Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Trivia

I am adding a trivia section; many planes are featured in fiction, and ignoring this defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. --The1exile 18:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the purpose of wikipedia as it applies to this? ericg ✈ 01:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think a well-written trivia section populated within reason can be a cool addition (learning is always more interesting when fun facts are included). Alien set being made from Avro Vulcan parts is interesting. Every airplane and its mother included in Ace Combat is not. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Identification

I (we) have NOT sought nor received permission to identify the actors in Wild_Weasel_mission_transcript. I have removed Sir names. We can suppose that these airmen do not wish publicity, good or bad, to intrude upon their lives. I recommend "No Comment" to any inquiries. However, the central clearing house for inquiry may be the Society of Wild Weasels (Wildweasels.org)--plumalley

Thrust/weight

Thrust/weight has apparently not been displayed on this page for some time. This is due to a fluke in {{airtemp}}, which causes it to not display {{{thrust/weight}}} unless you specify what kind of powerplant the aircraft has. The lack of an explanation for thrust/weight was erroneously considered by some to indicate that it is an open question. It is not; by scanning through older versions of this article, it became very clear to me that thrust/weight has always been meant to have a unitless measurement. I am not playing God here; only fixing an error with template rendering. Ingoolemo talk 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Related content

"Related content" is a non-standard "See also" section as far as I can tell, and according to WP:MOSHEAD, "See also" should precede references and external links. I'd recommend switching the order here. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:Air is a special case because of the additional information (related developments, designatio series, etc.) that needs to be conveyed. I don't see a problem as long as the look is consistent across all Wikiproject pages, which it will be once template conversion is completed. - Emt147 Burninate! 15:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I seriously considered making this proposal some time ago, but I decided against it for a number of reasons. I suppose that 'related content' could be moved above exerternal links, but it seems like a lot of effort to go to for very limited return. Ingoolemo talk 21:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox consideration

I was wondering if the project has ever considered using Infoboxes for technical information? Rather than place it in the article, sequester it on the side in the infobox. I think the result would be much more aesthetically and professional appearing. As an example, I would point to this template Template:Infobox_Military_aircraft and its aircraft infobox design. It could easily be designed towards the protocols that your project have devised for aircraft. I modified it and applied it to the SOC Seagull article as an example. ~ The Rebel At ~ 16:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 16:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this WikiProject did use infoboxes for technical information originally, but we changed to a text-based format for several reasons that I won't go into here. If you really feel the need, you can discuss this on WT:Air, but keep in mind that we've had to defend our decision probably a dozen times now, and a lot of people won't be very polite in explaining why our standards are different. Ingoolemo talk 17:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
BillCJ and I were discussing the use of infoboxes in WP:Air. He is discussing it on the Template Talk page. I noticed that it isn't in the page content description but that it is still listed on the templates page. We're both looking for the Project's consensus on this style issue. (Born2flie 03:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
We decided to standardize the {{Infobox Aircraft}} template as a non-technical option for articles. It's not a standard part of the page content, as some articles aren't long or detailed enough to merit what is basically a summary. ericg ✈ 05:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That "consideration" (not long or detailed enough) is not elucidated anywhere, nor is it stated that it is an "option". (Born2flie 06:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
If you look closely at this project page, though, you should note that it clearly says "This is a set of suggested guidelines [emphasis mine] for articles on specific aircraft types. Some wikipedians prefer a standardised look and feel to articles on closely-related subjects and these guidelines exist to facilitate achieving that goal for articles about aircraft." The infobox discussion can be found in the talk page archives for the project, and it's not as if there's something saying that you can't use it. We have also had several rounds of discussion regarding specifications infoboxes, and consensus is that they shouldn't be used. However, this is a wikiproject and as such doesn't have rules or policy; we have guidelines. If you like, you can amend those guidelines, or someone else can, or whatever. Do what you like, but know that specs infoboxes will probably be converted to something else. The consensus on this was within the last 6 months, so chances are nobody has gotten around to it yet.
Most of us spend our time writing or editing articles rather than working on the bureaucracy side of things. If you'd like to aid with that, please do so... ericg ✈ 06:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That's okay. It's these things about the Wiki that are leading me to write static articles somewhere else. Reaching a consensus and then not recording it where newer editors can have access without sorting through months of archives strikes me as irresponsible in a community that has a policy of consensus and within a group that touts its purpose as "primarily to suggest how aircraft-related articles can be put in to Wikipedia in an extensible and coherent manner." I mean, if you have to keep revisiting this as every newcomer to the project asks the same questions, then the guidelines aren't even working towards that "coherent" manner that is desired. If the guidelines aren't even the basis of consensus of how this project intends to meet the WP:MOS guidelines, then they aren't even guidelines, they're really more like a set of ideas on what a page could look like. If the goal is FA articles and more articles, I don't think there is adequate incentive for me to exert that much effort in such a laissez-faire environment, and I am by no means looking to be a member of a borg collective. It's not that I'm capable of FA articles, just that I'm not willing to work for that goal without a standard of what is an FA article or guidelines to guide the group as a whole to that end. But I feel that this aspect of the community is self-defeatist. (Born2flie 15:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

