Talk:List of aviation pioneers

Looks like a good list so far. However, to keep Wikipedia consistent, shouldn't the article be called List of Aviation pioneers, according to the naming convention? Also worth noting is the guide-line for stand-alone lists. The article might require a bit of work here and there, to follow the guide-lines. --Pekaje 22:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Now when the title of the page is List of Aviation pioneers, shouldn't the Wright brothers be included? And the sentences which seems to support the idea that this is a list of possible contenders to the Wrights be stricken? I'll do it myself. Roger491127 (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alexandre Liwentaal
Alexandre Liwentaal is worth mentioning here.

Kress
altered Kress entry to match Kress page and other sources on KressRomaniantruths (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Archdeacon
Ernest Archdeacon - ought he go in? Founded the French Aero-Club and out his money into encouraging developments in France including paying for aircraft to be built.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say no: although an important figure in aviation history, he neither flew himself nor came up with any technical innovations. TheLongTone (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * rethink...in the light of the inclusion of a category for men such as Archdeacon. I'm trying to think of others...TheLongTone (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "What is an "Aviation pioneer"? discussion moved to new What is an "Aviation pioneer"? section below. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a format change
I would like to re-organize the current text-style list into a table-style list. I think that such a change would highlight the pioneers' individual personal data and achievements in a way that is missed by the current format and allow for the sorting of data in a way that is currently not possible.

There would be 7 columns: Name (a dagger following the name indicates the pioneer died in an aircraft crash), Nationality, Date of birth, Date of death, Pioneer (divided into three sub-columns with check-marks): Inventor/Designer, Manufacturer, Aviation first (not intended to reflect changing records, but rather milestone first achievements), Aircraft type (for which the pioneer is notable), Notes - a brief summary of the pioneers' achievements.

I am converting the current list into the tabular format in my sandbox and will move it here (in the absence of serious objection) in the next day or two. If you have any suggestions regarding the format of the list, please be vocal.

Much of the current list does not have references so help is most certainly welcome. I am not an expert on aviation history, but it seems to me that this list will continue to grow as pioneers are added. There may also be some on the list that do not actually belong. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree: Take a look at the section on Canada. This amount of information would not fit a table format at all. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see how the section on Canada (added in the past 24 hours) would be difficult to format given it is not consistent with the rest of the list in its current state. If it were formatted in the same manner as the rest of the list it wouldn't be very difficult to adapt. An issue (IMHO) may be that the Canada section is a section about Canadian aviation when, it is my understanding, it should be about pioneers who are Canadian or resided/worked in Canada.-Godot13 (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree In my opinion this article is of more value as a list of pioneer aviators, without content such as the section on Canada that has been added.  It the article contained similar content on all countries it would become an impossibly unwieldy country by country synopsis of aviation achievements. TheLongTone (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think date of death is at all relevant and will eat into table width which could be used for better readability. There may also be problems fitting some people into specific column criteria. Nationality is likely to be awkward for some - eg Porte and Dunne were British though born in Ireland; the Farmans were Britons but did their work in France and became French. I'm not averse per se to a table but would go with something quite simple in the first instance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with caveats A sortable list would be good, but I do not think the proposed format is quite right. I agree with GraemeLeggett about countries, think also of Cody and Maxim working in Britain or Weisskopf emigrating to America. But date of death is normal in a list of people, perhaps birth and death could go in the same column, this would sort adequately. Also, The three tickbox columns do not allow sorting say theory from construction and probably other distinctions of interest. They should either be carefully discussed and re-thought or perhaps better just merged into one "Achievement" column with sorting based on the description. The Type coding is too complex and impenetrable - either make it readable or merge it with the Pioneer/Achievements. WRT Canada, the free-flow text history obviously does not belong in a list such as this one, and needs to be either moved elsewhere or deleted. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * re Canada, the problem there lies with the treatment of a collaborative team - where the team made the achievement working together but no member of the team stands out on their own. Brown only makes sense with Alcock - Alcock was fairly active on his own but Brown didn't contribute much until that famous flight. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, but... I'm put off by the check columns and abbreviations; I find that I have to scroll up each time to see again what they mean. In its favor, a table could bring needed discipline to the descriptions. An "Aviation Firsts" list article already exists (with its own controversies), so I'm not sure having that as a category in this article is needed. A 'nationality' category is a must; perhaps a "born in " or "worked in " parenthetical comment could be included where appropriate. I'm ok in principle with a table, but one that is more user-friendly with content information that's self-evident (or nearly so) in each column. I agree with comments about the new Canada section; it's not the right style for this article, which is supposed to be a list. DonFB (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

1) If the checklist columns for different pioneer categories are removed, what are the overarching categories that should be represented? My impression from reviewing the current list would be a) inventors/designers, b) manufacturers, c) non-flying supporters/philanthropists. Theory was suggested above. It seems that Aviation firsts may be tricky. If there are additional categories which pioneers can fit in please let me know. What I will try and do is make the pioneers column contain (instead of checkmarks) the most appropriate word(s) associated with the individual, arranged in order of importance regarding the specific individual so that the column is sortable. 2) Please see the updated type coding and let me know if this is better (each letter is now linked to the type of aircraft so it will display when the mouse hovers over it). 3) I’ve seen the word “jump” used to describe extremely brief flight. Is this an official aviation term (with some kind of definition) or more colloquially used? I’m keen on adding a column for birth country and having one for place of work. “Nationality” is a complex legal term that will not always be used correctly in a list like this. I will try and tweak these things in the existing sample before I add the rest to my dropbox. I will also play around with putting DOB and DOD in a single column as well as representing a collaborative pair of pioneers as a single entry (when the lesser accomplished may not qualify for the list)-Godot13 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Strongly reiterating that the format you are working with is deeply flawed, not to mention that it is still a work-in-progress with typos, spelling errors, date, month, reference and format errors throughout. The format still does not fit examples of collaborative efforts or other aspects such as hand-made prototypes which are not necessarily from manufacturers. Trying to squeeze information into small boxes is always going to be a problem. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All the feedback is certainly appreciated. I have a few questions:
 * You have been quite clear that you object to the idea of a tabular format. Yes, it is a work in progress (is is still in my sandbox for constructive comments on development). I made 3-4 slight edits to date formats but perhaps you could point out the other typos, spelling errors, reference and format errors (not differences of opinion) so I can fix them? I would welcome any suggestions on how this could be made to work... Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer another question, "hop" rather than "jump" is the usually accepted term to describe a brief flight, that barely achieves flight. "Jump" was also used to indicate a longer flight such as a transatlantic jump. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't used, nor am I familiar with the sorting capabilities of a Wikipedia list, so some of my ideas might not be too hospitable to that functionality. I'm primarily concerned with the immediate appearance and readability of the list. I'm amenable to having columns for Birth Country and Country of Work (or similar) to handle the Nationality issue. I'm also amenable to using only Nationality as a heading, with subordinate text in the same cell (possibly in parentheses) to indicate "worked in ." You might consider a separate column for the "Date of Work" (suggested heading). For some pioneeers that might be only a year, or range of years, or decade, rather than a specific date. I'd favor the birth/death dates to be in a single column, perhaps with the heading, simply, "Lived". I don't favor the dagger to denote death in an aviation crash--at least, not at the expense of including that info in the Notes.


