User:Karl Dickman/Threads/06/01/28b

Cat scheme
Hey Mark,

Regarding you comments on the proposed update to the WP:AIR categorisation scheme, I want to recap a few things to make sure that I'm set to move ahead with (another) 'formal' request for ratification.

My assessment: your comments 1, 3, and 4 seem to be resolved. (Regarding 4, I think it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than be spelled out in our cat scheme.) 6 is essentially unresolvable for the moment.

Regarding 5: are you proposing that the page Learjet be moved to Bombardier Learjet, that all Learjet aircraft since '91 have their titles changed from Learjet to Bombardier Learjet, or both?

Rgarding 2: the definition of special-purpose aircraft, it seemed from WT:AIR that the best course of action was to rename the category Category:Special mission aircraft and use it for miscellaneous ones.

Also, what do you think of my comment that the AC-130 is more of a special mission aircraft than anything else? Karl Dickman talk 09:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe issues 1 and 3 have been appropriately addressed. WRT issue 4, you're right in that it will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but I would hope you'd include the three naming convention points as the WP:Air preference, so that we'll have fewer cases to deal with in the future. Those three points were
 * the nation of the designer/manufacturer;
 * if primarily license-manufactured by a foreign customer with little or no domestic use, then that nation; and
 * if the main original producer is later bought by another company, the name of the former should be used.


 * If so, this resolves issue 5 as well. (Ditto 6 in the future, if followed.) I was not proposing a rename, but rather raising the issue of consistency. "Learjet" was an American company; if it's now to be listed as a Canadian company, then the proper title is "Bombardier Learjet". According to point #3 of my aircraft article naming convention guideline schema above, the article title would remain "Learjet" (which is what I personally prefer) and categorized as "U.S.". However, if Bombardier Learjet were to introduce a brand new model, we'd have to rethink it as the Canadian TTa producer of Learjet models in its own right.


 * Regarding issue 2, I'm not sure there really was a consensus. I do prefer having a "Special Missions Aircraft" (or perhaps more accurately, an "Other Special Missions Aircraft") category as a subcategory of "Military aircraft"; I'm not sure whether the "Civilian aircraft" category should have one (which would require Military/Civilian in their names to distinguish them), since most of those would fit just as well under "Experimental aircraft" (if suitably defined).


 * As for the AC-130, I have no problem treating it as a "Special mission aircraft" — but then so are all the other "double-letter" variants. Frankly, I still feel uncomfortable lumping attack, COIN and gunship aircraft in with bombers. The latter are strategic and the former are tactical in role. I'd prefer to separate "Attack" back out and include gunships and other COIN aircraft in it. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)