Talk:Aviation/Archive 3

"Aeronautics" Move proposal
Following the inconclusive discussion above, it is now proposed that Aeronautics be moved to Aeronautical science. This makes excellent sense to me. As it is a rather different proposal, I think it best to offer another round of voting. Please add your votes/comments below. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Close out of process move proposal. Such a proposal should be convened at talk:Aeronautics and use the proper WP:RM process, considering the mess here. Not convening at the proper talk page is bad, since this move proposal does not concern this page at all, and has no business taking place here, out of sight of the article concerned, and not part of that article's future history. Further, the merger discussion has not been closed. (no enclosing {{tl|discussion-top} / discussion-bottom and result comment from a closer) -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's common for requested moves to go through WP:RM and to be discussed on the article's talkpage, but it's not actually mandatory, is it? For instance, Ireland-related moves are discussed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, multiple-moves are typically discussed on the talkpage of just one of the affected articles (or somewhere else entirely), and occasionally a discussion on a drama-board like AN/I leads to a move. On controversial topics, especially those with broader implications (not that I think Aeronautics qualifies), I would actually welcome more move discussions on project-talkpages as that attracts a broader audience. Sorry; I'm just being pedantic about hard rules (or the lack thereof). bobrayner (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not WP:AVIATION this is the article called "Aviation", and the requested move does not involve the article called "Aviation". And this is a single move, not a multimove. Therefore it is completely inappropriate to discuss this move on this talk page. It only involves one article, "Aeronautics". It is not on a communal discussion page WT:AVIATION or WT:PHYSICS, and does not involve any greater issues other than the name of one article "Aeronautics" and possibly its scope, which is what its (Aeronautics) talk page is for. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you know so much about due process, I am sorry you did not feel able to enact it yourself. I have closed the previous discussion as you requested, but I fail to see why its participants should be pushed around Wikipedia just to discuss a closely related proposal arising from it. I felt it a courtesy to keep the discussion here. You surely noticed that I posted hooks on relevant talk pages - you even made a comment on one of them - so other interested parties such as yourself have no difficulty in finding this discussion either. Personally I prefer courtesy over blind adherence to due process (since enshrining courtesy is one key purpose of due process, not the other way around). But perhaps there are sound reasons why I was wrong in my decision? Anyway, I'd appreciate your comments on the substance of the proposal as well as on its form. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion got closed on the basis of a request by an ip editor who has been editing for one day? And one seemingly only interested in procedural minutae, rather than the issue at hand? Am I missing something?TheLongTone (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the original discussion was bogged down and had been overtaken by this one, so I thought it was a sensible suggestion. I might add that I have no gripe with IP editors - like any other, I assume social equality and good faith until otherwise proven. And if that editor has a dynamic IP they might well have a lot more experience than appears on the surface. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's simply that with editor using an account you know who you are talking to. I have some idea who "Steelpillow" is: a bunch of numbers is unmemorable and if the ip editor is constantly moving around it only makes matters worse. I do agree that the above bundle of discussions was rapidly disappearing up its own fundament, but a pedantic demand from somebody not involved in the discussion sits ill.TheLongTone (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that renaming Aeronautics to Aeronautical science is a side issue that doesn't really resolve the larger questions that started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. I suggest putting this proposed move on ice until the larger issue is resolved. Continued in the next section. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you regard as "the larger issue" and how might resolving it help the present proposal? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You've done an excellent job of explaining the larger issue, both at the start of the discussion on the WikiProject page and in the figures below. OK, let's look at this specific aspect of it. The current lead Aeronautics... is the science... clearly implies that aeronautics ≡ aeronautical science which is supported by the latter title's redirect. If it's accepted that the two terms are equivalent, then determining the best title for the article is a matter of determining which is the name most commonly used by reliable sources, i.e., the WP:common name for the topic. If we don't accept that the two terms are equivalent, then the article lead needs to be rewritten, and accepted, before re-visiting what the best title might be. I also observe that there is a related term astronautics, which implies a possible related move to astronautical science. That red link seems to give some guidance on which formation of the term is the more common name. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Aeronautics and astronautics each incorporate both science and technology (theory and practice), so aeronautical science implies a narrower focus which removes aeronautical technology from the article... thinking this over... Wbm1058 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Key question for you to think over: if we cannot establish a clearly defined usage of the term "Aeronautics" (because some folks do distingiush "aeronautical science" as a sub-topic, or even equate aeronautics with aviation), then what is the best way ahead? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This was first suggested by User:XFEM Skier in this diff. Including myself that makes 2 in favour, 2 comment-only (one procedural), no material objection. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, aeronautics has been proposed to be renamed to aeronautical science, see talk:aeronautics -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of flight topics
Category:Flight is the parent category for this area of the encyclopedia. There are four major sub-categories of flight:
 * Category:Aviation
 * Category:Aeronautics and Category:Unpowered aviation are subcategories of Aviation
 * Category:Ballistics
 * Category:Spaceflight
 * Category:Unpowered flight
 * Category:Unpowered aviation is a subcategory of Unpowered flight