 * At present, the introduction to the article says it's about pioneers who worked on "winged aircraft," so those who did only balloon/dirigible work should, by logic, be excluded. Perhaps, though, the intro should be changed, and the list opened fully to every type of aviation pioneer. Mentioning a "first" is fine in the Notes, but as I noted, I would not make a separate column for that info. A column for aircraft type is useful; I would spell it out and dispense with abbreviations or hover tips (clever though that is). Other categories, such as you've shown, are possible, but I think that may be attemping an artificial sort of granularity. A category called "Type of Work" might suffice. The other categories that seem essential: Name, Birth Country, Worked In (or just Nationality with subordinate text where needed), Years Lived, Aircraft Type, Date of Work (or "Feat"?), and Notes (or possibly, call it "Description"). Type of Work might be covered by the terms that you've suggested (spelled out in the list): "inventor," "designer," "manufacturer," "pilot," (obviously). Some could be hyphenated, also as you've suggested. I think those columns would all fit.


 * Words like "jump" and "hop" are not, to the best of my knowledge, official nomenclature. They have been used to characterize, and in some cases to disparage, feats by some pioneers. It's a tricky and sensitive issue. Ideally, words like those should be used if they're supported by a reference, though Bzuk makes a fair point about "jump." I'm not opposed to their use, if they seem reasonably justified by context. DonFB (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, I will see if it can be incorporated (i.e., if it is within my table-making ability). I had thought to include all aviation pioneers (lighter than air) as it seems like a logical progression to trace the evolution of aviation theory and achievement; however that is probably up to the community.-Godot13 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Answering another question, see your talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously still a work in progress, but I made some formatting changes. Is this getting closer to what you had in mind?-Godot13 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was experimenting with the place of birth column and listed the country, but if you hover/click, it takes you to the specific town/city...-Godot13 (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That's an improvement. My suggestions/thoughts: I think you could save a column by modifying the Country header. Put Country on top with the words Birth and (Work) side-by-side underneath, enclosing Work in parentheses. That would also eliminate a lot of repetition. In any cell where appropriate, you'd have, for example: Brazil (France), for Santos Dumont. Most cells in the column would simply show the birth country and nothing else (but could have your cool hover tips). The abbreviations for aircraft type are easier to grasp, but I see no reason not to spell them out; I think there's more than adequate space. If you're going to keep the Dagger, do put its meaning somewhere obvious, like in the legend at the top, so readers don't have to search around the page to figure out what it means. I also have a concern that readers might mistakenly think the Dagger means the Pioneer died doing a specific pioneering thing shown in the Notes, when in fact the fatal event might have happened afterward. If we're going to highlight the manner of their demise, I think I'd like to see the actual event noted in the Notes in addtion to, or instead of, a non-specific dagger. The column header and legend Pioneer might be changed to Pioneered in keeping with the idea that they did/performed/achieved the things shown. Somehow, I feel that "pilot," "aviator" or "aeronaut" should not all be omitted from the Pioneer category. DonFB (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of your suggestions have been incorporated. I've put (work place) directly underneath birth place which is necessary for the two-person teams being treated as a single entity. Added "Aviator" in place of Achievement (it's much closer to what I was going for...) I will address the dagger (or get rid of it). Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Following up
I just wanted to follow up on the issue of adopting the table format that is being developed in my sandbox and is still a working draft. I've been adding references, rephrasing information that was copied and pasted from articles, and trying to add additional info (not people). It does not (yet) reflect any of the additional aviators added after I started working on the table. It's very interesting, but also time consuming. Not trying to be pushy, but I'd like to know if it is going to be used (regardless of scope issues discussed below) before investing more time. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the change to a table. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What is an "Aviation pioneer"?

 * Discussion moved from Ernest Archdeacon above.

What is an "Aviation pioneer"? Aviation includes all the activity surrounding aircraft, so anybody who helped pioneer any of those activities presumably ought to be included, not just aviators and constructors? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eiffel - of tower fame - and investigations of airfoils in his wind tunnel? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly so. To me, every notable figure involved in aviation before and during the so-called pioneer era, up until the outbreak of WWI is a pioneer: (would-be) aviators and facilitators alike. Some later figures from WWI and the Golden Age might be too, such as Max Immelmann or Alcock and Brown, but we would need to be clear on the criteria for inclusion. And would we want to include even later figures such as Sir Frank Whittle, pioneer of the jet engine, or Chuck Yeager, first to break the sound barrier in level flight? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [Updated 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)]


 * My understanding is that, informally, the "pioneer era" of aviation refers to the early fixed-wing flying period up to WWI. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not even sure that people from before about 1890 actually "qualify". Currently, the list already includes such later figures as Lindbergh, Howard Hughes, Amelia Earhart and Juan Trippe, who don't really seem to fit in the same category with people like the Voisins, Lefebvre and Levavasseur (both absent from the list), Bleriot, Farman, Langley, Santos Dumont, etc.


