Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 17/High wing aircraft

Click here to edit

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the number of aircraft that could potentially belong to this category is simply enormous. Just about any aircraft that isn't some crazy design like a lifting body or a flying wing is going to be either high-wing or low-wing. Karl Dickman talk 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also recommend deleting: Category:Low wing aircraft, Category:Jet aircraft, Category:Propeller aircraft, and Category:Single engine aircraft, Category:Multiple engine aircraft, on the grounds that these categories are far too broad to be useful. Karl Dickman talk 03:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is nothing in WP:CAT that says a category should not be created due to the fact that it would be enormous. Single and Multiple engine aircraft, have different characteristics, and are very different aircraft.  Similarly, high and low wing aircraft as well as the different between prop or propeller aircraft are significant enough for me to believe that they require a category.  However, if more people involved with WP:AIRCRAFT  agree that they are unecessary, I wont have a problem with them being deleted.  However, I personally feel that they are important categories, especially in categorising aircraft.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree with Chris, nothing wrong with enormous categories. These are useful groupings, even if they're huge.  Georgewilliamherbert 07:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't delete yet - that's sort of like saying we should eliminate [Category:American people] because there are too many of them. If the category is too big, it needs to be subdivided or refined. That said, I can't think of any reasonable divisions other than strut braced and cantilever. The real issue is what is the reason for the category, and how would someone be expected to use it. I can't imagine why someone would be looking for high wing aircraft in a list. Dhaluza 12:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * High wing and low wing aircraft have some different characteristics. Such as, the way fuel is obtained from the tanks (which are stored in the wings).  I am not opposed to, if there are more categories of wing types, creating them to make the category coverage more complete, however, when i look at an aircraft, and even when me and my instructor are sitting in class, he will refer to "that high wing out there" or "that low wing out there".  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Rename. Don't forget those tail draggers. Vegaswikian 08:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (or Rename to High-wing aircraft etc). I can imagine that people might use this cateorisation.  One way to avoid having too many aircraft in each category (and too many categories on each aircraft) is to create Category High-wing single-engine jet aircraft and place this in the relevant parent categories. Bluap 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Does it make sense to go ahead and make the 8 subcategories (16 if you count tail draggers)? ~ BigrTex 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - The thing is, I do not believe these categories are all inclusive. There are probably more classifications such as middle wing aircraft and I know there are other propulasion systems that are not covered by propeller aircraft or jet aircraft.  I think that these categories will come out in time, but by combining the names into High-wing single-engine aircraft, every time a new catregory is found, the number of categories just grows and grows.  PRetty soon, it would be out of hand.  I think the single categories at least for the high and low wing.  On the matter of the single engine aircraft and multiple engoine aircraft, I dont see why it would be horrible to create a category such as Category Single Engine Propeller aircraft, etc etc.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Find it odd that ALL the planes listed in both the high wing and low wing aircraft categories are Cessnas. Surely other aircraft makes relate to these two categories? If this remains a category for Cessna-devotees, perhaps a renaming would be in ordering. Or perhaps editors who feel this is a '"keep" could populate the category with some non-Cessna models? That might build a stronger case for retaining.Shawn in Montreal 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will take credit for that. I am working through wiki project aircraft.  I had to take a small wiki break after i finished categorising cessnsas and creating templates.  I am working my way through as I create nav templates.  I come back and find some controverys over it so i stopped using it until it is resolved.  Should this beek keep, I plan on continuing this categorisation.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I still have not seen an explanation of how a High wing aircraft category would be useful. We can create any number of cetegories that make distinctions without a difference. For example, we could have categories by main gear tire size, e.g. Airplanes with 5.00x5 tires, Airplanes with 6.00x6 tires etc. This is obviously absurd, but I could make an argument that this is a better categorization because it is more specific than high/mid/low wing. I think the high/low wing belongs in the aircraft info box, but we don't need a category for this. Dhaluza 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * High wing and low wing aircraft are different types of aircraft. They have different fuel pumping systems, and have different effects in relation to ground effect.  The artugment about the tire size is a little far out there.  The categories are not for high wing aircraft with wingspans of 22 feet, etc etc.  However, it brings a valid point that a cetgory for retractable gear aircraft would seem like a good idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To expand on the fuel systems comment in high vs low wing aircraft. High wing aircraft use gravity to drain the fuel to the engine, it is almost always appropriate to have the fuel tank setting to both as it will drain its way out eventually, even if there are some inequalities in tank capacity of filling.  FOr low wing aircraft, fuel is pumped to the engine.  It is necessary to select which tank is primary tank, to prevent tanks from draining unevenly, and causing problems with the gas pumping systems.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is completely true, but it does not explain why we should have separate Wikipedia categories for high/low wing. Should we have categories for airplanes that spin their propellers clockwise and counterclockwise too? The p-factor is reversed, so it flys differently, but why would we need a category listing for this? Dhaluza 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is true, however when looking at an airplane, nobody is ever going to say, "oh that one spins counterclockwise." If it is rare that they spin a certain way, for example if an aircraft had counter rotating propellers or contra-rotating propellers, then the direction or type of propeller spin would be important as it is important in the classification of the aircraft.  The thing is, high and low wing aircraft are not all types of aircrafts classified by wing types.  There are swing wing aircraft, bi plane aircraft, and I am sure others.  I would not object to changing the category name to high fixed wing aircraft or low fixed wing aircraft, or creating the category to narrow it so that it does not apply to all airplanes (i.e. fighter jets, etc).  I understand your argument against, the p-factor example was an excellent example. Similarly, we would not create an category aircraft with flaps and aircraft without flaps.  However, I feel the categorys high and low wing aircraft are not on the micro detail level, like Category:Aircraft that can get 40 degrees of flaps.  I still believe that the airplane type by wing classification, due to pretty major differences in design, reinforcement, and even flight warrant these categories.  Until now, it appears the major discourse is on the high and low wing aircraft.  Are there any objections to Category:Single engine aircraft and Category:Multiple engine aircraft? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- this category is potentially huge. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - A category being potentially huge is not a good argument for deletion. I even ready WP:CAT to make sure of that.  There are many more categories, such as american people, etc etc. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment — I really can't see any reason to establish categories for wing placement (though, high-, mid-, low-wing could be added to the infobox as per Dhaluza's suggestion). In fact, I don't see a whole lot of reason to have categories by numbers of engines either. (However, if we do, the proper terms are "Single-engine aircraft" and "Multi-engine aircraft" — not "multiple engine aircraft".) IMHO, categories regarding functions make more sense than quantities of equipment. The latter can all too quickly lead to counting the number of machineguns or cannon with which a fighter is armed, the number of crewmembers (e.g., single-seat vs. two-seat), radar-equipped or not, tailsitter or not, etc. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not have an objection if the wing type is mentioned in the info box, i feel it is worth being noted. However, in WP:CAT, it has to be something mentioned in the article, or of importance to the topic to be a good category.  By saying that it is worthy a mention in the infobox, it appears as though it should be a worthwhile category.  In rebuttal to the comment on scope creep, reagrding number of engines, that is why i explicitley named it multiple engine aircraft (instead of aircrat with 3 engines, aircraft with 4 engines, aircraft witn n engines, etc).  I have no objection to a rename of the categories to Category:Single-engine aircraft and Category:Multi-engine aircraft. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not convinced that this should be deleted.  I'd really like to hear support from WikiProject Aircraft to delete before I could support a delete.  Vegaswikian 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - THis discussion is actually transcluded on the WP:AIRCRAFT project talk page. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)