Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

WikiProject Aircraft talk — Archives

pre-2004  [ General | Strategy | Table History | Aircraft lists | Table Standards | Other Tables | Footer | Airbox | Series ]
2004  [ Mar–Aug | Aug ] — 2005  [ Mar | May | July | Aug | Oct ] — 2006  [ Feb | Mar | May | Jun | Aug | Oct | Nov–Dec ]
2007  [ Jan–May | Jun–Oct | Nov–Dec ] — 2008  [ Jan | Feb–Apr | Apr–July | July–Sept | Sept–Dec ] — 2009  [ Jan–July | Aug–Oct | Oct–Dec ]
2010  [ Jan–March | April–June | June–Aug | Sept–Dec ] — 2011  [ Jan–April | May–Aug | Sept-Dec ] — 2012  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ]
2013  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2014  [ Jan-July | July-Dec ] — 2015  [ Jan-July | Aug-Dec ] — 2016  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2017  [ Jan-Dec ]
2018  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2019  [ Jan-May | June–Dec ] — 2020  [ Jan-Dec ] — 2021-2023  [ Jan-June 21 | June 21-March 23 | March 23-Nov 23 ]

Lists: [ Aircraft | Manufacturers | Engines | Manufacturers | Airports | Airlines | Air forces | Weapons | Missiles | Timeline ]

Aviation WikiProject Articles for review

Peer review Granville Gee Bee Model A 2013 Eberswalde-Finow Zlin crash Fresno Yosemite International Airport

Use of David Irving as a source

I've started a discussion on the use of David Irving's The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe in the Dornier Do 19 and Junkers Ju 89 articles at WP:RSN - here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Aero Vodochody aircraft names

Hi all, I noticed what I believe to be an issue with the naming of this particular Czech manufacturers planes:

Category:Aero Vodochody aircraft

Example:

English Wiki: Aero A.29

Czech Wiki: Aero A-29

Note the difference: A.29 vs A-29

Numerous aircraft for this manufacturer on the English Wiki seem to have a dot instead of a dash in their name.

The Main article for the manufacturer uses this dash in the naming, in addition to more modern aircraft.

I believe this to simply be either typos or an issue with mass translation from the Czech Wiki. Also, this archived history page from the company itself uses the dash instead of the dot in reference to it's older planes (note particularly the reference to the A-10 which is referenced here on English Wiki as A.10)

If no one is opposed I'd like to fix this across all the pages I can find, in addition to hopefully finding more sources to add to the individual pages.

Just wanted to get opinions and/or blessings to undertake this, and to make it known that I'm not a vandal or anything if I start making tons of title changes to these pages. LiterallyDavidBowie (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking in some contemporary coverage in Flight, in the interwar period, the full stop version seems to be used. eg "Aero.23 commercial biplane" though post WWII, in same publication the hyphen style is used, as in Aero L-29 Delfín. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this whole issue is related to how these things were referred to historically, maybe it was more common during the time period to use the dots for naming of things like this. I am seeing that in this image of an A-12 (A.12? A12?) that the dot notation is used on the side of the plane.

I guess that begs the question as to whether the article titles should reflect the naming of the time (as they potentially do now), or more modern naming schemes (which the manufacturer seems to employ when referring to these older aircraft).