 * Then, there's people like Lincoln Beachey and the Wright exhibition pilots (Hoxey, Johnston, others). And Selfridge. Maybe the list should be totally comprehensive (lighter-than-air also) and include very "modern" people like like Bryan Allen and Paul MacCready of Gossamer Condor fame, and Burt Rutan. Tricky to decide just what the limits are. Another possibility is to narrow the article focus by changing its name to something like, "List of aviation pioneers (1890-1914)". Other pioneers are, or would be, included in existing articles like "List of firsts in aviation" and "Early flying machines." DonFB (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think whatever definition we choose to adopt for the inclusion/exclusion criteria needs to be one that can be applied to all periods of aviation history. IMO, once a functional definition is in place, we can decide on whether or not the list should be restricted to a specific time frame or left open-ended. Otherwise we end up defining pioneer in a way that can not later be generalized.-Godot13 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The original version of this article seemed to be focused on the pioneer era to highlight "other contestants" versus the Wright brothers. The issue now is whether editors want the article to be limited to the "pioneer era" (pre-WWI, starting point fuzzy) or to apply to people who were aviation "pioneers," regardless of time period. I think the decision to be made is the scope of the article, even if we're not settled on a precise definition of aviation "pioneer." With the current article title, I learn toward focusing on the limited pioneering era. Though, admittedly, I'm not sure if that means there should be another list article to include people like Lindbergh, Earhart, Whittle, Trippe, Kingsford Smith, Hughes, Douglas, Boeing, Messerschmitt, etc. "List of Early Aviation Pioneers" and "List of Later Aviation Pioneers"? DonFB (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Several issues have emerged here. To try and keep things readable, I am splitting this discussion into separate subtopics. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Historical span
Is this necessarily the same as the span of the "Pioneer Era" (whatever we decide that is)?

Whatever the "pioneer era" is deemed to be, to say that figures such as Lillienthal and Cayley were not pioneers is to me untenable. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * To my mind, the First World War is a useful cut-off for the early flying era. After 1918 thousands of aircraft have built and flown and then you get into the era of extending the capabilities of aircraft eg Alcock and Brown's transatlantic flight showing you can join continents by air, or attempts to go higher and faster.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Word order matters. The article is titled '...aviation pioneers' which to me suggests that its remit is all those who pioneered some aviation activity, so including (for instance) Chuck Yeager. Were the article to be titled '...pioneer aviators' I would expect it to focus on flyers from the 'pioneer era'.  Whatever defiition is preferred, I'm very concerned about the existance of articles that substantially duplicate content: this list substantially duplicates Early flying machines, a horrible mess which is the result of merging two similar list-type articles.TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I remain somewhat preoccupied with the "pioneer era" concept, which does have a certain amount of recognition among aviation historians. When I look at the title of this article, that's what I think of: the first decade or so of actual heavier than air flying (Wrights to WWI). If this article confined itself to that period, it would be properly adhering to NOR. If we, as editors, "define" the term "aviation pioneers" more broadly, we may be overstepping the bounds of that policy, although another phrase to cover the topic does not leap to mind. I do agree that a huge amount of duplication exists among the various articles on this subject, and that the Early Flying Machines article has become freakish. The problems exist because two classifying methods exist: machines and people. Inevitably, having those two classifications will produce a lot of overlap and duplication. Having both may be helpful, though, for readers who could be looking for information on one topic (machines or people), rather than the other. Either way, of course, they'll find basically the same information. I do, however, support the idea of cleaning up the excessive duplication. If we decide on one big article to cover everything (LTA, HTA; pre-history to present day), we might include some brief text that explains what historians mean by the phrase "pioneer era".


 * There really hasn't been a lot of controversy among editors about including or excluding particular people because their "pioneer" status is disputed. Arguments have focused almost entirely on the issue of "first." DonFB (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that an aviation pioneer necessarily comes from the so-called pioneer era of powered fixed-wing flight. The Montgolfier brothers were aviation pioneers in any but most pedantic of meanings of the phrase. I don't see including them as violating WP:NOR, but excluding them surely violates WP:COMMONSENSE. Do you really believe that all rational thinkers necessarily come from the Age of Reason? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My main purpose in bringing up NOR was to try to focus our thinking a little more about who should be included in this article and under what title. Of course, I don't dispute that people in the late 18th century and throughout the 19th were aviation "pioneers," broadly speaking. This discussion got started with the question "what is an aviation pioneer?" "Pioneer" typically connotes something old, but it can also apply to a modern achievement. ("A pioneer researcher in nanotechnology.") It seems to me the question is whether we want that word to apply comprehensively--from the Montgolfiers to Burt Rutan, let's say--or not. I think the article could do that, and I would not object, but I continue to think we should include brief text explaining when the actual "pioneer era" occurred, as identified by historians. Right now, however, the article includes very few "modern" people (mostly U.S.), so excluding them and ending this list with the "pioneer era" would not be a drastic change. DonFB (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of the current title is a bit different. It does not pull specifically for the pioneer-era of aviation, but rather innovators and direct or indirect contributors to aviation regardless of time-frame or type of aircraft. If we confine the article to roughly the first decade of the 20th century (1903 to 1918) we are creating further issues. Can we only include someone who has made a pioneering contribution specifically during that time period? Would we need to revisit and possibly exclude Bellanca, Cabral, Coutinho, du Temple, Earhart, Hughes, Lindbergh, Link, Mittelholzer (close), Trippe, Verville (close), etc. because their achievements didn’t occur during the timeframe. In looking through the list there are some that probably could go, based on a well-defined definition for inclusion criteria. What happens to those excluded from the list? Another list needs to be created to encompass them? It would have to be at least two lists- one for “pre” and one for “post” the time-frame in the present list. Inevitably there would be overlap as to which list someone on the cusp should be put in. Why not have a single article/list that provides broad but well defined criteria for pioneers that could be a fairly exhaustive (and organized) reference. It’s much more work, but I would favor the comprehensive approach, with a description of the pioneer era (along with pre and post pioneer era). Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can live with a comprehensive list as I mentioned earlier. I did have another thought (yipee) about this article. I've always interpreted this article as a list of people whose efforts culminated with the invention of the airplane. (It can be argued that the European pioneers of approx 1904-1909 should be inside the culmination boundaries, since they were "inventing" the airplane semi-independently, even though practical flight had been achieved in 1905 by the WB.) Under the "culmination concept," the list would end (as it mostly does now) sometime around WWI, or a maybe a few years earlier. I've also suggested separate lists ("Early Pioneers" and "Later Pioneers"), using that dividing point. I suppose the advantage of a single list is that we'd have less discussion/debate about "borderline" pioneers: they'd simply be shown chronologically in the single list according to their contributions without fretting over where they belong. A possible introduction to a single list could be something like, 'This is a list of people who made  contributions in theory and practice to creation of  the airplane, and people who made milestone advances in  aviation after practical airplane flight was achieved.' It wouldn't hurt to define our terms in the intro to reduce or preclude future uncertainty over the article's scope DonFB (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Post Great War, a lot of the pioneering work is in extending distance, height and speed capabilities of aircraft and there are articles for each of these records. There is a timeline for development of the jet engine. I would suggest that those articles took up the post 1918 story for the major part. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about dividing the list into sections for each era - early pioneers, the Pioneer Era, WWI, Golden Years, WWII, Jet Age (I like the ring of "Pioneers of the Jet Age")? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems workable. Are we decided that the article should exclude lighter-than-air? How about rotary-wing (and other categories, like modern hang gliding, or even paragliding and parasailing)? "Aviation" does include everything. I'm not sure we've yet decided if the article scope is unlimited, or focused on the most obvious aviation pioneer category: fixed-wing. An introduction can define the scope for both readers and editors. DonFB (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See "Scope" discussion below. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One concern about dividing it into separate sublists is then deciding (for those on the cusp) which category they fall into. Regarding scope, why not be broad (as the title suggests).-Godot13 (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that people be included in the time period they made their notable contribution. If any do cross over and need duplicate entries, a "See also" type link to the other entry should be workable. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Scope of activity
To rephrase my initial comment, aviation includes all the activity surrounding aircraft, so ought anybody who helped pioneer or facilitate any of those activities be included, not just aviators and constructors? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That was my original understanding and why I roughly proposed six different categories for pioneer (any one of which would satisfy inclusion).-Godot13 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And I have agree with Godot13 his categories are pretty close only perhaps support may need more thought. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Support does need more fleshing out; it's more like an "other" category right now...-Godot13 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability
What constitutes a notable contribution?

