Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On the military side, I think we've over-categorized.
IMO, we should restrict it to Fighter, Ground attack, Strategic bomber and Support.
The support category would essentially include all military aircraft that are not included in the other categories. This would include transport, trainers, recon, electronic warefare etc. The Category Information Section (CIS) would detail which aircraft served which purpose.
The support category could include sub-categories if there are enough of that type of craft to merit one.
There would also be a higher level category for recon, trainers etc.. This would mean that many aircraft would have several categories (ex. NATION support aircraft (19xx-19xx), NATION recon aircraft, Recon aircraft (19xx-19xx)), but each of them would be substationally more filled out. The would obviously be negated if there are enough in NATION recon aircraft (19xx-19xx)
Ground attack would include tactical bombers and other light aircraft designed to take out specific land-based targets.
Fighter-bombers would be categorized under fighters (again, with the CIS pointing them out) and mentioned in the ground attack category if they were used heavily in that role. The CIS would also indicate which are night fighters, long range escort fighters etc.
We would use the primary role that the aircraft filled as it's basis of categorization, and, in the case of multi-role craft, list it on the CIS of the other categories (ie. The De_Havilland_Mosquito would be categorized as a Strategic bomber, but be mentioned under the Fighter and Support categories.) Oberiko 14:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] WP:CfD discussion
Many of the 'US aircraft...' (and similar) categories have been put up on WP:CfD to be moved from 'US' to 'U.S.' (See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#US_vs_U.S.) Also, at least a few of us believe that many of these categories are too specific. Some categories only have a single article with little hope of adding more, and users are required to navigate through multiple layers of categories to find the articles. Using the Swiss military trainers as an example (because there are so few), I was able to reassign the 5 articles to two categories each and eliminate 10 categories from the structure without any loss of information. See the result at Category:Swiss military trainer aircraft. This is a much simpler structure with no loss of information. —Mike 06:41, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Additional Category(s) for Civil Aircraft
With the passage of the Sport Pilot rules in the US, there should be an additional category of Light Sport Aircraft as they are legally a new category of aircraft.
Also, there should be some kind of reconciliation of LSA in the US vs. Ultralight/Microlight in the rest of the world. Mcneight 02:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Category Overhaul
I am currently working on a category overhaul. Redundant categories may be nominated for category deletion. The goal of this project is to make it fairly easy to categorise aircraft and be able to go to the WP:AIRCRAFT category page to find what categories are needed for a given article. Any help with this would be appreciated! Thanks. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think we're overdoing it a bit on the "Airplane Specific" (should be "Airplane-specific"?) categories. For "power sources", are people really interested in tracking — and maintaining — "Multiple engine aircraft" (should be "Multi-engine[d] aircraft"?) and "Single engine aircraft" (should be "Single-engine[d] aircraft"?)? On the other hand, I could see adding "Rocket aircraft" to this list and perhaps "Ramjet aircraft" or eventually "Hypersonic aircraft" should they employ novel propulsion technologies. Similarly, I see little likely interest in the "wing type" categories. If it is to be used, then "High-wing aircraft" and "Low-wing aircraft" need to be supplemented by "Mid-wing aircraft" and perhaps even "Canard-wing-coupled aircraft". If we have a category for "Biplane aircraft", shouldn't there also be one for "Monoplane aircraft" and "Triplane aircraft" — or perhaps the bipes and tripes combined into "Multi-wing aircraft"? I'd be interested in seeing what others have to say. Askari Mark | Talk 18:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Karl was working on a revamp at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Categories/Proposed update, but that seems to have become dormant for a few months. Myself, I think it should all be pared down to the basic: Multi/single engine, jet/prop/turboprop, military/commercial aircraft, and a few other basic divisions. The "by year" categories serve very limited roles and should be dropped. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Those are good points. I think there is a point when it gets to far. I.E, aircraft with 4 engines, aircraft with 6 engines. However, in categorization of airplanes, at least in my opninion and from what I know, there is a major difference between single and multiple engine aircraft. It is really 2 major categories of aircraft. Similar to that of high and low wing. I also would be interested to get others feedback on this. I had not seen much activity on this page recently so i started working on it. I am very willing for more feedback on this though before I continue this. I guess an important question to ask, is how far is too far? At what point is a category of aircraft not realy important enough or even large enough to have its own category. - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- oh, yea, the date thing is insane. I copied them to the page and then stepped back and looked at it and realized that it was insane. I think the many many date specific categories should go. When you look at an airplane, you may pay attention to the year but more imporant is the type(single engine, multi engine, high, low wing). If any of these assumotions are wrong, feel free to correct me! - Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the "date" categories were intended to permit tracking and listing aircraft by "eras", based on the year of first flight (or service entry?). There is a huge page tracking these, with aircraft of a given era all listed vertically in the same column: List of aircraft by date and usage category. Askari Mark | Talk 21:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have finalised my proposal and typed up a summary of my proposed changes at Proposed update. Please leave comments. Karl Dickman talk 02:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I find it funny how you are debating the restriction of types despite them being a historical reality. Are you proposing rewriting history? Part of the confusion is that most entries are missing explanation of performance specs for aircraft, so it is hard to say what they were. For example most early WW2 British fighters were build as interceptors so were not readily compatible with the