It also begs the question whether it matters at all, but this is what has caught my attention for the time being so eh. LiterallyDavidBowie (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Here in the contemporary Czechoslovak magazine Letectví - "Aero A42", but "A-42" here and here the magazine uses "AP-42" and "A.P.42" on the same page - and that's all in the same issue. So usage does not seem to be consistent.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, obviously dot vs dash doesn't make a huge difference either way, and from what I've just seen in day to day life people tend to omit dashes frequently from product names like this as well. I just figured it might be worth standardizing, especially since some of the Wiki articles make use of both just like the magazine does. Aero A.10 uses A.10 in the text, but the image is referred to as A-10. I could see how someone might get confused (as I did) as to whether A.10 and A-10 are two different things. LiterallyDavidBowie (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this could simply be solved by notes on each article saying something to the effect of "(also referred to as A-10)" and leaving it at that, potentially less disruptive LiterallyDavidBowie (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Consistency within an article makes obvious sense. Consistency across a manufacturer also makes sense. Wider enforcement, not so much. See my previous post below, which really belongs above these latest comments. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Often the format is decided by the publication's editorial policy rather than one being more or less correct than another. I seem to recall that someone on the English Wikipedia pushed a "policy" to standardise on the dot separator. But I am not aware of any real consensus to do so, and it makes a mockery of say de Havilland types, where DH 100 or D.H.100 are at least as common in RS as DH.100. I do think it looks messy if we are inconsistent for a given manufacturer. Personally I try to use the historical form adopted by them in their product literature, but without gratuitous periods - i.e. as DH 100. I would have no problem with using the hyphen for all Aero types. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Images on list of aircraft, etc.

Lists of aircraft used to have images of each aircraft in the list. [1] Back in 2015, 4 people voted to get rid of them and 1 said to keep them. I want to have a discussion with more people noticing and participating. Does having images of things not aid in understanding them? List of famous buildings usually have a picture of the buildings such as List_of_Ancient_Greek_temples#List. Same with list of famous people. I don't see why any list about anything wouldn't have pictures. List of sport utility vehicles and many other lists of civilian vehicles have images in their lists. Should they have them but not lists for military vehicles? Dream Focus 00:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Pls don't add hundreds of photos to one article....let's ensure that articles are accessible for all readers not just those with the latest technology and best bandwidth. Pls review MOS:ACCIM #5.Moxy🍁 00:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

In modern times, how many English speaking people using the English language Wikipedia, don't have fast enough bandwidth to load this? Has anyone done a test anywhere? Should some list articles have images and not others? Those with slow bandwidth could easily set it in their browser to not automatically load up images. Dream Focus 00:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The needs of the many seem to outweigh the needs of the few when it comes to accessibility here. It's a known software concern MediaWiki:Limit number of images in a page. Not sure how making articles non accessible to some readers is helpful in any manner. ...... That said..... many many pages have image overload of this nature that people have agreed to.Moxy🍁 00:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We really ought to have clear, project wide standards about how many images are too many in a list article, as opposed to local consensus placing a restriction in one topic area. I lack the technical expertise to make a recommendation but I simply want to know. Is 100 images in a list article OK? Is 1000 images too many? Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

1000 is a hard technical upper limit. The MediaWiki link Moxy provided says 100 should be the upper limit, although I'm unfamiliar with how that number was determined. CMD (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The advice to limit pages to no more than 100 images dates to 2018. We've changed default skins since then. Is that advice still current? Schierbecker (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jon (WMF) will know if there is anything skin-specific about the number of images, but I suspect that the number of readers on mobile (two-thirds of all page views) will be far more relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any value in a project-wide consenus on numbers. That's not an aviation issue, it's a wiki-wide issue. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"In modern times, how many English speaking people using the English language Wikipedia, don't have fast enough bandwidth to load this?" - me. I live in the United Kingdom. The local broadband provider manages a massive 4Mb/s. While cities and large towns are well served, many rural areas still have ADSL at about 1-2 Mb/s and no 4G signal. Wikipedia should try and be inclusive. MarcGarver (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Apparently the conversation has shifted over to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Should_list_articles_have_images, instead of them coming here to join in. Dream Focus 09:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  That discussion is moving heavily in favour of whatever works best for the list. Speaking as one of the unspeakably demonic gang of four, I am pretty much with Moxy on this: images clutter up the screen, the bandwidth, and the renderings presented via assistive tech. They should only be added in quantity if there is good reason to override that. For example a local consensus was established to add them to the list of X-planes, and I believe that WikiProject Airlines and the like have their own local habits. The problem we faced was endless fancruft which did nothing for readability or comprehension; the default of requiring local consensus was designed to help put a brake on it. I do not see sufficient enthusiasm for images here, to change that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• IMO, the current discussion is being blown out of proportion compared to what was discussed nine years ago. The original discussion did not oppose the inclusion of images in list-type articles. Instead, it was discussing about inclusion of images within tables listing aircraft used by different air forces, whether in articles dedicated to specific air forces or in lists of aircraft belonging to those air forces. Ultimately, that conversation led to the conclusion that images should not be included in those tables. The reasons for not including images during that discussion, such as:

1. Many aircraft lack appropriate images or have images for the wrong air force, resulting in blanks or incorrect photos. This is exemplified here, where the list article pertains to US military aircraft, yet features images of aircraft not employed by the US military.
2. Images vary in size, disrupting the formatting of tables.
3. The primary purpose of the table is to provide information, not serve as a gallery. Platforms like Wikimedia are better suited for galleries.
4. Images consume significant space, potentially making even short lists difficult to manage.
5. Images within tables may appear too small to view properly on smaller screens like cell phones.
6. Interested individuals can already access images through links to each aircraft's respective page.

I think those reasons remain relevant today. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

1. If something is wrong, then fix it by normal editing. If you can't find a picture for one aircraft, that's not reason to remove images for all of them.

2. You can set them to load up the same standard size.

3. Seeing what they look like gives more information to most people than just looking at stat numbers.

4. If you internet is slow, turn off the automatic loading of images. Anyone can look up how to do that in a search engine, or just look around their settings in their browser.

5. How many people view articles like this on their cell phones? Once again, just change a setting so you don't load up images.

6. They can also access all the stats for them, what's your point?

Also this conversation should be in one place. I thought those at the Village Pump would come here, but instead they are focusing the conversation over there, so might as well keep it there. Any reason for having or not having them in a list article for military vehicles, is the same for civilian vehicles, buildings, people, etc. So that would be the best place to discuss it. Dream Focus 03:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

1. That issue serves as just one illustration based on the example article you provided. Many aircraft lack appropriate images or have images for the wrong air force, resulting in blanks or incorrect photos.

3. Wikipedia is not an image repository.

4,5,6. One of WP:Guideline is WP:ACCESSIBILITY, and those points are intended to address accessibility.

I also have put my comment on Village pump. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

List of Piper Aircraft

I was thinking of splitting the list of Piper Aircraft from the Piper Aircraft article so that it is identical to Beechcraft and Cessna, which have separate articles for their aircraft. (All three lists are roughly the same size, so even without the the "Big 3" comparison it seems they should be treated the same way.) However, I realized maybe it was better to instead merge the Beechcraft and Cessna lists back into their respective articles. What do you guys think? The one benefit I have found for separate articles is that it allows the aircraft/products section in the main article to focus on only the aircraft the company is currently producing. However, I don't know whether this is a distinction worth preserving. –Noha307 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see much of a benefit to merging the lists to their respective articles. Especially in the case of Beechcraft, where the list of aircraft models is longer than the company's article itself, it would, in my opinion, result in a disproportionally large chunk of the article being a list of the company's aircraft rather than the company's history. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

See also nationalities

I am seeing many aircraft 'See also' sections having nationalities appended to aircraft types by use of templates, an example here. Pinging User:Hohum as the adding editor. Nationality is not a relevant defining feature of these aircraft, the links are there because they are similar types. These template links are unnecessary as clicking on any blue link gives the nationality in the lead section or infobox, if navigation popups are enabled nationality is revealed just by hovering over the links. They clutter the section and complicate the addition of links, especially by new users. I have not seen any discussion to gain consensus on this linking style. I oppose these links and propose that they are restored to their plain versions. I am further concerned that this link style might be applied to other aircraft type lists in articles such as the applications sections of engine articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Nationality Country of origin is definitely a defining feature of aircraft (especially military ones). Relying on features that may not be enabled is not "accessible", most wiki users don't have accounts. It doesn't cause any meaningful clutter - i.e. it adds relevant information without making the list any more difficult to read (imo). Novice editors can still use regular plain links if they don't understand the extremely simple syntax of {{lwc}}. Consensus is not required before making changes to articles. We are going through the normal process of WP:BRD.