For example Jane's 1913 gives several exhaustive lists of personalities - all by definition from the Pioneer Era - from every British RFC Flying Officer to manufacturers of specialist garments worldwide. Should any/all of these be included, simply because they are listed in a reliable reference? Or, what about all 598 original aviator members of the Early Birds of Aviation? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well over half of that Early birds list are redlinks, so that's one way to cut back on the names. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It is clear from the early birds article that being an aviator before December 1916 is not particularly notable as far as being a pioneer, although if you take the earlier years from 1909 to 1912 it was a bit more seat of the pants stuff. So being a fixed wing aviator before 1913 is probably notable but after that you would have had to do something first or different. It is also clear that a number of people in the early years who were not aviators but inventors, designers and builders who would be aviation pioneers for the same reason first or different but also this group could bring something else to aviation if they developed/invented techniques or equipment that would further the development of aviation. The eras of notability for balloons and gliding probably stretch back further. People who it is claimed flew years before anybody else are not really pioneers as they didnt really bring anything to the party, if they had they would not have been forgotten. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For the Early Birds, surely we can simply include them (if at all) by reference to that article. For other people, obscure but listed in Jane's or elsewhere, some amount of our editorial judgement probably must come into play. DonFB (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Early Birds are people who had flown before 1916 and were alive in 1928 when it was founded and applied to join. "1916 was chosen as a cutoff because a large number of people were trained in 1917" according to the article. By 1913, the Royal Aero Club alone had awarded 719 certificates. I think the Early Birds club may be notable, but not everyone of its members. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the first part of what MilborneOne says, but I would regard all early claimants as bringing something to the party. Many, such as Percy Pilcher, were forgotten as much because they did not play the publicity game as because they had little to contribute. And sometimes too, we learn as much from the failure of a bad idea as we do from the success of a good one.
 * Given that, there seems a broad consensus that everybody before the 1913 mass takeup is notable, but from then on only if they made notable contributions. Any strong objections? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable-Godot13 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a fair number of people who gained licences in France and the UK before 1913 who didn't do anything else particularly notable: since there are already lists of these early licence holders to assert that averybody with a license pre-13 is asking for a very bloated list.TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @TheLongTone. So, what would your cutoff date be for "everybody up until then is notable"? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Its more about when doing thinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_aviation_pioneers&action=edit&section=9#s stops being notable. By the end of 1909 simply building a working aircraft was no longer remarkable. By 1912 there was a body of professional pilots, more or less interesting & many of course short-lived. Phillips is best known for his multiplanes of 1904-7, which are curiosities of aeronautical design in an age of curious aircraft designs but the patents are 1884(?) and the wind tunnel worke before.TheLongTone (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, what workable definition would you give to explain to editors who is or is not notable? Or, do we resign ourselves to bickering about each marginal case based on the relative strengths of the involved editors' negotiating skills? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Significant contributions in at least one of the following (just as a starting point...)

Scientific contribution to theory and principles (whether correct or not) that were used as contemporary resources, building blocks, or influenced period thought, significant scientific or theoretical achievements with model aircraft;

Designing any aircraft (pre-1910), or a distinct/innovative new design;

Constructing a prototype aircraft (pre-1910);

Manufacturing aircraft (including some direct or supervisory control over design) for commercial and/or military contracts (intended to represent founders of the aviation industry);

Flying (Aviator) solo in an aircraft and receiving a relevant flying certificate (pre-1910); or any significant national (e.g., a flight representing a country’s first) or international achievement, or flight award (initial record holders or demolishing existing records, but not simply breaking established records);

Supporting aviation (e.g., positive publicity; personal, corporate and/or philanthropic sponsorship, education).