OK, reconcile this categorization scheme with the idea presented in the lead of Aeronautics that aeronautics includes lighter-than-air craft such as airships (Category:Unpowered aviation), and includes ballistic vehicles (Category:Ballistics), and that Aviation does not include these. That definition implies that "Aeronautical science" may be another term for flight science by our categorization. Hey, we used to have an article on that topic. Hmm, Wikiproject Flight. Red link. Comments, please. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC) I think the current redirect, Flight dynamics (fixed-wing aircraft), is too narrow a topic for a redirect of the more general term. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just one more point: Category:Spaceflight is another animal because it takes air (aero) out of the equation. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And another. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 8. Flight science may include:
 * Aerodynamics
 * Aeronautics
 * Aerospace
 * Astronautics
 * Flight dynamics


 * Many more cans of worms here. Some observations:
 * Aeronautics has historically included both aerostatics and aviation. That is one of the few things that has never changed and we can verify adequately. It also demonstrates that you are quite right to revisit our categorization of these topics.
 * Some would argue that ballistics and aeronautics are quite distinct, in that ballistics; a) does not involve navigation and b) may be conducted beyond the atmosphere. (OTOH others might hold that ballistics does in practice involve aerodynamics which is a branch of aeronautics.)
 * Some would point out that natural flight - of birds, bats, insects, seeds and microorganisms is within the scope of Flight. I might expect to see some differences of view over whether they are part of aeronautics or aviation as opposed to natural history. Treatises on bird flight certainly provided the starting point for aeronautical science, but that does not necessarily mean they are the same discipline.
 * I find the "unpowered flight" construct to be highly artificial. It is just a rag-bag of different topics with no common theme of any note. It and its stablemates such as Category:unpowered aircraft should be got rid of.
 * The naming of Categories and the naming or articles are not the same issue. While they have much in common, the best solution for one may not be the best for the other.
 * The lead to aeronautics does not embrace ballistics as you suggest, merely rocketry which is a very different thing but may have confused you. One might alternatively suggest that Flight Science includes both Aeronautical Science (covering both LTA and HTA) and Ballistics.
 * You said in the previous topic that you want to use this discussion to help shed light on the relationship between aeronautics and aeronautical science. Experience in several recent and related discussions suggests that you will be disappointed. (Read on...)
 * Some would argue that prior to the mid-twentieth century aerostatics was seen as a distinct branch of aeronautics from aviation, while since the renaissance of hot-air balloons and to some extent airships in the latter part of the twentieth century aerostatics has been seen as a sub-discipline within aviation. That is, we have moved from the early 20th century view:

fig. 1 Aeronautics |          |              |      Aerostatics      Aviation
 * to the mid-twentieth century view (when the science of aerostatics had effectively ceased and its practice was just a few weather balloons):

fig. 2 Aviation = Aeronautics


 * to the late twentieth century view (following the revival of aerostatics):

fig. 3 Aviation = Aeronautics |        --         |                |    Aerostatics    Heavier-than-air


 * Now I am not saying that this is what happened as such, only that some folks see it that way. For example others see the modern view as:

fig. 4 Flight (all types) |            --             |                    |     Aviation (practice)   Aeronautics (theory)