US-built long range escort fighters. Also many Soviet tactical fighters were low-altitude dogfighters , but are often compared to high-altitude escorts. Same thing happens to bombers because entries do not explain why a particular aircraft was designated a fighter-bomber, usually because it had excellent short range tactical performance for the given payload. And that is another thing, Armament in the aerocraft specifications infobox means any armament included in the airframe, and not any ordnance carried by the aerocraft. The combat load is called payload and not 'bombs', and they are not a part of armament since the payload can vary significantly. I guess if anything I would like to see the classification expanded to include all the sub-classes of 'fighter' and 'bomber' but with an explanation included to give the reader an idea how the aerocraft was decided to be one. Many variants of the original were often later used or converted to alternative classifications anyway as their performance changed either due to change in requirements or capability of opposition.--Mrg3105 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that The Cape Town Treaty should add towards defining aircraft types since it expressly makes a statement of the calculation of payloads and passengers. Based on this, and the common 'light', 'medium' and 'large' arbitrary divisions, I found that performance very much affects how manufacturers designate their aerocraft in the general aviation, never mind military aviation. Below are some example to what lengths manufacturers go to describe their products just in the light category that is outside the Treaty: Unlimited competition aerobatic aircraft
Single-sit utility
Piston & turboprop powered agricultural aircraft
Biplane agricultural aircraft
Biplane utility transport
1 and two seat aerobatic and training light aircraft
1 and two seat aerobatic light aircraft
1 and two seat competition aerobatic biplanes
Light piston powered utility helicopters
Light turbine powered utility helicopter
Ag spraying and firefighter aircraft
2 and five seat light aircraft
2 and four seat light aircraft
2 or three seat light utility helicopter
2 seat aerobatic capable light aircraft
2 seat aerobatic light aircraft
2 seat agricultural aircraft
2 seat basic and aerobatic trainer
2 seat basic trainer
2 seat basic trainer and aerobatic light aircraft
2 seat biplane light aircraft
2 seat light aircraft
2 seat light aircraft and basic trainer
2 seat pilot training aircraft
2 seat piston engined light helicopter
2 seat primary and aerobatic capable trainer
2 seat sport, utility and agricultural biplane
2 seat trainer and high performance light aircraft
2 seat utility and aerobatic light aircraft
2 seat utility light aircraft
2, three and four place light aircraft
2/four place light helicopter
2/three seat basic trainer
Light twin turboshaft utility helicopter
Light twin engine utility and training helicopter
3 and five seat light helicopters
3 and four seat light aircraft
4 seat light twin
4-5 seat STOL capable light aircraft
Four or six place business, utility & advanced pilot training twin
Four or six place light business twin
Four place piston engined light helicopter
Four seat amphibious light aircraft
four seat High performance jet powered light aircraft
four seat High performance light aircraft
Four seat light aircraft
Four seat light utility aircraft
Four to six place light aircraft
Four to six seat high performance light aircraft
Four to six seat light piston twins
Four to six seat STOL utility light aircraft
Four to six seat utility light aircraft
four/five seat High performance light aircraft
Four/five seat light aircraft
Four/five seat light twin
Four/six place amphibious light aircraft
Five place light utility helicopter
Five place multi purpose light utility helicopter
Six place light twin
Six seat business twin
Six seat corporate and utility transport
Six seat corporate turboprop
Six seat high performance light aircraft
Six seat high performance light twin
Six seat light piston twin
Six seat light twin
Six seat utility light aircraft
six to eight seat pressurised cabin twins
Six to nine seat corporate/utility tiltrotor
Six/eight place cabin twin
Six/eight seat corporate transport and commuter airliner
Six/seven place light twin
Seven place light twin turbine utility helicopter
Seven place utility helicopter
Eight place light utility helicopter
Eight seat commuter airliner and executive transport
Eight seat utility amphibian
Eight seat utility light aircraft
Light twin helicopter
Light twin utility helicopter
Light utility amphibian
Light utility helicopter
Light utility transport
Twin engine light utility helicopters
Light corporate jet
Any attempt to describe any of the above as 'light' aerocraft would immediately misrepresent the manufacturer specification, the work of the design engineers, and the performance characteristics of the vehicle--Mrg3105 14:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Missiles
Why missiles? How do missiles fall under the Aircraft Wikiproject? Understand my questioning-I am new to Wikiproject Aircraft. But I must know why cruise missiles is listed as a catagory.
I also agree with many members above. In my opinion, the sub categories should be organized in a chronological fashion-beginning from the earliest flying machine available to modern aircraft. ChockStock 05:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- In my proposed update to the scheme, I have moved Cruise missiles to Category:Rockets and missiles. In short, this issue will be rectified. Karl Dickman talk 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aviation equipment category?
I came across an orphaned aviation-related article, Aviation ground support equipment. Do we need to add a category for such equipment? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Triplane aircraft
Would someone more au fait with creating categories please have a look at "Category:Triplane aircraft"? I'm afraid I just jumped in and (tried to?) create this category, without (a) checking whether this had already been proposed and rejected and (b) asking for help! In its present state is shows the Felixstowe Fury, for which I created it, and one other - so it seems to 'work' - but it still shows up red. Before any more aircraft are added to this category it needs to be right. Help! And thanks in advance. --TraceyR (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- You actually need to go to the new category and save it which I have done for you, whether we need it or not is a different point! It can do no harm. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Amphibious aircraft
I suggest that it would be useful to create, under "Seaplanes and flying boats", the subcategory "Amphibious aircraft". There are several amphibious aircraft, some of which are mentioned in the article of the same name, but there is no easy way of finding them and others. A category would provide this route. Pros and cons? Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