The pre-1910 cutoff in designing, constructing, and flying is meant to make inclusion on the list more difficult, otherwise (as other editors have pointed out) this list would become unmanageable. Just a starting point...-Godot13 (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Table update
I’ve uploaded a new version of the proposed table format for the list. I wanted to point out a few changes/features of the table:
 * Given that one goal of creating this table is to be able to successfully nominate the list for featured status, a lot of time has gone into finding and citing references. I’ve removed the previously existing reference column in favor of inline citations. This also creates more text space for the notes (or now achievements) column.
 * Dates of birth and death are both in the same column, which is sortable (by date of birth). If there are two people sharing a single entry, the sortable DOB is the first person.
 * Country of birth (work) column lists the place of birth and any places where aviation-related work was conducted. If the place of birth is the only place listed, that person did not do significant work elsewhere. If any additional countries are added (in parenthesis), and the country of birth is not repeated in parentheses, then the person never worked in their birth country.
 * Pioneer type is an effort to categorize (and help define) the criteria for “pioneer.” I have attempted to classify each individual on the list. I am certain I have made mistakes and assume that when/if the table is moved into the list, members of the aviation community will make edits and/or have discussion over this.
 * Type is category of aviation in which the pioneer made contributions/achievements.
 * Achievements are the more tangible contributions or feats executed by the listed pioneers. To conserve space, all dates (months) are reduced to their three-letter abbreviation, which is allowed in list articles. In the reference section, months are properly spelled out.
 * Also, there has been discussion of being able to sort the list by a significant date. Achievements is the place where that can happen. I put a hidden sort function at the beginning of this column which is keyed to a single date (in YYYY-MM-DD format, or as much information was available). I have made an initial judgment call (for demonstration purposes) and entered the date of what I think is the most significant event for each individual. Some are no-brainers, some probably warrant discussion, some I left blank (????) because I wasn’t sure or still don’t have enough information to make an informed first-round decision. Obviously this is all open for discussion and editing.
 * The stragglers (achievements is still blank) are those for which there is either very little information (see next point) or an overwhelming amount of information (e.g., Wrights, Cayley, etc), still working on streamlining/referencing their descriptions.
 * Some of the pioneers from non-English-speaking countries have been particularly difficult to find good references (e.g., aviation journals and primary source texts) in English. In some cases it is difficult finding enough information in English (via the internet) to verify that they actually belong on the list (e.g., Guiseppe Cei, Karl Jathro, Shivkar Bapuji Talpade, etc)
 * I expect the references are about 70-80% done but I’ve added reference needed templates where there needs to be follow-up.
 * The table is not yet finished, it is still a working draft…

All that being said, I’d like to keep tweaking the first-round of the table until next weekend, and then copy and paste it into the existing list. When I first proposed this there was general (but not unanimous) support. Would this be acceptable? If there are any serious problems which would need to be fixed prior to moving it please let me know.-Godot13 (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's much better, but I still have a couple of concerns. It has been suggested above that the table be divided according to era or age - early, pioneer, WWI, golden, WWII, jet. One option might be to make it sortable on that basis, but I am not sure how workable that would be, it might be better to sort on DoB as at present. Also, I do not like the idea of a hidden sort function for achievements, if it is there then it should be visible. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS determines that dates, months are not abbreviated, citations continue to have ISO dating, the reference notations are done in APA; again, on the basis of if it ain't broke? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bzuk please see MOS:DATES regarding the acceptability of abbreviated dates in a list article table. Late in the game I manually changed all the reference dates so there may a few that were overlooked. Regarding APA style (which I use frequently off-wiki), if there is a way to automate a change to a different reference format please let me know.-Godot13 (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Steelpillow there are probably a few options... We could underline/italicize the particular achievement which has been coded into the hidden sort, we could list that achievement first (right now it's in chronological order), and then follow it chronologically. Last resort, in order to conserve space, would be to create another column. A possibility for listing the period/age to which the pioneer belongs - along the same line as the country of birth/work, stack the info in the type column. Put the period/age above the types of aircraft the pioneer made achievements and then make that column sortable by the period/age. What are your thoughts on those ideas?-Godot13 (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that putting the key achievement first would be best, just letting the Sort run alphanumerically. Italic or bold emphasis would need to be consistent for all entries (sorting on the wikitext markup), I have no strong feelings for either or none though underlining is bad practice. Perhaps best to keep it simple to start with and only add emphasis later if it seems an improvement. On the age/era, sorting the Type on it would prevent sorting on the actual type, so I dislike that. Again, perhaps best to keep it simple and see how well DoB sorting works before worrying about the age/era. I thought about sorting the achievements by date or era but that is really a different list. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I do think readers should easily be able to see the chronological progression of aviation in the article. At present, the sortability of the Achievements column may be a little problematic. For example, Horatio Phillips is shown after Howard Hughes. For the Achievements column to work effectively as a chronological sort category, it seems as though a date (even if only a year, or a range) needs to be shown at the beginning of each description, if I correctly understand the sort functionality. Using Hughes, Phillips and Link as examples, their entries (and everyone else's) could begin in this manner: "1932, founded Hughes Aircraft...."; "1907, first powered hop; famous for building multiplanes with multiple sets of lifting surfaces...."; "1929, invented Link Trainer flight simulator...." Doing that would also make the article a lot more readable for people who want to see at a glance the milestone years of aviation development. On another matter, I think putting the Achievements column closer to the Name column would be helpful to readers. Column order could be: Name; DOB/DOD; Country; Achievement; Type (possibly name it Aircraft Type); and lastly, Pioneer. I think that reflects what people want to know immediately: When did he/she live? Where was he from? What did he do? As indicated by your name change from Notes, Achievements is much more important than mere "notes" as the last column would imply. DonFB (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It can be done without showing the dates used for sorting… part of the reason the sort is not fully functional yet is because of the “????” that occupy the sort field for several entries. I would appreciate some help here, could you tell me what you think is the single most appropriate achievement date for the following pioneers: Enea Bossi, Alfred Comte, Rene Grandjean, Horatio Phillips, Eduard Spelterini, and Emile Taddeoli? I will enter the significant dates and then the chronological sort of the achievements column should work.-Godot13 (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say with Phillips his early wind-tunnel work & airfoil patents were more pioneering than his actual aircraft. I don't have accesss to my library at the moment so have no suggestion as to an exact date.TheLongTone (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Understand that the data is not complete yet, but I don't understand what kind of date entry, or in what position, makes the Achievement column chronologically sortable. Will an uninitiated editor (which apparently includes me) need to use Visual Editor to contribute text correctly to the table--esp in the Achievement cells? What's your opinion of showing a date as the very first piece of text in an Achievement cell for user-readability purposes, so the date is readily visible while glancing through the article in chronological sort? Unfortunately, nearly all the names you asked about are too obscure for me, and I don't have the information (for Phillips, 1907 is notable since he finally got off the ground; I don't know if a source says his earlier contributions are more important). Perhaps editors can add to or correct information directly in your sandbox version to help get it ready for prime-time. DonFB (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @DonFB- I use a hidden key for sorting columns that may not be otherwise sortable based on the content. If you look in regular edit mode at the text, you'll see the hidden key with a date in the middle at the beginning of each achievements section. A friendly edit notice explaining the process could be helpful... for the uninitiated ;-) -Godot13 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Godot13, et al - Here's a mini-example of what I'm talking about. Thanks for the pointer to Sorting Help--somehow, the topic escaped my notice these last several years. My idea preserves the sorting technique, but displays the significant (and sortable) date of an Achievement as the first text in each Achievement cell. Bolding makes the date more readily visible for the cherished readers (and makes instantly clear what they're sorting). I'm glad to help with the necessary copyediting to enable this change, if it's deemed acceptable. I also show a column order which may be more user friendly (but if that change is too burdensome, I won't push it). (References stripped out of this example to avoid error msg clutter.)