{{Annotated link}} is often used in "See also" sections to provide context for links, but does typically clutter presentation, and tends to vary in its information format. {{lwc}} is intended to provide consistently formatted context without confusing the presentation of the link.

For aircraft articles, I typically haven't used the template for "Related development" entries unless it's by a different nation.

Hopefully other editors will provide their opinions. (Hohum ^@) 10:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What other defining features can be linked, what is the guideline and where does it stop? There is plenty of edit warring over country names and nationalities already without introducing new opportunities. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:Seealso allows annotation only to clarify the relevance of the entry to the list. Something like {{annotated link}} might add the nationality in passing, but that is not to say it should be done for its own sake. Unless country of origin is especially relevant to the article topic, it should be ignored. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I'm not sure a "thin end of the wedge" argument is valid. We aren't edit warring, we're talking. It starts and ends with consensus, as always.

The nearest guideline is probably MOS:SEEALSO "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." I'm taking "meaning of the term may not be generally known" somewhat broadly perhaps, but I think knowing the country of origin of an aircraft link is useful contextual information. The guideline even provides {{Annotated link}} as an option - which, as I have already noted, is problematic.

I'm trying to put myself in the place of wiki users who aren't already familiar with the country of origin of various aircraft and/or their manufacturers, and even though I'm pretty familiar, even I am still surprised to sometimes see a "similar aircraft is from a lesser known country. (And it sparks my interest to click through.) (Hohum ^@) 13:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Steelpillow, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting {{Annotated link}} would be ok, with the country of origin included within it "in passing", yet most of it's contents will be reduntant - about aircraft type - which will be the same as the article we're linking from, because it's in a list of similar aircraft. Yet including only that difference via {{lwc}} would be bad? (Hohum ^@) 13:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

So we're clear on how various options look:

---

Bare, no additional context

General Dynamics F-16XL Related development Saab 210 Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow Convair F-102 Delta Dagger Convair F-106 Delta Dart Dassault Mirage III English Electric Lightning Lockheed F-104 Starfighter Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 Related lists List of fighter aircraft List of military aircraft of Sweden

---

With {{lwc}}, country of origin

General Dynamics F-16XL Related development Saab 210 Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow – (Canada) Convair F-102 Delta Dagger – (United States) Convair F-106 Delta Dart – (United States) Dassault Mirage III – (France) English Electric Lightning – (United Kingdom) Lockheed F-104 Starfighter – (United States) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 – (Soviet Union) Related lists List of fighter aircraft List of military aircraft of Sweden

---

With {{link with country/sandbox}}, country of origin, sandbox version with tooltip

General Dynamics F-16XL Related development Saab 210 Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow – (Canada) Convair F-102 Delta Dagger – (United States) Convair F-106 Delta Dart – (United States) Dassault Mirage III – (France) English Electric Lightning – (United Kingdom) Lockheed F-104 Starfighter – (United States) Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 – (Soviet Union) Related lists List of fighter aircraft List of military aircraft of Sweden

---

With {{Annotated link}}, redundant information, sometimes country of origin, sometimes a user, inconsistent format

General Dynamics F-16XL Related development Saab 210 Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow – Canadian interceptor aircraft family Convair F-102 Delta Dagger – Cold War interceptor of the US Air Force Convair F-106 Delta Dart – US Air Force all-weather interceptor aircraft Dassault Mirage III – French supersonic fighter/interceptor aircraft English Electric Lightning – Interceptor aircraft, British, 1960s–1980s Lockheed F-104 Starfighter – 1956 fighter aircraft family by Lockheed Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 – 1956 Soviet fighter aircraft family Related lists List of fighter aircraft List of military aircraft of Sweden

(Hohum ^@) 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, personally I think the WP:Seealso guideline is somewhat conflicted. {{Annotated link}} will usually throw up more than the relevant aspect, so is not a good example. But we are stuck with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

We get to choose to use it, or alternatives. Isn't that what we're talking about here? What's best for articles? What helps wiki users find the information they are looking for efficiently. (and what's easily maintainable.)

Collaborating to find a good way to do that is my aim. (Hohum ^@) 19:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)