 * My key point being that today there is no definitive hierarchy. It is this lack of any definitive hierarchy that we must deal with, simply going back to the "who is right?" argument is a hiding to nothing. Nor I think can we rely on a simple visit to the categorization and one article lead to provide any real resolution of the issue. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A very good point indeed. Not that I'm researching this topic, but over the past couple of days I've seen an attempted definition of terms in a 1912 issue of Flight and the homepage of the Royal Aeronautical Society & the more I take note the muddier it all becomes.TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Steelpillow: I think you have made some very good points here. I think one of your most important observations is that the use of these terms and what they include has changed over time, which makes early 20th century references of not much value, except reasons of understanding how things used to be classified, but generally aren't anymore. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I'm not disappointed at all. I think we're making good progress. I didn't expect to solve everything right away, just start the ball rolling in the right direction. I took the liberty to label your four figures above. I think we can throw out figs. 2 and 3 as the proposal to merge Aviation and Aeronautics failed, thus there is no consensus that they are equivalent. I like to tackle the easy stuff first, optimistically believing that once some of the fog is lifted the solution will become more clear. Along those lines, I've already:
 * Added Aerostatics to the See also section of Aeronautics and Aeronautics to the See also section of Aerostatics
 * Changed the Aerostation redirect destination from Air navigation, which was definitely incorrect, to Aerostatics. Per 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Aeronautics, Aeronautics is divisible into two main branches—aerostation and aviation. I'm inclined to go with that until I see a newer source that contradicts the statement. 100 years later, has the basic theory really changed at all? We need to get the Aeronautics and Aerostatics articles better integrated – mutual "see also" connections are insufficient.
 * Created the redirect Ballistic vehicle. That term should be defined in the lead of ballistics. Would "A ballistic vehicle is a ballistic body that transports passengers or cargo." be accurate?
 * Removed Category:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by engine failure from Category:Unpowered aviation. See Category talk:Airliner accidents and incidents caused by engine failure. There's an explanation for the creation of Category:Unpowered flight there. I agree that category should go, as it seems it was created just for stuff that didn't belong in Category:Gliding.
 * Let's keep things rolling. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment this doesn't really have anything to do with the article "Aviation" (it's the topic of aviation, but the organizational structure of categories, not the content of this article), why isn't this discussion occurring at WT:AVIATION ? or Category Talk:Flight ; this clearly is not the recommended venue per WP:TALK, as it is not related to the content of this article. Further, the head article of the top category under discussion is flight, not "aviation", so moving this discussion to WT:AVIATION should be done. (you can use discussion moved to indicate such) -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose this and the previous two sections could all be moved to the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, but at this point I'm in agreement with Steelpillow – I'd rather just WP:IAR and concentrate on improving the encyclopedia rather on procedural issues. This discussion does have the potential to result in significant changes to the article "Aviation" (and other articles as well). Wbm1058 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Unpowered aviation has been nominated for . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically, on this CfD sub-page &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Public support
Ahunt In my opinion public support you removed deserves place in the article. Fuels of commercial aviation are tax free in the EU, in contrast to fuels of road and rail transport. This is significant, has high cost and distort the market in the EU. I add new references to verify info: WP:VERIFY In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Watti Renew (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I have removed it again, and as a challenged edit you need to gain a consensus here to include it. One problem is that it doesnt make any sense in English, it appears not to be relevant so we can guide you to the proper place if we had a clue what it was about, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed your first edit because it lacked any context, had no comprehensible refs and was off topic for a general article on aviation worldwide. Your more recent edit, which User:MilborneOne just removed was not much better as he pointed out. If you could write it so it makes some sense, has some background information so there is some context and had proper refs then it might be suitable for Economics of aviation or perhaps Aviation taxation and subsidies. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne can we change your removal to following: Watti Renew (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Aviation Taxation  Historically, EU aviation fuel was tax free and applied no VAT. Domestic fuel taxation in the EU was permitted from 2003 and on intra-EU with bilateral agreements. In 2018 Germany applied 19 % VAT on domestic airline tickets. Many other member states had 0% VAT. Unlike air travel VAT is applied to bus and rail, which creates competitive distortions, artificially stimulate demand, drive uncontrolled growth in aviation emissions and constitute unjustifiable subsidies. Air fuel tax 33 cents/litre equal to road traffic would give €9.5 billion. Applying a 15 % VAT in all air traffics within and from Europe would be equal to €15 billion.


 * Ahunt, good ideas. However, taxation should in my opinion be included also in the main article. Later on it could be an own article as well. ok? Watti Renew (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it just doesn't belong in a very general overview article on aviation. It is far too specific, technical and requires far more context, a global view and background to make any sense at all to readers. You just can't fit it into this article like that. - Ahunt (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In my opinion aviation article should include all core data. Financial issues are in common sense important to many readers. Taxes are essential part of finance and a political tools. I agree this is not everything but good start that will encourage to continue the article. This is our mutual objective, is it not? With these arguments tax data can not be excluded from the overview article. Data include verifiable reference. Missing information is not sufficient argument to stop developing Wikipedia and this article. An opinion is not enough to stop development of Wikipedia and editing of this article. Watti Renew (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * None of our general article on transportion topics include financial details. See Vehicle, Boat or Spacecraft. No mention of costs or subsidies. It just doesn't belong here. It might fit into Transport economics, though. - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Aviation economics includes all finance related to aviation like the prices of air planes. Ok, I make a more relevant start of: Aviation taxation and subsidies Watti Renew (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That new article is not going to last long unless it gets some proper references cited. Right now only two sentences are properly referenced and it is liable to be stubbed or deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been a week now and that new article is nothing more then an unref WP:COATRACK. Rather than stub it I have sent it for WP:PROD, but if the prod is not completed it will have to be stubbed to what is cited, or alternatively you can fix it and turn it into a real article, rather than just a parking spot for two minor ideas. - Ahunt (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)