DonFB (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: It appears as though typing a date inside a Template:Dts can simplify the coding by eliminating the "span style" tags. Using the template will make the date simultaneously sortable and visible after typing it only once. Also, enclosing the template in boldface markup will display the rendered, sortable date in boldface. See the source code above for each Achievement cell. DonFB (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorting Achievements
Splitting this off from the above discussion. "I do think readers should easily be able to see the chronological progression of aviation in the article." To me that does not make sense. What they really need in this list is the chronological order of pioneers, and we have the DoB for that. For notable achievements we have other Lists. The question here is, what is the best way to sort achievements in this list? IMHO magic hidden code is not sensible. Readers do not know what is going on and it is a pain to set up and maintain. Maybe there is a best option that we can find if we discuss a little more. Meanwhile, it is both more transparent to the reader and easier to maintain if we sort on some free text at the start of each entry - which is in fact the default action. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Trying to view this as a reader, I'm more interested in what they did and when, rather than when they were born, although the two categories inevitably run roughly parallel. To me, the idea of this list is to show how the pioneers imagined, invented and developed aviation. Chronology is certainly not the only way to sort their achievements, but it's clearly important and I think probably top of mind for most people. Not sure, though, how sorting on "free text" at the start of each entry will help--seems like that would produce purely random results. But I don't object to other ways of sorting the list, if it can be made easy for the reader and not too difficult for editors when they contribute. If truth be told, if we transform this article to table form, more experienced editors will probably always have to do some "clean up" of edits by the less experienced who break the format, due to less knowledge of table editing. It's to be hoped Visual Editor will make the issue less problematic. DonFB (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Listing chronologically on the imaginings, inventions and developments in aviation is what the Timeline of aviation pages do. That is not the idea of this list, that would just duplicate what already does the job better. This list is about the pioneers themselves and, in the context of achievements, the individual achievements of each pioneer. The usefulness of any kind of sort will obviously depend on the rigour with which editors maintain the entries. With free text, readers can at least see what is going on and easily fix any glaring errors. Hidden code will just leave them baffled and dissatisfied, Visual Editor or no Visual Editor. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you're voting against the table format. "Hidden code" is not a concept I'm promoting, but wiki tables do require a level of code understanding by contributors that is not needed for simple paragraph-style text. Regarding duplication: it's unavoidable, of course, that there will be some duplication of material in this article from the Timeline articles. The Timelines, collectively, are truly encylopedic, and have, I would say, a far broader scope than a single Pioneer article. The Timelines cover a wide variety of achievements not only by individual pioneers, but by organizations like the military, as well as war news and firsts that sometimes verge into trivia territory ("the first time an autogyro lands on a Spanish ship"), or don't really fit into the Pioneer category ("A professional baseball team travels by air for the first time").


 * In any case, the Pioneer DOB sort you mention is available now in the draft version, so if readers want to see that, they can. Enabling a chronological sort does not interfere with a birth sort. Accordingly, if readers want to see a chronological sort by achievement--which strikes me as a very obvious and frequent choice for this article--they should be able to. I look forward to your suggestions for additional kinds of sorts. Keep in mind that the sort function requires use of a table, and a table does contain code with which new or inexperienced editors may not be familiar. A table thus poses an added challenge for entering text corrrectly, because the workings of the code are not intuitively obvious. If you're against a table for these reasons, please say so; it's an honorable position to espouse. DonFB (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not "voting against the table format". Why should I discuss at length code that can only exist in-table if I didn't want the table in the first place? How can one sort on DoB if there is no table to sort? That would be nonsensical, of course I support the table format. By "hidden code" I mean that the sort parameters are hidden from the casual reader. My apologies if all this was not as abundantly clear as it needed to be. Your remaining words of wisdom are somewhat skewed by these misunderstandings, so there is little point in revisiting them. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to be crystal clear- the default sort order of the table is how it currently appears (alphabetical). The added sort features would allow the table to be sorted in birth order, place of birth, and (based on the hidden key) by the most significant date contained within achievements. The idea behind using the hidden key was not to disrupt the appearance or flow of the achievement text (or create something that looks forced or out of sequence). It is simply an added feature which can be used or not. Trying to somehow make the achievements column naturally sortable in a meaningful way would, I fear, seem very artificial or forced. I would rather simply disable the sort feature for that column. At the very least, being able to start with an alphabetically ordered default and then sort by date of birth and/or country of birth is (IMO) a significant improvement over the list in its current form. Anything more is a bonus...-Godot13 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Steelpillow: Your support for "free text" sounded rather like a vote against a table. I guess it will be in the eye of the beholder whether the sort parameters are "hidden from the casual reader." I'm an editor of several years standing, and I've only just become familiar with table sorting and the code to do it. That's obviously no guarantee that you or a casual reader won't consider the parameters to be, in effect, "hidden." Having plowed through a few Help articles, I've also learned that there appear to be multiple ways of writing the code; I don't know if it's likely that "free text," as you may define it, can coexist with any of the code variations. Since you expressed such persistent concern about "hidden" code, but apparently did not actually look at it, you might want to take a minute to do that now and decide if you think the parameters are effectively hidden, or not, and report your conclusions. If the code meets your standards, we can resume discussing what content or facts should be sortable, besides DOB and Achievement date. DonFB (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Godot13: With my newfound understanding of sorting, I still need to ask you what, specifically, you refer to by the term "hidden key" in your draft. Obviously, there's no invisible ink on the screen; everything is visible. The term "hidden key" may be causing some needless misunderstanding. Are you refering to the 'span' tags enclosing a formatted date? In posting my sample table above, I noted that a (very brief) template, eliminating the span tags, can also be used for the purpose--do you consider that bit of template code a "hidden key" also? DonFB (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hidden key is the type of sorting technique- that which is actually being sorted (i.e., the numeric date of the most significant achievement) remains hidden while anything one chooses to associate with it (i.e., all the other data for the individual) is sorted according to the key (or the span tags). Also, if you look at the link above, this method of sorting is actually named "Hidden Key." The example you posted is not a hidden key because the sorting key is displayed for everyone to see. To me this seems forced and interrupts the flow of what would otherwise be a chronological record of an individual's achievements.-Godot13 (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the reply. Do understand, I'm not quibbling with the official nomenclature: it is what it is. I almost agree with your term "forced" to describe the way I showed the most significant date of Achievement for a pioneer. Putting that date at the top of the Achievement cell (in boldface, no less) is a little like creating a headline, or more modestly, a "header." That date may well be out of chronological order for that particular pioneer. The reason is because that date represents (we believe, based on the sources) the most important thing that pioneer did, and therefore, in my opinion, it should be shown first. The pioneer's other lesser achievements can be briefly described in the remainder of the text.


