civil utility aircraft. All these would need the relevant county/era sub-cats. This may well apply to helicopters as well which also use some high level cats in the articles, also we would not need to break up the aircraft company categories. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's certainly another way to do it that's consistent with our current schema, but I think it would be a pity. At present, "Foo military transport aircraft 1990-1999" holds cargo gliders, cargo helicopters, powered fixed-wing military transports, and even lighter-than-air aircraft if they were designed for this role. As things stand, sailplane is a role in its primary categories. If anything, rather than proliferate primary role categories, I'd me more inclined to fold the existing "sailplane" categories into the "sport aircraft" categories. These already include fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and lighter-than-air aircraft, and the "sailplane" primary categories are something of an exception in that regard. Just to clarify -- I'm not advocating that we go ahead and do that; only that I think this would be preferable to further proliferation. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Understood your comments about keeping the role cats together, the easiest thing may be just to remove the top level categories like Category:Glider aircraft from the articles. MilborneOne (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand now the major objection: categorizing "by manufacgturer" cannot be the basis of the splitting of the category. At the same time, the category "by manufacturer" is perfectly valid additional classification. Fortunately, my actions did little harm and does not require "emergency revert". After the "glider category subtree" is agreed upon, it will be easy to populate it. - Altenmann >t 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think Altenmann is right we just need to make the Glider aircraft sub-categories better and leave the manufacturer and role cats alone. MilborneOne (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed; if indeed there is a problem here. Unfortunately, we can't please everybody! On the one hand, we have people who feel that once we start nudging over about 200 articles, a category is getting too big. On the other, we've have people wanting to add every twin-engined aircraft ever or every high-wing monoplane ever to their own gigantic categories! There is, of course, ample precendent for both giant and tiny categories on Wikipedia. While it's true that "Category:Gliders" is now nudging up over the 200-article mark (and therefore onto a second category page), I really think we can live with that. Our breadth of coverage of glider types is getting pretty good now and I think it will be a long time before we're looking at a third page (after we have articles on 400 different glider types!). Is there anyone here who can't live with the glider category being spread across two pages?
- Underlying the issue here is the same semantic problem we faced on a previous occasion: we use "sailplane" in "Polish sailplanes 2000-2009" as a role, while "Glider" in "Category:gliders" as a broad classification of a kind of aircraft. The way our categories work, the Foo-123 falls into the broad category of "Glider" so is classified into "Category:Gliders", but it is a glider designed for the sport of soaring, so its role is sailplane. This is exactly analogous to how the Bar-456 might fall into the broad category of "Helicopter" and is classified as such; but is a helicopter designed for crop spraying, so its role is "agricultural aircraft". The confusion over gliders is a product both of linguistic ambiguity in English, but also the very highly specialised nature of these aircraft.
- Thanks for your patience with us Altenmann! I think you can see that some of these issues have quite a history behind them :) Any suggestions and input into how we can do things better is always welcome. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)