Wing Loading and Other Calculations

Is it appropriate to calculate formluas such as wing loading if all the other relevant data is appropriately sourced? A specific example would be the Sukhoi Su-35, which lists both the Su-35's loaded weight and the wing area, but not the wing loading (which is loaded weight divided by wing area).

I would venture to say that it is appropriate, but it since it would, technically, be unsourced, I was unsure. --Tom 00:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think many editors are unclear as to the meaning of wing loading, power/mass, and thrust/weight, and consequently never bother to calculate them. If the necessary statistics are available, feel free to add them to the article.
Note: some members of this WikiProject believe that the calculated values are redundant, and that including them constitutes original research. I disagree with them, though I sympathise with their viewpoint. Just mentioning this so that you can be aware of all the viewpoints involved. Ingoolemo talk 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Layout question

Hello! I have been checking some aircraft related pages while cleaning external links, and I noticed the layout is recommended as "External link" and then "Related content". The main problem with this is that it contradicts the manual of style at WP:MOSHEAD#Standard appendices. I am considering the "Related content" is just a renamed "See also" section, which is also contradicting the pointed manual. Would you reconsider changing the suggested layout here to comply with the one mentioned in the manual of style? Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 11:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See #Related content above. The related content footer has its origins in an earlier table-style navbox that has since been deprecated. My feeling is that switching the order of the two would be a lot of effort for inconsequential return. Ingoolemo talk 16:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Rotation"

Several aircraft articles link to rotation when referring to aircraft attitude change at liftoff speeds. The article at rotation is irrelevant to this use of the word 'rotation'. Would someone who could write a good article explaining rotation in this context want to write one? If you would, I'd be happy to go through and change the appropriate links User:Pedant 15:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a section in the Rotation article. I don't think it needs its own article. --Gbleem 04:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Infobox Question

I recently visisted the CF-18 Hornet page, and noticed it used the {{Canadian Air Force}} infobox. This is also used on the CP-140 Aurora page. While there are nine aricraft listed in the infobox, these are the only two aircraft pages using the box.

What are the guidelines regarding its use on aircraft pages? Should it remain where it is, or be replaced with the standard aircraft infobox? Should it then be placed further down the page? Thanks -- BillCJ 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that WP:AIR generally prefers to use {{Infobox Aircraft}} instead. It's worth noting that the Canadian Air Force infobox is technically not an infobox but a navbox.
In a discussion some time ago, the consensus seemed to be that we shouldn't use navboxes such as the Canadian Air Force template, because they can be a pain to deal with and are often redundant.
Sorry I don't have a more clear answer. The fact of the matter is, there isn't one. Karl Dickman talk 00:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo sections

What is the Project's policy on thumbnail-photo sections on aircraft pages? Eurocopter Dauphin has 10 thumnails, for example, most of which are also on the Commons page, but only 2 pics within the article, one of which I put there. - BillCJ 05:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no official policy. However, I do suggest removing such sections; when there are a lot of images on the commons, we should provide a link to the commons page and be judicious about including only the best images. Karl Dickman talk 01:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. And yes, there was a link to Commons there also. I've removed the gallery, and kept a few of the best pics, as suggested. - BillCJ 02:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead - military

I am not sure if this is a universal issue, but I stumbled into Yakovlev Yak-25 (1947) and struggled for a few moments to understand that it was a military aircraft. To the non-specialist, "interceptor" does not jump out.

Would it be a good idea to include a broad descriptor (military, civilian, commercial) in the opening sentence of most aircraft articles? Jd2718 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It wouldn't hurt to add military or whatever if there's doubt. I think that would not be needed for fighter, attack and bomber aircraft though. -Fnlayson 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)