 * I agree, this way of doing it somewhat "interrupts the flow" for that person, but I believe the benefit is greater: a reader will see easily and immediately what that pioneer is most famous/noted for. I think that's preferable to, in some cases, "burying" the information somewhere in the middle of the text, short though it may be. Rather than "hiding" the key, I think it should be prominently shown. The achievement of that date is, after all, the main "key" to that person's fame or historical notability. I believe that information should come first. You've even solicited information here as to various pioneers' most significant achievement, and properly so. If the information is that important, it should be "called out" from the overall description and shown clearly to readers for what it is.


 * I would also point out that if a reader sorts the Achievement column based on a hidden key, the reader will see all the rows rearrange themselves, but the basis of the rearrangement will remain, for the moment at least, "hidden." The alert reader will hopefully soon notice the overall chronological order of the rearranged list, but failing that, will have to carefully examine the text of a few, or more, pioneers and try to deduce what the sort is based on. They will definitely have to hunt and peck to figure out which date in a given description is the sort key, if they're given to such curiosity--and I hope they are. (If I correctly understand your explanation, the key (the date) is not necessarily "hidden"; if it's somewhere in the description, then it's merely camouflaged.) I can't see any possible reason for withholding information from readers in this way. The basis of the sort should be instantly understandable to the reader. Unhiding the key (the date) and putting it at the cell top (in boldface, no less!) will serve the readers nicely, not make them scratch their heads in puzzlement. Am I missing something here?


 * Perhaps I'm in the minority on this issue; on the other hand, I hope this explanation will enable contributors here to understand my thinking, and perchance, even to agree with it. DonFB (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Counter-proposal: (†) is injected before brief details of an aviation-related death. Why not inject (*) immediately before the significant achievement whose date has been used in the hidden key for sorting the column? This would be explained in the section immediately preceding the table itself...-Godot13 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me inquire to see if I understand your idea. Would a pioneer's most "significant date" (upon which his/her entry is sorted) actually be shown in the Achievement description for that pioneer? Is the asterisk placed inside the Achievement cell immediately preceding (or following) that date? Next, I have a somewhat tangential comment. Your use of the phrase "hidden key" is driving me nuts. What is "hidden"? If the sortable "significant date" for a pioneer is actually shown in that pioneer's Achievement cell, it is NOT hidden, would you agree? I'm belaboring this point a little, because your use of the term "hidden" seems to be (unintentionally) misleading and makes your meaning more difficult to understand. Your asterisk suggestion does make an effort to address my concern: that a pioneer's most significant contribution should be clearly identified in the list so readers will know what it is. I do still prefer my "headline/header" technique, because it eliminates any need for a casual (or more serious) reader to scan the text for an asterisk to learn what's most important about a pioneer. Also, a reader will still not readily see what, specifically, is being sorted in the Achievement column. In addition, we should guard against festooning the list with too many such special symbols (similar to my previous objections to cryptic check marks and abbreviations). Again, do please answer a question I posed above: is every Pioneer's most significant Achievement date actually shown (not "hidden")? DonFB (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

An asterisk (*) indicates the date used in the hidden sort, and denotes the earliest significant contribution of the individual pioneer. If there is only one contribution listed, that is the default hidden key sort date and no asterisk is used.
 * I think an example would work best here:

It is a "hidden key" because any sortable column will attempt to sort by the first characters visually present. This method allows the table builder to sort by a principle different than the initial text/numbers visible. To your question, yes, the date is actually shown, but not in a way that would allow sorting in a visually appealing manner.-Godot13 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the trouble. My opinion is that you need not insert the asterisk. It is virtually invisible and does not perform the function that I would have liked: to provide an obvious visual cue to give readers an immediate understanding of a pioneer's most important contribution. That idea evidently does not have traction among editors. Here is my suggested text for placement at the beginning of the article: "Columns for Name, DOB/DOD, Country and Achievement can be sorted in ascending or descending order by clicking on the sort icon in the column heading. The Achievement column will sort according to the date of the Pioneer's earliest significant contribution." I will revoke your Wikipedia editing privileges if you dare use the word "hidden" in any introductory or explanatory text for this article. (Kidding, but don't do it.) DonFB (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Great Britain versus United Kingdom
Three questions, the first of which may fall under the heading of "stupid" 1) Does the use of one or the other depend on historical time period or are these terms interchangeable? 2) In terms of birthplace, should both terms be avoided in favor of being more specific (i.e., England, Scotland, Ireland)? 3) To denote the scope of someone's achievement (e.g., first in, fastest in, earliest in) it seems that GB or UK would be preferable, no?-Godot13 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1). Technically we are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with Great Britain comprising the three countries of England, Scotland and Wales. Modern officialdom makes a pigs' ear of it by describing our birthplace as "United Kingdom" and our nationality as "British". Eire (southern Ireland) is a wholly independent state.
 * 2). Historically the Irish have gained or lost independence from us at one time or another - today they are split between "Northern Irish" and "(Southern) Irish" - and people can still feel intense loyalty to their country of birth. So for country of birth I'd say it's best to use "Ireland", "Scotland", Wales" and "England" where possible; "Northern Irish" only if the person was born after that particular state came to exist.
 * 3). On the other hand, for achievements I would use "In Britain" or "In Ireland" - we Brits seem to be less fussy over political divides once someone famous has grown up and left home, think also of international sports such as the Olympics, where we typically send a "British" team.
 * Happy to be corrected by those more deeply in the know. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For pedantistic purposes, if we needed to link to an aviation pioneer prior to Irish independence, one should use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland though there is still a family size cans of worms ready to spill its contents on the pantry floor if you are not careful how you pipe this or, equally, though inconsiderate or insensitive use of "British Isles". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so. Then, there were times when Ireland was wholly independent, and until recently times when Northern Ireland was wholly British-ruled, nowadays Britain and Eire have joint sovereignty over Northern Ireland but I don't think we have anything to record since that was set up, thank goodness. Cans and cans of little wriggly worms for the pedant to chew on - best to steer clear. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (for the record - Good_Friday_Agreement). GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Importing table
Barring major objection, I would like to import the table format of the list (and extensive updates not yet in the sandbox) and spend a few hours tweaking it over the weekend. thanks-Godot13 (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Go to it. The sooner the better, IMHO. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

List reformat mostly complete

 * The initial table building is finished. I have a few more references to add but that can happen as others edit the list.


 * The proposed inclusion criteria have been added to the list (but can obviously be modified or removed). There are a number of people currently on the list which, depending on what criteria we adopt, may not remain. There are significantly more people who are candidates for the list.


 * I’ve put together a few lists of pioneer candidates, the first of which (about 40 or so) I’ve placed here. It is in basic skeletal form with little or no information beyond the names, dates, and birthplace.


 * Before figuring out who (from this one source of potential candidates or any other) is or is not appropriate for the list, we probably need to adopt criteria…


 * I would like to suggest, delicately, that we put an informational edit notice on the list. References are very important to any encyclopedic work. Without expanding the number of people on the list, our reference count has gone from 25 to 163 (200 including citations used more than once). I hope some of you are willing to support the requirement of at least one acceptable reference for each newly added pioneer. Also, I will remove the needs additional citations for verification. If anyone disagrees, feel free to put it back.


 * The list needs an introduction, probably 2-3 paragraphs covering the history/evolution of aviation. Anyone want to take a stab? I’m more than happy to collaborate.


 * I added an image simply to indicate where one could go. (It is not a personal expression of nationalism from the West end of the pond). Any really great image that draws people in would work. Any/all feedback is welcome.-Godot13 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with the handling of the country of origin. It is not right to have a sorted column that does not sort according to the displayed text. Putting "Wales", "England", "Scotland", and "Ireland" into alphabetical order should not give you
 * Wales
 * Ireland
 * England
 * Scotland.
 * The link to the pioneers actual place of birth is also not required in the table, that's a level of detail that belongs - and is present - in the article on the person.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are referring to? It is sorting according to the displayed/visible text in the column. I just sorted the list by country and it does not seem out of order... The sort result is presented in alphabetical order by country (irrespective of the town/city).-Godot13 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I misunderstood the sorting. I still think that there is a significant problem in linking to one article and displaying a different name. WP:PIPE says "make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link" and "Per the Principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link". Also linking to the origin is superfluous and to the average readers' eye, all the links to eg "England" look the same and are unlikely to invite anyone to follow them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think WW1 mjlitary pilots such as Richthofen qualify as pioneers.TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood.-Godot13 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * GraemeLeggett, I believe that having the first column of a list/table in bold is fairly conventional (and the table examples exist in this format). Even in the prior format of this list the names were in bold. Why the haphazard seemingly random removal of bold from some and not others?-Godot13 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Most tables I've seen don't use bold for the first item in a row and the examples in Manual of Style/Tables doesn't have any exmaples with bold except for a multiplication table. The MoS on text formatting in articles says of the use of bold "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases" and the first item in the list is "Table headers and captions"
 * It takes me a little while as I am also reading the entries on the way past and saving every so often.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was interpreting the name as the row heading going across, but either way seems fine.-Godot13 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

mozhaiskiy was born in the russian empire, not in finland
shouldn't his country of birth marked as the russian empire then despite the town where he was born is nowadays in finalnd. finland didn't exist as a separate country when he was born 77.35.126.123 (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of aviation pioneers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126143821/http://www.navhindtimes.in/panorama/india-s-first-aircraft to http://www.navhindtimes.in/panorama/india-s-first-aircraft
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110214949/http://www.berlin-airport.de/en/travellers-txl/the-excitement-of-airports/walk/august-heinrich-euler/ to http://www.berlin-airport.de/en/travellers-txl/the-excitement-of-airports/walk/august-heinrich-euler/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment- Wiley Post is not included in this list
I just noticed Wiley Post is not in this list, although his page is in the Aviation Pioneers category, as the first pilot to fly solo around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_Post It's my first time posting on Wiki, so please correct me if I'm not following the right process. Thanks.Jbo9995 (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of aviation pioneers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140423044448/http://www.ukom.gov.si/en/media_relations/background_information/science_and_technology/edvard_rusjan_pioneer_of_slovene_aviation/ to http://www.ukom.gov.si/en/media_relations/background_information/science_and_technology/edvard_rusjan_pioneer_of_slovene_aviation/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150117154412/http://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/wright-brothers/online/fly/1899/breakthrough.cfm to http://airandspace.si.edu/wrightbrothers/fly/1899/breakthrough.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Frederick Lanchester
Surely he deserves a write up. tip vorticies, circulating lift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.8.108 (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)